ACTS of conference in Religion, Held at PARIS, between two Papist Doctors of SORBONE, and two godly Ministers of the Church. Drawn out of French into English, by Geffraie Fenton. Mon heur viendra. ¶ Imprinted at London by H. Bynneman, for William Norton and Humphrey toy. ¶ TO THE RIGHT Virtuous Lady, the Lady Hobbie, Geffrey Fenton wisheth long life in Gods holy fear. ONe chief fruit of reading (Madam) is a confirmation of judgement, and therefore necessary we read good things, to the end, that with a virtuous exercise in conversation, our conscience may also settle, and ourselves rest supplied with wholesome instructions conducible to a happy state and direction of life. And albeit (with the Philosophers) all knowledge of itself is good (as by Histories to discern the policies of times and seasons, and out of other Arts and Sciences to draw the nature of elements, and property of natural things) yet (with S. Paul) by the knowledge of the Scriptures the 〈◊〉 of God is made perfect, 2. Tim. 3. and readily prepared for all good works, the same being a dignity far above the value of the earth, and a Philosophy which shines (as S. Peter saith) like a Candle in a dark place: yea it brings us into hope, 2 Pet. Rom. 15. james 1 and hath power even to save our souls. So that if our travel in other Arts and Sciences yield us benefit in Civil and Politic respects, the study of the Scripture implieth a heavenly fruit, as by the which our sins are qualefied, our souls relieved, our faith assured, and lastly our whole life led (as it were by an Angel of purpose) to the visible society of sovereign felicity. Wherein by how much this fruit is precious and certain, by so much are we drawn in a necessary consideration to Christianity, so to travel in the use of it, Luke. 16. as we stand not guilty with the ignorant man in the Gospel, to whom it was said, hadst thou not Moses and the Prophets? as advising us thereby not to disguise our incredulity with want of knowledge lest Moses, the Prophets, and the Scriptures also judge against us. Hear (Madam) if my sufficiency were as equal to watch with the nature and majesty of this high cause, as all Christians live under a condition of necessary duty, to know and set forth the Scriptures, I could add many authorities to my present purpose, not to undertake thereby to prepare your conscience, which I doubt not is infallibly settled in a perfect Method of God's true Religion, and much less to induce your zeal, which I know is infinite in the best degree secundum scientiam, as the Apostle adviseth: not to instruct your conversation, to which is ●●lly fulfilled a full example of all virtues, nor yet to lead your mind to be more spiritually edified, seeing your society with public Lectures and Sermons this last winter in London, stands to witness ●●ur holy desire, the same also stretching (with the Psalm) to such a vehement thirst after God's word, that even your board (which I did often assist) was seldom without the fellowship of deep divines and Preachers, to the end that as your example drew others to seek God in Sermons abroad, so also yourself by private conference might be thoroughly resolved in every doubt touching your Christian opinion, and so be no less perfect towards God, that happy in the voice of the world touching your honourable direction of life, which carrieth such general integrity in all your dealings, that I have heard it often doubted, whether your Reverend father hath had at any time more comfort in all his transitory felicities, than in the success of such a daughter, by whose virtues his house is raised into dignity, and his aged years exercised in consolation. I could further enlarge in the particular effects of your deep discretion, as your wise behaviour amongst the French to discharge the high trust of your husband, when God had called him from you, your dear care to convey his dead body with honour from that foreign place, your unfeigned duty of a wife in his honourable Funerals, your honest conscience to defray his debts, and endue such his servants as depended upon him with competent consideration, your rare policy of a mother to establish your children like the sons of such parents, your continual 〈…〉 yielding charity to the poor: and lastly your great cha●g● to entertain men of Arts and learned Faculties, by which your house seems an University of learning. All which, albeit I rather touch slightely, than bring forth with their due commendation, (as eschewing the note of flattery, although no truth can be disguised) yet if I should be silent, and all others unthankful to the memory of those do●●g●, time herself would nourish them, as being public monuments which can not be defaced. Only it may please your Ladyship to lay afore you these first fruits of my duty and honest affection, under this little argument of Religion, which albeit is not worthy your view by any endeavour of mine, yet weighing with the quality of the matter, your disposition to holy things, I hope it will not prove altogether implausible with you, as containing a familiar sense in Gods deep mysteries, with express difference between the rude sophistry of the Papists, and mild simplicity of the reformed side: Which I beseech you so favour with your authority and name, that by how much our Christian countrymen (by your good means) may fruitfully communicate in so necessary a benefit, even by so much also they may be drawn too glorify God, and pray communi voce to give you society with that holy widow which S. Luke commends so much in his Gospel. Luke. 2. At London four July. 1571. Your Ladyships readily to command GEFFREY FENTON. A Preface containing the occasions of the Conference. Because many desire to be directly satisfied touching a common brute spread of the conference appointed at the Duke of Montpensiers, between two Doctors of Sorbone, Sorbonae a College of Papists in Paris. and two Ministers of the Church: whereof some settle and yield to ordinary reports, and some believe and judge according to their proper fancies, I have thought good (aswell to satisfy the one, as to take from the others all occasions of hasty incredulity,) to draw into writing the whole discourse, as it passed, together with the cause and first motion of the disputation. The Duke of Montpensier, who (as the world knoweth) is zealous in his Religion, and of great love to his children, seeing the Duchess of Buyllon his daughter happily withdrawn from the Romish opinion, to be henceforward a blessed member of jesus Christ, and that with such constancy and confirmation in the knowledge and fear of God, zeal, holiness, with all other wholesome virtues, that neither by private persuasions, nor other public means, he could stop the course of God's grace working in her, determined at last to apply a last remedy, as thinking to allure her with the learning and eloquence of doctor Vigour, a man of dear reckoning with him: wherein for the better satisfaction of the Lady, after he had imparted his intent with the Duke her husband, it was agreed that the persuasions should be ministered to her in the presence of certain Ministers, as Spina, with other such as he would call unto him: with liberty to allege what they could against the doctrine of Vigour, under this condition, that if after the Conference they were not confuted and wholly vanquished by him, his daughter should remain quiet in her opinion, without further attempts to draw her from it. Hereunto the Duke of Buyllon did not unwillingly condescend, and for a better proof of his readiness in the cause, he imparted the whole business with the Admiral, by whose advise with others (assisting the proceeding) Spina was immediately sent for, who at his coming told the Lords that (the quality and humour of his adversary considered) he hoped for no great fruit in this conference, as being far more partial for the Pope and his traditions, than of any zeal at all to the word and truth of jesus Chryst: which albeit was affirmed by all the assistants, yet it was agreed that he should undertake the conference, & that for two considerations, the one to instruct and strengthen the good duchess against the sophistries & cavillations of Vigour: the other to take from him all occasions to brag (as he is wont to do) that the Ministers durst not appear before him. Here the order & method to proceed in this business, was agreed upon, with licence to Spyna to require the authority and sufferance of the King, that (to avoid confusion) it might pass in a small presence: that a certain Theme and subject might be proponed to confer upon: And lastly, that there might be established two Moderators for all the Acts, and two others deputed to gather faithfully all the Reasons and arguments of either part. All which orders being orderly communicated to the Duke of Buyllon, by the L. Admiral and Spina, he judged them of such reason as not to be denied, warning Spina to prepare himself against the first of july, when the conference should begin in the after noon. Spina entreated Monsieur Barbasta, minister to the queen of Navarre to accompany him in this disputation, who at the day and hour aforesaid, conducted by three Gentlemen appointed by the duke of Buyllon, went to the L. of Montpensiers' house, where the duke of Buyllon (advertised belike of their coming) met them in the hall: and there (induced as it seemed by the doctors who were in the chamber from whence he came) asked Spina if (afore the beginning of the conference) he were determined to make his prayers, according to the custom of the reformed churches: He answered yea, and that neither he nor his companion, either might, or aught to set upon a matter of such importance, as to treat upon the mysteries of Christian religion, afore they prepared themselves thereunto by invocation to the name of God. With which answer he returned eftsoons into the Chamber of the Doctors, who after some private counsel amongst themselves, appointed Doctor Ruze to tell them, that for their parts they would not assist their prayers, and that there was no more reason for them to be present when they prayed, than for the ministers to forbear their Mass. The ministers answered, that in good conscience they could not begin to dispute, afore they had prayed to God, and for the Doctors they had liberty, either to assist or be absent from their prayers at their pleasure: but touching themselves, they were content to make their prayers in the place where the assembly and conference should be, only they said there was great difference between their prayers (which have conformity with the pure word of God, as they themselves confess,) and the matter of their Mass, which contains many things quite contrary, as is easily seen and judged by such as will examine it by the rule of the Scripture, and therefore (by reason of the impiety and idolatry in their Mass) as they can not any way communicate therewith without offence to God, and bring themselves guilty afore him: so yet, neither he nor the other Doctors his companions, stood bard from the society of their prayers by that difficulty, because there was neither point nor article, which (by their own confession) was not holly and consonant to God. Doctor Ruze replied, that they rested upon a small matter: but they answered him, that as the principal exercise of Christian religion stood upon prayer, so it was also the most necessary mean to obtain God's grace, without the which mortal men could not attain to any success in their doings, and therefore very dangerous to omit it: they told him also, that they marveled on his behalf, that professing the name of a Doctor and a Divine, he made such a negligent estimation of prayer, which is the true practice, fruit, and use of all the knowledge touching God and his word, like as by this the world might discern, what was the nature of their judgements, who measured divinity by idle and vain speculations. He answered that the Duke of Montpensier would never suffer such a bravery in his house, and much less that it should be said, that it was a place for the Ministers to make their prayers in. The ministers protested to be far from their profession to brave it, and that much less they would use any bravery towards Princes (whom they honoured with all fear and obedience) but that they would condemn themselves if they used it to any man, of what mean condition soever he were: wherewith they assured him, that aswell he as others, which laid such slanders upon them afore Princes, to kindle & inflame them against them, should one day give reason of their doings afore the majesty of God. Here Doctor Ruze asked them why they stood so resolutely upon this point of prayer: they answered, that the purpose of the Conference, was to reveal the true sense of the Scripture, and deliver it to the understanding of the Bearers, which could not be done without the spirit of God, who cleareth the understanding of men to comprehend it, and openeth their mouths to pronounce it, in which respect they are to implore and obtain God's grace by prayers: beside, God hath commanded all such as have need of wisdom, to demand it of him, to search what they would find, & to knock at the gate if they would have it opened to them: all which being not otherwise to be obtained than by prayers, they concluded, that for that occasion their invocation was necessary. They alleged moreover, that all things aught to be referred to the glory of god, and therefore prayer to be requisite in the beginning, and thanksgiving in the end, and consummation of all our endeavours, even as when we begin and end the ordinary refection of our bodies, we bless and glorify the name of God. Here Doctor Ruze told them that they should not have any let to pray, so that they prayed in their hearts: but they answered, that that sufficed not, but that they must aswell exercise their mouth, as S. Paul commands. Then withdraw you apart (saith he) and make your prayers all alone: they told him that was also inconvenient in such a presence, as being commanded by God to make their light shine afore men, to the end, that seeing their good works, they might have mean to glorify God, and be edified therewith: beside, by this they might procure cause of slander to their neighbours, as to confirm the lewd opinion raised by their adversaries touching their doctrine and exercises, which is, that in respect of the errors and blasphemies, they dursie not publish it: and therefore the better to purge this reproach, they thought it most convenient, that as they were to speak publicly, so also their prayers might not be kept from the hearers. Lastly they said, in reason and duty they aught not to be denied there the authority which the king had agreed unto them in the conference at Poyssy, where in all the several assemblies it was lawful for them to make public prayer to God, afore they entered any speech of disputation. They added for their last reason, that it was needful to comprehend within their prayers, both they & all such as should assist the conference, to the end that by the help of God's grace, aswell they as others might be made clean from all passions, as being hindered with nothing to judge rightly of such matters as shall fall in question of the one and other side, leaving by that means a facility to the hearers the better to make their profit. I am ashamed to recite in this place a word which escaped from doctor Ruze in this talk, who in a disdain to God and his service, said, that if the ministers would go pray, he would go piss the while: the same seeming so impudent to the ministers, that they cried, what resolution, what counsel, yea what one good word to be hoped for in a heart filled with such apparent, disdain of God? The Duke of Buyllon, and the said Doctor Ruze, seeing the constancy of the Ministers not to enter Conference, unless they prayed publicly in the presence of the assembly, after they had imparted the same with the lord of Montpensier, and the other doctors that were with him, they determined to send them away, as not meaning to dispute withthem under such condition. Whereupon the Ministers departed, & being called back again before they were at our Lady's bridge, they returned with expectation of consent to their request, wherein notwithding they were deceived. For Doctor Ruze meeting them at the gate, told them for a final Resolution, that if they would pray, they should have a house appointed for that purpose: only the Lord of Montpensier would not suffer them to make his house their place of Prayer, nor that any of his household partake with their Prayers: whereunto the Ministers Answered, that in this, their request was rather restrained than satisfied, and therefore they could Answer them no otherways than afore. Here Doctor Ruze ministered particular speech to Spyna, to whom in scoffing manner, he told, that he saw two causes why he was of so hard a desire to be drawn into disputation, and that heretofore he had been of their sect and company, but now he was cut of. Spyna Answered, that if he had meant to eschew the conference, he would not have taken the travail of eight leagues in so great distemper of heat, and much less left his Church, more dear to him than any other thing, to come to them in their own houses. Touching his departing from their society, he esteemed it one of the greatest benefits that ever happened to him, for the which he had cause to yield continual thanks to God. And because neither he nor his fellowship should doubt indirectly of his readiness to dispute, he laid afore him a mean by which both parties might be satisfied, as to traverse the disputation by writing, the same being most convenient, to intercept all contentions: that the Arguments and Answers may be the better handled and understand: that the people should be the better edified: And lastly, that in this manner there was no danger of alterations, either by additions or detractions: Ruze Answered that nothing could be written, which hath not erst been written: even so saith Spyna we can pronounce nothing, which heretofore hath not been spoken. This was the Resolute end of all their speeches, by which may be gathered the will and disposition of the doctors to enter the conference with the Ministers: to whom even in the beginning, to prevent their further proceeding, they offered a condition which they knew would not be accepted, as to enter into a public conference of the scripture, and yet bard to pray publicly in the place and assistance where they should dispute. Besides, their intent is easily judged by the order they established touching the conference: For in place to provide conveniently for the ease and quiette of the Ministers, come with no small pains to them, they had procured at lest a hundred persons of all qualities to environ the said Ministers, and so to amaze them, either with inreverente scoffs, violent injuries, or incivil threats, that had not the three Gentlemen of the Duke of Buyllon, kept a precise care over them, they had been in danger of violent hurt. By their dealings also may be discerned their regard of duty to God and holy Prayer, seeing they could not admit Prayer in their presence. And lastly, what understanding can they have of the scripture, with what Faith can they handle God's Mysteries, yea with what integrity and faculty can they preach and pronounce, seeing they disdain in their presence Prayer to God to obtain all things, as though their sufficiency were in aid of themselves, and not to proceed from God the Author of all light? ¶ The first disputation of Tuesday, the ninth of july. 1566. IT did not suffice the Doctors, by their incivil means remembered in the Preface, to offer to reverse the conference appointed between them & the two Ministers: but also, (the rather to intercept the just persuasion of the world) in the matter of their intowardnesse, to enter so holy an exercise, they suborned a brute against the Ministers: that being no less privy to the weakness of their cause, than their doctrine evil assured, they refuse to dispute. The same spreading to the ears of the king and Queen, & also the Lord Admiral, who foreseeing the dangerous slander that might descend to the reformed Churches, if the cause were not wisely and speedily governed, and construing withal, this corrupt imputation to be laid upon the Ministers, the rather to deface their innocency: stood in their excuse afore their Majesties, whom he assured of a prompt readiness in the Ministers, to common with the Doctors in the defence of their Church and confession, and that by infallible Scripture, where and afore what reverend testimony they should be brought, so that their liberty to pray to God in their beginning (as they had desired) were not taken away, & means for good order established, the better to bridle the confusion of popular shouts and voices, as happen ordinarily in the Schools of Sophisters, and people inclined to cavil. This speech of the Lord Admiral kindled such a sense of reason in the Lord of Nevers, that, induced chief by the spirit of God, and partly by an heroical instinct of heart, labouring in desire to aspire to the direct truth of things: he become a suitor to their Majesties, that by their authority and sufferance, the said disputation might proceed, and be eftsoons restored: wherein as he prevailed to the full effect of his request and purpose: so, after he had ymparted with the Lord Admiral the disposition of the King and Queen, they joined in devise touching the order to be observed in the said conference, naming the said Lord of Nevers, and the Duke of Buyllon, as Precedents of the place, with certain numbers of Gentlemen mutual assistants to record and witness the manner of their proceedings, providing lastly two Notaries of Paris, for either side to subsigne and set down in writing the true discourse of either several parties. These conditions thus determined by the Lords, were also received of the Doctor's Vigour and De saints for the Papists, and De spina and Sureau Ministers: Assembling, according to the appointment the ninth of july, at the Lord of Nevers house, where, in his presence and hearing of the rest of the assistants, after the Ministers had prayed, which the Doctors did shun, (as retiring elsewhere till they had done) Doctor Vigour undertook the first speech, with protestation that neither he nor his companion came thither to enter argument with the Ministers in any need or meaning to be instructed in points of religion, and much less to impugn in any sort the counsels, and specially that of Trent, by which they were forbidden to dispute with Heretics: Assuring resolutely for themselves, to abide constantly in the faith of the Church of Rome: only such was the request of the Lord of Montpensier (who to reclaim his daughter the Lady of Buyllon, had procured that conference) as they were the rather drawn thither, aswell to satisfy him, as also to declare their holy zeal to seek and bring again to their flock, such as were gone astray. The Ministers for their parts protested likewise, not to be enforced to conference by any doubt they made in any article of their confession, as knowing the same to consent simply and fully with the perfit word of God, but rather to strengthen and defend it against the Sophistries of such as seek to impugn it, pretending also to keep and establish the said virtuous Lady of Buyllon, in that state and holy institution, which Gods grace had happily instilled into her. These protestations thus mutually alleged, the Ministers looked that the Doctors (according to the meaning of the Lord of Montpensier, and desire of his daughter) would begin their disputation, with the matter of the supper, and the Mass: albeit, using the example and policy of such, as pretending the siege and battery of a town, begin to raise their Trenches a far off: so they, the better to prepare themselves to decide and consult in the said two points, began to lay their foundation by the authority of the church, upon the which they sought to establish the certainty of the articles of faith, and generally of all the holy scripture: And so the demands and objections passing from the Doctors, and answers returned by the Ministers: De saints began, and Despina, answered as followeth. Question. Upon what do you establish your religion? Answer. Upon God's word. Question. What understand or mean you by God's word? Answer. The writings of the Prophets and Apostles. Question. Do ye receive by their writings all the books of the Bible, as well of the old as new Testament, giving to them all an equal authority? Answer. Not, but according to the instruction of antiquity, we use distinction between the Canonical and Apocryphal books, calling such canonical, upon whose doctrine, both faith and all christian religion is founded, and the other we name apocryphal, as upon whose authority we cannot establish any article of faith: only they are proper (in respect of their notable sentences) to instruct the state of life and manners of christians. Question. How know you that the one are canonical, and the other apocryphal? Answer. By the spirit of God, which is a spirit of discretion, giving light to all such to whom it is communicated, to make them capable of power to judge & discern spiritual things, and comprehend the truth (when it is propounded to them) by the testimony and assurance which he kindles in their hearts: wherein, as we discern the light and darkness by the faculty of the sight that is in our eye, even so being furnished with God's spirit, and guided by the light which he kindles in our hearts, may we easily divide and know the truth from deceit, and generally all other things, which may contain falsehood, absurdity, doubt, or difference. Question. But some may vaunt to have the spirit of God, which have him not, like as we find by the histories, that all the heretics thought assuredly to have the truth on their sides, studying to authorize their doctrine by the inward revelations, which they feigned to receive of God's spirit: by which may appear what danger it were to reappose or commit the censure of a book or doctrine to the testimony of God's spirit, which a private man persuades or feigns to have received in his heart. Answer. This peril is easily avoided by the advise of the Evangelist john in his first Catholic, as not to settle an indifferent belief to all spirits, but rather to prove and examine them diligently afore we admit them, and then allow what they propownde: wherein the examination which we aught to make in this case, is to consider, first the end of the doctrine that shall be pronounced, & purpose of any book presented to us. For if it tend to raise and establish the glory of God, it is true, according to the words of jesus Christ in john, Cap. 7.18. he that searcheth God's glory is true, and there is no injustice in him: in this view and examination, we have also to consider, that if it consent with the proportion and analogy of faith (as Paul saith) it agrees fully with the chief grounds of religion. Rom. 12.6 Question. All men say, and may say as much, but for this reason it is an argument insufficient, till I be warranted by effect and other proofs, how I may rest and stay myself upon it: Besides, this answer exceeds the limits of the proposition, as presupposing the scripture to be known to be the ground of religion: and the proposition was laid to give the reason to assure me that the scripture was of God: and that we must put a distinction between the books of the same. Answer. It is easy to judge, whether the end of the doctrine which is propounded, stretch to establish and exalt the honour and glory of God, as if the same move exhortations to men, to withdraw wholly their trust from creatures, and reappose and lay it altogether upon God, to have recourse to him in their necessities, to depend upon his providence in all their transitory affairs, and lastly to praise him with thanksgiving for all the benefits they have: which being presupposed, there is no doubt that the doctrine including this purpose and end, is not good and to be received: touching the objection, that our former answer fell from the bounds of the first proposition, it seems not so, because the first matter propownded, tended to know what was the ground of our religion, to the which it was answered, that it was the writings of the Prophets and Apostles. Question. This answer is common to the Lutherans and anabaptists, yea and to the Deistes, who above the rest profess to search the glory of God, and what else the answer contains: and generally all men, using this speech, could not but err in all the articles of the creed, except the first: But to cut of this circumstance of speech, and return to the point, we think it not lawful to use a foundation of the scripture, afore it be known and assured that it is the holy scripture, and that there is difference between the books of the same: and also afore it be manifest, that I have a particular inspiration of the holy spirit, and that such a private breathing of the holy ghost be a sufficient ground of religion. Answer. The Deistes, or other heretics, can not serve their turn with the said answer, for the confirmation of their errors, because the Deistes, denying jesus Christ, can not glorify God, seeing that to glorify the father, it is needful first to know and glorify the son: and even so the other heretics, who notknowing the truth, nor by consequent, jesus Christ (whichiss the way, the life, and the truth) must needs be ignorant of God, and how to glorify him. And where our answer is noted superfluous, or to wander indecently, we lay ourselves to be measured and judged by the conference of the demand and answer: And touching the last point of the objection, that the revelation which a private man saith he hath of the spirit of God, is to him as a ground of religion: that is without the sense & words of our answer, which stretched only to say the foundation of true religion upon the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles: of whose truth all the church generally, and every particular member of the same, are assured by the testimony and inward revelation of the spirit of God. Question. All that is here spoken, must be added to the other answer afore it be good: and it seems that the answer contains but matter of mockery: For it is most certain, that when all truth is in the doctrine of one man, he is no more wicked or an heretic: But we search still the beginning of truth, and what it aught to be: And touching the reply, denying that the particular revelation is the ground of religion, there is no great difference: For if the particular revelation be a sufficient ground for every one to know that which is of the Apostles and Prophets, it is by consequent the foundation of religion, as being the ground to know upon what every particular man knoweth and saith his religion is founded. Answer. We framed our answers according to the nature and manner of the demands, by which appears no likelihood of disposition to scoff or jest: seeing that in such a conference as this is, where is question to search the honour and glory of God, mockery could not be without impiety: But touching revelation to be like to the scripture (which is the ground of religion) we deny it, and affirm them to be things different, notwithstanding their conjunction, as following one an other, according as it is written in Esay: Behold my alliance with them, saith the Lord, Cap 59 &. 21. my spirit which is in thee, & the words which I have breathed into thy mouth, shall not departed out of thy lips, nor from the mouth of thy seed, and so as followeth: by which may be judged the distinction that the Prophet useth between the revelation of the holy spirit, and the word. Question. I leave (for conclusion of this conference) every one to judge of the conveniency or agreement of the answers and objections. And touching the words alleged out of Esay, of the unity of the word and holy spirit, they be but speeches without purpose, and new matter: neither aught we to compare the revelation of every particular man (which was the question) with that of the Prophet Esay, who had the other proofs that the holy ghost spoke by him, and made demonstration thereof many times. Lastly, what soever is alleged, I leave to the judgement of every christian. Answer. Even so also we refer to judgement what hath been inferred mutually of the one & other part: And touching the place of Esay, which we produced, there is no question at all of the revelation of the Prophet, nor the spirit that was communicated to him, but only of the spirit and words which God promised to all his people, with whom he entered his alliance. For the other proofs pretended, that the Prophet had of his vocation, we make no doubt at all of them, only we protest that to be principal and most assured which he had by the testimony of God's spirit, as appeareth in the sixth Chapter of his prophecy. Question. Be it that he spoke to his people by the person of Esay, yet it follows not, but that he spoke first to Esay, neither do I deny that he promised not his spirit to his people, meaning to his universal Church, not that he would that every one, yea being in this church might usurp or vaunt to have this spirit promised particularly: And touching the particular inspiration of Esay, it was not founded only on his fancy and presumption, but in the assurance which God gave him in supernatural works, as is witnessed in his sixth chapter: Besides, it was not sufficiently grounded to be believed, as to have an inspiration, if he had not declared it by other effects and prophecies which happened, as belongs to every Prophet to do afore he believed. Deut. 28. But referring all these things as matters fetched from far, and out of the first proposition, I leave the judgement as before. Answer. There is not one of the church, if he be a true member of the same, to whom the spirit of God is not communicated according to the testimony of the Apostle Paul, and also the Evangelist john in his first Catholic. Rom. 8.9. Chap. 2.20.27. For the presumption pretended, there is great difference between presumption and the imaginations of the spirit of man (which is but darkness, and of himself knoweth nothing in the things of God) and the Revelations of the holy spirit, which are most certain, and of no less assurance. And so lastly touching our Answers to be out of the first matter or speech. If they be so, so also are the Demands. Objection. The Conclusion is, whether every one aught to be believed, saying he hath a particular Revelation of the holy spirit, without Declaration otherways, that there be holy Scriptures, and that there is difference between the same: Let every one be judge whether the Demands and Answers be pertinent to this difficulty or not, like as also whether the one import more credit and belief than the other, as the one being a new Doctrine, shows not any proof more than the other, of their particular inspiration. Answer. In our former Answers we have declared how the Revelations supposed by particular persons, aught to be examined by such means, as they may be discerned whether they be of God's spirit or not. Here Doctor Vigour intercepted his further speech, saying: that in the discourse aforesaid, he understood much matter in the ministers Answers, to be against the word of God, as where it is said, that first the Son must be honoured afore the father: which Spyna maintained to be undoubtedly true, alleging that proposition to have his ground and authority on the holy scriptures, as in the gospel and first Catholic of SAINT john: Whereunto Vigour Replies, that in the said places is not found this word first, albeit, in respect not to incident the matters alleged in the beginning of the conference, he will forbear for the present, to enter into Confutation, reserving that charge, till the end of all the conference. Answer. Spyna requires Doctor Vigour to coat the places of scripture, which he pretends to be contrary to the contents of his Answer: And to justify his opinion, to glorify first the Son afore the Father, (according to the testimony of the texts afore noted) he prefers this reason grounded and drawn out of the Scriptures: we can not know the Father, unless we have known the Son: we can not glorify the Father, unless we have known him: by which the consequence followeth, that the knowledge and glory of the Son, is a degree to come to the knowledge and glory of the Father: which being referred by Vigour to be more amply debated in the conclusion of the whole conference, Spina was also content. Objection. Vigour Objects, without entering further into this disputation, that by the self same reason inferred by Spina, it followeth that we must honour the Father afore the Son: for by the Father we come to the knowledge of the Son, as appeareth by the words of our Lord to S. Peter, Caro & sanguis non revelavit tibi: sed pater meus qui in coelis est: The same avouching manifestly that the heavenly Father revealed to S Peter, that our Lord was the Son of the living God: Whereupon Vigour argues in this sort, whether the reason of Spina be vaileable: by the Father we know the Son, therefore must we first honour the Father afore the Son. Answer. To follow the order of the knowledge which we ought to have of jesus Christ and his Father proponed to us in SAINT john, we must begin by the Son, and from the Son to the Father. For S. Philip desiring him once to show to him and his companions his Father: He answered, Philip, who hath seen me, hath also seen my Father, the same teaching that the mean to come to the knowledge of the Father, is a former knowledge of the Son: which may be also approved by the Authorities of other places, where jesus Christ saith, that none knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him: And to answer the Authority of S Mathewe alleged by Vigour, Spina saith, that the place by him produced, contained no mention of the knowledge of the Father, nor the mean to come thereunto, but only of the Revelation which was made by the grace of God and his holy spirit to S. Peter and his other companions to know jesus Christ, and in him, his Father. Whereupon Vigour calls upon the judgement of the Auditory, whether this be an Answer to his Objection, reserving notwithstanding till an other conference, to handle this point more largely (if he will maintain it) as not now to incident that which hath been proponed, whereunto Spina consenteth: Vigour adds further upon an Answer made by Spina, where he used a difference between the Revelation certain by the Lord to a particular man, and the holy Scripture, in which Answer he seems to put a marvel, the rather for that there is no Faith given to holy Scripture, but only that the Lord is the Author thereof, who can not lie: even so if a particular man be assured that a Revelation is made to him by the Lord, or that a person be assured of the Revelation made to an other, be bound as much to give faith to the Revelation, as to the scripture, the which matter also he will not (as he may) amply handle and deduce, but falls eftsoons upon the first Question, which as yet hath not been resolved, to the which he prays Spina to advance and prepare himself. Answer. The cause of Vigors marvel touching the Revelation of the Lord, and the word, to be things differing, produced in one of Spinas Answers, moves, in that he conceives not the sense and meaning of the speech: For Spina will not put a difference touching the certainty between the true Revelations of the Lord, and the word, which proceeding from him, is no less true than the Revelation, and the Revelation of Reciprocal: Faith with the word, and yet it follows not for all that, that the word and Revelations of God's spirit, (by which we may be led to the understanding of the word) be not things different, and that the one goeth not afore the other. And touching Vigors request to prepare to the point, he Answereth that he can not frame or draw his Answers from other ground, than the Demands that are made him. To this Vigour Replied, that touching the sense, he layeth himself upon the contents of Spinas Answer: And where he saith that the word goeth afore the Revelation, that deserves not to set a difference upon the question proponed. And touching the matter of the point, Vigour Demands, if a person may be assured that he hath the Revelation of the Lord, or that a Book be a Book of holy scripture, and when he may judge assuredly of his inward inspiration: And lastly how he may ascertain any of this inspiration which he hath of the Lord Answer. The first Article of the last demand, is not a thing impertinent to distinguish the scripture from the interpretation of the same: seeing they are matters divers, and sundry gifts of the Lord. And to answer that part of the demand, how a particular man, having in his heart the Revelation and inward witness of God's spirit, may know that it is Canonical, the spirit of God is not different of himself, and abiding in a particular man, he shall always acknowledge the Scripture that comes of him, and which bears his marks: And touching the second demand, we say also that the same spirit being in a third man, shall acknowledge that aswell the word, as the Revelation are of him by the reasons alleged, that is, that God's spirit in divers persons, is always equal and like to himself. Objection. This doth not satisfy the first Question proponed, which contained a demand how any man can judge in himself that he hath the holy spirit, to discern and judge a book to be of the holy Scripture, and an other not to be but Apocryphal, and lastly how he can make demonstration to an other, that he is possessed with this inspiration of God. Answer. The spirit of God is called a seal in the Scripture, for that the first effect he brings forth in the heart of him to whom he is communicated, is, to assure him of his presence: And to assure a second of the Revelation, which we have received of God's spirit, it is also easy, for that the spirit of God, which openeth the mouth of one to speak, openeth also the ears of an other to hear his word, the heart to believe him, and himself to persuade it, so that between the master and disciple, the Doctor and the hearer, being both furnished and lightened by God's spirit, there is also a mutual concord to know one an other. Objection. Such a certainty is a great incertainty, neither is there any, of what sect so ever he be, who doth not assure himself to have the holy spirit and truth of his side, which is a fond presumption: how may a man distinguish a presumption from a true inspiration. Answer. S. john Chrysostome saith, that in vain doth a man vaunt himself to have the spirit without the word, which is a mean to repress sects and heresies, and to judge all matters that the heretics and others would propound under the authority and title of God's spirit: For as by this spirit we know the true sense of the word, even so do we discern mutually by the word, who they be that have the spirit of God, and who not. Objection. This is no Answer to the Demand, for there is no Question to examine the doctrine by the word, but to know that it be the word of God, by which we will examine the doctrine, and approve it: and how a man shall judge assuredly that he hath a Revelation of the Lord, and that it be God's word. Answer. If he be one of the faithful, he may judge by God's spirit that is in him, as in him that tells it him. And if he be of the unfaithful, it is as impossible that he judge, as a blind man to discern colours laid afore him, because (as SAINT Paul saith) it is by the spirit of God, by whom we know and judge the things that are of God. Objection. This Answer is yet insufficient to the Question produced, whereof let the judgement rest among the hearers and Readers: But now we put forth an other demand, whether we are certain by God's word, that the Lord assistes his Church, and will assist it until the consummation of the world. And whether there be not more assurance to stay upon the consents, and judgement of the Church touching the determination of the Canonical Books of the holy Scripture, and the distinction of the same from the Apocryphal, than to rest upon singular judgement, esteeming it to be an inward inspiration, of the which there can be no proof made, but only by opinion that we have the holy spirit. Answer. The Doctors confuse the opinions of the fantastical sort, with the testimonies, and Revelations of the Holy Spirit, notwithstanding there is as much distinction between them two, as from heaven to earth: And touching the consent of the Church, supposed to proceed of the Spirit of God, it is infallible, and of no less certainty, than the particular Revelations of Esay, and other Prophets: And because both the one and the other proceed of one Author (which is the Spirit of Truth) the certainty of the Revelations of God's Spirit, made to all the Church in general, & to every particular member of the same, contain one self poised, & weight. Objection. The Ministers cannot conceal from the Catholics, or others, but that they are fantastic, as making no proof of the Revelation of the Holy Spirit made to them, no more than other sects do: And touching that point, supposed that it proceeds of God's spirit, they seem to doubt of the assistance of the Holy spirit in God's Church: which (as SAINT Paul saith) Est columna, 1. Tim 3 15 & firmamentum Veritatis: Wherein is to be well considered, that they hold them more certain of the assistance of the Lord in particular, than in the universal Church, by which the conclusion may follow, that aswell the particular faithful can never stray, as also that he is a pillar of truth no less than the universal Church: beside, in laying the particular Revelations in equal balance & weight with the judgement of the Church, they do openly impugn their confession of faith, in the fourth Article, where it is thus written, We know these Books to be Canonical, & a most certain rule of our faith, not so much by the common accord & consent of the Church, as the testimonies and inward persuasion of the holy spirit, who makes us discern them from the other ecclesiastical Books: By the said Article it is seen how much they do attribute to themselves, more than to the whole universal Church, which Article, they do now resist, giving as much to the one, as to the other: yea, in the confession of faith lastly printed, the said Article was taken away, as appeareth by that which this day Spyna hath brought hither printed at Geneva, 1564. by which may be seen, that they retract themselves, as confessing that it behooves more te stay upon the common consents of the church, than upon particular: the same being reasonable, seeing the holy spirit is promised to the universal Church, and not to every particulars man. Answer. If the Ministers may be thought fantastic, notwithstanding they have God's word, with better proof the Doctors may be holden such, in matters which they maintain and defend both without & against God's word: touching the second point, reproving the Ministers that they doubt of the assistance of the spirit of God to the Church, your answer is, that the doubt is not there, but to know which is the true Church: For the third point, where the Doctors allege that it may be inferred, that particular men cannot err, the consequence is nothing worth, because the Spirit of God may sommetime depart from men, in which case they may fail and err, as David confesseth, Psal. 30. did happen to him. To the fourth point the Ministers answer, that they impugn not in any sort the Article alleged of their confession, because the Answer contained comparison of two Revelations of the spirit, the one made to the body, and the other to the members, which they maintain to be of equal value touching the certainty: and in the confession is mention made of the Revelation of God's spirit, which causeth the consent of the Church, which followeth thereof, as the effect. And if it be so, that the cause being preferred afore his effect, there is great reason that the Revelation of the spirit of God, compared with the consent of the Church, should be preferred afore it, as the cause to the effect which it produceth. And touching the contrariety which they pretend in Confessions Printed in divers seasons, and by sundry Printers, they shall be Answered, when their pleasure is to debate the Articles particularly. Question. Where they made a doubt of the true Church, even the like may be said of the Revelations pretended of God's spirit to particular men, whom also we may doubt whether they be members of the Church or not: Touching the other point, where they deny to impugn the fourth Article of their Confession, there seems no small contradiction, as comparing the particular Revelation with the consent of the church, as appeareth by their Answer: it seems also to serve to small purpose, where they allege the Revelation to be the cause of the consent, preferring it afore the same, as the cause afore the effect, the same seeming as who should say, the Revelation is to be preferred afore the word of God and holy scripture, for it is most certain that the Revelation goeth before the word and scripture. And as it appears in the text of the Confession (which may be easily judged) the Authors of the same speak of the certainty and infallibility of two Revelations, as holding themselves more assured of that they have in their spirit, than that which is of the judgement of the church: Touching the other point, that particular men may sometimes fail, when God's spirit leaves them, we may conclude by that we aught not to rest infallibly upon the inspirations pretended of particular men, because it may be doubted whether they be forsaken of God's spirit or not, which we can not do of the Church, therefore it is more assured to stay upon the Church infallibly governed by the holy spirit, than upon the private pretended inspirations, which the Catholics do, not following their private judgement, and therefore can not be esteemed fantastic: but rather such are guilty of that name, who prefer their proper judgement, which they cover with the title of particular inspiration: The Doctors require a text of the Scripture, by the which the holy spirit is promised to every particular person, as to the universal church, thereby to know how to judge and discern what be the scriptures. Answer. Touching the first point, as in deed we do not approve all churches to be true, which are so said, even so we allow not for faithful, such as vaunt themselves to be so: For the second, the comparison of the Doctoures is improper in this point, as who should say the Revelation is to be preferred afore the word of God. etc. Because God's word and all the writings aswell of the Prophets as Apostles, are as so many Revelations of God's spirit, and that between the one and the other, there is no more difference, than between genus and species: Touching the Article, that the Revelation goeth before the scripture, we must distinguish between the Revelations made to the Prophets before they committed them to writing, and those which are made to them, that read their writings to understand them: For the first, we confess they go before the scripture, and for the second we say they follow it: Touching the third Article, the ministers Answer, that it is easy to judge whether God's spirit assist a particular man, or whether he be drawn from him, by the matters he propounds, when they be conferred with God's word, and censured by the rules of the same, as is said. Touching their demand, it were a long and weary encumber, to allege all the places where it is written, that God's spirit is communicated to the chosen, the better to know and discern the things that are of God: in Esay. 5●. the Lord promiseth to pour his spirit upon the faithful, as water upon the earth: Likewise in joel. 2 jeremy. 34. in the first Catholic of S. john 2. under the name of unction, and many other places. Objection. These places make no proof at all, that the spirit was promised to all to judge of the Doctrine: Other ways, even women, and all artificers that were faithful, might judge of the Doctrine, as the Prophets and Apostles: of the contrary S. Paul saith: Numquid omnes Propheta. etc. He saith expressly, that discretion of Spirits is to have understanding of the scriptures, and be gifts not common to all the faithful, but particular to some. Answer. The consequence which the Doctors make, is nothing worth, because God's spirit oftentimes is communicated more abundantly to some, than to others, and that also some be better exercised in the scriptures than others. Touching the place of S. Paul. 1. Corinth. 12. the ministers say, it makes nothing against them, because the spirit of Prophecy, and the spirit of discretion be gifts differing, as appears by the discourse of the Apostle in the same Chapter. The second day of disputation, being Wednesday the tenth of july. THe Doctors required that their Protestation made the day before, might be Enregistered, which was this, that they would not enter into disputation of things received into the universal Church, since the Apostles till our time, decided and already determined by the holy Counsels Ecumenike and general, holding them most certain and undoubted, and that all Doctrine to the contrary was false: Only they were ready, according to the holy desire of the Lord Montpensier, and the Lady of Buillon his daughter, to make known by the express word of God, interpreted by the said universal Church and Counsels, that their Doctrine is holy and conducible to salvation, in which Doctrine as the said Lady had been first instructed, so all instruction ministered to her in the contrary, is hurtful and damnable: And lastly, that this conference might be in manner of instruction, and not a Disputation. In like sort the Ministers protested, that they did not join in assembly with the Doctoures, for any doubt they had, that all that was centained in their Confession of faith, was not certain and true, and grounded upon God's word, as appeareth by the places of Scripture noted in the Margin of the said Confession, believing that what so ever is contrary, is damnable and to be rejected, though even an Angel of heaven would propone it. And touching themselves, they came not thither to be instructed in other Doctrine than that which they follow, and which they have learned of jesus Christ, whom they acknowledge as the only master and teacher of the church. Here the Lord of Nevers made request, that after their Objections and Answers, they would proceed to Resolution on both sides, touching the conference the day before. According to which motion, the Doctors say, that to judge of a Book, whether it be written of the holy scripture or not, and likewise to discern a Canonical Book, from an Apocryphal or Ecclesiastical, we must not rest upon a private, or particular inspiration, because a singular person can not have any ordinary certainty, that it is a true Revelation of the holy spirit: but stay upon the common consent and accord of the universal church. And also that God notwithstanding he might have revealed to every one the true knowledge necessary to salvation, yet he hath ordained a certain mean to attain to faith, which is a truth revealed, meaning by the hearing of God's word, preached by lawful ministers sent by the pastors of the true church, as appeareth by the sexte of S. Paul to the romans .10. and Ephes. 4. So that, if they mean to have faith and inward Revelation of the knowledge of salvation, come by the hearing of God's word lawfully preached by the ministers of the same, according to the ordinary mean of assurance, that we have the inward Revelation: it must necessarily be assured, that the word by which faith is gotten, hath been preached by the lawful ministers of the true church, & so by consequence be assured of the church, afore the inward Revelation, observing the mean which jesus Christ followed: They say further, that the true and certain mark of a true inward Revelation, is, when it is referred to the common consent of the church. And that of the contrary every pretended inward inspiration particular or private, is a false persuasion, if it differ from the common accord of the church: for God's spirit is not particular, but common. They say also, that to take a false Doctrine, we must examine it to know whether it be private or common, like as our Lord in S. john. 8. hath given a true mark, saying: Qui de se loquitur, mendatium loquitur, he that saith any thing of himself, and his proper inspiration, is a liar. In like sort, it is written in Ezechiel, Son of man, Chap. 13. Prophecy against the Prophets of Israel which Prophecy, & say to such as Prophecy in their heart, hear the word of the Lord: So saith the Lord, curse be upon the false Prophets, who follow their spirit, and have seen nothing. And a little after, they see vain things, and a Divination full of dreams, saying: the Lord saith, and the Lord sent them not, and yet they have given assurance to confirm the word of their prophesy: which false Prophets, said they, had 〈◊〉 inward Revelation, and the word of God. They would also, that it be well weighed and considered, that the stay of religion grounded and assured upon an inward inspiration, is the foundation of many sects of our time, as anabaptists and Swinfeldiens, who lay their Doctrines upon private ●●●elations, alleging proper places to serve them as a ground of their Doctrine, which the ministers inferred yesterday, as jeremy in the .3. Chap. joel. 2. and S. Paul. 1. Cor. 2. The which being considered by Brentius and Bucer, they have confessed that by the only tradition of the church, we were ascertained of the Books of the holy scripture, according to the Doctrine of the ancients, as S. Jerome, who confesseth to have received by tradition of the church, and by the same to have known that there be four gospels: Origen also saith as much, who, reciting the Canonical Books of the new Testament, saith: I have learned by tradition, that there be four gospels, neither is there found any ancient catholic that hath stayed his faith to discern and judge of Books,) upon his only private and particular inspiration. And S. August. lib. confess. ca 25. ●seth these words, Veritas tua Domine, non mea, nec illius, aut illius, sed omnium nostrum quos ad communionem advocas: terribiliter admovensne privatam veritatem habeamus, ne privemur ca And touching the Books of the old Testament, which the Ministers will not receive as Canonical, by the judgement of their inward Revelation, the Doctors avouch, that before S. Augustine's time (or at the lest) in his time, in the universal church, all the Books contained in the holy Bible without distinction, were holden and received as Canonical, according to the testimony of the Council of Carthage, where SAINT Augustine was present, and also the Council Laodicene: the Doctors also say, that if by inward inspiration we must judge of Books, the Fathers that assisted those Counsels, had it, or at least might persuade themselves to have it with more assurance than many others: But where the Ministers say, that by their inward Revelation, they judge that they are not Canonical, 〈◊〉 Doctors refer to judgement, who ought soon to b●●●●eued, either the inspiration of the ancients received by the Church by so many hundred years until this time, or the private, and particular inspiration of the new Ministers. They say further, that they offer to prove that the Ancient Fathers, even such as w●●e near the Apostles time, as Irenaeus, S. Cyprian, Origen, S. Jerome, S. Augustine, and others, use testimonies of Books rejected by the Ministers, even in the proof of the Doctrine against Heretics: yea S. Augustine himself, in the second Book of Christian Doctrine, Chap. 2. puts all those Books amongst the Canonicalles, as also Damascene in the fourth Book De Orthodoxa Fide, Chap. 18. So that to know if a man have the spirit of God, to discern and judge of the Books of the Scripture, it behooves to rest upon the common consent, and accord of the Church, as being the ordinary mean of God left for that effect: experience also which may be made, is a sufficient Argument to convince, that the Faithful by the inward inspiration cannot discern the Canonical Books, from the pretended Apocryphal, which might be easily verified, if there were here at this present even some of the Religion pretended reformed, to whom (not having been as yet instructed in the division of Books) if those Books were presented, which the Ministers hold for Apocryphal, they would not distinguish them in any sort from the other Books of the holy Bible. And upon all they conclude, that if a man have God's spirit etc. ut supra. Answer. Touching the first Article, the Ministers were never of opinion (as appears in their former answers) that their Religion was grounded upon their particular Revelations, but upon the word of God, according as it is set forth in the writings of the Prophets and Apostles, the truth of which they said, was most principally assured by the testimony, and Revelation of the holy Spirit. They say also, that Faith is not the Truth in proper speech, but the persuasion of the Truth, which is taught us in the Scripture: Like as also this Faith is not of our own getting, but a pure gift of God. They say further, that the lawful Ministers ought to he sent, not of Pastors pretended, and which have nothing of Pastors, but the Title and name only, but of God, as appears in jeremy, where this mark is set forth to know and mark a false Pastor, when he insinuates himself, or is sent of other than of God. Touching the Article following, they say, that the true mark by which we may judge certainly of a Revelation, is rather the word of God, than the consent of many, because it happeneth many times that the multitude in the Church declining from the word, doth wholly swarm and go astray, as in the time of Micheas, jesus Christ, and since, in the time of Constance the Emperor. Touching those Prophets, who follow and are led by their spirit (as they that leaving God's word, rest upon the commandments and traditions of men, or the vanity of their brain) it is not to be doubted that such are not false Prophets, and to be eschewed and rejected: only we must use great difference between the Revelations and testimonies of God's spirit, and the vain imaginations of the mind of men. To that the Doctors alleged, that Heretics (as anabaptists and others) serve their turn, to confirm their errors, with those places of scripture, which the Ministers have produced: they deny not but it may be so, for that the Scripture being common, may be alleged of every one: Neither ought we to stay upon that which is produced, but to weigh and examine how, and to what end and purpose it is alleged, by which will appear the difference that is between the Ministers and heretics. Touching that which was inferred of Brentius and Bucers' opinion, that by the only tradition of the Church, the Canonical Books may be discerned from the Apocryphal, the Doctoures seem to mi●●erue their purpose with that, seeing they maintain that all the Books of the Bible are Canonical, and yet, by their report of Brentius and Bucer, it appears that both the one and the other, according to the Tradition (as they say) do put a distinction, calling the one Canonical, and the other Apocryphal. To the Article following, wherein the Doctors allege certain places of the ancients to take away the difference between the Canonical and Apocryphal Books the Ministers answer, that as they have alleged certain to prove it, so also they are able to produce of the same for the disproof, as S. Jerome in his Prologue named Chaleatus, and in an other which begins prater Ambrosiu● to whom writing the sum of every Book of the Bible, he makes no mention but of those, which the ministers call Canonical: They are able also to allege two or three Cataloges recited in Eusebius, who receive not for Canonical Books, but such as the ministers themselves approve. The Council of Laodicen alleged by the Doctors, speaks for the ministers, as not comprehending that, whereof there is question: and touching experience, they Answer that it is a question de facto, as being better to be alleged against the Doctors, than the ministers. Lastly, to the end no more time be spent in so often repetition of one self thing, and that we prepare to confer the points of the Confession which the Doctors will debate, the ministers declare, that the xxiiij Books of the old Testament, which are in the Canon of the hebrews, with all the Books of the new Testament, be approved Canonical of the one and other part, and they are sufficient to decide wholly all the points of their Confession, and generally all that belongs to true religion, neither have they occasion, by the means of that, to delay any more the conference in respect of difference between the two parties touching the distinction of the Canonical and Apocryphal Books. Objection. Notwithstanding the Ministers say, their religion is founded upon the word of God, yet they ground God's word upon inward Revelation, so that, Revelation is the ground of the word, and consequently of their religion: for they receive for the word, but that which they think to be particularly revealed unto them. Touching the other Article, where they resist the opinion of the Doctoures, that Faith is gotten by the hearing of God's word, it seems they offer to ●●umble upon small blocks, as not to enter into the principal. And where they allege that faith is a gift of God, and therefore not gotten, it is most manifest by many ordinary texts of Scripture, that it doth not differ, one thing to be given and gotten: as the kingdom of heaven which is given to the blessed, and yet we do get it having true Faith working by charity, the scripture also calls it the reward and recompense of good works, and S. Paul saith, that by liberality and alms men gain the grace of God: Yea there can be none other understanding of S. Paul's speech, Fides ex auditu, Hebrues. 13. but that Faith comes by hearing God's word, which is the obtaining of the same, by the mean of hearing it preached, albeit it be a gift of God. They use the like subtlety in going about to rebuke the opinion, that Faith is the truth revealed, as putting a great difference between the truth revealed, and the Revelation of truth, which subtlety should be of force against S. Paul, who sayeth: Panis quem frangimus, nun communicatio corporis. Domini est, which is as much, as, panis fractio nun: etc. And therefore, to speak properly, the text of S. Paul must needs lie subject to such rebukes. So that touching this Article, to the end not to incident notwithstanding the Reply of the Ministers, the Doctors will dispute no more of it, as being a matter too much impertinent, seeing that in the end, it would procure speech of merito, and so from one to another. It grieves them to enter upon the vocation of the lawful Ministers of the church, and therefore to avoid that question, they will not allege (which they might without any superfluous discourse) that afore their Doctrine be received, they must be examined whether they were lawful ministers sent of the true church to preach God's word, and to be heard of the people in their sermons, according to S. Paul's place alleged here before, which if they of the new Religion had well considered, they might have a most sufficient argument not to receive their Doctrine, because it is no less clear than the day, that they are no Ministers sent by the pastors of the Church: but have foisted in themselves to Preach, and are not able to show any sign of their vocation, either from men, and much less from GOD: And if it were lawful to every one that saith he is sent, to Preach the word, it were to raise infinite Sects, as we see happeneth in this time, and so they cease further speech in this Argument, lest they give a greater heat to the matter. Touching the Article declaring how we may know a Revelation to be of God, which the ministers hold, is rather discerned by the word, then by the consent of many, it resembles nothing the purpose of the Doctors: For the question is, how a man may judge a Book to contain God's word, and not to judge the Doctrine by the word already received, to which the Doctoures desire, and the Ministers make request, that directly to the point, they might dress their Answers. Touching where they said, of the consent of many, the Doctoures phrase was not so, but spoke of the consent of the Church, which is as infallible as God's word: for as it is certain that the holy Spirit is author of the word, so is it no less sure, that he is the soul of the Church, by whose guide, she can never err, according to the witness of S. Paul, who calls it Columnam & firmamentum veritatis: they will not enter into this Question, whether the multitude of the Church may err or not, and yet, it can not be found since the Church was planted after the death of Christ, that she hath been in less number, than the sects of Heretics: neither doth it serve to this purpose that hath been alleged of Constance, and of the time of the old Testament, for there is great difference between the synagogue of the jews, and the Church, which as it is a congregation of all nations believing in jesus Christ: so it can not but stand and consist in most great multitude, for otherways the promises made to the Church of the Gentiles should be vain: For it is said to Abraham, that his seed (we must not mean of the flesh) should be multiplied as the Stars of heaven, or sand of the Sea. To the Article that begins, touching the Prophets. etc. the Doctoures say and confess that there is great difference between fantastical imaginations, and Revelation of the holy Spirit. But the Ministers Answer not, how they would prove their particular persuasions to be rather Revelations, then vain and fond imaginations of Prophets, whereof Ezechiel speaks: which notwithstanding they called inspirations, as also what they said and preached, they called it the word of God. To the Article which begins, touching anabaptists. etc. the Doctoures Answer, that to one end the Ministers and anabaptists produce self places, whereof mention is made, as the better to assure their Doctrine to be of God, because they have a particular Revelation, as God hath promised them by his Prophets: For which self cause the Ministers have brought in the said Testimonies of scripture, to prove that every Faithful man, may judge by his particular inspiration, if a Book contain the word of God, with Distinction of the Canonical from the Apocryphal, and so discern the true Doctrine from the false, which is the very ground of the anabaptists and other Heretics. To the Article beginning, touching that which is produced of Brentius, etc., the Doctors allege that the ministers have not understand their intent: For they bring not in the saying of Brentius and Bucer, otherways than in a speech and meaning, that they know the Canonical Books of the holy scripture by the tradition of the Church, and not by particular inspiration, as the Ministers do. Touching the Article following, the Doctoures say, that certain times there were, that some men doubted of certain Books of Scripture, as the apocalypse and Canonical Epistles of S. john, with others: Albeit which time, and of common consent, the Church (led and guided by the holy Ghost) hath received indifferently for Canonical, all the Books that be in the Bible, which consent continued by so many hundred years, had more authority than the saying of one or two, who notwithstanding spoke not but of their own time. Besides, there is no comparison at all, between the saying of one or two particular men, and the determinations of Counsels, and consent of the Church, as is said: it will be found also, that S. Jerome hath approved those Books as Canonical, as appeareth in the Prologue he made of the Book of the Maccabees, where he saith: As for the hebrews, they are not Canonical, but, sunt canonicae Historiae Ecclesia, or such like words. Touching the Council of Laodicen, they take it as it is, albeit it may be they are deceived, naming one Council for an other. And for the Article beginning, touching the experience, etc., albeit it be a Question de facto yet it can not be but of special value, which if it be found as the Doctoures have proponed (whereof they doubt not) the ground of their particular Revelation is plucked down and confounded. Touching the conclusion of the Ministers, the Doctoures declare that many times they have complained, that matters were incidented: laying themselves upon the judgement of every one, that their last Resolution was drawn in one direct line, handling one self matter, without varying, in which notwithstanding, if there had been found any matter of difficulty, and that the ministers had desired to proceed to the conference of the principal points, they could easily have cleared the said difficulty, the Doctors would have enlarged further matter, of these Articles, saving that to enforce and hasten the business for the which they are called, they forbear to multiply speech. Where the Ministers allege that they receive the xxiv. Books of the Old Testament, with all those of the New, the Doctors say, that is small respect of matter: For all the conference which hitherunto they have made, as by what Rules a man might discern one Book from an other, with judgement whether they were of Scripture or not, was to bring them to this point, that they received them by the tradition of the Church, who as she is the judge of the number of Books: And that by the same mean, when was question of the understanding of God's word (yea in the collation of the places of the same Scripture) the Ministers & Doctors might have such reverence to the universal church, that she might be accessed on both parts, as judge of the understanding of Scripture, which they would acknowledge to have received of her, and whereof she is infallible, & more certain judge than either the one or other: All which notwithstanding the Doctors offer to the Ministers, not to infer for that time other Books than such as they receive for Canonical: only when they shall fall into difficulty of the interpretation of any text, or the conference of many, the doctors account it more reasonable to have recourse to the universal Church and Ancient Fathers, than to their proper judgements, or fancies of the Ministers. Answer. For conclusion, the Ministers consent to the offer of the Doctors, to decide the points and Articles of their confession by the Books Canonical agreed upon between them, as the xxiv. Books of the Hebrews, and all those of the New Testament, protesting notwithstanding that in the last writing proponed by the Doctors, there be many things which they approve not in any sort, and which they hope to reverse by Confutation when the occasion shall move, which they had presently done, were not their intent to show (contrary to the imputation of the Doctors) that they will not stray, nor wander, nor vary any way from the conference of the points of their confession. Reply. The Doctors Reciprocally agree with the Ministers to the offer aforesaid with modification to add (for their parts) the authority of the universal Church and ancient Doctors for the interpretation and understanding of the holy Scriptures, when they differ or cannot agree. The third day of disputation, being Thursday the tenth of july. THe Ministers have showed what be the protestations of the Doctors, as not to come to conference for other end, than to satisfy the Lady of Buillon, and not to be instructed, or informed in the points of the Religion they hold: And likewise how the Ministers protested for their parts not to confer with them, in respect they stood doubtful tn any point of their confession, wherein they rested absolutely resolved: By reason of which protestations, they required that the first point of their conference might be that, which the Lady Buillon hath publicly prayed to be decided: which is the Supper and the Mass, to the end also they might be cleared of the charge of imputation laid upon them by the Doctors, that they varied, and would not come to the principal point, which is the matter of the Mass, but of the contrary, did eschew and shun the conference thereof. Finally, to the end it be known which of them flits from the decision of it, they offer (after that point be confuted) to enter conference with them, (if it so like them touching all the other points which remain in controversy as leisure and time shallbe allowed them: They required also (to cut of all confusion, and such as happened the day before in the conference) that the Doctors would propound particularly their arguments apart, and that answers might succeed accordingly in like order by the Ministers: or else if they will propound their arguments and reasons together, there should be granted unto them a whole day of purpose, wherein they might well do it without any interruption, with this condition, that the next day should distend to the Ministers to answer by order to all their arguments. The Doctors say, that by that which is written heretofore of the Ministers, it may be easily known that they have always drawn back, as at this present they do refuse to enter conference of things which they have committed to controversy, marveling greatly that this day they will not suffer the Articles of their confession to be examined by order, as in the first day of conference they did require in the presence of the Lord de Nevers, the Lord and Lady of Buillon, with other Lords and Gentlemen presenting their said confession contained in a little guilt Book, with offer to the Doctoures to examine them by order, if they thought so good, which they accounted very reasonable: Whereupon yesterday they departed with this Covenant, that from this day they would begin to examine the Articles of the creed, the Ministers themselves having demanded of the Doctors, whereupon the● would entreat. And touching their speech of the Protestation that the assembly was erected for the instruction of the Lady, whose desire stretcheth (as they say in her absence) to be first iustructed touching the Mass: the said Doctors say, that the Ministers have taught the said Lady with main voice, not only error concerning their supper, but also in many other points, as they will make manifest when the Articles of the confession by them examined, shallbe handled. So that, they desiring to instruct by order the said Lady in the catholic Religion, did determine to observe the order holden of all the Fathers of the Church, that is, to reveal to her, how many errors are contained in the Catechism of their Church against the Articles of Faith, notwithstanding that they persuade to those of their Religion, that touching those Articles, they differ nothing from the Catholics: wherein because, to instruct a parsonage, it is necessary we begin at the foundations, and that of certain Articles of the creed (wherein the Ministers and their like do err) depends a beginning of the proof of the Real Presence of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar, they stand to follow the order of all good Schoolmasters and Teachers in discipline, and which the Ministers themselves observe according to the method in their Catechism: And with good right, might the world smile at the Doctors (who are taken for instructors) if at the pleasure of the Ministers themselves, they would begin to teach a parsonage by the point wherein they aught to end, like as the Catechism of the Ministers doth end of the matter of the Supper: Besides, seeing the Ministers (by their own motion) are content that all the Articles of their confession be examined, they have no interest at all to make us begin at the first, seeing, beside it is the consent of all order, yet, it is always at the choice of the proponer to put forth by such order as he thinks best, the questions of disputations if any be: wherein, seeing they are bound to yield reason of their Faith as often as they are required, it cannot be inexpedient, aswell for the benefit of the Lady, as instruction of such as shall read the conference, to follow this method: which offer of the Doctors, if they refuse, they cannot shift of the general judgement of the world, that distrusting their doctrine (which they dare not maintain) they confuse the conference. Touching their request, that in the conference, the Doctors should exhibit but one reason at once, to the end they may answer without confusion: or else, that in one day the Doctors may propone all their reasons, and in an other day the Ministers answer them: The first offer seems reasonable to the Doctors, and they accept it, for fear to enter into long speeches: But for the second, they never heard that any such was practised, neither is it needful to assemble in one place for that purpose, but send their writings mutually one to an other. Answer. Touching, to exhibit their confession, and their offers, which the Doctors suppose the Ministers have made, they refer them to the Registers, alleging further that it appears by the last proposition of the Doctors, that it is not upon the confession which the Doctors say was exhibited to them, but upon the Catechism, that they will ground their disputation: For end, the Ministers protest again as before, to the end it may be known to the multitude, who they be that refuse the lists: requiring that the order to argue and answer may run from henceforward interchangeably between them and the Doctors, seeing it is meet things be equal and necessary, that the Doctoures yield reason of their Faith, as well as the Ministers. Reply. The Doctors refer themselves to that which hath been set down in writing in the two first conferences, where was continual speech to examine the Articles of their confession, without making mention of the Mass. And where they pretend a seeming and meaning in the Doctors to examine the Catechism, and not the Articles of the Confession, the Doctors are content to proceed in the said Articles, conferring them with the Catechism, seeing they two ought to accord together: And so they call all the assistants to witness and judge, by whom it stands that the conference is not begun. Touching the change of order which the ministers demand this day, it is a late fashion, and a new trouble, seeing hitherunto they have kept the place of respondentes, & delivered the Articles of their confession to be examined, where the Doctors were always arguers, & of their side not proponed any thing to examination, & yet are they content (after the said confession be examined) that the Ministers propound such difficulties as they have against the Catholic Doctrine, whereunto, the doctors (with God's grace) will make answer. Demand. Whether the Ministers believe that the creed, called the Symbol of the Apostles, was made by the Apostles, and whether they believe all that is contained therein. Answer. It is a thing different, whether the Apostles themselves being together, have written it, every one bringing to it his sentence (as some hold) whether it hath been gathered of divers places of holy writings: yet in the reformed Church, we believe every point to be drawn out of the pure doctrine of the Prophets & Apostles contained in their writings, as if we should say (by the importance & contents) that it is a sum of the doctrine which the Apostles preached. Demand. Leaving a part (to avoid tediusnes) whether it be a thing indifferent to a christian to believe that a doctrine hath been written by the Apostles or not, so that it keep a conformity with the matter of the holy writings, the demand is, if all doctrine conformed to the said holy writings, may take indifferently the title of the Apostles, or other authors of the scripture. Answer. We cannot fail in calling it Apostolic doctrine, but naming it the writing of the Apostles, seems to give a sense that it was either written with their hands, or spoken of them: But be it what may be, wheresoever we acknowledge any doctrine taste & saver of the spirit, wherewith the holy men of God have been moved, we will call it Prophetical and Apopostolical doctrine. Objection. The Demand stretcheth not whether the doctrine be Apostolical in respect of such conformity, but whether, by that reason it might be attributed to the Apostles, and of equal authority with the writings wherewith it is conformed, because it proceeds of a self same spirit, as the answer saith. Answer. The answer is already made, which is that such writing contains Apostolical doctrine, & in what sense it may be termed to be of the Apostles. Objection. The answer (under correction) apperteines nothing at all to the demand: for the question is not, whether (for the conformity) it may be accounted Apostolical: But whether (in regard of this conformity) it may be attributed to the Apostles, and bear the title and name of the Apostles with equal authority to the proper writings of the Apostles. Answer. The first demand was, if the creed was made of the Apostles, whereunto a sufficient answer was made: After which it is lawful to fashion a second demand which differeth from that. Objection. The second depends upon the first which also is made: and whether it be satisfied in answer or not, let the Readers discern and judge. Answer. To depend upon it, is not therefore the same. Demand. Whether they approve the said creed only, because they know it to be conformable to the writings of the Apostles, or whether there be any other thing that induceth them to believe it. Answer. That not only it is conformable, but even the doctrine itself: for which cause they believe and approve it. Demand. Whether a man be not bound to receive it, but in respect he knoweth it to be the self writing, or have conformity with the writings of the Apostles, as is said. Answer. The chief cause that may move him that believes it to believe it in deed, is the knowledge which we have spoken of. Demand. Notwithstanding this be the principal cause, yet we require to be absolutely answered, whether there be no other sufficient reason to induce belief, so that this first may be necessary. Answer. aswell for the matter of the creed, as every other thing which we believe, the principal cause is the knowledge we have, that the same hath been left us written or gathered out of the writings of the Prophets & Apostles: And for our parts we search no other reason than that, of our Faith. Objection. Yet (under correction) the Demand is not fully answered: Which is, to know whether to receive the creed of the Apostles, this cause be necessary, to understand the writings of the Apostles, and that without the same, no man either can or ought receive it: The Doctors pray to be absolutely answered, either in the one or the other, without circuit of words: And the more simply to unfold and explicate the Demand, thus it is, whether a person ought not receive the creed of the Apostles, but under knowledge that it is conformed to the writings of the Apostles. Answer. Rom. 10. Hebr. 11. Seeing (with the doctrine of S. Paul) there is no true faith without knowledge, & assurance of the word, to believe, it is necessary we know that it is the word of God. Demand. To know, whether they understand this word to be written or not written. Answer. The word written and revealed by the Prophets and Apostles, which is the foundation of Christian Faith. Objection. The ministers than maintain, that after the creed be believed, or proponed to believe, it is needful to be taught, or to teach an other the writings of the Apostles and Prophets, the same being against all order ever holden in the Church, and against the contents in the form to administer the Sacraments in the Church at Geneva made by Caluine, and brought in amongst his works. The words are these: Go to them that have charge of the child that is baptized, seeing there is Question to receive this child into the company of the Christian church, you promiss, when he comes to age of discretion, to instruct him in the Doctrine received and approved of the people of God: And after these words, they bring in the Creed, according to the which, they are willed to proceed in the instruction of the child, in all the Doctrine contained in the holy Scripture of the old and new Testament, so that afore they propone to believe the Creed, they persuade not to believe that there is any word of God written, nor what it is, nor what is there contained, as to know the conformity of the creed with the same: They lay not also the foundation of the belief of the Creed, upon the knowledge and conformity of scriptures, but upon the doctrine received and approved of the people of God: as the Ancient church, yea afore the writings of the new Testament were written, had a custom to propone to great and small the belief of the creed, afore they would commend to them the holy scriptures, as appeareth by christian Antiquities. And therefore the belief of a Christian, depends not of the word written by the creed, but of the word revealed to the people and church of God. Answer. Touching the first Article, it is most necessary in teaching the Apostles Creed to a child or other ignorant person, that therewith also, he be instructed in the Doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles, seeing the creed contains none other matter, than this self same Doctrine, and that they are things not only conjoined, but also like, if not in terms, at lest in sense and substance. For the second Article, they deny that that which is alleged before, is any way contrary to the order established in the church of Geneva, or other church well directed: wherein touching the reason taken of the form of Baptism used in the said churches, it followeth not by the words and speeches which have been alleged, that Caluine would shut out the creed, and separate it from the writings and Doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles (a thing impossible) but showeth evidently that he meant to comprehend it therein, when he added this word, and generally (which the Doctoures have put in their Allegation) to comprehend what might be over and above the holy Scriptures, after the deduction which he made of the points of the Doctrine comprehended particularly in the said creed. Touching the other reason that afore there were any Book of the new Testament written, the Creed was proponed to such as were catechized: it is agreed unto: But it follows not for all that, that it is not founded upon the word and Doctrine which the Apostles preached (albeit at that time it was not set down in writing) and likewise upon the writings of the Prophets, upon which the Doctrine of the Apostles is grounded: For Conclusion, the Ministers put no difference between God's word preached and written, touching the sense. Objection. It seems the Ministers have not well understand the meaning of the Doctoures: For there is no Question, to know whether the creed carry conformity of himself with the Apostolic writings, but whether first we must understand and believe that the Apostles and Prophets, have set down by writing, a Doctrine, wherewith the said creed doth conform: and that other ways a man can not believe the said creed: But to unfold it more easily, the Question is, if it be not possible that a child, being come to the age of discretion, or any other, may by instructions of the Parents, or others, believe the Articles contained in the creed, and be not first instructed by them, that there be certain Apostolic writings, whereunto the Articles of the creed may be conformed. And if it be necessary, to move him to believe it, to know this conformity: And to these let the Ministers Answer absolutely. Answer. Faith is by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, according to the consent of jesus Christ, Rom. 10. who putting the hearing of the word afore the Faith of the same, saith: Who hears my word, and believes him that hath sent me. john. 24. etc. Like as also he commanded the Apostles to preach first the Gospel, to the end the hearers, by the preaching, might be disposed and led to Faith. By these reasons, to know whether the Doctrine that is taught, be the word of God, it is necessary to believe, without the which also it is impossible, that a man may either have Faith, or believe in God, unless he be assured that that which is taught him, is God's word: And for the Question, touching the instruction of children at the age of discretion, or others, whether it be necessary they know the word, afore they believe, the Answer is that it is needful: And Thomas sayeth, that the Faith of the Articles of the creed aught to be explicated, that is, declared, which can not be done without knowledge of the word. Objection. This Answer contains froth of speech without any touch of the point proponed: For there is no doubt that children and others must not be catechized, and the Articles of the Faith unfolded to them, by the word of God: But the Question is, to know, if it be necessary they understand that this Word be written in the Books of the Prophets and Apostles, so as, without the knowledge of the said writings, they can not know nor believe the Articles of Faith contained in the said creed. Whereunto the Doctoures pray the Ministers to Answer directly either yea or no. And after the answer, to add such reason as they will: which if they will not do, the Doctoures are of mind to proceed to an Article, after they have told them, notwithstanding for conclusion of all, that if this knowledge of the scriptures were necessary to the understanding of the Articles of the creed, examining them according to the conformity of the same Scriptures, that it behoveth (seeing the foundation is so necessary) amongst the Articles of the creed to put this: I believe there be holy scriptures: and it is to note, that in the said Symbol there is no mention made, that there is holy Scripture, so that a man may be a true christian, afore he understand there is any christian Doctrine or word of God written, & therefore not necessary (for the belief and understanding of the creed) to know the word of God to be written, in which respect the Doctors protest to speak no more of this Article. Answer. By collation and view of the Demands and Answers, it is easy to judge, who offend most in circumstance of words, either the proponentes or respondentes: Touching the second Article, the Answer is as before, that the knowledge of God's word is necessary to believe, and to be a christian, whether it be written or revealed. Touching the declaration that was made, the Ministers Answer in their own respect, not to approve in any sort, that any thing be added to the pure word of God: And they believe the Simbol of the Apostles, to be no other thing, than the pure word of God, which is proposed to us by his spirit, and therefore it should be a contravention against his commandment, to add new Articles to it, maintaining also, that if there had been others necessary to salvation, the spirit of God had not been forgetful. For conclusion, albeit there is no express mention of holy Scripture made in the creed, yet covertly, it is understand therein, because the church (which can not subsist, that it is not founded and builded upon the grounds of the Prophets and Apostles) is proponed there as an Article to believe. Reply. This Answer the Doctors say, is impertinent, and no more to purpose than the former: And albeit the Prophets and Apostles had not written at all, the church notwithstanding had been grounded upon their foundation, as it was in the time of Abraham, and afore there were any Scripture, which if it had been necessary to salvation, it had been put among the Articles of Faith. Answer. The Ministers hold this Reply much more impertinent: and touching the reason that is added, that Faith was in the time of Abraham, albeit there was no word written, they accord to it: But this is evil inferred, there is no word written, then there is no word at all: And it is a fallax in argument, which the Dialecticians name a Dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter: from a saying modified, to that is simply said. The fourth day of disputation, being Friday the twelfth of Julie. THe Ministers avouch to clean always to their former request, observing the Protestations aforesaid made by the Doctoures, who have twice declared, that they assembled not but to satisfy the Lord of Montpensier, and the Lady Buillon, according also to whose request, publicly made in the company, to be instructed upon the point of the Supper, and not in other matters, wherein she accounts herself sufficiently taught, and hath no need of more ample instruction: and therefore, the said Ministers require as afore, that the first point which they should confer upon, might be the supper and the mass, the rather for that they understood by people worthy of faith and credit, that the Doctoures meant nothing less, than to enter disputation upon that ground. Hereupon the Doctoures say they are ashamed to hear so often Protestations, and that the Ministers seem to feed with such fashions, of purpose to eschew conference in the Articles of their Confession, which (notwithstanding) they have oftentimes offered to be examined. And where they allege that the Lady of Buillon, (for whose instruction the company is assembled) hath openly required to be instructed upon the Article of the Mass, and not otherways: They Answer, that she put out a motion to procure conference of the Mass, but they never heard that she held herself sufficiently instructed touching the other Articles. If the Duchess will confess that she believes all the other Articles proponed by the Ministers and their likes against the doctrine of the Catholic church, to be erroneous, they are ready from the present, to enter into conference of the Mass: But of the contrary, if she be imbrued with the errors impugning the doctrine of the Catholic church (in respect to use order appertaining to instructoures, and to lay the foundations of the Mass) the Doctors are determined, according to the good and holy desire of the Lord of Montpensier, to catechize and teach the Lady his Daughter every Article, and by order: They say further, that the Ministers are infected with the custom of those of their Church, which is that to eschew always conference with the Catholics, afore the decision of the point proponed, they thrust an other into disputation according to the example of Beza and other ministers that were with him at Poyssi, who, seeing the matter of the Supper was argued against them in the priors chamber at Poissi, in the presence of the Queen, Princes of the blood, and other Lords of the Council, made Request many times to let fall that point indecided, and enter upon others more evident and manifest against the Catholics, as of Images and other like: And of the contrary, the Ministers this day, to avoid the great errors in their interpretation of the creed, will foist in the point of the Supper: only the Doctoures beseech as before, that (confusion avoided) Religion may be examined by order: And least it be thought, that the Doctoures refuse to enter conference of the Mass and Supper, according to their constant meaning as in deed (under general correction) they never denied to dispute of them: the better to instruct the Duchess and with more speed, they are ready to dispute with open voice, and evident Declaration by the express word of God, that jesus Christ hath instituted and said the Mass, and his Apostles also: They offer also, that what so ever shall be delivered by voice and speech touching this matter, to be set down in writing the next days after, and put in order, as the instruction of the Duchess requires it: Referring themselves for the day, to the opportunity of the Lady: Here the Ministers made Answer, that all these offers were superfluous and unprofitable, because such conferences, are but debates and alterations, offending and slandering more than they edify. Resolution of the Doctoures. THe Doctors, according to the order already begun, and their charge, which is to confer with the Ministers, and then yield Resolution for the instruction of the Duchess of Buillon, Touching the two points proponed yesterday (whether the Apostles be authors of the creed, and why we aught to give Faith thereunto) say it aught not to be esteemed a thing indifferent, to know if the Apostles made and erected the creed, no more than to know if the Apostles be the Authors of their writings: For as their Authority is far greater in the assurance that they proceed certainly from the Apostles, even so of the contrary, it should be less by many degrees▪ if we either doubted of it, or used it as indifferent: They say further it is no sufficient reason, to call this creed Apostolical, and to christian it by the name of the Apostles, in respect of the conformity it hath with their writings, seeing that by the same reason, other Simbols (as that of Niceus, Athanasius & such other like writings, may bear also the name of the apostles Creed, as containing a doctrine agreeing with the writings of the Apostles: and therefore the Doctors say we must believe that the Apostles have made & delivered to Christians this creed, and apply faith to it, as being a writing composed by the Apostles, for proof whereof, they have the authority of all times, since the Apostles till now, that this Creed hath been proponed in Baptism and Catechism, as appeareth by the Authors which have been from the Apostles till our time: neither can we name or note any Author or Council which hath made this creed, that afore the same Author or Council (even until we come immediately to the Apostles) this Simboll hath not been proponed in Baptism and Catechism, and called amongst Christians the rule of Faith: which our such argument, S Augustine in many places against the Donatists, esteems invincible, to prove that something there is of the Apostles: Omitting willingly (for weariness sake) other ancients who acknowledged this creed to be made and received namely of the said Apostles, as S. Ambrose, S. Jerome and others. Touching the second point, the Doctoures say that the bond and necessity to believe this Simboll, depends not of the knowledge of the Apostolical or Prophetical writings, nor of the knowledge of their conformity with them, for it was made and contained amongst Christians in Baptism, afore there were any Apostolical writing, and in Baptism, it was proposed to believe the said creed, afore there was entry into the writings or speech thereof: in the primitive Church, writings were examined, whether they were to be received or not, and the understanding of the same, together if a Doctrine were true or false, by this Simboll and rule of Faith, and to imitate or confront it with it, as Irenaeus, Tertullian and others affirm. And though it should happen, that a man never heard but the Simboll, without knowing whether there were holy Scriptures or not, yet he might believe the said creed, and be a true Christian, so that he were not infected with other particular false opinions. And of the contrary, if the belief of the creed depended upon the knowledge of the Prophetical or Apostolical writings, as to understand and be assured of the conformity that therein is, afore we believe it: only wise men, and such as were well studied in writings (who would assure themselves of the said conformity) should be bound to believe the Symbol, or at the least, assured of the truth of the same, and so there should be few Christians: Therefore the belief of the creed depends not upon the knowledge of the Scriptures. By mean whereof the Doctoures hold by tradition of the Church governed by the holy spirit, that the Creed is of the Apostles, and that there is no doubt thereof. In like sort by the same tradition we must give Faith to it, as a Doctrine of the Apostles not written, and yet of equal authority with that which is in their writings, notwithstanding we had no knowledge of other Scriptures. The Doctoures are very sorry, that the other part hath so much declined to answer pertinently and absolutely to these two points, why they proponed only to show what Faith and authority men ought to attribute to this Symbol, and all other Doctrine received by Tradition of the Apostles (without Canonical writing) which might have been left by them by the same mean and reason, that is showed that the Symbol was given to the Christians by the said Apostles, without that they put it in writing. For end, the Doctors persuade such as shall read this conference, not to amaze or marvel at so many perplexities, declining from the true end of the said two points proponed, with request to remember the conferences of S. Augustine with the Donatists, and Pelagians, whose fashion resembles the present manner of the Ministers with whom they confer, laying themselves notwithstanding upon the judgement of such as shall read the matter of this disputation. Resolution of the Ministers. WHo affirm, according to the former propositions always mentioned by them, & also the better to confirm the faith of the Duchess, that (as S. Cyprian writeth) it is incertain whether the Symbol which bears the name of the Apostles was made & composed such one by them, or else drawn and gathered of their Doctrine: and also why it is called Symbolum, whether it be by reason that every one of them brought his part and portion to it, or that it is a mark or certain sign of Christian Religion: as touching which Regards, it is a thing indifferent for Salvation, as having always one equal weight and authority, whether the Apostles writ it, or whether it was faithfully gathered of their writings, as were also the Symbols aswell of Niceus, as of Athanasius, of whom the Church never doubted, that they contained not a pure Apostolical Doctrine, as she hath well and evidently declared, in ordaining that the said Symbol of Nyceus should be openly published to the people when they assembled for the Communion, the same being in observation at this day in the Church of Rome, where this Symbol is read and sung every Sunday in the Temples, which if it contained not Apostolical Doctrine, it should impugn the 59 Articles of the Council of Laodicene, by which it is forbidden to read in the Church, any thing of Private invention, but only the Doctrine comprehended in the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament whose number is there made. The Ministers do further affirm, that the reason and principal cause of the Faith, which Christians add to this creed, is the knowledge they have, that it is the pure word of God, and he that teacheth it, maintains also that it is God's word, the same appearing by the testimony and writing of S. Paul, who, after he hath proponed to the Corinthians the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of jesus Christ, which be the principal Articles of the creed, as upon which also our justification is chiefly founded: Adds this speech, that he hath given them that which he hath received, which is, that Christ is dead for our sins according to the Scriptures: and after that he was buried, and is risen again the third day, according to the Scriptures. Christ himself also, proposing in like sort his Death, Luk. 24. and Resurrection to his two Disciples, allegeth to them the Scriptures for their more assurance, saying: O fond & weak of heart to believe all things that the Prophets have pronounced: was it not meet the Christ suffered these things, and that he entered into his glory: then beginning at Moses and the other Prophets, he declared to them in all the scriptures the things that were of himself. In the same chapter, appearing to them after his Resurrection, yea afore the creed was made, speaking to them of his death and resurrection, for their better assurance, he lays unto them the scriptures, saying, It is so written, and it was meet that Christ suffered and rise from death the third day, by which we may infer, that for the ground of Faith, and assurance of the Articles of the same, there is no better mean than to propone the Scriptures. And albeit in the time of the Nativity of the Church, the creed was proponed to such as were catechized, afore the Apostles or Evangelists had set down any thing in writing, yet it followeth not for all that, that there were not other scriptures upon which might be founded every Article of Faith: Which to decipher by piecemeal, the Article of Creation hath his foundation upon the beginning of Genesis: The Article of the Almightiness of God hath his ground upon the 40. of Esaie, and many other places of scripture. The Article of the Conception of jesus Christ, upon the seven. of Esay: For the place of his Nativity, upon the u of Micheas, and for the Regard of the Time, upon the xlix. of Genesis, and ix. of Daniel: The Article of his death & the Cross, upon the xxij. Psalm: xxxv. of Esay, and ix. of Daniel: The Article of Resurrection, upon the xuj. Psalm: the Article of Ascension, upon the xcviij. Psalm: the Article of the judgement, in Daniel xii. the Article of his sending the holy ghost, in joel ij. the Article of the Church in Esay 2. and Micheas 4. the Article of Remission of sins in the Psalm 32. and 37. of Ezechiel, and the Article of the Resurrection of the flesh, and eternal life in Daniel 12. It may appear to every one by the places here inferred, that there were clear and evident Scriptures, to ground all the Articles of Faith, afore the creed was bestowed in writing, which might and ought to be exhibited to such as were catechized, for their assurance in that which was proposed them to believe: Neither is it possible that a man may believe, if first he have not understand and heard the word, and that he assure hime self of it, and hold it as certain (and more if it were possible) than the matters conceived, and comprehended by Mathematical demonstrations, as appeareth by the definition of the Faith, when the Apostles calls it Hypostasin and Eleuchon, Hebr 12. which is, subsistence of things which we see not. The Ministers also say, that to call the creed a Doctrine not written, and in the mean while affirm that the Apostles wrote it, is to imply contradiction: Neither can it be showed how long it hath been a doctrine not written, nor since when it hath begun to be written: And greatly do the Ministers grieve, that they who confer with them, do not more labour in the edifying aswell of such as assist the conference, as others to whose view and reading the acts may come. For where they might handle and decide points tending to edify the ignorant, they stay upon the question of others wherein is no doubt at all: The same being no more than to prove a thing already confessed and resolved, and light a Candle at noon days. They assure themselves, that such as shall read the acts of this conference, will not marvel to see them decline from the point wherein they have been so much required, because (as Christ saith) He that doth evil, fleeth the light. For conclusion, the Ministers protest to confess and believe, that the Symbol of the Apostles in every Article is the pure word of God, and that in the faith of the same it behoveth every faithful man to stand and persever until the end: So that for their parts, they will in no sort receive or approve in their Churches any that denieth, or is doubtful of the said Articles. Reply. The Doctors will prove, that the Doctrine of the Ministers containeth points, contrary to the principal Articles of the Creed: As first, against the Article of God's Omnipotency, when they say and teach that God cannot make that one Body be in two places: The second against the Article of Creation, wherein they say, that not only God suffereth that evil and sin be committed, but also doth it himself: The third, sometimes they deny, and erst confess for an Article of Faith, that the virgin Marry should remain a virgin after her delivery: The fourth, that jesus Christ is not descended into Hell but by imagination, and not Really: Yea moreover, against the said Article they say, that jesus Christ despaired of his salvation (upon the tree of the Cross) as being troubled in his conscience with fear to be damned: with many other errors contained in this Article. Upon which objections they advertise the Ministers that they stand ready to answer them. The fifth day of disputation, being the fifteenth of july, and Monday. THe Ministers have required their request before made, and now eftsoons reiterated, for the speedy entry of the Doctoures into conference touching the points of the Mass) to be enregistered: to the end the occasion may be known why the Doctors delay and refuse the said conference. The Doctors not willing to lose time, and mindful withal to follow the accord made in the last day of disputation, according to the which, the Ministers ought to answer touching the errors contained in the doctrine preached by them, against the Articles of the creed, as the Doctors have noted and proposed them, & to enter immediately into the matter, they affirm, that the Ministers have evil alleged S. Cyprian, as to deny that the creed was of the Apostles: For S. Cyprian doubts not at all, neither puts in doubt, as indifferent, whether it be of the Apostles or not, but saith expressly that afore they departed from together, they made the said creed, as appeareth in the Preface of his Exposition. Further the Doctoures demand upon the Article of the Omnipotency (which is the foundation of the Supper and the Sacrament) why in a confession proponed at Poissie before the King by Beza, and after him other Ministers, and bestowed in diverse Books, is not contained the article of the Omnipotency, which is the first and principal Article of Faith, and why they have made so many different confessions of Faith, taking away that they have put in the one, and (of the contrary) adding what they have omitted in the others: And how this Article of the Trinity is not expressly in the first confession, 1564. which they confess, albeit most darkly. Answer. It appears by the acts of the last days conference, that the demand of the Ministers was in nature the self request they presently make, which is, that the point of the Mass might be first decided, as being the chief occasion of the conference. And for that they propone touching the Symbol, the Ministers never doubted, nor yet suspect, but that it is a pure Apostolical Doctrine, which lies to all men's view in reading the acts of the said days Disputation, where, in half a dozen places at the least, they have always confessed & repeated the same: The only thing, they maintained to be in doubt, is, whether the Creed was written by the Apostles or not, wherein they can nothing be verified, nor appear by the Doctors: and S. Cyprian himself whom the doctors produce, gives advertisement to the Readers in his Preface, of the great variety that is in the said Creed, because diverse Churches have added thereunto sundry Articles. He advertiseth beside, that in his Explication he followeth the order of the Church of Aquila, and expounding also the Article of Descension into Hell (whereof the doctors make so great brute) he saith expressly that it is not in the Symbol of the Roman Church, nor of the Churches of the east, whereof may be gathered the incertainty of that which is touched before, and that there is no Article wherein we may reasonably doubt, if it be of those which the Apostles have written, or added by some Churches, or else we must say the Apostles have written diverse creeds. Touching the differences which the Doctors pretend to be in the confessions of the reformed Churches, imprinted and published in diverse Temples, the Ministers deny to differ one from an other in respect of the sense, albeit perhaps some terms may be changed for a more large declaration: and where they allege that in some of them the article of God's almightiness hath been omitted, the Ministers deny it, requiring the Doctors to produce the exemplary of the confession, wherein they say it is omitted, seeing if it should be so it might be falsified & corrupted: They say that in their confession there is nothing either ambiguous or dark, which some of the said Doctors have well showed, when they have dressed a form of confession upon the Patron of those of the reformed Churches, using proper terms and sentences: whereunto they have added nothing to make it diverse, but that which they have in difference with the Ministers & that they could hardly ground upon the scripture. Objection. The Doctors say, the Ministers conceal no whit their boldness to deny things that are manifest, as the opinion of S. Cyprian that the Apostles were the authors, yea, and made and composed the Symbol, referring themselves altogether to the present hearers, and others by whom this writing shallbe read: wherein for their better ground of this denial, they rest upon a very small reason, which is upon the Article of descending into Hell, whether it was brought in by the Apostles, or added by others, as from thence to call again into doubt, whether they be Authors of all the other Articles: The same resembling as if it were said, that it is incertain, whether S. john made his Gospel, because some men doubt whether the History of the adulterer be of him: john. 8. But leaving that apart, the Doctoures demand if they confess not in their Doctrine, that God of his Omnipotency cannot bring to pass that one body be in two places: two bodies in one place: Thirdly, that God cannot bring to pass that one body be invisible: and fourthly, that a body may be in one place, without holding place equal to his greatness. Answer. All these questions are impertinent, & estranged from the confession of the churches, & yet the doctors have chosen it for the foundation of all the conference, in which respect, the Ministers require pertinent disputation, & that they choose one Article or more of the said confession, upon which they pretend to pitch the ground of the said Confession. Objection. These questions are very pertinent to impugn the Articles of the Ministers confession: for there is no question of the proper words contained in the same confession, which is no other thing than a sum of the Faith: But the Doctors seem to impugn the sense of the articles which they know by their proper writings, by which they make open the testimony, that touching the Article of the Omnipotency God cannot bring to pass the things aforesaid: The Doctoures also show, that it is directly to impugn the Doctrine of Heretics, and the true mean to prove against them, that they receive not the holy Scripture when it is proved, they comprehend not the true sense of it: They also say that even the Ministers themselves be the causes of such Questions, having desired to confer of the Mass, by which mean the Doctoures would make them come to it: For the Article of the omnipotency, is the principal ground to prove and sustain God's word, and the Real presence of the body of jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Aultare, marveling much of much declining, considering that when there is speech of their Confession they demand the Mass, and when the Mass is offered, they require their Confession. Answer. The ministers marvel much of so much superfluous matter proponed by the Doctoures: And where they say that albeit they impugn not the terms of the said Confession, yet they resist the sense, the ministers Answer that the sense can not be known but by the terms, by which reason they wrap themselves in a contradiction, when in leaving the terms, they say they will confute the sense: Touching the Conclusion, affirming that one body at one self instant may be in divers places, the Ministers deny in good consequence, that that can not be inferred of the omnipotency of God. Objection. The Doctoures say that it followeth, that God can not bring to pass that at one time one body occupy two places, God then is not almighty. Answer. The Ministers deny the consequence aforesaid, and allege the reason, as that it appears by the holy Scripture, that God can not deny himself, 1. Timo. 2 Hebr. 6. as also it is impossible that he can lie, and yet it were blasphemy to infer thereupon, that he is not omnipotent: For the almightiness of God aught to be measured according to his will, and things which are convenient to his nature, as the Master of sentences teacheth, saying: that God is almighty in that, that his ability is of power and not of infirmity, which, S. Jerome writing to Eustachius, confirms by this that followeth: I will say hardly, albeit God can do all things, yet can he not raise or réestablishe a Virgin after her fall. S Augustine in like sort in the fifth Book of the City of God. Chap 10. useth these words: God's power is in nothing lessened, when it is said he can not die, nor be deceived. And a little after, God is almighty, because there be things which he can not do: The same Author in the .26. of the same work. Chap. 8. useth this speech, he that saith, if God be almighty, let him bring to pass that things which are made, be not made, doth nor mean, that it is as much as if he should say, if he be omnipotent, let him bring to pass that the things that are true (in as much as they are already true) be false: Theodoretus also in his third Dialogue conformably to this, saith: we must not without Determination say generally, that all things are possible to God, because he that saith so absolutely, comprehends things that are good, and wicked matters also, which be their contraries. And a little after, he affirms that God can not sin, as being a thing far from his nature: And so concludes, that albeit there be many things which he can not do (seeing there be many sins) that yet for all that he forbears not to be omnipotent. Objection. The Doctors find in the reasons aforesaid a Confession of the antecedent, which should seem to be only supposed, God could not bring to pass that one body at one season should be in two places, no more than he is able to do the things by them alleged: for they allege them to this end, to show that there be somethings which God can not do, which they can not apply to the present Question (that one body can not use two places) without Declaration that it is impossible to God. And touching the reasons recited of the holy Scripture, that God can not lie nor deny himself, those places (under correction) serve nothing to purpose: For as they have alleged out of the Master of sentences, to lie, and to be able to sin, is not power, but empower, so of the contrary, if God could sin, he should be impuissant and weak, neither could God do so, for than he should resist and destroy himself. And touching the Examples drawn out of S. Jerome and S. Augustine. that God could not bring to pass, that a corrupt Virgin should remain a Virgin, and that a thing done, should not be done, that being understand as the Theologians say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 u c●●posito, (which is, the things being such and so done) it is true: and the reason is, that otherwise it would imply contradiction. But in the Question proposed, there is nothing like, which only Demands, if God by his power can altar and change the Nature and quality of things created: as if he could bring to pass, that a heavy thing abiding in his quality of heaviness & weight (which naturally weighs downward) should remain by the only virtue of God, hanging on high, as we read in the holy Scripture, that the fire which naturally ascends and stretches on height, descends downward by the virtue of God, and also that fire of his proper nature ardente and burning, makes cold (his own quality that is the heat) reasting in the substance: as also that two bodies may be in one place, as appeareth when our Lord entered where the Apostles were, the doors being shut: or that a great and large body remaining in his grossness and bigness, passeth thorough a place inequal to his greatness and largeness as the Camel thorough the eye of a needell. All which Examples, as they are taken of the scripture, so if it must be that God can not bring to pass that one body be in two places, he can no more do the things aforesaid, by the reasons which shall be deduced hereafter to that end. And as it will never be found to enter into the brain of an interpreter to deny such power, so the first that hath denied it openly, was Peter Martyr, and after him Beza. The Doctoures say further, that the form of arguing which the Ministers use, impugns and reverseth that which God observeth in the holy scripture, and the Angel speaking to the virgin: for God ordinarily when he assureth any thing impossible to nature, & that men cannot comprehend, allegeth generally his power: like as also the Angel laying a foundation of the Incarnation of our Lord, saith generally there is nothing impossible to God, as touching his creatures: But is it so that the generality of an argument is deserved, by particular exceptions, and made unprofitable and without force by that mean: When God then allegeth generally, that his power can do it, it may be doubted of, and thought that the things proponed of God, may be of those that are impossible to him: aswell as the exceptions alleged of the ministers: And that also should be false which the Angel saith, that there is nothing impossible to god, by that, that many things are alleged and proponed to the contrary: So that to the end God and his Angels, be maintained true in their words, we must not doubt that he can not change and transform his creatures and all their qualities much more easily, than a potter is able to work his clay, and form at his pleasure any vessel thereof. Further, if we limit the power of God towards his creatures, there is danger, that we fall not to deny him his Empire and dominion over them: for to be Lord over a creature, is no other thing than to have power to change and altar him, and give him such a nature and quality, as he thinks good, as having him altogether in his power: And therefore God in jeremy, to show that he had power to reverse and destroy jerusalem (according to his pleasure) begins to say, I am Lord over all flesh, is there any thing impossible to me: and therefore the Doctoures conclude, that there is danger if this question be maintained as impossible to God, that every one will do as much: alleging the self examples that the ministers do, to exempt from God's power all things that displease him. And when such matter shall be produced out of Scripture, he may interpret the Scripture in other sense, saying: that such a thing shallbe impossible to God in the natural sense of the words of the Scripture, even as the ministers change the Scripture, which saith that the body of jesus Christ is in two places, that is, the word of the Supper compared with the word of the Ascension, and they say, that that speech of the Supper ought not to be understanded literally, because it is impossible to God that one Body be in two places: And so the Doctors say, that every one would corrupt the Literal sense of the Scripture, holding that the thing is impossible to God, and therefore the Scripture must be otherways understand: and yet it may so happen, that it is only because it doth displease him, producing notwithstanding the same reasons and allegations which the Ministers do to declare that all things are not impossible to God. The Doctors conclude eftsoons, that it is better to maintain the Scripture in his truth, albeit she propose things incomprehensible and impossible to our judgement, than to give way to every one to deprave God's word, applying it to his own will and fancy, under shadow to say, that it is impossible to God, and so to allege other examples. lastly they will not omit, that the Ministers, who have so deeply protested to rest & stay upon the pure word of God, allege not against God's power but the ancient doctors, aiding themselves with their authorities against the express word of God, which bears, that nothing is impossible to him generally without some exception. Answer. The Ministers answer that the Doctoures prove not their consequence, but leave it as in a distrust not to be able to confirm it, as is most likely: They make no mention but of the Antecedent of their consequence, to the confession of which it will never be possible to them to bring the Ministers by the reasons and authorities by them alleged so strengthen their said consequence, because of a Particular they infer a General, which is against the Rules of Dialectice: where they say, that the authorities alleged by the Ministers, appertain nothing to reprove their consequence, and to show that God forbears not to be almighty, notwithstanding that he cannot do any thing which derogates his nature: They refer themselves for that, to the ancient authors aforesaid, who for the same and & reason of the ministers allege the said exceptions. Where they pretend that the Authorities and Sentences alleged of the ancients, do nothing appertain to the present question, as denying that they ought to be understand of other things, except such as contain in themselves contradiction. The Ministers answer, that even so doth that which they propone of a Body that in one instant he may he in diverse places: the same being as much as if they had said, that a Body is, and is not at one time, and that a Body is one, and not one. And lastly that a Creature may be incircumscript, and not enclosed in certain limits: which if it were so, he should be no more a Creature, but a God, as may be gathered of the saying of S. Basile in his Book of the Holy Ghost, Chapter 22. whose opinion is, that the Angel which appeared to Cornelius was not in the self place where Philip was, and he which of the Aultare spoke to Zacharie, did not furnish at the same time he spoke to him, his Seat and place in Heaven: But the Holy Ghost is in Abacuc, and Daniel in Babylon, and in Ezechiell upon the blood of Chobar, for the Spirit of God replenisheth the Earth: wherein the Prophet crying, saith, Wither shall I go to hide me from thy Spirit? where shall I flee to decline from thy face? And Dydimus confirming this in his Book which he hath written of the Holy Ghost, makes this question, If, saith he, the Spirit of God were a Creature, he should have his substance circumscript and limited, as have all other Creatures which are made and created: So that, as it is that God's Spirit replenishes the world, and is not circumscript in any place, nor limited, so it followeth thereupon that he is God. Vigilius in his Disputation which he wrote between Sabellius, Photius, Arius, and Athanasius, under the person of Athanasius, writes in this sort: By this it may chiefly appear, that the Spirit of God, is God, that he is every where, and not contained in any place, as the Prophet writes, whither may I withdraw myself to hide me from thy Spirit? By these places we may conclude, that if a Body be not circumscript, termined, and closed within certain limits, he could not be a Creature, which ought not only to be understand by other Bodies, but also even by jesus Christ: as appeareth by Theodorete in his second Dialogue, saying, than the Body of the Lord is risen again, exempt from all corruption, impassable and immortal, decked with Divine glory, adored & worshipped with the Celestial powers. And yet albeit he be in this sort qualified, he leaves not for all that to be circumscript, as he was afore he was glorified, whereof it followeth, that being true Body & Creature, he cannot at one instant be in sundry places. Touching their allegations, that the examples aforesaid appertain nothing to the question proponed, because it stretcheth not but to know if God may change the qualities into a Substance, the substance remaining: The Ministers deny it, because in the Question there is mention of a Body, which cannot be without his Measures: And the measures and Dimensions be not as Qualities and Accidents, which may come to a Body and depart from it, without that it be corrupted (which is the nature & condition of Accidents) but they are of their proper Essence, so that it is impossible that a Body be a Body, but that he be measured & circumscript. The first example they produce to confirm their saying, is, that it may hap, that a weighty thing, which naturally in respect of his heaviness inclines downward, may be raised on high, whereunto the Ministers answer, that the same may be in deed by a violent moving: but this example is nothing pertinent to reverse that which they have said, because such things contain no contradiction in themselves, neither are they contrary to the essence of the thing where they happen: for a stone which a man throws on high, leaves not for all that to be a stone, like as also by the same moving it is not deprived of his weightiness. Touching the Example of the Fire, they answer, that there is one self reason both of light and heavy things, and that without any corruption of their Essence, their natural movings may be changed by force and violence done to them. Touching their allegation of the fire, which contrary to his nature that is to skorche and burn) refreshed the three jews in the Furnace of Babylon, they answer, that the fire, for all that was in nothing altered, neither touching his Essence, nor in respect of his qualities: Whereof the proof fell out, in that it sparing the said three Children, burnt and consumed the Tormentoures, or such as had office to dress it. By which may be well alleged, that why it did not offend them, proceeded not for that his nature or quality were in any thing changed, but only because his action was suspended. And where they allege that two Bodies may be at once in one place, proving the same by that which is written in S. john, that Christ entered where his Disciples were, the doors being shut: The Ministers answer, that it is not so in the Text, but that the Disciples being assembled in one place, jesus Christ stood, and appeared in the midst of them: By which it cannot be inferred that he entered the place where they were without opening the doors, nor that he did pierce or penetrate them to make his entry. And it is no less likely true, that they were open and shut again, than the doors which the Angel opened & shut again, Actor. 12. Actor. 5. when he was sent to deliver S. Peter out of Prison, and when he was likewise sent for the delivery of the Apostles. And where they bring in a gross Body passing through a strait place, alleging the example of a Cable through the hole of a Needle, the Ministers find it alleged to evil purpose, as an argument founded upon a thing impossible, and say further, that the Doctors have evil understand the term of Camelos, which is usurped in the Scripture not for a Cable, but for a Camel: As is manifest enough to those that are but slenderly exercised in the antiquities of the Hebrews, and as appeareth by the opinion of Angelius Caninius, upon the end of his Chaldey Grammar: Touching the conclusion, which the Doctors draw of the former examples it is to evil purpose, and grounded upon the Antecedentes and premises which they bring in presupposed, and neither as yet confessed by us, nor will not be in the sense wherein they allege them, for the reasons here afore declared. Touching that which they say against the opinion of the Ministers, that one body at one instant can not be in two places, yea were it the body of jesus Christ, and that it was never written by any the ancients, nor proponed afore the coming of Peter Martyr, and Theodore de Beza, the Ministers maintain it was advouched afore their time, as S. Augustine in his Epistle written to Dardanus, using these terms: According to this form, saith he, (meaning the corporal form of jesus Christ) we must not think that it is every where, as also we must use good heed, that in establishing to him his Divinity, we take not from him the truth of his body: And in an other place he saith, that by reason of the nature and measure of his body, he is in one place of heaven: Theodoretus using the self same speech or Phrase in his second Dialogue, as hath been alleged here before: Like as also Vigilius in his fourth Book against Eutiches, useth this Question, if it be but a Nature of the word and the Flesh, how comes it that the Flesh is not in every place, as the Word is every where (of which Word the Flesh was taken to constitute a person and Hypostase.) For when it was upon the earth, it was not in heaven, and now that it is in heaven, sure it can not be upon earth: And much less that it is there, seeing we expect that jesus Christ come according to the Flesh, whom notwithstanding we believe is with us on earth, according as he is the word: By these Authorities and such like which are often found in the writings of the Ancients, the world may perceive that Peter Martyr and Theodore de Beza, be not the first authors of this Doctrine, but that it is falsely laid upon them, because they have but drawn, and as it were written it word for word out of the Books of the Ancients. Where the Doctoures pretend, that the form of Argument which the Ministers use, affirming that to say any thing is impossible to God, doth not derogate his omnipotency: destroyeth the form of argument used by the Angel speaking to the virgin, for the confirmation of his message, that nothing was impossible to God: the ministers Answer, that that is nothing to purpose, because the question doth neither import a thing containing in itself any contradiction, nor that is contrary to the truth of God. Touching the opinion of the Doctors, that God can change the nature and quality of things, there is none that doubts thereof: But when that is done, it must also be advowed that things being changed, remain no more in their first nature: and the Ministers say that it is not all one touching the thing here proponed, because the Doctoures would have a thing devil in his essence and nature, notwithstanding his essential parts be changed, yea and wholly extinct and abolished: Touching the limitation of the power of God on the behalf of his creatures, there is no man so senseless, as to enterprise to limit in all respects, that which he will, and that confesseth not, that he may ordain and dispose of all his Creatures in general as it pleaseth him, and as a potter doth of his mould, wherein their opinion runs that the authority of jeremy aught to be referred thither, as appeareth clearly by these Hebrew words, lo gippale mimivecha col-davar, which is, Lord, nothing shall be hard to thee. Touching the peril which the Doctoures pretend, may rise of the Ministers said Answers, they say, that people of good and sound judgement, can not frame any evil consequence of it, considering that all this Doctrine is true, and contains no obscurity: but if perhaps any cull out an evil profit of it, it is to be imputed to themselves and their evil understanding, by which, not only any Doctrine, but also the word of God itself may sometimes be perverted and corrupted: To be short, all things (as sayeth the Apostle) are clean to those that be clean, and filthy to such as are so, and have a wicked Conscience. Where the Doctoures allege, that there may be occasion taken by the Doctrine aforesaid, to interpret the Scriptures according to a self sense and fancy, the Ministers deny it, and say: That if the world enterprise it, it is easy enough to reject his interpretation as not correspondente to the Rules and Analogy of Faith, wherewith the said Doctrine and interpretation of the Ministers doth agree and consent. And where they say that the Ministers change and altar the Scripture, they Answer that it is a reproach and slander not to be verified against them, neither touching their writings, their words, nor any thing by them delivered, either by speech or thought. Where they say that the Scripture is of opinion that the body of jesus Christ is in two places, the Ministers deny it, and say, that (on the contrary) the Scripture establisheth him in heaven and not elsewhere: And Heaven must contain him, until the time of restoration of all that hath been forespoken by the mouth of his holy Prophets, from the beginning of the world. And where they allege that the Scripture aught not to be interpreted according to the sense and fancy of every one. The Ministers confess it with this Addition, that all interpretations aught to be examined as S. Paul saith, and that such examination be made by the collation and conference of the Scriptures. And lastly, where the Doctoures accuse the Ministers, to have alleged no place of the Scripture, before they produced the ancients to confirm their said Doctrine, the Ministers say, they are falsely imposed, for that, if they well remember, they alleged to the same end in the beginning of their discourse, the opinion of S. Paul, written in the second Epistle to Timothe, and the second Chapter, where it is said that God can not deny himself, and also that is written in the sixth Chapter to the hebrews, that it is impossible for God to lie: Which places together with the opinions of the Ancients, were not alleged as to diminish the omnipotency of God, but rather to establish it, and cut of the way to many impieties and blasphemies, which they would falsely exhibit, and cover them under the colour of God's almightiness, without having regard to the will declared, to which we must refer the power. The sixth day of disputation, being Tuesday the sixteenth of Julie. THe Doctoures Object, that they have made this Argument: God can not bring to pass that one body be in two places: then God is not Almighty: which consequence how necessary it is, is fully manifest without other proof, by the law of contradiction: for according to the rule holden in all Schools of Philosophers, two contradictions can not be true: To be able to do all things, and not able to do certain particular things, be contradictions, seeing this particular thing is one part of the whole: So that it must needs be, that if the antecedent be true, the consequent must be false, according to the law of contradiction, for both can not be true together, as things of contradiction: And albeit by the knowledge of the very terms, the consequence may be judged to be good, yet it may easily be known by the handling of the Objection against the Answer of the Ministers, that the Doctors have proved the consequence: This was the reason of the Ministers, God can not lie nor sin, and can not bring to pass that things done, should not be done, because that either it impugns his nature, or there is repugnancy of the part of the creatures, because there is contradiction entangled. But the Doctors affirmed in their Objection, that there is no such thing in the Question proponed, which is, if one body may be in two places: whereof they make this kind of Arguing taken of their Objection: God can do all things that impugn not his nature, either when there is no resistance of the part of the creatures, and that there is implied no contradiction: to affirm that a body may be in two places at one instant, is a thing not repugnant to the nature of God, and of the part of the body doth imply no contradiction. Then God can do it, or else so, God cannot do it: than it followeth that God is not almighty: in this sort is proponed the reason and deduction of the antecedent and consequent, and also the proof of the assumption or second preposition: for it is proved that there is no contradiction in saying that one body may be in two places, & that it doth not impugn the nature of God, whereof the proof hath been made by the Example of like things, as God may bring to pass that two bodies may be in one place, with other like reasons, which are deduced in the Objection. And where they say the Doctoures do argue evil from a particular to an universal, it seems (under correction) they have forgotten the rules of Dialectice, as being most certain that this rule hath place in the affirmative, and not in the negative: But (of the contrary) when there is any thing affirmed generally, and the default is proved in particular (as say the Dialecticians) Ad negationem perticularis sequitur negatio eius quod universaliter affirmatum est. In like sort when any thing is affirmed of the whole which hath many parts, and the default be proved in one part, the destruction of the whole followeth: As if one would say, all the body is whole, who would prove one part of that body diseased, should prove this proposition false, all the body is whole: such is the manner of arguing which the Doctors have made, that is, that if God can not do a particular thing (as to bring to pass that one body be in two places) than he can not do all things, or if he can do all things, he can also do that. They are sorry to be referred to their dialectic, as consisidering none other end, than to make the antecedent granted, which is, that God can not bring to pass that one body be in two places: wherein for their parts they are glad to understand the Resolution of the Ministers upon this Article, which is, that God can not bring to pass, nor can not will, that one body be in two places, because it implies contradiction. And where the Ministers say, that the Doctors by their reasons, can not infer the truth of the antecedent, the Doctors confess it, by which the ministers also perceive that the reasons which they have brought forth, are nothing worth to the confirmation of the Antecedent, which is their resolution. But the Doctoures say, that those reasons, albeit they were not available, yet were they brought forth by the ministers, to this end, to prove the impossibility of God to bring to pass that one body should be in two places. For the Article beginning touching the authorities, etc., the Doctoures Object, that the ancients never thought to make any exception of any thing which is not subject to the power of God: for (as it is manifest) he that saith all, excepteth nothing, so, when the scripture saith that God is almighty, her meaning is clear, that there is no exception: and to give exception in this, should be no less to gainsay many places of God's word, than to blaspheme his power. But the Doctoures say, that the ancients have interpreted the omnipotency of God not to comprehend that which toucheth the perfection of his nature, but only that which concerneth creatures: So that there be not to manifest contradiction & repugnancy of their part. The present Question imports not that there is not contradiction, that one body be a body, and that at one instant it be in divers places: For of the essence of bodies, speaking of one body having his dimensions, according to the phrase of the Philosophers de predicamenio quantitatis, it is certain, that the Dimensions be of the essence of a body: but to be circumscript and enclosed in a place, is accidental: The same being declared by Philosophy: for the most high heaven according to his whole, is a body, and yet it is not in place according to his whole. And therefore it is not a thing essential to a body, to be enclosed in one place. Wherein to speak of the present matter, the Ministers should be much encumbered to prove that the body of jesus Christ is in one place in Heaven, seeing it is written in the fourth of the Ephesians, he is mounted above all the Heavens, out of the which there is no place, as they speak of places in regard of bodies according to nature: And if it were so, that it were essential to one body, to be in one place (according to the rule which the Ministers give) there would follow an other blasphemy against the omnipotency of God, that God could not make one body, and bestow it, above all the Heavens, and (to speak more universally) that God could not make a body without place equal to his greatness. Touching the Allegations proponed by the Ministers of certain Ancient authors, the Doctoures Object that those Allegations make against themselves, because, to be enclosed in one place, depends not of the essence of the body, nor his dimensions, as appeareth by the Authorities produced, making mention of the Angels who have no bodies: it it is not then an essential reason, that the dimension of one body be contained in one place: Neither doth all this blonderment of Authorities make any thing to purpose, seeing they tend not but to show that the natural property of creatures, is different from the nature Divine, as saith S. Basile expressly in the place alleged by the Ministers, as S. Ambrose in the first Book of the holy Ghost. Chap. 7. where the said authors declare that God of his nature may be everywhere, as his creatures by their natures, not: neither do the said Authors pretend that God by his omnipotency can not make one body to be in divers places, seeing even very they (or their like) when they come to speak of the power of God in the holy sacrament, affirm that Christ's body is in heaven, and in the holy Sacrament, inveighing also by the same power, that the Angels and souls of the blessed, may be in many places, and the Doctors will recite in their Resolution. Where the Ministers say that a Body must be circumscript of the place according to his essential property: that hath been declared false here before: And the Ministers confound the name of a body, which signifieth sometimes substance, sometimes quantity, having his dimensions, largeness, length, and profoundness: which dimensions are essential in a body, taking body for form of quantity, and not in a substantial body, for than it is accidental: It is most certain that God may separate the accidents of a body, & make a substance without accidents, otherways would follow an other blasphemy, that God could not separate the accident from a subject and substance: And where the Ministers say, that by a violent moving, a stone may be thrown on high, it is not Answered to the Question: For the Doctors demand, seeing it is essential and natural to a body earthly and heavy in respect of his weight and heaviness to tend downward, to know, if God by his only virtue against the natural property of a body heavy and weighty, can not hold and suspend it on high. And touching the evasion which the Ministers make of a most strong and mighty argument against their Doctrine, that two bodies may be in one place according to the proof taken of the scripture (not only to justify that God can bring to pass that two bodies may be in one place, but also that he hath done it) serves for nothing to cover their error, as to say, that in S. john it is not written that our Lord did not enter by the gates shut, but that he was in the midst of them and stood: where the said Ministers held their peace, and omitted this Verb venit, reasting only upon this Verb stetit: For the express Text of S. john, Chapter .21. verse .19. saith, that the doors being shut, jesus came into the place where the Disciples were assembled, and was there in the midst of them: And therefore we now ask them, seeing the Scripture sayeth he came thither the Doors being shut, and was in the midst of them: Whether he was in the midst of them, and in the said place, without entering: Or if he did enter, seeing the Text bears that the Doors were shut when he came, how will they prove by the Scripture that he entered there, but by the shut doors: the same seeming a greater miracle to be in the midst of his Disciples, without entering into the place where they were. This refuge is too light to say, it is not written, that he entered: For S. Augustine in his Book de Ago Christiano Chap. 24. useth these words: Nec nos moveat quòd clausis ostijs subito eu●n apparnisse Discipulis scriptum est: ut propterea negemus illud fuisse humanum, quia contra naturam huius Corporis videmus illud per clausa ostia intrare: omnia enim possibilia sunt Deo. Nam & ambulare super aquas contra naturam huius Corporis esse manifestum est: & tamen non solum ipse Dominus ante Passionem ambulavit, sed etiam Petrum ambulare fecit: Wherein appears that S. Augustine holds openly that our Lord entered by the shut doors: referring the whole to the almightiness of God. Besides, the Text of S. Luke, Luke, 24, joined with the authority of S. john, declares that he entered through the doors: for the Apostles had not had reasonable occasion to think it was a Spirit, and not a Body, seeing him in the semblance of a man before them, but that he entered otherways, than a true Body and a true man can do, meaning that he entered by the shut doors, which a true man and true body could no way do. Neither could it serve to any purpose to say, that the doors were open, and then shut by miracle or otherways: For so might a true body & a true man enter, the same taking away all occasion to think that it was a Spirit or Vision. Moreover the Doctors say, that all the Ancient Heretics and Christians were of this common accord, that jesus Christ passed through: but their difference was such, as at this day is between the Doctors and the Ministers: The Ancient Heretics held, that Christ, after his Resurrection had not a true body, because he did works contrary to the nature of a body, the same implying contradiction in the natural body, that in one instant he was in one self place with an other body, as when he had passed through the doors: The Ancient Christian Catholics answered, that truly the nature of the Body bore, that he could not pass through the doors, issue out of the body of the virgin in his birth without breaking it, nor come through the stone of the Sepulchre in his Resurrection, but yet that it did not imply contradiction that two bodies should be together by the Omnipotency of God, because it was so happened in the three cases done and recited. The first that speaks of it, is justinus Martyr, in the 117. Question against the Gentiles, wherein he makes this Demand, If a body gross or thick (saith he) be let to be able to pass through the doors, how did our Lord enter the doors being shut, after his Resurrection? And if it be so, why was the stone rolled by the Angel from the mouth of the grave, to the end his body might rise again? he answers, even as our Lord without changing his Body into a Spirit, walked upon the sea, making in deed by his Divine power the sea hard to walk upon it, and not only to bear his body, but S. Peter's also: even so by his divine power came he out of his grave, the stone lying upon it, and entered to his Disciples the doors being shut, by which as we have to understand, that things proceeding of diverse virtues, ought to have a like Faith, even so we ought to know that such things as pass nature, when they are done in the same by power divine, aught not be measured according to the reason and property of nature: in which respect our Lord seeing his Disciples troubled with his entry, offered them to touch the parts of his body, & the marks & scars of his wounds, to the end they might see he did not enter by changing his body into a spirit, but in his proper body composed of his convenient dimensions & thickness, and that by his Divine almightiness, which did all things exceeding the force of nature. S. Hilary in his third Book of the Trinity, even of thee (saith he) which will search things iuscrutable, & be judge of God's secrets & his power, I ask counsel, that thou give me reason and solution only of this deed, yea to me that am ignorant & believe simply in God touching all things as he hath said and pronounced them: I mean, that as the Lord hath oftentimes presented himself after his Resurrection to be seen and known of those who believed it not: So the same Lord applying himself to the imbecility of our understanding, and to satisfy the doubts of the unfaithful, shows a secret, & an act of his Omnipotency. Therefore expound to me, who ever thou art, that wilt be a searcher of the Omnipotency of God, the reason of this fact: The Disciples were enclosed together, and drawn into a secret place: the Lord revealed himself to Thomas, to confirm his Faith according to the condition he desired, that is, to touch his body, and prove his wounds: For which reason and cause, it must needs be, that he bore even that true body wherein he had received those wounds. I ask then, seeing he was Corporal, by what part of the house did he thrust or intrude himself within? For I see the Evangelists opinion is plain, that jesus came the doors being shut, and was amid his Disciples: Did he penetrate the gross walls, or great bar of wood that was between both? It is most true, he entered without fiction or deceit. Let thy reason follow and consider his Entry, and thy understanding enter into the shut house with him: Thou seest that all is sound and fast at the Lock, and yet he was in the midst of his Disciples, but that is, because all things are open to him by his Omnipotency. Thou blamest things invisible, I ask thee again the reason of that thing visible. From the Walls or Gates firm nothing recules or gives place: And yet I see of the contrary the wood and stones by their nature cannot receive such entry. The lords Body was not unmade, to be made again of nothing: then from whence comes it, that he was in the midst without opening the door? The sense and the word fail in this, and the truth of the act is above man's reason, so that as we are abused of the birth of the Son of God, so do we also lie of that Entry: we say, the fact is false, and that it did not so happen, because we are not able to understand the reason, and because our sense and judgement fail, we say, there was no such fact: but the Faith & belief of the fact convinceth our dream: the Lord was amid his Apostles the house being shut, and the Son of God was borne of his Father: do not deny that he entered thus, because by the infirmity of the spirit thou art not able to comprehend this manner of entry. I could amplify like facts in all his creatures, but the Lord hath well foreseen in himself, to have us contained in necessity and modesty by the nature of our bodies: we declare sufficiently that we would be an other God, if we had the power, and because we cannot by the audacity of our wicked will, reverse the nature of truth, at the least we gainsay it, and raise war with the words of God. S. Ambrose in his second Book upon SAINT Luke the 24. Chapter, saith, Through the doors. S Chrysostome upon S. john proves by such entry, that jesus Christ was so borne of the virgin, that she remained a virgin in her delivery and after, without any breaking: concluding that both the one and the other fact proceed of the omnipotency of God. The same Chrysostome in his second Homily upon the Symbol of the Apostles, useth these words, how is it that Christ entered, the gates being shut etc. because such things are above us, and we cannot yield a reason of this miracle, we hold it by Faith. S Jerome in his first Book against jovinian, and in his Epistle to Pammachius, against the errors of john jerosolymitan, who said that jesus had not a true Body after his resurrection, because it was impossible a true body should pass through the doors, and that he was in the same place with an other body, answers, that the same letted not that the nature of the body did not remain, because the act proceeded of the almightiness of God: He useth also these speeches, tell me thou subtle disputer, which is the greatest, either to hung all the weight and greatness of the earth upon nothing, balance it above the freight of the waters, or that God pass by a door shut, and the Creature obey his Creator: That which is the greatest, thou wilt agree unto easily, and which is the least, thou reprochest: S. Augustie in his thirteenth Epistle for an example of God's Omnipotency, recites also this fact, as in declaration aswell that our Lord was borne by the virgin without any breaking of her Body, as also that Gods Almightiness is greater than we can comprehend. S. Augustine also recites the same Fact in his Book de Ago Christiano against the Valentinians, and others that denied the true Substance of the Body of jesus Christ, because, contrary to the nature of Bodies, he did so pass and enter. Amphilochius and Theodoret in the second Dialogue disputing of this deed against Eutyches, who held also that after the Resurrection Christ's Humanity was transnatured into his Divinity, because that against the nature of bodies he passed in that order through the doors being shut, answer with the others, that such an effect imports not contradiction to the nature of the body, as proceeding of the Omnipotency of God, and not of the nature of the body. Cyri● in the 12. Book upon S. john rebukes also such as seek to compass the miracles and doings of God according to their judgements and property of creatures, against whom he useth sharp speech. S. Augustine recites in his first Book against julian Chap. 2. that jovinian was an Heretic, in that he said, the virgins womb was disclosed in her delivery, which he said so, for fear to fall into the Heresy of the Manicheans, whose opinion was that jesus had not a true body, because he was borne without breaking of his mother, so that to eschew this Heresy, he did rather deny that the virgin remained a virgin: This kind of Heresy was also laid upon Origen, like as also some allege that the Ancients (as Tertullian) was of this opinion. By these testimonies the Doctoures conclude, that two bodies to be penetrated and be in one self place by the Divine virtue, implies no contradiction, which places if they were well considered, men would receive no new interpretation against the express word of God, seeing the text bears simply, that Christ came to his Disciples the doors being shut. It may be seen easily, how Caluin in his Institution hath depraved the sense of this place of S. john, with other like, Lib. 4. Cap. 17. Sect. 29. saying, what so ever the world allegeth again, that Christ issued out of the Grave, & not opened it, & entered to his disciples, the Chamber door being shut, is nothing worth any more to maintain their error: For as the water served to jesus Christ as a firm pavement to walk upon the Lake, so we aught not think it strange, if the hardness of the stone become soft, to give him place. Beza also in his second Dialogue against Hesshusius, saith: The Stone become nothing, to the end the Lord might pass to his Resurrection, and then after God refashioned it. It followeth also in the text of Caluin, that to enter into a Chamber the doors being shut, is not to say he pierced the wood, but only he made opening by his Divine virtue, in sort that in a wonderful manner, he was in the midst of his Disciples, notwithstanding the doors were shut. He saith further, which they bring in of S. Luke, that he vanished suddenly from his Disciples which went to Emaus: it serves them for nothing, and applies to our advantage. For to take away the sight of his Body, he is not made invisible, but only is vanished, as also the said evangelist doth witness: when he walked he was not transfigured nor disguised, as to be invisible, but he governed and held their eyes. These frivolous and vain expositions be brought in by Caluin and his like, to eschew confession that God is able to bring to pass that one body be in diverse places, and yet the proper text of the Scripture witnesseth that two bodies may be by the power of God in one self place, as also that one body having colour, and afore visible, by God's power is made invisible, without any let to the eyes of such as may see: the same being confirmed by S. Luke, saying, Aphantos egeneto apanton, I nuisibilis factus est ab ipsis, notwithstanding there were no more le●te of the part of the Disciples: For it is said afore, that their eyes were opened to know him: Whereunto all antiquity consentes. The Doctors add to confirm the penetration of the dimensions, an other act: that our Lord mounted to the Heavens, which he did neither divide nor rent, and therefore it must needs be, that he penetrated them, as the Scripture bears in proper terms. The Doctoures signify to the said Ministers, that they cannot produce one only ancient of sound renown, Hebr. 4.14. having expounded these places, of whom they may learn their so many diverse interpretations, neither doth it serve to colour their exposition, the text alleged of the Acts of the Apostles where S. Peter went out of prison, in which place is no speech at all of opening the doors of the said prison: neither is it said (as in S. john) that the doors of the prison being shut, S Peter came forth: but that the Angel arrived there, johan. 12. when the Guard before the door watched the prison: where they say, the doors were open to S. Peter, it agreeth not with the opinion of S. john, that the doors were shut when our Lord entered. The like reason alleged by the said Ministers of the fifth of the Acts is unprofitable to this purpose, aswell as the first, and for the same cause. And to show clearly and evidently, that against the natural property of Bodies God can make, that a great and gross Body may pass into a space and place inequal to his greatness, largeness, and thickness: The Doctoures have recited that which our Lord saith in S. Mathewe 19 It is more easy that a Cable enter the eye of a Needle, than a Rich man into the Kingdom of Heaven, whereunto the Ministers have answered two things: The one, that in the involution we must not turn Cable, but rather Camel: notwithstanding their own french Bible of the impression of Antony Kebul, which they have brought, containeth the version of this word Cable: like as also Caluin in his Harmony of the four Evangelists saith, it is the better. Wherein may be seen and found true that which Tertullian inveigheth against the Valentinians, and Irenaeus against him in the first Book Chap. 14. that such as are separated from us, to put themselves in an other school, devise always some new thing, to the end the Disciples may be found more able than the Masters: But be it that the word of Camel is granted to them (which the Doctoures doubt not hath been expounded by S. Hilary, S. Jerome, & others) the reason is yet stronger: For it is more unlikely and repugnant, that a crooked Camel gross and great, enter the hole of a Needle, than a Cable. The other reason given by the Ministers is, that God may bring to pass that a Camel or Cable enter the eye of a Needle, which is notwithstanding against the pure word of jesus Christ, which saith, It is not impossible to God to do it, but rather easy, and by comparison, more easy to God than to make a Rich man enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, which our Lord saith notwithstanding to be possible, not to men, but to God, to whom nothing is impossible: whereupon the doctors say, that if God can do that which is most hard, he may do that which is most easy: The text of the Scripture imports that God may bring to pass that a rich man enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, which is most hard, than he may bring to pass, that a Camel (or Cable) enter the eye of a Needle, which is more easy. The answers of the Ministers here before confuted, tend to these absurdities and blasphemies, that jesus Christ by his Omnipotency could not enter through the doors being shut: that he could not issue out of the womb of his Mother, through her body, without breaking: that he could nor bring to pass that a body visible should be invisible: that a body great and gross could be in a place inequal to himself: that he could by his Divine power make penetration of the Dimensions, and that he may bring to pass by the same power Divine, that one body be in two places (for it is all one reason of this last Article and the others) albeit such things are declared in the Scripture not only possible, but that the most part have been done. And the Doctoures do much marvel how the Ministers dare deny this, seeing themselves must necessarily confess, (if the Doctrine of the Supper which they give be true) that the body of jesus Christ is in divers places, which they prove thus: The faithful receive in their souls Really, the substance of the body and blood of jesus Christ, by the operation of the holy Ghost, and not only the bread and wine, or the effect and virtue of the same Sacrament, as Calume saith in his institutions, lib. 4. cap. 17. sect. 11. The Doctoures conclude thus: it is impossible that a person receive the substance of the body of jesus Christ in himself, but that the body of jesus Christ must be in him: All the Faithful which be at the Supper, receive him in their souls, so that it must needs be that the body of jesus Christ be in them, and by consequence in divers places, as every where, where their Supper is made, and likewise in Heaven. They say further, that Caluine in his Institutions, lib. 4. cap. 17. sect. 24. maintains that in the Supper, the power of God is requisite, to the end the Flesh of jesus Christ penetrate into us, and that humane nature can not comprehend that, but needs must God's power work in it: By which mean Caluine puts, by the power of God, the Flesh of jesus Christ in many places, as both in heaven, and us, into whom he must penetrate by the power of God: And in the .10. number, he saith, that the truth signified and represented by signs, must be represented and exhibited in the very place where the signs be, which he proves by reason in many places, that is, that the signs must not be void, no more than the pillar was void of the holy spirit: But even as the essence and substance of the holy Ghost was conjoined and present with the pillar, even so that the Flesh and Blood of our Lord, afore there was true Sacrament, must needs be knit and united with the signs: The places be against Heshusius, and in his Book of the Supper, 1. Cor. Cap. 11. Whereunto how so ever the Ministers Answer, the Doctoures desire that the text of Caluine together with the reasons which he brings of the holy spirit, may be well weighed and considered. They Object further, that the Ministers in their Supper, attribute more to the humane virtue, than to the omnipotency of God, yea they do more than God could do, as in that they vaunt to do a thing by their Faith, which implies contradiction, saying in their Confession of Faith exhibited at Poissi, to the Bishops which were in the congregation, that Faith makes things absent, present at one instant, & in one place, that is in the souls of the Faithful when they make the supper: the same being as much as if they had said, that faith makes things not present, present in one time & place: so as, to every Faithful man in the Supper coming worthily, the Body of jesus Christ is there present in virtue of Faith: And yet is he not there present, as themselves hold, saying, He is but in Heaven: wherein may be seen implication of contradiction that is present, and not present Really: neither can it serve to any purpose a little stippe or scape, which they said to us, that the body of Christ is on high corporally, but in the hearts of the Faithful in the supper spiritually: For the spirituality can not take away the substance of the thing, and their Faith can not bring to pass that a body is not a body, and that a body hath not his dimensions, as they have said here before. Therefore in what sort so ever, they confess that the Faithful in the Supper receive the substance of the body of jesus Christ into their souls, they must necessarily and willingly confess, that either their Faith is more mighty than the virtue and infinite power of God, or else that God can bring to pass, that his body shall be locally in Heaven, and Sacramentally (Really notwithstanding and substantially) in the Sacrament of the Aultare, in which point the Doctoures desire to hear the Ministers, and after to set down their Answer by writing: The Ministers can never show by the word of God, that their Faith can bring to pass, that in one instant and in one place, a thing shall be present and not present: And it is as much to say, a thing present and not present by Faith, as to say the body of jesus Christ is in a Faithful man, and is not: Neither need there to be put any channel of the power of the holy Spirit, to make the Flesh of jesus Christ slide from Heaven hither, if the said Flesh were not but in Heaven, and yet come to us. And touching the points which the Doctoures have objected that Peter Martyr, and Theodore de Beza, were the first that said that God could not bring to pass that one body might be in two places, which new Doctrine the Ministers would confirm by antiquity, & we not name it otherways than blasphemy. The Doctors say, that many times, they have prayed the ministers not to loose time, & to the end things might be better cleared, to say nothing that were not to purpose: which notwithstanding, they allege forthwith the testimonies of the fathers, to show that a body by nature is circumscript, & naturally can not be in many places: but the same authors speak nothing, that God is able to do it: And yet S. Augustine and others in their places recited by the Doctors, touching the Article of the doors being shut, witness, that by the power of God two bodies may occupy one place, which contains the like difficulty: and when it comes to the proof of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ, they are to show evidently, that all the ancients wholly which have spoken of the Sacrament, have not only confessed his ability to bring to pass that his body was on high in heaven, and here below in the Sacrament, but also they with one accord have advouched to believe according to the word of jesus Christ, that he is in Heaven, and here in the Sacrament. The Doctoures demand of the Ministers, if any afore Peter Martyr, and Theodore de Beza, have denied this power of God, whom they marvel not if they so much magnify, seeing of them they have taken all the places alleged. For the Article that begins, where the Doctors pretend that the form, etc., the Doctoures say this form is common as often as the power of God is debated upon, neither can she proof be better guided, than to follow the word of the Angel, that there is nothing impossible to God: From which, when any thing is exempted, there is alleged the self same that the Ministers infer, that there is a repugnancy of things, whereof follows an implication of contradiction: as did the ancient Heretics against the Flesh of jesus Christ, alleging always some impossibility according to nature: doing the like against the Article of Resurrection and Incarnation, as if there had been contradiction that God was man, & man was God: As shall be easy to a wicked mind, to forge always some contradiction in his spirit, according to the properties of nature: for the Article beginning, where the Doctors allege that God can change, etc., The Doctoures say they have not well conceived their meaning: For they take for a thing absurd, that a substance resting affected of his qualities, may by God's power, have effects contrary to his qualities: As if God could not bring to pass by his omnipotency, that the fire possessing his natural heat, in place to burn, do refresh and qualify, which no man of sound judgement, and a Christian would not deny: For the Article, touching the limitation of the power, etc., the Doctoures say, it seems by the Answer of the Ministers, that God's power is limited according to his will: which is as much to say, as God can not but that which he wills, which is manifestly false. Touching the Hebrew alleged, it seems the Ministers have desire to show their skill therein: For such recital is nothing to purpose, resting principally upon the word danar, which is as much to say as a thing, but it means not that we ought to understand it as a thing done: the sense of the place is such by the word, shall any thing be hid from me? And because hard things be hid, and things impossible also more hid, they have therefore turned, is there any thing hard (or impossible) to me: which Pagninus and other interpreters of the Hebrew tongue, show well that the verb Pala, signifieth to hide. The Doctoures had not made Answer to this, but to make it known that they are not astonished at one word of Hebrew. For the Article beginning, touching the danger, etc., the Doctors say they are but words superfluous, and what so ever the Ministers were able to produce, others might use against them. And where they say it is a reproach in that they are objected to corrupt the scripture, the Doctors say, the the Ministers can not deny, that they change not the sense, and gloze the matter of the Supper, this is my body, this is my blood: By which and such like Authorities under pretext of obscure reasons, every one may pretend to corrupt the other Scriptures, and allege certain impossibilities of nature, and contradictions. For the Article beginning, touching the opinion of the scripture, that the body, etc., the Doctors say, that in time and place they will declare their Objections, and make a more large discourse of the Sacrament of the Altar. Touching the Objection of the Doctoures, that the contrary part do not ground their affirmation (which is that God can not bring to pass that one body be in two places) upon the express testimony of the Scripture, or that they can deduce it thereof: the Ministers have alleged for all their places, but that God can not lie, God can not deny himself. But the Doctoures say this consequence is nothing worth: God can not lie: God then can not bring to pass that one body be in two places, which notwithstanding it had behoved the Ministers to have made so, if the places brought in, had served to the purpose, like as also when it is said that God can not lie, as the Ministers have recited: to be able to lie, is not power but infirmity. So that it behoved to say thus, according to the true sense: God is not infirm or weak, as to be able to lie, than God cannot bring to pass that one body be in two places: which consequence would be ridiculare. And where the Ministers have brought in certain authorities of the ancients, to prove that there is diversity between the Creatures and the Creator, and that the Creator by Nature is every where, and the Creatures are not in divers places naturally: The Doctoures receive with reverence the Authorities of the holy Fathers, but there was no need of their travail to produce the said places for the confirmation of a thing so manifest, and which was not in difficulty: But the Doctors are yet to understand one only place of the Scripture, or one only Testimony of the ancients, which sayeth, that God could not bring to pass that one body were in divers places: The Doctoures desire the Ministers to receive with like reverence the Ancients specially touching the interpretation of the holy Scripture, whose Exposition shall be the judge between them and the Ministers. Upon a request made to the Lord of Nevers by the Ministers to assign a day for Answer particularly to every Article and reproach heaped before by the Doctoures in their Objections: The said Lord provided that the Ministers should take away with them at night, one of the Copies of the Objections, to the end to come readily prepared the next day by noon to Answer them: whereunto the doctoures agreed, who for their parts made like request, for sufferance, to Reply to the Ministers Answers, if they saw it were so good, with the which they will give Resolution touching this Article of God's omnipotency, to the end to pass further, and examine the Real verity of the body of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar, like as also the Ministers for their parts do agree to yield a full Resolution to what so ever shall be deduced by them. The morrow following, being Wedensday the seventens of julie, the company being assembled, the Lord of Nevers considering that the day afore, the Doctoures had furnished all the time, so that the Ministers had no opportunity to answer presently, thought there was no less leisure due to them to Answer, and therefore with other necessary respects, which would have been a long and weary season, he ordained from thence forth the conference to pass by writing, and that the Ministers should bring again the Copy that was given them to Answer, and send it unto him, signed by them and two Notaries, whereof he would 'cause his secretary to draw out an other copy, to send to the Doctoures, reserving with himself the Original, and in like case would send the Ministers, the copy of such as the Doctoures should sand to him. Whereunto the one and other part submitted themselves, and disputed afterward by writing as followeth. The Answer of the Ministers to the Doctoures Objections, given upon Tuesday the sixtienth of Julie. THey deny that the Doctoures consequence is necessary, (which is, God can not bring to pass that one body be in two places at one instant, and that therefore God is not almighty) because God's omnipotency aught not be measured, but by the things only conformable to his will, and do not derogate either his nature, his wisdom, his truth, or the order he hath established in the world: Whereunto that which the Doctoures prefer, doth directly resist, that one self body at one self instant may be in divers places, by which it should follow that a body may be a body, and not be limited, and so by consequence, that he may be and may not be, all together: For the measures (as to be long, large, and thick, and to be bounded and limited within certain ends) are so essential to the body, that without them he is no more a body: in which speech, the Ministers do in nothing diminish God's omnipotency, but of the contrary, establish it, not attributing to him any mutability or change in his Council, nor contradiction in his will, for fear to make him lie, a thing impossible to him by the Scripture. And touching that which the Doctoures allege of the ancients, that they have not denied the almightiness of God, the Ministers have declared here before that they have, and in what cases it may happen: yea Fertullian in his Book which he wrote against Praxeas speaking of this matter, useth this speech: Certainly nothing is hard to God. But if without judgement, we use this sentence, and interpret it according to our fond fancy, we may feign all things of God, and say he hath made them, because he could make them: wherein we must not believe, that because he might, and may do all things, that therefore he hath made that, which he hath not made: but rather to inquire if he have made it: and so the conclusion follows, that the power of God is his will, and his not power likewise his not wil It rested then to the doctors to show that God would make a body, which in one instant should be in divers places, as to show that he could do it: And it is a marvelous matter, that they impute against the ministers, to derogate the almightiness of God, as to except from the same, that which is contrary to his will: seeing they themselves confess it and except the same things as standing between them and the Doctors no other difference, than that they say, that God brings to pass that one body be in divers places in one instant, because he can do it, and the Ministers affirm, that he doth it not, and can not do it, because he will not, for that (according to Tertullian) the power of God is his william. Touching the Doctoures reason of Philosophy to prove that a body, in respect it is a body, forbears not to be in divers places, the Ministers say, that they suppose a false: which is, that the quantity is accidental, and not essential to the body. For (that a body is measured, limited, and circumscript) is so of his essence, that without it, it is no more a body, according to S. Augustine's opinion, speaking even of the body of jesus Christ glorified, that if they take from a body his space, he hath no more place where he can be, and by Consequence, being no where, he is no more. The reason of their Philosophy touching the first Heaven, not to be in any place, the Ministers deny it, seeing to use the speech of the Scripture, we must confess that even above the Heavens there is place: As Christ said to his Disciples, I go to prepare you a place, and in the very place in the house of my Father be many dwellings. And in an other place, There where I am (taking the Present for the Future) there shallbe my servant: in which sentence we must observe that there be adverbs of Place. S. Augustine writing to Dardanus, holds express opinion that the Body of jesus Christ must necessarily be in some place in Heaven because it is a true Body. Besides in the number of the errors heretofore condemned by the faculty of Paris, it is said expressly, that the Heaven called by them, Empyreum, is the place of Angels, of happy Souls, and Human bodies glorified. Touching that which the Doctors pretend that by the Minister's Doctrine (maintaining that a Body cannot be without place, nor in many places at one instant) may be inferred that they blaspheme the power of God. The Ministers of the contrary say, that the Doctoures blaspheme his Majesty, which they diminish, as giving to the Creature, that which belongs to him alone, that is, to be incircumscript: as appeareth by Dydimus in his Book of the Holy Ghost, where he proves that the Holy Spirit is God, and not a Creature, because it is circumscript, and all creatures necessarily are circumscript and limited: The same resembling also the opinions of S. Basile, Vigilius, and the Master of Sentences in the first Book. Where they confess that the Ancients & happy Spirits are circumscript, albeit they are not corporal Bodies, they reason directly against themselves, and properly to prove our opinion heretofore of Bodies, which is, that it cannot be but in what place so ever they are, they are circumscript. For by an argument of the Less to the Moore, if the Angels which have no Dimension nor measure, be (by their confession) necessarily circumscript, as being creatures, by greater reason, the bodies of men which be Creatures and measured, must be so. And where they allege, that the ancients have not said, that a Body, by the power of God cannot be in divers places: that impugns S. Augustine in his 30. Treatise upon S. john, which is recited de Consec. Distinct. a. C. Prima quidem: where speaking of the body of Christ, he saith precisely, that the Body of our Lord, wherewith he rose again, must be in one place: teaching thereby that at one time it cannot be in diverse places. And touching their reason taken of the Sacrament, to enforce and prove their saying, the Ministers answer, that the Angels never understood nor said, that the body of jesus Christ was in Heaven and in the Sacrament, in one self sort & manner, nor that he was in the Sacrament, otherways than sacramentally. And where they pretend to prove in their resolution, that the Angels may in one instant be in diverse places, when we understand their reasons, they shallbe answered. Their speech delivereth absurdity, to say, that a Body being despoiled of his Dimensions, forbears not for all that to be a Body: For if it happened that a substance Corporal were wholly despoiled of his dimensions, it should be no more a Body, but a substance not Corporal, & of like nature to the Angels and Spirits. And albeit God by his power may separate the Dimensions of a substance, without corrupting it, yet it cannot be, but they must be separated from a Body, without corrupting the same: because the Quality and Dimensions be Accidents of the Substance, but not of the Body, which cannot subsist without them, because they are of his proper Essence. And where the Doctors infer after in their objection, that the weight in a body is a thing essential: the Ministers deny it, and by this reason, if it were of the Essence of the Body the Body failing, it must also cease to be. And yet we see, that the Body of jesus Christ glorified (to the which the bodies of all the Elect shallbe conformed after the Resurrection) doth not forbear to be and subsist, albeit at this day it be exempt from all weightiness. Touching their most strong and mighty Argument, that if two Bodies may be together in one place, one body may also be in divers places at one instant, the Ministers, without granting their Antecedente, say, their Consequence (under correction) is not good, as the Argument itself is most weak. Adding this further that the Doctoures, neither have proved, nor ever can prove by Scripture, nor any Authority of the ancients, not nor any sufficient Reason, that either the matter of their Antecedente, or the Consequence they infer upon it, are true. Where the Doctoures, to prove that two bodies may be together in one place, allege scripture, that Christ entered the house where his disciples were, the doors being shut, the Ministers answer, that it is not written that he entered by the doors shut, but only the doors being shut, which the Ancient Interpreter hath given well to understand, expounding in one of the places of S. john (where stands mention of the matter afore recited) Cum Fores essent clausae, When the doors were shut came jesus etc. Yet the Ministers say, they believe and are assured of the clear opinion of the Scripture, that the doors being shut he came, and stood in the midst of his Disciples: But that it cannot be defined nor determined which way he entered, whether through the Walls, or by the Gates of Wood: which S. Hilary himself puts in doubt in his place alleged by the Doctors: what soever it be, the Ministers say, that in entering he made his way miraculously, & the one body (whether it were the wood or the wall) made place to the body of jesus Christ entering: or that an opening was made to him by the angel, who opened & shut the doors again in a moment, as hath been said before. But in what fashion so ever it was done, two bodies were never found together in one self place. Touching that they allege of S. Augustine in his Book de Ago Christiano, that Christ entered by the doors, we deny not but that he entered not by the doors, but only that two bodies have been ever together in one self place: that if jesus Christ entered by the doors, the doors at his entry gave him place, as is said. Where the Doctors allege touching the suspicion of the Apostles, that it was a Vision, it apperteines nothing to the present matter, nor also that they marveled of the manner of his entry, which was miraculous, as hath been always confessed to them. And where they add after in the opinion that the ancient Heretics had of the Body of jesus Christ, that it was not true, and that he did things above nature: the Ministers tell them, that they somewhat suppose what occasion and ground of their error the ancient Fathers had presented to them, if they had confessed that which the Doctors do prefer and defend obstinately of the Body of jesus Christ: that he doth things not only above nature, but also against nature, and against the will and ordinance of God. And there is no doubt, but such an opinion was a great proof to Martion and other Heretics that have denied the true Humanity of jesus Christ, if by the examples of the Doctors it were confessed, that the Body of jesus Christ (against the truth, nature, and essence of a Body) may be at one time in diverse places, or in one place together with an other body. To that which they allege of justinus Martyr, the Ministers answer, that the Book they have alleged is falsely attributed to him: for it handles a mention of Origen (82. Question) and yet Origen was more than an hundred years after him. And touching the opinion of the Grave, mentioned in the place they have produced, it is answered, that the Evangelist doth clearly express, that there was great trembling of the earth when he rose again, and that the Angel rolled away the stone that closed the Grave, with the which consents Leo the first Bishop of Rome, writing to the Bishops of Palestina, where he saith, that jesus rose, the stone that covered the Sepulchre being rolled away. Touching the place of S. Hilary alleged by the Doctors, there is one word which may suffice for their answer, and expressly spoken by the said holy Doctor, that jesus Christ, to whom all things are open (as the Doctors have expounded the said sentence) or (according to the exposition of the Ministers) who makes way through all, by his Divine virtue entered the doors being shut, by which he gives sufficiently to understand, that to enter into the house where his disciples were, he made himself way & opening, neither can we conclude otherways by that which he hath written, but that his entry was miraculous. Touching S. Ambrose upon SAINT Luke alleged by the Doctors, there can be no more inferred than S. Hilary hath said: neither can there be other conclusion either of the one or other, but that jesus entered into the House by a Divine and wonderful virtue. Where they allege of S. john Chrysostome touching the virgin, the Christ came out of her womb, & yet her virginity & integrity was no way corrupted or defiled, yea & she remained a virgin before & after her delivery, the Ministers believe it, confess it, & teach it, yielding their reason by the scripture, because she never knew man. But if thereupon they will infer that in the birth of jesus Christ, Nulla intercesserit apertio uteri, the Ministers say, that such conclusion should be against the express text of the scripture, & also the opinion of S. Luke in such behalf, Omne masculinum adaperiens vuluam etc. besides the authority of many ancient Authors approving no less, as Origen upon S. Luke, Tertullian de Carne Christi, S. Jerome in his first tome ad Eustochium, whose express speech is, that Christ came out of the womb of the virgin Cruentus, by which appears that the virgin was a true virgin, & also a true mother. To the authority which they allege of S Jerome, the Ministers for answer return only his own saying, that when jesus came where his Disciples were, the Creature obeyed his Creator. The allegation which the Doctoures draw out of Cyrill, serves nothing to confirm their matter. Touching the Heresy, which S. Augustine justly comprehends in jovinian, who to eschew the error of the Manicheans, fell into an other, as saying the virgin remained not a virgin in the delivery. The Ministers answer, it was not necessary, that jovinian, to escape the error of the Manicheans, should call to doubt the Virginity of Mary: because the ground of that stands upon this, that she was never known of man. Touching the Conclusion which the Doctors would draw of the said Authorities, and accommodate them to their purpose (that one body may be in two places at one instant, or that two bodies may be together in one place) the Ministers say, that is altogether impertinente, and that they cannot any ways infer it of the place which they have alleged, nor others which they can gather, neither that it can be found in any good Author. By mean whereof they conclude against the Doctors, that as their ground is nothing, so they go about falsely to authorize their error by the name & titles of the Ancients, as not understanding & taking rightly the phrase to penetrate, which certain authors have used: which signifieth not a confusion or meddling of divers bodies occupying one self place, but only the yielding the one makes to an other to give him place as we see & prove in experience, that the air gives place to a man that walks, & to birds that fly. For conclusion the Ministes say, that, that which they propose & maintain for their answer doth not derogate or diminish in any thing the greatness, glory, & power of God, but establisheth & advanceth it much more than such prodigious absurdities as the Doctors prefer, & seek to persuade without any reason or mean probable: for they confess, that all that happened, both in Christ's entry into the house where his disciples were, & the going out of the same, as also the womb of his mother, & the grave, was a wondered & Divine virtue of God. But they deny for all that, that any thing happened which was impossible, & contained any contradiction. The matters which they allege of Caluin & Beza are things frivolous, and proponed rather to reproach and impugn, than to search and clear the truth. And where they say, that all Antiquity in one accord hath understand by the term Aphantos apanton, that jesus Christ made himself invisible to his disciples remaining in their presence, the Ministers, to answer them, allege one authority of S. Ambrose upon S. Luke, who preferring these words, saith, he withdrew himself from them, and an other of Nicholas de Lyra, whose opinion upon this place is, that it was done by the agility of his glorious body, which might suddenly vanish. Touching that which they allege of the penetration of heavens, when Christ mounted thither, the Ministers answer, that it is likely they did divide & were open, as at the baptism of our Saviour Christ, the pillar descended upon him, & also when S. Stephen was stoned. Touching that they reprehend in the first answer of the Ministers, that in the 12. chap. of the Acts, there is no mention made of the opening of the prison: the Ministers refer them to read the text of the said place diligently, where they found, that after he had passed the first & second watch, the last gate of the prison which was of iron, opened of itself to the Angel and S. Peter, to make them place. Where the doctor's reply upon the Ministers answer, to the argument of the Camel, inferred in their first answer: the Ministers avouch the integrity of their said answer, as to contain nothing against God's word: but say, that they are beguiled, as referring that to the Camel, which aught not to be understand but of the salvation & conversion of Rich men only whereof was mention made before: for our Lord jesus Christ in saying that, that which is impossible to men, is possible to God, pretends no other thing, than to answer to the question proposed by his disciples, which is, who might be saved: whereunto he answered, that, that truly was impossible to men, who of themselves are inclined to trust in their Richeses, but it was possible to God, as to be able to draw their hearts from that vain confidence. Touching the argument which they would ground upon the presence of jesus Christ in the Supper (which they would infer to be in diverse places) the Ministers confess the Antecedent, and deny the Consequence. For they have no doubt but by faith our Lord jesus Christ is spiritually present in the Supper to all the Faithful, by which we must not infer that he is there Locally, Diffinitively, or Corporally: which where they say, it is not imaginable, the Ministers avow it, as in regard of such as are not taught and lightened by the Spirit of God, and have no other imagination, than that which their natural faculty gives them. But to such as being lighted by God's grace, have a true and lively faith in their hearts, it is no more impossible to represent unto them jesus Christ crucified in the Supper, than it was to the Galatheans to represent and repose him unto them as present and visible in the preaching of S. Paul: and to those likewise of whom S. Cyprian makes mention in his Sermon of the Supper, that in celebrating it, they embrace the Cross of jesus Christ, suck his Blood, and fix their tongue within his wounds: all which things are done by lively contemplation and apprehension of Faith, which is no other thing than a subsistaunce of things hoped for, and a demonstration of such as are invisible, as S. Paul defines it. Touching the truth of the thing conjoined with his signs and Sacraments, the Ministers confess, that outward signs are never without their effect on the behalf of the Faithful, who cannot participate with the Bread and Wine distributed in the Supper, but forthwith they participate with the Flesh of jesus Christ crucified for their sins, and with his Blood shed, to ratify the new alliance which God hath made with his people. But if the Doctors would infer thereupon a Corporal Presence in the Supper, the Ministers would deny it, and that by this reason, that such presence was not required of the ancient Fathers: who notwithstanding did not forbear to eat one self same food with all the faithful of this day, as (with the help of God) shall be more amply declared, when it pleaseth the Lord of Nevers to command conference of that matter. Where the Doctors, reproaching the Ministers, say that they attribute to themselves humane power, more than to the power of God, as saying that by Faith they make present, things that are absent: seeing God (according to the doctrine of the ministers) can not bring to pass that one body be in divers places at one instant. The said Ministers Answer that such Antithesis are foolish and not to purpose, and that there is far greater likelihood, that the Doctors presume more of their power, and the other Bishops of the romish church, than of the power of God: For God hath not created by his word, but heaven, earth, and the other creatures contained therein, and they in their creation attribute to themselves the power to Created their Creator, as appeareth in their breviary, where the Priest saith, qui creavit me, creature mediante me. The Ministers also do greatly marvel, that the Doctors call the virtue of Faith, humane power, seeing the great and wondered effects of the same, revealed to us in so many Examples of the Scriptures, specially in the eleventh to the hebrews, where S. Paul saith, that the holy ones by Faith have vanquished kingdoms. etc. All which things do not surmount the virtue only, but also the capacity of humane understanding. The Doctor's reply that followeth this Article, contains but numbers of unprofitable and superfluous words, and but little or nothing of necessary matter: And that the ministers have more particularly Answered to every point which they repeat, they send them eftsoons to the former answers, with this request, not to serve them hence forward with one mess twice. Touching the sacrament of the Altar, as they call it, the ministers neither receive nor approve in any sort that their Mass which they pretend to be a sacrament, is a sacrament, and much less a sacrifice, by the which remission of sins may be any way obtained: yea they say, that both the sacrificature, and sacrifice by them pretended, with all things depending thereupon, be blasphemies and impieties, by which God is dishonoured, all the benefits of jesus Christ buried, and Christ's church seduced and abused, as shall clearly appear by the pursuit of the conference. Neither do the Ministers corrupt in any sort either the sense or words, which jesus Christ used in the Institution of the holy supper. The Reply or Objection of the Doctoures, against the Answer of the Ministers, touching the Article of God's omnipotency: being on Saturday the xx. of Julie. THe Doctoures say, that this consequence, God can not bring to pass of his omnipotency, that one body be in two places at one instant, and therefore he is not almighty, is so good & strong, that the Ministers can not any way deny it, without falling more and more into execrable blasphemies, to the great grief and horror of the said Doctoures: wherein besides the two blasphemies which they maintain in their former Answers (that it is impossible to God to make a body be in two places, as also impossible to him to will to do it:) in this first Article of their last Answer, they bring forth four or five other blasphemies, whereon do hung also divers others, besides the absurdities, falsehoods, & imputations which they have heaped upon the Doctors: in the first place they allege that God can not do a thing to derogate the order which he hath established in the world: in the second that it were to establish mutability and change in God's counsels to confess that he is able to do any thing contrary to the said order established in the world: in the third, that if it were so, there should be contradiction in his will, whereof should follow that he were a liar: And for the fourth blasphemy, that the power of God is his will, and likewise his not power his not will: And for the fifth they pretend that God would have a body, which in one instant might have been in many places, afore they believe that God could have made it: otherways they mean to infer that he neither hath, could, nor can make it: by which the Ministers will acknowledge nothing of God's power, but so much as he shows by effect, for which matter they allege Tertullian. All these blasphemies are drawn out of the proper words of the first Article of the Ministers. Touching the first, that God can not do a thing to derogate the order he hath established in the world, it is proved an apparent blasphemy by the Scripture, who in infinite places makes mention of God's works above nature, which the Ministers call order established in the world: the Scripture teacheth in proper terms the God can do infinite things above the order established in the world: As the wife of Lot which was converted into a pillar of Salt: that a barren woman in her last age, having an old husband, had a child: That a Vine all dry, hath flourished: A she Ass hath spoken: that the Sun stayed and went back again, with other innumerable Examples contained in the old Testament. And for the new Testament, that a virgin brought forth a child: That a body hath walked upon the Sea, and mounted to heaven: and generally all the miracles done by Christ and his Apostles above nature, the same being contrary to the order established in the world. From this blasphemy grows an other, that God seeing he hath established his order in the world, hath not done, nor could, nor can do any miracle. But to prove by the Authority of the scripture, that God can do against the order established in the world: it is written in Esay. 50. My hand (which is my power) is it abridged that I can not redeem & buy again: is there no more power in me to deliver: Behold by threats I will make dry the sea, & will put the floods into the desert, so that the fishes shall perish for want of water, and shall die of thirst: I apparel the heavens with darkness, and put a sack for their cover. But more expressly in the new Testament, where it is said by S. john, that God can raise children to Abraham of the stones: Which place albeit may be expounded Allegorically, yet by the literal sense S. john declares it was possible to God: the Devil knew and hath confessed, that if Christ were the true son of God, he might transeforme stones into bread: The same notwithstanding contrary to the order established in the world. And we have to note that there is no less impossibility that bread be turned into Flesh by God's omnipotency, than a stone transnatured into bread: Wherein for such as deny this last, done by the power of God, they declare that they believe less of the almightiness, than devils. The confuting of the second blasphemy, depends upon the disproof of the first: for albeit, God, contrary to the order established in the world, hath done many miracles (as hath been recited here before) yet there is no mutability or change in his Council. Touching the third blasphemy, that if God did any thing contrary to the order established in the world, there should be contradiction in his will, and therefore he should be a liar: The Doctoures Object that it would follow, that such should be the will of God, never to do any thing against the order established in the world, and that he would have stayed, and declared that to be his will, by his word: For otherways it could not have been known what was Gods william. And as the ministers neither have, nor can make appear by God's word, that such is God's will, as not to do any thing against the order established in the world, so they must first teach and instruct that such is Gods will afore they conclude that if God made one body to be in two places (or other thing) against the order of Nature established in the world, he should be a liar. Touching the fourth blasphemy, that God's power is his will, and that his empower is his unwill: According to the sense which the ministers give it (if God can not do but what he will) to be an Heresy of the Heretics called Monarchians in the primitive Church: against whom Tertullian writes in his Book adversus praxeam, and since renewed by one Petrus Abaillardus, and continued by one Wickleffe: they in deed measured God's power according to his will, the same contrary to the express word of God, which oftentimes declars many things to be possible to God, which notwithstanding he will not do, as appeareth in Sap. 2 where it is recited that God could send many sorts of afflictions to the children of Israel to chastise them, but he would not do it, having disposed all things by measure, number, and balance, and that he might destroy such as had offended him, but he would not, but used mercy to them: In the gospel, our Lord said to S. Peter: Thinkest not thou that I can pray to my Father, and he will send me more than twelve legions of Angels, and yet as he would not pray to him: so his Father did not sand them, although he was able to have done it in the person of his son: Christ might have let his enemies to have taken away his life, but he would not: And the Father might have saved him from corporal Death (saith S. Paul) by his power, but neither the one nor other would do it: which albeit the ministers might say was foreordained, yet the Scripture holds expressly that he might have done it, notwithstanding it was foreordained. And touching the authority of Tertullian, the Doctoures are glad they produce it, as making altogether for the truth against their blasphemies, and yet they have omitted many of his words and sentences to confute their error, as the text itself here witnesseth. Nihil Deo difficile, Quis hoc nesciat? & in possibilia apud seculum, possibilia apud deum, q●is ignorat? Et stulta mundi elegit Deus ut confundat sapientia. Ergo inquiunt heretici (monarchianis scilicet) difficile non fuit Deo ipsum se & patrem & filium facere, adversus traditam formam rebus humanis. Name & sterilem parere contra naturam, difficile Deo non fuit, sicut nec virginem: planè nihil Deo difficile: sed si tam abruptè in presumptionibus nostris hac sententia utamur, quiduis de Deo confingere poterimus: quasi fecerit quia facere potuerit: Non autem quia ●amia potest facere, ideoque credendum est illum fecisse etiam quod non fecerit: sed an fecerit requirendum. Potuit (ita saluus sum) Deus pennis hominem ad volandum instruxisse (quod & melius) prestitit, non tamen quia potuit, statim & fecit: potuit & praxeam & omnes pariter hereticos statim extinxisse non tamen quia potuit, extinxit: oportebat enim miluos esse & hereticos: oportebat & patrem crucifigi. Hac ratione erit aliquid & Deo difficile, id scilicet quod non fecerit, non quia non potuerit, sed quia noluerit: etenim posse, velle est, & non posse, nolle. By which text may easily be seen according to Tertullian, that God can do many things which he will not do, as to make a man to fly, but doth it not, he can destroy the heretics, & yet spares them, because he will not do all he can do. And touching their conclusion of the said place of Tertullian (that the power of God is his will, & his empower likewise his unwill) they well declare their sleight examination of the meaning of that place: for Tertullian saith it not of his own sentence (considering he should conclude against that he had said afore) but he infers it against the Monarchian heretics: who held, that what God might do, he would do, and it was done: By which reason Tertullian concludes against them, that what God had not done, must needs be hard and impossible to him: so that according to those Heretics, it was all one to be done, and might be done: and not to be done, as much as to be impossible to God: And of that (as Tertullian inferreth) would follow, that the power, the will, and the deed of God, should be all one, and of the contrary, a thing not to be done, and to be impossible to God to do it, should also be all one: And even so also would be all one, the power of God and his will, and his empower and his unwill: which Tertullian concludes for an absurd thing proceeding of the opinion of the said Monarchian Heretics, and not of his sentence, which was altogether contrary: wherein as we see the ministers consent in opinion with the said Monarchian Heretics, which Tertullian refutes, so the most evident proof stands in the fifth blasphemy. And for conclusion against the said blasphemies, the Doctoures declars, that God can do much more than he will do, and more than he hath established in the world: for otherways would follow yet other blasphemies, as this, that the power of God should not be infinite, but limited: An other, that for necessity, all things should be done in the world, because God could not otherways do, than entertain the order established in the world: which Caluine himself detestes, saying: that God of his omnipotency changeth and altereth the order established, as it seems good to him, and to think otherways, were to limit his power and providence. Where the ministers say in their said first Article, that the ancient Doctors of the church denied the omnipotency of God: it is a most manifest falsehood & great wrong: for they deny it not, but interpret the scripture which seems to deny it, and so give to understand how it aught to be taken: that much less by the same scripture well understanded, there is any exception at all suffered against the almightiness of God, seeing that in the contrary, it is confirmed as S. Augustine saith in his fifth Book de Civitate Dei. Cap. 10. God's power (saith he) is in nothing diminished, when it is said, he can not die, nor be deceived: For he can not such things, because if he could them, his power should be lessened: concluding that he can not do things which are of infirmity, because he is almighty. Upon the end of the first Article, the ministers challenge us, as saying their difference is that we maintain a body to be in many places, because God can do it: and that of the contrary, the ministers hold that it is not in God's power to do so, because he will not: The doctors declare that for their part, they never concluded to be true, that a true body was in two places, because God could do it. But the Question was only to know if God could do it, to come afterwards by order to prove by Scripture, that he would do it: they have already heretofore recited the scripture of the supper and the Ascension, adding withal the Doctrine of Caluine touching the said supper, to show that Gods will is to bring to pass, that a body be in two places (as in deed it is) according to the express word of God. Besides, we have produced to the same end the scriptures of the doors being ●●t, of the birth of our Lord, and of the Resurrection thorough the ●●one, which be like deeds and of the self reason to one body in many places: Of the contrary, the ministers to deny the will of God, and deprave holy Scripture (which showeth that such is God's will, that a body be in divers places) allege not any thing more instantly, than the impossibility of God to do it. But to the end that all the world understand the difference between us, we presently declare, that there hath been no other difference touching this Article until now, but to know whether it be in God's power to bring to pass that a body be in two places at one instant or not. And for the second Article, the Doctors say, the Ministers Answer not to the matter: For the Objection was not, if quantity were accident of a Mathematical body, aut de predicamento quantitatis, (as the philosophers hold) but to know if it were of the essence and necessity to the quantity of a body to be circumscript and enclosed in place. And touching S. Augustine alleged by the Ministers, he speaks expressly according to the property of the divine nature and corporal nature, saying: that the Divine nature is every where, but not the corporal, as of his natural property requiring a certain place: whereof the Doctoures make no difficulty, arcording to the said natural property. But the Question is, if above nature by God's omnipotency, it may not be that a body be without place equal to his greatness, the same being openly confessed by S. Augustine when he speaks De clansis lanuis, having no longer regard to the nature of things, but to the power of God: And we could wish, that the ministers would allege this Epistle of S. Augustine against the Doctrine of Caluine and his Ministers, as often as they allege the text of the place of bodies against the power of God, touching the body of jesus Christ in the Sacrament. Touching the third Article, the ministers are abused: for according to the Philosophers and natural reason of bodies, (which the Ministers follow) Lo●us est superficies Corporis continentis, by which if the high and last Heaven were circumscript of place, there must needs be an other body above the high and first Heaven, a quo primum Coel●m contineretur. & sic in infinitum. For the rest, the Ministers give no answer to the other objections made upon this Article. Touching the places of Scripture which they allege to prove that there are places above the Heavens, they do paraphrase and abuse the ambiguity of the name of a Place. For in all their speech of the dimension of Bodies (which they say doth necessarily require a place equal to their greatness) they must mean Corporal places, as the dimension of bodies demand. And now when they speak of places above Heaven, they must understand & mean them other than Corporal, as not being such places, or like to those wherein our bodies be heard, but places incomprehensible and imaginable, where bodies and Spirits are indifferent, without distinction of certain spaces and places Corporal, for their greatness: in which places the Rule of the Ministers is false, by which they maintain that one body cannot be in one place, if it contain not roomth according to the greatness of the body: for the rest we say, the manner of Heretics is, to interpret the Scriptures spiritually, when they should take them according to the Letter: and of the contrary to expound by the Letter, that which ought to be understanded spiritually and by figures: as the Ministers expound the house of God in the other world Literally and Corporally, as to contain spaces and Corporal habitations, diverse, and separated one from an other, albeit it ought to be understanded spiritually, for the diversity of degrees of beatitude: neither can the Doctors here omit one manifest contradiction of the Ministers in this Article, wherein they pretend that the Bodies and Souls of the blessed, are lodged above all the Heavens, and yet they lodge the Body of jesus Christ within Heaven. And touching the Article condemned by the Faculty of the Divines of Paris, we answer, that it is an ordinary use with the Ministers to allege Authorities, either corrupt or improper. For the Article saith, that the Bishop of Paris having assembled the Faculty, condemned all such as would maintain two several Heavens, the one for Angels, and the other for the souls of men, which apperteines nothing to the present question. In the fourth Article the Ministers impose upon the Doctoures, who never attribute the property of God to any creature, and have said many times before, that to be everywhere, and incircumscript, was not natural to any creature, but only to God. Wherein the authors alleged by the Ministers (as S. Basil, Dydimus, and Vigilius) speak not otherways than of the property of Nature, to be everywhere or not, and yet deny not that it is in God's power, to bring to pass that a creature or body be in two or many places above his nature, but (as hath been said) when they come to the power of God, many of those ancient authors confess it to be possible to God, and that he hath done so in the Sacrament, and therefore the Ministers answer is out of the matter, seeing all the contention is but of God's power, & not of natural properties. In this fifth Article the Ministers have not rightly comprehended the reason of the Doctors, who have not alleged that Angels are circumscript naturally as well as bodies: by which they would infer, that the circumscription of place simply depended not as of the only & essential cause of the dimensions of a body, as by all their said reasons, the Ministers pretend: notwithstanding the Doctors are not ignorant, that, to put difference between corporal and spiritual creatures, there is a custom in the school to distinguish the Angels sunt diffinitiuè in loco, & bodies circumscriptiuè. In the sixth Article to satisfy the Doctors request to produce one only place or testimony of the Ancients to prove it not in God's power to make one body in two places. The Ministers for all the authorities they can have, allege falsely one place of S. Augustine where it is said (as is recited upon Gratian de Consecratione Distinct. 2. C. Prima quidem) that SAINT Augustine wrote that it must be that Christ's body be in one place: whereunto the Doctors answer, that it is not so set down in the proper text of S. Augustine, which is in the 30. Treatise upon SAINT john: the tenure being thus in all the ancient exemplaries of S. Augustine, Corpus Domini in quo resurrexit uno loco esse potest, Veritas eius ubique diffusa est: Here is no Oportet, as the Ministers recite, having it of Gratian. And to the end it be known that there ought no great trust to be had in the fragments of Gratian, without having recourse to the exemplaries of S. Augustine. In the title of the Canon, there be these words drawn out of the Exposition of S. Augustine upon the 54. Psalm, from whence he draws the only beginning of his Canon, and yet he brings it not in as for truth: the residue of which Canon is taken of diverse places of the said SAINT Augustine. And albeit there were Oportet, yet S. Augustine using his custom, speaks according to the property of the Body, opposing the Divinity to the Humanity, and toucheth not the operation of God's Omnipotency: whereof when he doth make mention, and that he speaks of the Sacrament, he affirms expressly the Body of jesus Christ to be in diverse places by the Almightiness of God, as we hope to deduce aswell of him, as other ancients, in our resolution. The eighth Article contains many Errors against Philosophy and Truth: as first, in that they make no Distinction between a body called Mathematical (which is) having dimension of largeness, length, and height, and a body Physical or natural, that is, composed of a form substantial, and matter, by the unity of which, it is made a body natural and substantial. In the second place, if the body should be without quantity, yet would it differ from our souls separated, which be no substance material, and consequently it would differ also from Angels and Spirits. In the third place, for conclusion of this Article, the Ministers declare plainly not to acknowledge any substantial Body. And where they say, that if God could separate the dimensions of a substance, and not corrupt it, that that substance should remain spiritual, as the Angels, they are abused: for that substance should not remain immaterial, as our Souls and Angels do, which be not capable of dimensions, and therefore should be still different from Angels and our Souls. To the ninth Article, the Ministers answer nothing to purpose: for the Doctors hold not, that gravity & weight are essentialles in a body, but to incline downward is essential to the heaviness & weight of a body: they demanded also in their objection, if an earthily body and weighty, remaining in his substance and natural heaviness, could not by God's almightiness, be suspended on high, but that it must incline downwaede, notwithstanding it were against his nature and inclination. For the rest, touching the answer to many Articles concerning two bodies to be in one place, and the places of Holy Scripture and ancient authors produced by the Doctors (to prove that it was in God's power to make two bodies to be in one only place) and by the like reason, that it was also in the same power to bring to pass, that one body (of the contrary) be in two places, we say, for the first, that the Ministers do wrong to deny this Consequence, two bodies may be in one place by God's power, then of the contrary, one body by the same power may be in two places: for there is asmuch repugnancy of God's order established in the one as in the other, and no less contradiction in nature grounded upon one cause and reason, which is, in the lymitation and circumscription of a body: to the which as it is natural to be in place, so is it natural to him to be in place proportioned, and corespondent to his dimensions. And if for the number of diverse places where one body were, it might be inferred, that it were no more a body (as implying contradiction) even by the same reason according to one only place, where were many bodies, it could not be inferred that they were no more bodies, than many bodies were one, which would imply like contradiction to the first. And where the Ministers deny the Antecedent, which is, that two bodies may be in one place, we have produced to prove it, the text of the doors being shut, the birth of the body of our Lord of the virgin, the coming out of the Sepulchre, the passage of a Camel through the crevice of a Needle, & the penetration of the heavens, which jesus made at his Ascension: and because they deny these doings contained expressly in the holy scripture, interpreted by the ancient Christians, & deprave it at their pleasure, the Doctoures avouch again upon the texts of those Scripture, as followeth. first touching the doors shut, S. john saith, that jesus is come: He means to the place where his Disciples were: neither came he thither without entering, for that were a more great miracle to be in the midst of them without entering, than to enter there simply. In the second place it is said, ●um f●res essent clausa, or tanuis clausis, which is to say, He entered the doors being shut: neither doth it appear, that the Scripture makes mention rather of the doors than of an other place, but to show on what part he entered. Thirdly the Scripture adds not in vain, that the doors were shut, without saying that any opening was made miraculously, for it is always said, ●●od venit tanuis clausis. And if it were true that the doors had been opened by Divine virtue it should be false, that our Lord entered, tanu●s, ●●rsis●, for than should he have entered tanuis apertis, by what means so ever they had been opened. And to declare that the common consent of all the ancients hath been, that jesus entered by the doors shut, the Doctoures prefer four foundations drawn cute of the ancients: In the first they all confess expressly, that the miracle of the entering was made in the Body of jesus Christ. The second, that such miracle was done above the nature of the Body, by the virtue of God. The third is, that expressly the ancients judge, that in that did consist the miracle, that the body passed through the doors shut, and was so with an other body. And for the fourth foundation they add, that in regard of such an entering, the Apostles taught, that the body of jesus was no true body, but a Spirit or Vision, which the Ministers pass lightly without answer. But if it be so, that by God's power (as the Ministers hold) there was made an opening either by the doors, or other part of the house, to give entering to the body of jesus Christ, than the miracle should not consist in the said Body, but in the doors or other part of the house which were opened, and yet there was nothing contrary to the nature of the Body of our Lord, for it resistes not any Body what so ever it be to enter by an opening made by miracle or otherways. Be it that justine is not the Author of the Questions against the Gentiles: yet it cannot be denied that they were not of some Ancient Christians of the Primitive Church: And the Doctoures have attributed them to him, on whose name they be entitled: only the said justine in the place alleged makes the miracle to have passed in the Body of jesus Christ, which being gross and thick, entered through the shut doors, against the nature of a Body by the power of God: and therefore the Apostles esteemed it to be a Vision by reason of an entry made without opening, as Spirits are wont to enter. See the Text. S. Hilary doth not only say, that he entered by the Omnipotency of God, in what sort so ever it be (as the Ministers seek to turn and wrist his authority) but as one that had even now to do with the Ministers, he repulseth and scoffs at all their evasions & subtleties, which they contrive of this doing. He saith, that nothing gave place to make opening to such a body, neither lost he any thing of his substance, nor, to enter, was in nothing diminished. He adds that the doors, and all other opening were closed and fast barred, and yet in this lieth the miracle, that the true natural body of jesus Christ, against his nature, by the Omnipotency of God, entered a house fast closed and covered, without any opening, by which he shows apparently that the miracle consisted in the Body of jesus Christ. Herein we refer to the text, which we desire to be well examined by the Ministers. S. Ambrose in the place recited saith, that S. Thomas was abashed when he saw the Body of jesus Christ enter. Per invia septa corporibus: & quod natura corporea per impenitrabile Corpus seize infuderit invisibili aditu. S. Chrysostome in the Homily of S. john baptist, and in his Commentaries upon the Gospel of S. john saith expressly, Qui intravit per ostia clausa non erat Phantasma, non erat Spiritus, verè corpus erat. Quid enim dicitis respicite & videte, quia Spiritus carnem & ossa non habet, quae me habere videtis? Habebat carnem, habebat & ossa, & clausa erant omnia. Quomodo clausis ostijs intraverunt ossa & caro? clausa sunt omnia, & intrat, quem intrantem non vidimus. Nescis quomodo factum sit, & das hoc potentiae Dei: Where without difficulty S. Chrysostome as also S. Ambrose confess the miracle to be done in the Body of jesus Christ, in that he passed through the shut doors by the Omnipotency of God. S. Jerome in the place noted by the Doctors, writes manifestly that the body pierced the shut doors, even as the poets persuade that the sight of Lynceus pierced the walls without opening, to see through. The said S. Jerome at that time did argue upon the nature of the body, which the Bishop of jerusalem (infected with the Heresy of Origen) held was not true in jesus Christ after his Resurrection, because he had passed through the shut doors contrary to the nature of a body: to whom S. Jerome (as also other ancients) persuades that that acts nothing derogates the nature of the body, as proceeding of a supernatural virtue, affirming no less in his first Book against jovinian: in this phrase jesus entered the doors being shut: quod humanorum corporum natura non patitur. And so with others he puts the miracle in the body of jesus Christ. It is most true that S. Augustine in three Books at the least useth express opinion that this body passed through the shut doors, and that as the same was wrought by God's power above the nature of Bodies, so the Heretics for all that aught not to deny the true Body of jesus Christ: this he speaks in his Book de C●uitate Dei, besides his place de Ago Christiano, and the Epistle ad Volusianum already alleged. Epiphanius in his first Book in the Heresy 20. and in the second Book 64. against the origenists, declares that it is but a spiritual body: meaning that he loseth nothing of his corporal substance, but changeth and draweth to him new qualities and spiritual perfections convenient to Spirits, as to pass through the walls without opening, giving example of the body of jesus Christ after his Resurrection, who pierced and passed through the doors being shut: And so judgeth (with others) that the miracle was done in the body of jesus Christ, as piercing the shut doors, as a Spirit, albeit he was a true Body. Cyrillus Alexandrinus determines also (with others) that this miracle happened in the body of our Lord, who by the same wonder marched above the waters, contrary to the nature of a body by the power of God, reprehending all such as stood in any jealous suspicion that Christ's body was not Natural. By all these authorities, the four foundations afore proponed are true, and therefore it is too great an impudency to seek to corrupt the intent and faith of so many Ancient and Learned Christians, to introduce a confusion of new interpretations. For besides the diversity of Caluin and Beza, the Ministers avouch two others, as first that the Angel opened the door, as if jesus had not had the power to open it himself, or had needed other opening. The other is, that he made his opening where he would: by which diversities the Ministers give open declaration, that they know not whereupon to rest: And (which worse is) they could not allege one only Ancient, as author of their fiction, or that is contrary to all the other, since the Primitive Church, it serves them to nothing, to allege that the iron door in the Acts of the Apostles opened to S. Peter of himself, for the Doctors did never deny it: only we said that the Scripture spoke not of the door of the prison: And if at the entry of jesus Christ, the doors had been so opened, the Evangelist had as easily granted it, as he said they were shut, and as S. Luke said, that this door of iron opened of himself. There is no difficulty, that the first that doubted of the body of jesus Christ in this world, did not agree of the place touching the doors with the other Christians. And all be it they thought to serve and aid themselves with it, in the maintaining of their heristes (as with all the other miracles happened in the body of Christ above nature) yet the Ancients never denied this fact, nor the other like to it, for fear to give occasion of error to the Heretics, but they declared and distinguished what was the nature of the said body, and that which happened to him by the omnipotency of God: The Christians for any heresy, did never abandon truth: albeit the Heretics have sometimes abused it: But now seeing Christ's body passed thorough the doors without opening, it is certain that two bodies have been in one place, and that they may be so: by which we have well proved our proposition which without either scripture or ancient testimony, the Ministers deny. Touching the birth of jesus Christ without breaking of the Virgin: we say that a great part of the ancients produced for the place of the doors, hold that this miracle also was done in the body of our Lord, and not in the body of the Virgin, saving in that she remained in her integrity, without breaking or opening. And for their reason, the Ancients have alleged the scripture, Ecce virgo concipiet & pariet, and Ezechiel, porta haec clausa erit as also S. Ambrose recites in his Epistle .80. wherein is contained a council which S. Ambrose did assist, determining against jovinian and other heretics, that virginity and integrity remained in the mother of God in her delivery, S. Augustine repeating the same in the place alleged by the Doctoures in his first Book against julian, Chap. 2. And where the ministers say, that the virgin should not have lost her virginity, though our Lord had issued out as other men do, in this they are condemned of heresy by the Ancients, who note jovinian to derogate the virginity, as holding opinion with the ministers: to whom the Doctors make this question, what miracle they would acknowledge in the birth of our Lord as touching his body, and the virginity of his mother, if he came from her as other men do from their mothers, as the Ministers writ. And touching that which they allege of Tertullian, Origen, S. Ambrose, & S. Jerome, the Doctors say that Tertullian and Origen, held such heresy and many others, which were reproved afore jovinian, & of this they have been condemned with him & his consorts. But for the respect of S. Ambrose, it is apparent, that he believed the contrary, as well by the Council which he assisted, as by that which he writes in his Book de institutione Virgins: wherein we have to interpret his words, that Christus vuluam aperuerit, not that it was by breaking, but by effect of generation and production of his true body out of the belly of his mother by miracle and virtue supernatural: in such sort, that even as his Conception was miraculous, so also was his birth. And aperire vuluam is a phrase and manner of speech in the Scripture, as to say and name the first borne, in what sort he might have been borne. And touching S. Jerome he saith nothing of the breaking, but only that the body came out bloody as he was in the womb of his mother, & to be bloody is not required breaking of the mother. For conclusion of this Article, we would willingly ask the Ministers, if they hold as an Article of Faith the virginity of the mother after her delivery: and if they can prove it by express and inreprocheable word of God written, because Beza calls in doubt these two points at his pleasure, and the Religion pretended reformed, amongst other Articles of Faith of their divers confessions imprinted, recites sometime the Virginity of the mother of God after her delivery, and sometimes it is omitted. And in some Confessions is brought in no more but that jesus was borne of the virgin Marie, and only issued of the seed of David. The Doctoures apply for the Resurrection and issuing of Christ's body thorough the stone of the Sepulchre, the most part of the Authorities alleged by them upon the doors shut, as the absolute reading of the said Authorities (will make Faith) together with Gregorius Nazianzene in his tragedy of the Passion of our Lord, who joins (as many other Ancients) these three miracles happened in the body of our Lord above nature, the birth without breaking the virgin, the resurrection thorough the stone, and his entry thorough the doors shut. We say also that Caluine and Beza make conscience to join with the Ministers that our Lord rose not again, the Sepulchre being closed and shut, yea they had rather fall into the frivolous absurdities, and vain Expositions here afore alleged, than descend into the opinion of the Ministers, because there is more Testimony in the text of the Gospel, that jesus was risen afore the stone was rolled away by the Angel, as the most part of the Ancient Christians do consent: which mean also gives occasion to believe more easily the Resurrection of our saviour, than if the stone had been taken away before his Resurrection, for so it might have been more easily said, that the body was transported, and not raised or risen: neither doth the Text bear that the Angel rolled away the stone afore the Resurrection, or when jesus did rise or rather after, as is great likelihood in Scripture, in reason, and all Antiquity. Pope Leo is evil alleged by the Ministers, as concealing that is written in his Epistle touching the shut doors, as also producing evil the matter of the Resurrection: for it is not said, that our Lord did rise after the stone of the monument was rolled away: But it is said against the fantastic sort, that the substance put on the Cross, and that which rested in the Sepulchre, and likewise that which rose again the third day, the stone of the Monument being rolled away, is the true Flesh of jesus Christ: By which speeches the Pope means not to say that our Lord did not rise afore the stone was reversed, but only declares, that the body of jesus Christ risen, was a true body, and not fantastical, whose Resurrection appeared by the opening of the monument: And this is the common interpretation of the Ancient authors, touching the reversement of the stone. For end of these Ancient testimonies, we marvel that the ministers seeing them so manifest and as convinced, not only that God can bring to pass that two bodies be in one place, but also that he hath done it: dare reproachfully deprave the understanding of the same, and yet they say that the reasons taken of such and so evident testimonies, are impertinent, Like as, by like licence (common with the Heretics) they fear not, without any text of the scripture, nor any place of the Ancients, to interpret two bodies penetrating to be no other thing than one body to give place to an other: of which false and licentious interpretation, even the common use of speech amongst the Philosophers, doth condemn them: Like as also their fine example touching such as walk thorough the air which moves them, and the birds when they fly, is far to subtle: And where they vaunt in the said Article, that in denying two bodies to be able to be in one place by the omnipotency of God, or one body in two places, they yet advance and magnify the power of God, the same is as true, as when in all other their errors by which they oppugn God's truth, and blaspheeme it, yet they brag always to advance God's glory: seeming hereby that they have need to cover their filthiness and deformity with some cloak of speech, the better to blind the simple and ignorant. The ministers have also good reason, not to seek to excuse the interpretations of Caluine and Beza, as too frivolous, and yet they prefer their own much more vain before their Masters: by which may be seen the agreement between the Masters and Disciples, using all, the foundation of their religion, which is to believe and prefer afore all others their particular and private interpretation and inspiration: where the Ministers say that the body of our Lord was not invisible to the disciples, of whom is spoken in S. Luke. 24. but only the having a swift body, was suddenly withdrawn, we Object that the sudden departing which S. Ambrose and de Lyra speaks of, makes not that the body was invisible, according to the Greek word aphantoes, not signifying sudden departure, but incapacity to be seen and known: and so the text of the Scripture is apparently for the Doctoures, as also, that as often as both the ancient and present Divines give example that Christ made himself invisible, they allege ordinarily this place. The ministers, who vaunt to rest only upon the pure word of God, for the exposition of the scripture, bring forth their dreams grounded upon their own persuasion, as hath been seen touching the doors being shut: using the like licence to expound the text of S. Paul, which maintains expressly that our Lord pierced the Heavens: and they say that it is a likely truth that the Heavens divided and were open: And if they be asked from whence they fetch this interpretation, their Answer is from God's word grounded of their inward inspiration, by the which they accommodate the saying of S. Matthew, that the Heavens were open when the Pillar descended upon our Lord, as though all the Heavens were divided, and that the spirit could not descend without the same were opened, being not advised that the scripture in many places takes the Heaven for the air. And where they allege that S. Stephen saw the heavens open when he was stoned, it were more convenient to the ministers to interpret such visions to be done in spirit, as there is great likelihood. Otherways two miracles must be confessed, the one in the Division of the Heavens, and the other, in that the sight of S. Stephen pierced not only into the Heavens, but also even above: where the ministers confess the body of jesus Christ is upon the right hand of his Father, which S. Stephen saw: the same being against the order of God established in the world, by which it is necessary that there be a certain difference between the eye seeing, and the thing which is seen: Neither is it less hard, that such a thing be done, than that two bodies be penetrate: We must not forget that oftentimes the scripture in the appearings and spiritual visions, useth this language, that the Heavens were open, and yet in such cases there was but spiritual vision, and likewise, but spiritual appearing: And as the Ministers seek to take the rigour of the word opening of the Heavens, even so they must not note it strange, if we wrist in like rigour the penetration of the Heavens, specially in the Article of the Ascension, where is Question of the body of jesus Christ, which had already pierced bodies more impenetrable than the Heaven, which point of penetration of the Heaven, we refer to be more amply handled an other time, as now to avoid tediousness. Touching the eight and twentieth Article, where the ministers against express scripture, defend obstinately, that God of his power can not bring to pass, that a Camel or Cable enter the eye of a needle, we can not a little marvel both at their blindness, seeming to see nothing in the mid day, and at their froward obstinacy: By which, as we can not judge, that they understand not well their fault, but sin even against their conscience, oppugning the truth by them well known, so it seems God suffereth this to happen to them in this text and place of the scripture so manifest, to the end that by this Article the world may understand how far more hardy they are to give false understandings of scriptures more obscure than this, yea in the matter of the Ancient Christians which are against them. But to the end the world understand their great wrong, to deny that our Lord can bring to pass, that a Camel (or cable) pass thorough the hole of a needle, we object, that it were impossible to God to save a rich man, using this Argument taken of the texts of the Gospel, it is more impossible or hard that God save a rich man than to bring to pass that a Camel (or cable) pass thorough the hole of an Needle: God can not bring to pass (of his omnipotency (as the Ministers say) that a Camel enter the hole of a needle, than he can not of his almightiness make that a rich man be saved and enter into the kingdom of Heaven. The Mayor is of the Scripture, the Minor is confessed by the Ministers: and the consequence is necessary, and according to all Philosophy, he that can not do the most easiest can not do the most hardest. The ancients also have expounded without gain saying, the present Scripture, as Origen in his Homily upon this place, saying: it is possible that a Camel enter the eye of a needle, not for all that, that it be possible as in respect of men, but to God, like as the manner by which such things may be done, is known to God, and his Son jesus Christ, and to him to whom it is revealed: S. Augustine likewise in his Book de spiritu & littera, Cap. 1. and 5. writes in this sort to Marcellinus, it seems to thee an absurd thing, when I tell thee that a man may be without sin, albeit there is none such found except jesus Christ thought it to seem absurd to thee, that a thing may be done, whereof no Example can be showed, seeing (as I believe) thou doubtest not at all that it was never done that a Camel entered the eye of a needle, and yet it is said that such a thing is possible to God. By their Answer to the nine and twenty Article, it may easily be known, that they beguile and abuse their Disiples, making them believe by fair words and writings, that Really in the Supper they receive the body of jesus Christ, even he that issued out of the womb of the virgin, and was put upon the Cross for the restoration of mankind. And they seek to make to understand, that these which put not to the Sacrament (which they call of the Supper) with the Bread and Wine but some Spiritual effect only, (as redemption, justice, sanctification, eternal life, and other gifts and benefits which jesus Christ brings to his chosen) diminish the excellency & dignity of the same Sacrament, and that they be zwinglians, yea and that over and above such spiritual effects, it must be believed that the body of jesus Christ is truly received in the Supper, and yet they feed an other opinion in their brain. For when they are pressed to Argue, not being able to sustain that fantastical presence confessed in their writings, they make themselves zwinglians, and return to the spiritual presence of jesus Christ in the Supper, the same being as much to say, that besides the Bread and Wine, they receive some spiritual effect, and not Really the body, as the Ministers hold in the present Answer, which as they make manifest by that they recite of the Apostle S. Paul: so by the same may be gathered what is their opinion touching the supper, which is, that the body of our Lord jesus Christ is not Really, but only by spiritual effect in the hearts of the Faithful. For the galatians by the hearing of the preaching of S. Paul, did not receive Really the body of jesus Christ crucified, but only had an imagination of the Cross and Passion of jesus Christ, and received only the fruit of their Faith: That is, by that means they were justified and sanctified before God. The Allegation also which the Ministers make of S. Cyprian, tends to this end, to show that in the Supper is received only certain effects spiritual, which notwithstanding Allegorically are signified by these words to embrace the Cross of jesus Christ, to suck his blood. etc. wherein they deny (albeit against the intent of S. Cyprian in his Sermon of the Supper) the Real presence of the body of jesus Christ. The Doctoures confess that the Argument which they have made, tends to the calvinists, and not to the zwinglians, neither did they think that the ministers would otherways judge of this Sacrament, than Caluine, Beza and the other ministers, who vaunt themselves to be ministers of the church of the calvinists, which they call reformed. But those which exhibited to the Bishops being at Poissi the Confession touching this Sacrament, used an other manner of speech. They without difficulty confessed Really the Body of jesus Christ to be present in the Supper, which at this day the Ministers deny with the Doctoures conferentes. And as far as the Doctoures can judge, the Ministers be come of calvinists, Allemanistes: which such will not well digest, as maintain the Doctrine of the Church, which they call Reform, seeing their principal supposts fail them at need, as unable to answer one Argument objected by the Doctors, as affirming in their answer to be so far illumined with the Holy Spirit, which makes them understand and know all things. Touching the Article following, they reveal openly their present opinion touching the presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, because they say, that the faithful receive no more in the time of the Gospel, than the Ancients before the Law, and under the Law. And it is certain the Ancients received not Really the body of jesus Christ, which was not then formed, so that we must conclude that under the Gospel is not received Really the Body of jesus Christ in the Sacrament, which the Ministers call the Sacrament of the Supper. To the 31. Article, they answer not as in deed they could never answer. And necessarily they must confess, that in virtue of their Faith they do that which implies contradiction: for they maintain a thing in one instant & one place to be present, and not present: neither doth their spiritual, or rather fantastical presence any thing, seeing (according to their Doctrine) the body cannot be present, but with his dimensions, Locally, Diffinitively, and Corporally, otherways it were to take clean away, or corrupt the body. And the manner to be there spiritually, cannot make that the body be not there: otherways they say falsely, that it is present in the Supper, and abuse the world: wherefore it is necessary, that if the body be there (yea spiritually) if their Doctrine be true of the nature of a body, that the body of jesus Christ be Corporally, Diffinitively, and Locally in the Supper. Besides, seeing he is absent, according to their confession, it follows, that he is not there present. And as to conclude, the Ministers say, he is there, and that he is not there: so for an absolute solution, without entering into the principal of the argument, they think to escape, with objecting to us certain words of brief, which we have not yet seen: which we think they have found in certain Breviaries of Monks, as that they remember when they were in the Covent they used so to chant and say. But albeit such things were found in the Breviaries used in the Romish Church, yet such manner of speech might be defended in the sense which the Ancients have given, when they said the Apostles Conficiunt Corpus Christi: Like as also the scripture saith, that they baptise, they forgive sins, & save those whom they convert, which is understand, as Ministers of God, who of his authority, and as Master, baptizeth, forgiveth sins, and justifieth the faithful persons. Where the Ministers marvel that the Doctors call faith, humane virtue, considering the great & wonderful effects it worketh: the Doctors reply, that they have no great occasion of wonder, seeing that all work, so long as it is in man, & that it works there with God, is reputed humane: as also the scripture calls the Faith of man, the work of man. The Doctors declare to the Ministers, that according to their custom, resting always upon small things, they follow not that which is the principal in the matter, not understanding (or feigning not to understand) where lies the difficulty of that which is handled: as they do in their answer upon the Argument proponed by the Doctors, by which they object that the Ministers by their faith (whether it may be called Divine or Human) may do more than God can: to which Objection the Ministers, without entering to the point, answer with songs. In the 32 Article they pass over very lightly many objections made by the doctors: wherein whether there be superfluity or repetition, or whether they be impertinent, the judgement remains to the Reader: notwithstanding all thee, the doctors will not forbear once again, to require them to bring forth some place of scripture to ground that God cannot bring to pass that one body be in two places, seeing this consequence is too foolish & vain, God cannot lie: he cannot then bring to pass, that a body be in two places, for so must they subsume. Well, God hath said & ordained that one body cannot be in two places, than he cannot make that it be so: but they shall never teach the truth of the assumption, or M●nor proposition, the contrary whereof hath been verified sufficiently by many testimonies of the Scripture. We demand also that the Ministers produce some Ancient, yea a man ever reputed Catholic, that durst pronounce that God could not bring to pass, that one body be in two places. But in all their answers they could not bring forth any of that opinion, except S. Augustine, albeit falsely alleged both in respect of the Letter, and for the sense of the Letter: neither will we cease to urge aswell the Ministers, as all others, that there is found neither place of Scripture, nor Book of any Ancient, that God cannot bring to pass, that one body be in two places. Touching the last Article, we are fully determined to show by the pure and express Word of God, interpreted by the common consent of all Antiquity, that our Lord hath instituted the Sacrament and Sacrifice of the Aultare. And we will teach the effect and virtue of the Mass, according to the Institution and Ordinance of jesus Christ, making also to understand that the Ministers have polluted and defiled the Sacraments instituted by jesus Christ. And lastly that the Supper maintained by the Ministers, is no Sacrament in any sort, but a profanation of Holy things, containing execrable Blasphemies, which all the world aught to abhor. sunday the xxij. of july, the year aforesaid. The Answer of the Ministers to the writing of the Doctors sent to them by the Duke de Nevers xxij. of july about five of the clock in the Evening. 1566. THe Ministers, afore they enter into particular Answer to the Objections and Reproaches of the Doctors, seeing in all their speeches without any occasion, they lay upon them imputation of blasphemy, think good, in their beginning, to tell them that albeit they have heaped injuries upon them, yet they hold themselves never the more wronged, and much less to be guilty in blasphemy, because they repute them for such, no more than our Lord jesus Christ in the judgement and opinion of Caiphas the sovereign Sacrificator, and S. Stephen, upon whom the said crime was urged by the enemies of truth, Act. 7. King. 1.11. and also Naboth notwithstanding he was innocent: for it is a custom common to such as hate the truth and the light, to blaspheme that which they understand not, and so yield to their proper and natural fury (as S. Peter & Jude writ) that impudently they deny things most apparent, & without shame confess others that are strange and obscure: the same being offered of the Doctoures to the Ministers, of whom they will hear nothing with judgement, nor judge their Doctrine uprightly, but seem in all the course of this Disputation, either to confront them generally without respect, or at lest to give sentence without examination, that what so ever they produce, is either lies, or matter of blasphemy. And albeit the Ministers handling the Omnipotency of God according as they have learned by the consent and contents of the Scriptures, agree always that he is God Almighty, as being able (without exception) to do what so ever he will, and that there is no power neither in Heaven nor Earth, which may hinder, change, or delay in any sort the effect and perfect execution of his eternal and immovable councils: yet his Omnipotency aught not to be stretched without discretion or distinction to all things generally, that men may conceive and imagine in their fond fancies, but to those only which neither are nor can be, contrary to his justice, bounty, & wisdom, nor by consequence against his holy and eternal will, wisdom and truth, which is and shallbe for ever to do all things well and wisely with number, weight, and measure without any iniquity, disorder, or contradiction in any thing he doth. All which things being well understand and considered, are able to clear the Ministers to all indifferent people of the slanderous imposition of the Doctors, raised and falsely pronounced by them, to make us hateful to the world. And to prove it by degrees, and set a truth of their slanders, they change and altar almost all the speeches of the Ministers, either by additions or retractions, as knowing, that without that policy, they were without mean both to ground their said reproaches, and give them any colour of likelihood: which shall now appear by the deduction and particular confutation of their pretended blasphemies against us. first they accuse us as to have said, that God's Omnipotency ought not to be measured, but by the only things which are conformable to his will, and not to derogate his wisdom, his truth, his nature, or the order which he hath established in the world. Wherein to verify their accusation and slander, they chop and hack this sentence, taking the last part of it only, which they have separated from the rest, and which the Ministers had limit to the whole for a more express and clear declaration how God's Almightiness aught to be known, believed, and worshipped of all the world: neither have they understand the term of order according to the sense and meaning of the Ministers, who signify thereby the estate and disposition which God hath established, conserves, and enterteines in all things by his eternal providence and immovable will, only to intercept that no confusion happen in his works, according to the Definition of S. Augustine in his Books de Ordine, and himself hath used in the fifth Book of his Confessions: the which being not understand by the Doctors, they have translated the opinion of the Ministers to the ordinary and accustomed course of Nature, and to the moving of the creatures which be in this world. Wherein, to procure a more exception to the Doctrine aforesaid, they object the miracles that God did above nature, inferring thereby that God doth and may do against his Order established. To the which the Ministers answer, that albeit the miracles be done over and above the ordinary course of nature, yet they are not done contrary to the Order aforesaid, because all things referred to the providence and ordinance of God, be well done and rightly disposed, notwithstanding their reason and Order be many times unknown to men, according to the opinion of Solomon, God doth all things in their time: to the which may be appropriate a testimony out of the Sentences of S. Augustine, 283. and 284. God, who is the Creator and Conserver of Natures, doth nothing in his miracles contrary to nature. Neither doth it follow, that that which is new in custom, is contrary to reason etc. whereof if the Doctors will know further, let them read the second Book made by the said Holy parsonage of the Order, and likewise what he writes of the miracles in the fifth and sixth Chapter of the third Book of the Trinity. This answer may suffice to confute the two other pretended blasphemies which follow in the objection of the Doctors. And touching the fourth we answer, that the will of God may be considered in two sorts, as the Divines teach: which is, as it is declared to men by words, signs, and effects, and according as it is retained and hid in himself: the one is called, Will known by signs, and the other the Will of the good pleasure of God. For the regard of the first consideration, the Ministers confess, (as heretofore they have said to the doctors) that God can do many things which he will not. But to the other we say, his will is equal with his power as also his power (in that regard) is equal to his will: According to which consideration aught to be understanded and interpreted the sentence of Tertullian, alleged by us, and evil applied by the Doctors to the Monarchians, as best may judge all such as heedfully read that place produced by us, who to answer an other reproach of the said Doctoures, accusing us of wrong to the ancients, as to accept some matter of the Omnipotency of God, are here enforced to reiterate Theodorete in his third Dialogue, who writes as followeth: We must not say, without some determination, that all things are possible to God: for who so holds such absolute opinion, comprehends all things aswell good as evil, which ought not in any sort be attributed to God. By which may appear, that neither this good Author, nor the others before alleged by us, would not submit all things indifferently to God's power. But do except what so ever is contrary to his will and essence. To be short, to qualify the difference between the Ministers, who hold it impossible one body to be in diverse places at one instant, and the Doctors which affirm the contrary: there is but one mean, which is, that the Doctors, without entering into so long a circuit, and wasting of speech in alleging so many superfluous matters, do prove summarily by one only place of the Scripture, that God will do it. To know whether the Ministers have well or evil alleged S. Augustine, as to prove that a body cannot be without place and measures, and also whether they have well or evil defended, that the Quantity is essential in a body, and not accidental (as the Doctors hold) they lay themselves upon the upright judgement of the Readers of the Acts of this conference. Touching that which followeth in the writing of the Doctors, that there is no place above the Heavens, wherein jesus Christ is not comprehended & contained: that the Bodies and Spirits are therein differently without any distinction and distance of place. The Ministers say, that touching all those points, they rather believe the Scripture & express word of God (which they have alleged) than all the subtleties and Sophistries which the Doctoures or others are able to bring forth, of their vain Philosophy. Besides the same is expressly contained and taught in one of the Articles of our faith, in this phrase, From thence shall he come to judge both the quick & the dead. By which must be noted, that there is unde, which is an adverb, signifying place. Touching the fourth and fifth Articles to know whether the Ministers have imposed any untruth upon the Doctors, they sand the Readers to the acts of the former conference, as also to learn in what sense, and to what end the Ministers have alleged the Ancients, which they may more easily perceive by the reading and diligent observation of their places and sentences there inferred. Touching the sixth Article, wherein the Doctors had rather confess their Canons to be false, than in deferring the authority of the same, to avow the body of jesus Christ to be true, and being true, that it is necessary that it be in one certain place: the Ministers answer, that by the observation of S. Augustine's place (from whence is taken the said Canon) it is easy to judge that the term Oportet is much more convenient there, than this word Potest. To the eighth Article the Ministers answer, that a substance without quantity, neither is, or can be any way a body, whilst it is and remains so and the reason is, because they are two divers predicaments, that of the substance & that of the quantity, under the which one self thing for one self respect cannot be in any sort comprehended. Besides, Christ allegeth no other reason, to declare his body was not a spirit, but that he had members and parts, which because of their measures, might be handled and touched: Whereupon it followeth, that without that, a substance can not be a body. And touching the difference that should rest according to the opinion of the Doctors, between our souls and bodies, exempt from quantity (if the same were possible) we say, that albeit they were substances different both in number and species, yet they should be like touching genus, and that both the one and other should be contained under the kind of substance not corpored. The ministers pass over the ninth Article, as a matter but of repetition of words, and sufficiently answered already. Touching the tenth Article, we say in the first place, that the consequence whereof there is Question, can not otherways be defended by the Doctoures, than by the rule that saith, of one absurdity may be inferred all things: we complain besides of the time which the Doctoures make us loose in the reading of so many matters already answered, and which seem so often repeated by them, for none other end than to fill paper, and persuade the world that they do something. For in the first place, the Evangelist saith not (as the Doctoures pretend) that Christ entered not by the shut doors, but only that he came the doors being shut, so that he speaks not there in any sort of the manner of his entry, nor how the doors were opened, nor yet of any other part of the house by the which he entered. And as all the sayings of the doctors cannot be founded neither on the scripture, nor any authority of the Ancients by them alleged, who stand rather against, than with them: So, for conclusion, they have no other ground of their opinion, than their singular conjectures and imaginations, with sinister interpreting the writings of the Ancients, to whose Faith they would constrain and assubiect the Church, to the end that having laid this foundation, they may build afterwards thereupon, all their absurdities and errors which they mean to deduce. And where they presupposed, that when jesus entered the doors shut, when he walked upon the waters, and came out of his grave, those miracles were done rather in his person, than in other things: justine writeth the contrary, that without any mutation happening in his body, nor in the body of S. Peter, he brought to pass by his divine virtue, that the Sea against his nature, served him as a way: As also S. Hilary saith to the same respect, that by his power he did all things passable, with whom S. john Chrysostome consents, as attributing all that to a power Divine, and confessing frankly that he was ignorant of the manner and fashion thereof. By mean whereof the Ministers marvel much of the presumption of the Doctors, to offer to determine a thing left indecided by the scripture & the Ancients, and touching the which (according to the wise opinion of S. Hilary) both the sense and the word do fail, and the truth of the fact exceeds the capacity of humane reason. How then dare the Doctors say so impudently, that Christ's body passed thorough the doors, that there was penetration of Dimensions, and that two bodies were in one place, seeing that of all this, there is not one only syllable either in the scripture, or witnessed by the ancients, who confess (as is said) that their understanding and senses were to weak to comprehend or declare the reason of such a Mystery. Touching the birth of jesus Christ, the ministers stand upon the scripture, whose clear opinion is, that the virgin was big bellied, she brought forth and was delivered, she gave suck, and that in the delivery, aperta est vulua: And yet doth none of all this derogate or prejudice the state of her Virginity or integrity, the same consisting in this one point, that she neither knew, nor was known of any man. We say moreover, that in believing this, we follow the scripture, and by consequence can not err, nor be Heretics, neither likewise any other that assubiecte their sense to God's word, as the ancients by us alleged, have done in this. In the Article following, proponed by the Doctoures touching the manner of Christ's Resurrection, it contains nothing but conjectures and reproaches, with superfluous and weary repetitions, which we have already satisfied at the full by our former Answers. And what so ever follows after in the writings of the Doctoures, are but wrongs and injuries in place of reasons and arguments, the same being the last shift of contentious wits, who being destitute of reason, and not able to yield to truth, defend themselves with clamours and sinister impositions. The Doctoures had some reason in their interpretation of the word Aphantos, if there followed autois, but the evangelist saith apantoin, showing clearly that the interpretation of the said place and understanding of S. Ambrose (in which the ministers do settle) is better than the exposition of the Doctoures. Touching the opening of the Heavens, we Answer that they could not fail, using the phrase of the Scripture, who saith clearly, that at the Baptism of jesus Christ, the Heavens were divided, and open when S. Stephen was stoned. And as we take it for an imagination of man, to apply to the air, the signification of the Heaven: So we think it should be to diminish the majesty of God, and jesus Christ raised above all the Heavens, to establish the throne of his Majesty so low as in the air. Neither is there any resemblance or likelihood in the saying of the Doctoures touching the being of two bodies in one place, and the persuasion of the Ministers of the sight of S. Stephen, which stretched even to the Heavens, because the one is a miracle of God's power in nature, and the other a wonder against nature, and contrary to Gods william. In the Article following, the Doctoures do falsely impose upon us an opinion, that it was a thing impossible to God, that a Camel pass thorough the eye of an needle, seeing in our former Answers, we never touched that point, but only that part of the sentence, speaking of rich men. But now to Answer the Objection and fully resolve it, we say, the even as God may save a rich man, by changing him, and purging his heart of all vain trust and presumption, wherewith being infected, he is incapable to enter into the kingdom of heaven: even so it is no less easy for him to make a Camel pass by the crevice of a needle, having circonsised and digged the greatness of the same, with other things which might let him to pass. In the first place, that the Supper which is celebrated in the reformed Church, is the true institution and ordinance of the true Son of God. And after, that the end for the which it was instituted, is, to assure the Faithful of the true participation which they have in the flesh of jesus Christ crucified for their salvation, and in the blood shed for remission of their sins, and lastly for the confirmation of the new alliance which God hath contracted with his people. Thirdly, we say it is necessary that the bread and wine, remain in their proper substance, yea after the Consecration, and that other ways they could not be sacraments of the body and blood of jesus Christ. Finally we say, that the unfaithful presenting themselves to the supper, can not (by mean of their infidelity) receive other thing than the outward signs of bread and wine, and that to their judgement and condemnation. On the other side, we propone to the Doctoures touching their Mass, that as it is, & celebrated at this day in the romish church, it is nothing but an invention and tradition of man. That it is a corruption and profanation aswell of the holy supper of our Lord jesus Christ, as of the true and lawful use of the same. That it is an abuse of the sacrificature of the Papists priests, and that in the new Testament there is no other sacrificature ordained to procure and obtain remission of sins, nor also to intercesse either by prayers or merits to obtain the favour of God, than the only sacrificature of jesus Christ. We say moreover, that the sacrifice of the Romish priests is a blasphemy and Sacrilege, and that there is none other Oblation than that which jesus Christ hath once made in the Cross of his body: by which the ire of God might be appaesed, his justice satisfied, sinners reconciled to God, sin pardoned, and the bond of eternal death canceled and made nothing. We say, the separation of the priest in the Mass from the rest of the people, is a defacing to the Communion of the supper, and (by consequence) damnable afore God. It is an intolerable Idolatry to worship bread & wine: whether it be in the Mass, or out of the Mass. There rest yet two points in the writings of the Doctoures, whereof we admonish them: the one is, that we never found in the scripture, that faith was a humane work, john. 6. Ephe. 2. but that it is a work of God, and a gift which he gives to his chosen: The other is, that we confess not to be able to produce any Ancient author which hath said in plain terms, that one body cannot be in one instant in divers places, because the contrary seems so absurd and strange, and so contrary to reason and faith, which all faithful men aught to have: that we thought such opinion could never found place in the heart of any professing to be a Christian. To end this Answer, we could with greater delight entreat upon the questions aforesaid, than dispute upon the opening of the doors, the sepulchre and the heavens: as, (to our grief) we have done those days passed: and that for two reasons. The one, because the decision and resolution of such questions can not be drawn and gathered of the scripture. And the second, because it can not much serve either to the advancement of the honour and glory of God, or to the relief and instruction of his Church. Thursday. 25. of julie the year aforesaid. The Reply of the Doctors to the writing of the Ministers, sent unto them by the Duke of Nevers, the .25 of Julie 1566. about .8. of the clock in the Evening. WHere the ministers complain of their wrong to be called blasphemers, as making themselves innocent with jesus Christ, S. Stephen and Naboth, upon whom such crime was falsely imposed: the Doctoures say, that in this, they follow the good Donatists, who stood always upon complaint of the great wrongs and injuries which they said they endured of the Catholics: And yet the Histories stand as witnesses of their conformity with jesus Christ, S. Stephen, and Naboth, and also how nearly these ministers resemble those holy examples. The anabaptists might have said no less to them of the reformed church, when they call them Heretics: And so much also might have said and did say, servet, who for his blasphemies was burned at Geneva, esteeming himself happy to be judged by Caluine, a blasphemer for his Doctrine, and to endure the sentence and pain of death. Therefore we must not believe the ministers to be other than the blasphemers, though they shake of that name no less impudently than any other heretic. But it behoves to examine whether their Doctrine import blasphemy or not: we say, there is no blasphemy more worthy of greater curse, than to deny the almightiness of God, which is no less than to deny simply that God is not, which denial contains a Theme. For to take from God, that which is proper to him according to his nature, is as much to say, he is not God: according to S. Basile in an Homely of his entitled, God is not author of evil: He writes, that it is no less blasphemy to say God is Author of evil, than to say that God is not God, because that to take from God his bounty, which is natural to him, is wholly to spoil him of his Divinity, wherein the like may be said of his omnipotency, which who so denieth or diminisheth, denieth also his Divinity. The question than is to know, if the ministers will abolish the omnipotency of God, not in proper terms (for they seem to confess it) but in affirming that his almightiness is measured according to his will: so that he cannot do but that he will, with other such like propositions contained in their former Answers: which whether we have proved or not, to contain blasphemies, we lay us upon every sound judgement, which hath any way searched the holy scriptures, or the books of the Ancient Christians: which as they may also be known by the frivolous Answers of the ministers to our last Objections, so, for our parts, we marvel not much, if they be deceived in the nature of the almightiness, seeing they err in the ground, as not knowing wherein it consists, and why God is called almighty: For they say, they have learned of the Scripture that God is omnipotent, because he can do all that he will, and nothing can resist him: the same being as a sign of the power of God, but (under correction,) it is not the matter wherein it consists, and therefore to know it, it must be considered according to his Object, that is, according to things possible to do, so that there is nothing possible, which God can not do: All thing (without exception) is esteemed possible, where is not found contradiction to be, and not to be: and that comes not by the fault of the power of God (who can do all things) but by the repugnancy of the thing that can not be: which the Ministers in the beginning had perhaps put in some Answer, were it not, that because upon certain interrogatories, they Answered that God's almightiness must be measured according to his will, and thinking to save this error, they are slipped into divers others, which they can not shifted of, without falling into an infinite absurdity, as not to confess to have failed: Wherein their offence is more, in that they go about to limit & bound the power of God, & not suffer it to stretch to all things generally, that the spirit of man may conceive & imagine, seeing (of the contrary) it is not to be doubted, that God's power is great above the conceit and imaginations of man's spirit, yea it is infinite and incomprehensible, as SAINT Paul saith, God can do more, than we eisher demand or understand. And where the ministers say, that God can do only all things which are not contrary to his justice, his wisdom, his bounty and truth, and therefore he can not do all things generally: it hath been already told them, that to be able to do things contrary to the justice, bounty, wisdom, and truth of God, was not power but empower. And by that also as (SAINT Augustine saith) in a place alleged by us in our former Objection, that he can not do such things, it is an argument of his almightiness, and no restraint of the same. And where the ministers infer, that because God cannot do such things, by consequence, he cannot do any thing which is contrary to his wisdom and eternal will, which is, and shallbe for ever to do all things well and wisely, with number, poise, and measure, yea without that there be or shall be any iniquity and contradiction in all that he doth: it may here be seen how the ministers disguise that which is in controversy, concealing the matter of their former writing touching the order established in the world, against the which they said God could do nothing, with other matters of blasphemy, which as we did argue, so they durst not revive them in their last answer, as in respect their conscience urged them, and kindled a knowledge, that as such affirmations could not be sustained: so they could not avoid them, but in denying to have written them, and so accuse us of slander, as to have altered & changed their matters by additions or retractions: for our purgation wherein we sand them to our last objection, where, as the words are produced in the first Article, so the said blasphemies are drawn out of the propre words of the first article of the ministers. And we refer ourselves to the collation of our said last writing, with that of the ministers: only it is, as also most certainly it will be found, the we have faithfully recited the proper words of the ministers, which as they would not advow in themselves, so it will be known at the last, that till now they have maintained propositions of blasphemy, & that therein we have done them no wrong, as pardoning their persons, and being content to speak our simple advise of their Doctrine. The Ministers, to show their just cause to accuse us of slander, say in the first place, that we have cut of their proposition, which was such, that the almightiness of God aught not to be measured but by the things which only are conformable to his will, and do not derogate his wisdom, his truth, his nature, nor the order which he hath established in the world: and that of this, the last part only is taken by the Doctors, who for their purgation say, that they have always considered what was put in controversi, which is, if God can bring to pass, that one body be in two places. And to examine the truth of this Question, afore they committed it to writing, they laid the whole with every part of the Ministers proposition: and have thus argued, that God can do all things which are conformable to his will, the same neing known when there is nothing that derogates either his wisdom, his truth, his nature, or the order which he hath established in the world: as the Ministers hold, one body to be in two places, derogates not the wisdom of God, seeing for all that, God cannot be but wise, it doth not derogate his truth, for he hath never said, that he could not do it, neither yet his nature, for if he should, he should forbear to be God: th' if there be any repugnancy, it should be in this, that it would derogate the order which God hath established in the world, the same being the cause that they rest not but upon the last Article. And we think sure, the Ministers would not say, that to be able to make a body to be in diverse places, were a thing repugnant either to the wisdom, truth, or nature of God, saving in that they judge it repugns the order which God hath established in the world. Besides, the Ministers having laid the said proposition as a Rule to know what God can do, when they would accommodate this Rule to the matter in contention, they ought afterwards to say so, to what things repugn that which the Doctors prefer that one Body in one instant may be in diverse places: but they say and writ only what thing, that is to say, Order etc. which Relative cannot accord but with his former Antecedent, by which may clearly appear, that the Ministers incur the crime of slander, which falsely they object to us. And where they say, we take not the term of the Order established in the world, in the sense they mean it, we answer, that we have construed the term according to the understanding which the Ministers have given of it, according to our judgement of their speeches, and phrases thereof. For when was question to bring in any miracle done by jesus Christ contrary or above the nature of things created, the Ministers had always their recourse to the common order of nature, as when speech was uttered of the doors shut, the coming forth of the Grave, the virgins womb, and of one Body to be in diverse places, the Ministers used no other reason to withstand it, than that all this was contrary to the Order established in the world touching the nature of the Body, which as it cannot be understand but of the common order we see in nature, so the Doctoures have therefore brought in against them, that God cannot do a miracle contrary to the order established in the world, taking it as the Ministers have declared in their former answers, against the order of nature, as knowing (for our parts) that the Ancients observed not this difference above nature, or contrary to nature: which appeareth by Tertullian heretofore alleged, where is said, that God can bring to pass contrary to nature, that a man flee aswell as a bird. But we will not stay upon rigour of words, but apply to the Ministers with whom we confer: who call a work against the order established in the world, a body to be in divers places, because it impugns the common disposition and property of bodies: by which reason the Doctors hold, that all other miracles aught also to be accounted contrary to the order established in the world, because they are against the common disposition and property of nature. And following still the understanding which the Ministers now give of the order established in the world, for the estate and disposition which God hath appointed, conserves & enterteines all things by his eternal providence and immovable will: to guide all things directly, and provide that no confusion happen in his works. Here the Ministers commit eftsoons a new blasphemy against God's Omnipotency: for he may wholly change, altar, & destroy such order as he hath established in the world (albeit he will never do it) and raise a new world more perfect than this. And if it were so that he could do nothing contrary to this order, his power were terminable and limited: for he could not do but certain effects according to the order which he had established in the world, which should happen not by the repugnancy of the Creatures, but because God should bind even his own hands: And so (contrary to the Scripture) his hand should be shortened, and his power restrained and limited: from which blasphemy flow infinite others, as shallbe well declared by us, upon occasion and due opportunity. Touching the second and third Blasphemies noted by the Doctors, the Ministers say, they have satisfied in one word by a new interpretation of the order of the world, which falls out nothing to purpose, to dissolve the Arguments produced by the Doctors. And the Ministers pass over the places of Scripture alleged, which open the Blasphemy, and dissemble the contradiction of the Doctrine, with Calvin's opinion touching God's providence in the order established in the world: like as also they spare to answer our objection that from the third Blasphemy many others do flow, fearing lest in confessing them they heap not blasphemy upon blasphemy, & by that mean make their Doctrine hateful to all the world. To answer the fourth Blasphemy, the Ministers use a distinction of the Will of God, which may be considered in two sorts, the first is called, Will known by signs, and the other a will of his good pleasure. According to the first they confess, that God can do more than he will, and not according to the second, which is (as they say) equal with the power of God, and hid and unknown to men: which distinction, if it aught to have place, we say, that the foundation upon which they fix the truth pretended of this proposition, God cannot bring to pass, that one body be in diverse places, is wholly reversed: For they will have God's power measured according to his will: not according to the second, which is hid from men, so that it must needs be according to the first, by which they confess, that God can do more than he wil By which it followeth, that their Rule which they have given to measure the power of God, is false: for it cannot be measured by his will, seeing he can do more than he william. The Doctors say further, that the Ministers aught not require them to prove, that God would that one body were in two places, to show that he could do it: for the Doctors would object to them, that, to teach that God can do any thing, we must not prove that afore he would do it: seeing that (according to their confession) God can do more than he wil We say further, that seeing the will of God appears not to us but by signs, words, & effects, and that the order established of God in the world, according to his providence, (which the Ministers agree withal) is hid to men, that the Ministers cannot affirm, and show that God hath established such an order in the world, that one body cannot be in divers places: for it behoved them to teach and instruct of such ordinance of God, and declaration of his william. Many times they have been required to prefer only one place of Scripture, where such will of God is manifest, or where it is said, that he cannot bring to pass, that one body be in diverse places. Touching the place of Tertullian, we leave to every direct judgement the understanding of the same. And as for Theodorete, we find him evil alleged by the Ministers, as working more against them, than he aids them. For where he writes that we must not say indeterminately, that God can do all things, comprehending therein both good and evil: in this he makes no restraint of God's Almightiness, but (of the contrary) he amplifieth it, because that not to be able to do evil things, is a virtue & power, as hath been heretofore amply recited. Where the Ministers require us to show that God would that one Body be in diverse places, we answer, that they are two different questions, if God can do it, and if he would do it. And seeing it may be confessed of all Christians (as in deed it aught to be) that the power is in God, it may be easy to prove the Will by the word of the Supper, and the Ascension which they of the Religion pretended reformed, have in custom to deprave and wrest by the impossibility which they feign to be in God, to put one body in two places. The Doctors leave also to the judgement of the Readers, whether the ministers have alleged S. Augustine to purpose or not, like as concerning the quantity, whether it is essential to be a body or not, we never called it in doubt, that it was not essential, speaking of a body as the Philosophers do, In predicamento quantitati● 〈…〉 is to know if it be 〈…〉 certain place 〈…〉 it is not 〈…〉 ●dy, w● 〈…〉 d● 〈…〉 as that which they allege to confirm that our Lord is in a place above the Heavens, is too frivolous, seeing that by the same reason they might conclude, that the Divinity should be circumscript. And there be adverbs signifying place, when in the scripture it is spoken of the Divinity, aswell as when there is speech of the Humanity of jesus Christ. Where the Ministers say, we confess our Canons to be false, it is a manifest slander: For we acknowledge no Canons, if they derive not from the Councils, and other Authentic Books, and not as they are gathered by any particular man, as is the Compilation of Gratian, to whom there is no further faith given, than he deserves that is recited by him. For Resolution of the eighth Article, we send the Ministers to the Phisophers' School to learn that there is in the Predicament of substance a Body which is Species of Substance, and in the predicament of Quantity an other body, which is Species of quantity: and also to learn that the body which is of quantity, is Accidental (and not essential) to the body of the predicament of substance. Besides the Ministers err against all Philosophy, to call a Substance material, incorpored. But the Doctors will not stand upon those things, and are sorry they have not to do with men better principled in Philosophy, who would 〈…〉 ●son than the Ministers do. 〈…〉 Consequence of two Bo● 〈…〉 be in two pla● 〈…〉 ●nd like in● 〈…〉 ●e if the 〈…〉 the 〈…〉 passion) they would examine the testimonies of the ancients, and reasons drawn from the same. But by this we prove, that when there is any thing that presseth the Ministers, it is then they set a good countenance, and make show to have good right. Besides, the Doctoures marvel much how the Ministers dare affirm that justine, and all the ancients have not put the miracle of the doors in the body of jesus Christ, seeing justine makes this express question, how it is possible, that a body gross be not let to pass through the doors shut: in the answer of which question, they conclude it, that because that miracle was done in the nature of the Body of jesus Christ, the Apostles judged it was not a true Body, but a Spirit. As if the Body had been transnatured into a spirit, which justine saith, did not happen, but that without any change of nature, such operation to pass through the doors shut, was given to the Body of jesus Christ's by the Omnipotency of God: as also justine saith, not that any miracle was done in the Sea, when jesus walked thereupon, but that by the Almightiness that was in him, he made it portable, without change of the nature of his Body, or of the Sea, notwithstanding the miracle was in his Body, which contrary to his nature did so walk. It is not enough to allege S. hilary, that the power of God made place to the Body of our Lord, for he doth not only avouch that, but adds the manner of the fact: which is, that the Body passed without change, or diminishing his nature, or without any opening. And yet notwithstanding he passed by the operation of the Omnipotency which wrought in his Body piercing the close and shut places, Nihil (inquit) cessit ex solido Parictum, with other like speech which he useth, by which cannot be understand any other thing, than a penetration of many Bodies. S. Chrysostome disputes expressly, that contrary to his nature, he passed through the doors shut, aswell as out of the belly of the virgin without breaking: neither doth he say simply, that he is ignorant wherein consisted the facts (seeing he describes it) but he amplifieth the virtue of the fact, and saith, that the reason and greatness cannot be comprehended, because it proceeded of the power of God incomprehensible. Touching all which points, the Doctors refer themselves to the reading of the Books, without any further debate against the Ministers, who think always to abuse the ignorance of such as believe them, to deny or affirm what they think good. And as we grieve and are weary to reiterate the reason's herebefore so familiarly and clearly deduced, so by the evasions of the Ministers so often repeated, we are enforced eftsoons to intrude that, which by common consent of the Ancients, they ought to believe, touching the Articles. We much marvel of the manner of Answers of the ministers, who without regard to the matter objected to them, say what they think good of the points proponed, and not answer to the Arguments: as in the Article that toucheth the birth of jesus Christ: in the deduction whereof, we have brought forth many testimonies of the Ancients, holding that our Lord came miraculously from the belly of his mother, as he was also conceived. Wherein as the said Ancients affirm, that that Nativity was done without any breaking to the body of the virgin, so they condemned in Heresy all such as held the contrary: which the Ministers seek yet to maintain, and for all their answer affirm it staying (as they say) upon the Scripture, and dare not openly say, that they reject the judgements of the Ancient and Primitive Church, to repose upon their own sense, which notwithstanding appears clearly enough in their Answer upon this Article, wherein they falsely apply the Scripture, as though it contained that in the Birth of our Lord, A perta fuerit vulua Virgins. And where they say, that that disclesing impugns not her Corporal Virginity (by which the question is ment) they belly the Resolution of the ancients, who have determined upon this matter. In the Article of the resurrection, whether there be other matters than conjectures, the reading of the Objection of the Doctors shall witness, the same being to be seen of such as desire to know the truth. And where, upon the end of the Article of the Resurrection, the ministers complain that we lay wrongs and scoffs upon them, we doubt not but they take in displeasure, that their subtleties and manners of doing are discovered: which, if they were well known, the world would not be so simply beguiled, as heretofore they have been. The Resolution pretended by the ministers, as being not written aphantoes autois, but apauton, is not pertinent. For be it in what sort so ever, our Lord was invisible to his Disciples, whether it was by sudden vanishing away or otherways, the which vanishing in a body present at the eye not troubled, can not be done but that the body is made invisible to them. And how so ever it be, the Greek text bears invisible and unseen. Touching the Article for the opening of the heavens, the ministers (according to their custom) answer not directly. For it is not said that the Heavens were divided or open, when he mounted thither, as in the baptism of jesus Christ and the vision of S. Stephen: but the scripture saith expressly, that Christ pierced the heavens, and not that the heavens disclosed to him: Neither can the ministers forbear to reproach us, in depraving the understanding of our writings, the same being witnessed in this present Answer, wherein they feign to understand that in that text of the scripture importing that Christ pierced the heavens, we would signify the air under the name of the heavens, which never entered into our thought: only we said, that the scripture many times speaking of the opening of the Heavens, by the Heavens, means the air: which aught not to be applied to the opinion that our Lord pierced the heavens. By this manner of Answer, the ministers think to make forgotten the force of the reasons of the Doctoures, whose speech was thus: if when it is spoken in the Scripture, that the Heavens were open, we must wrist the words with rigour, and understand that truly the Heavens did divide: we must in like sort, when the Scripture saith that jesus pierced the Heavens, take this word pierced in his proper signification, and with rigour, which impugns directly the division or opening, as things contrary one to an other: To which reason it gives none other Answer, than ordinarily to the other arguments of the said Doctors. Touching the difference which they put between the sight of S. Stephen, which stretched even to the high heaven, and the being of two bodies in one place, and that the one is a miracle of nature, and the other a wonder against nature and the will of God: They should do much (as being good secretaries of the council and will of God) if they could teach the Doctoures, that God would the one, and could not will the other, and so there would be reason in their saying, as to show what difference they assign between both. The inconstancy of the Ministers is known in the Article of the Camel, which is, whether God can make him pass through the eye of a needle: For in their first Answer upon our Objection, they said without any distinction, that it was a thing impossible to God to bring to pass, that a Camel (or cable) entered the hole of a Needle. And in their second Answer, they allege, that Christ, saying what was impossible to men, is possible to God, pretends no other thing than to Answer to the Question proponed by his Disciples, who may be saved: whereunto he answered that that was impossible to men: And that also that sentence of jesus Christ aught not to be understanded but of the salvation and conversion of the rich men only: The which speech exclusive (when the ministers affirm that our Lord, saying: what is impossible to men, is possible to God, aught not to be understand but of the salvation of rich men) shows clearly enough that the Ministers meant to say by their Answer, that our Lord did not mean to comprehend (under this proposition what is impossible to men, is possible to God) the possibility that a Camel may pass thorough the eye of a needle: as if this proposition were not to understand universally, of which our Lord infers this particular, it is possible to God to save a rich man: yea, he speaks universally by express words, omnia apud Deum possibilia sunt: we desire such as shall read this present writing to consider the escapes of the Ministers, whose good custom is to disavow and deny the errors which they maintain, when by the truth they are convinced. Now the ministers, giving over the defence that God can not bring to pass that a Camel pass thorough the eye of a Needle, have invented a most frivolous interpretation, in confessing that God can do it, but the mean should be, in that God might cut of, and diminish the greatness of a Camel, and all other things that might let him to pass: But the text can not brook such a gloze, seeing our Lord speaks of a thing altogether impossible to men: which should not be: For albeit it were impossible for a man to make and produce a Camel of so little thickness and greatness, as he might pass thorough the eye of a Needle, yet if God produced such one, or if he did proportion or fashion so far the greatness and thickness of a Camel, and that a man held him, he might make him pass. But there is no Question to produce a Camel, or to make him great or little, but only to make him pass, which should be no miracle in respect of the passage, if he were so little, but only in regard of the production of such a Beast, or change of his quantity. And in taking this name of Camelus for a Cable (which Caluine finds the better) the absurdity of this new exposition will appear the better: For a man may so much extenuate a cable, by drawing out his matter whereof he is made, that in the end he might make it pass thorough the crevice of a Needle. Besides, it might be easy for a man to make a Needle, whose hole might be so large, that a cable (yea a Camel) might pass therein: But the scripture speaks of things impossible to a man, and according as they be in their nature: Therefore as we must take the hole of a needle in his little and strait quantity, so must we take a Camel (or cable) in his natural greatness, neither were the ancients ever so subtle, as to invent such politic interpretations, which can not be read without laughing. But they can not so cunningly escape with this fine exposition, that the world seeth not clearly enough how they deny that God's power can stretch so far, as to make, that a Camel remaining in his crookedness and thickness may pass thorough the hole of a needle, but only, when, by the power of God he is brought in quantity proportionable to the hole of the needle: the same being against the express text of the scripture, and far from the exposition of the Ancient interpreters. Notwithstanding that, besides the literal sense, they construe the Camel sometimes allegorically, which Allegorical exposition takes not away the truth of the literal sense, no more than the Acts of jesus Christ forbear to be true, albeit the interpreters expound them allegorically, wherein the ministers are abused, as thinking, because they have red some interpretation other than literal in S. Jerome, that the comparison which our Lord useth in this behalf, is also a Parable: which is false: For it is a true argument that our Lord useth to declare his power to save a rich man, as being a matter of more difficulty, than to make a Camel pass thorough the eye of a needle. To conclude this Article, we tell them once again, that of the denial of the scope of God's omnipotency, do follow many other absurdities, which we can not otherways term than blasphemies: as, that by God's almightiness two bodies can not be in one self place: that God can not make a body without circumscription of place: That Christ did not enter, nor could enter by the doors shut: That he did not, nor could rise again, but that the stone of the Monument was taken away: that he is not, nor could issue out of the virgins womb without disclosing the body of his mother: that he did not, nor could penetrate the heavens without opening of the same: That he did not, nor could make a body, (yea even his own) invisible: And that he could not bring to pass that a Camel (or cable) keeping his grossness, might pass thorough the hole of a Needle: From these is derived the denial of his almightiness, a blasphemy most execrable, and very atheism: These be the disordered absurdities which such are enforced to confess that deny the Real presence of the body of jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Aultare: which the Doctors pray may be well considered by the Readers of this present cautel. Where the ministers in the last Article of their Answer, challenge us for calling Faith an humane work, seeing it is of God, that is not to be marveled in them no more than a numbered of other truths which seem strange to them: because their Doctrine is grounded upon the foundation of error, amongst the which, this is not lest in degree, that man hath not a free will, and that for a man to think well, to will well, and to do well, doth not work with God, contrary to many places of the Scripture, which sets a man working with God, both for his Faith and works, and receives recompense for the same: which shall be more aptly handled in an other place without varying from the matter. We are very glad the Ministers confess that the ancients never said that a body was in two places which is true, but the reason they give, why they have not said it, is of the forge and invention of the Ministers: they might tell us as much out of the testimony of scripture, wherein is no more found than in the writings of the Ancients, whereof we have sundry times warned the said ministers, who challenge to ground all their Doctrine upon God's word. If the ministers at the beginning had confessed the truth of the omnipotency, or that they would have acknowledged that Christ might bring to pass that his body might be on high, and near below in the Sacrament really and truly, if he would, we had no need to handle the questions passed: which notwithstanding contain no small consequence, as the ministers esteem, the same appearing by the writings of the Ancients who have handled those places with great diligence, and with them, have aided themselves against the heretics: But because the ministers will not agree that God may bring to pass that one body be in divers places at one instant. And that if they had begun to show his will to be such, as to ordain that the body of jesus Christ might be in heaven and in the sacrament, they might have said (as is the opinion of these of their sect) that God would it not, because he could it not: And albeit we had rather treat first of the omnipotency than of the will, so, seeing the first hath been sufficiently handled, we are now in mind to prove that jesus Christ would and did ordain his body to be in divers places, in the proof whereof, we will enter into the first conference after we understand the fancy of the Ministers what they held in their Church touching this matter, to the end we travail not in vain, as judging that they follow not the opinion of Caluine and Beza, for which cause we say they, much abused the people, feigning to teach according to the Custom and Direction of the Reformed Church, and yet in their Answers, they declare the contrary. Where they hold themselves right happy to endure such reproaches, as to be esteemed seducers by us, Let them remember that all sects may say as much as they, but whether it be right or wrong, we shall make seen by the examination of their Doctrine. The Resolution of the Doctoures touching the Article of God's omnipotency, as for the regard of the four Questions proponed by them to the Ministers, the same serving to the understanding of the Real presence of the Body and Blood of jesus Christ in the holy Sacrament. ALl men disposed with patience to run thorough the scriptures, and beginning from Abraham the Father of the Faithful, even until the last writing of the Apostles: shall find that the very root and fountain of all infidelity ordinarily was, in having regard to the property of creatures and common order of nature, as to gainsay and enter into doubt and distrust of the word of God. In respect of which reason, Tertullian and other first Christians said well that the Philosophers and such as depended upon natural things, were the Fathers of Heretics: because the contemplation of nature engendered almost all heresies: of the contrary, men may perceive that the omnipotency of God is proponed by the scriptures, as a knife cutting in sunder all arguments which might come of natural reasons: as to take a certain and last resolution to believe all that is written and imported by the said word of God, albeit it seem impossible and incomprehensible to all creatures, and that our Faith might rest upon the same power, in all doubts what so ever. All the difficulties that Abraham made upon the promises which God made to him, proceeded of certain impossibilities of nature which he saw in himself & in his wife: wherein it seems that his consideration stretched no further, till God used his authority and said to him, I am God almighty: since warning of God, Abraham forgot all regards to the properties of his nature, and took hold of this buckler of faith, which is to know and fully persuade himself, that God is almighty, to whom nothing is hard or impossible: And after this, when there was question to slay his only son, notwithstanding he had great appearance of contradiction in nature, and in the word of God given to him (which was, that from the seed of that son should issue one that should bliss all nations, and yet he must kill him afore he had any lineage descending of his body) yet he did not contest, as opposing this contradiction of nature, and of the word of God, to maintain, that which had been said and promised him, was impossible: but he had recourse to the pillar of the Faith of the Faithful (as S. Paul to the hebrews) which is, to the omnipotency, with this persuasion, that God had the mean to make the one and the other true, as to make his Son die, and raise him up again, to the end to draw out of him afterward, lineage and posterity: (albeit as then there had been no example of the Resurrection.) Likewise the consideration of creatures, and the order of nature which Moses saw before him, made him fall into infidelity: but God showed him his fault, when he denied that he was able to nourish the people long with flesh: seeing the nature of the desert did not bear it, warning him to raise up his spirit to the almightiness against nature, and there to settle and assure his Faith. Moses' said: Here be six hundred thousand people, in the midst of whom I am, and thou hast said, I will give them flesh, to the end they eat a whole month, shall we kill them Muttons or Béeffes which may suffice them? Or shall we gather all the Fishes of the sea to content them? God answered to Moses: the hand of the Lord is it shortened? thou shalt see now whether my word will come to pass or not. In like manner, as often as we read in the Scriptures, that the multitude or other particular sort fell into infidelity or distrust of the aid and succours of God, we shall find that ordinarily it moved in respect they rested upon the nature and disposition of humane things, and did not comprehend sufficiently the power of God: and of the contrary, to confirm them, we find that this power was put before their eyes, whereof we have here before produced certain Examples of Esay and Jerome. In the new Testament, the Virgin seemed to make some doubt of the mean of her Conception, as having regard to the natural manner of conceiving: For she said, how may this be, seeing I know no man? But the Angel Answered, nothing is impossible to God, drawing her by that from the imagination of natural properties, which is the root of infidelity, & exhorted her to aspire to the almightiness of God, as being the first stone and rock whereupon is builded true religion. This being considered, and so to resolve with the Ministers for this conference, we say, that by good right, god's almightiness obteines expressly the first place amongst the Articles of the Apostles creed, as being the same, by the which the other Articles of Faith and doings of God above nature, are believed and maintained against all contradiction and repugnancy of nature, or reason that may be pretended or alleged, and without the which, neither Article of the Faith, or any doings of God surpassing nature, and contained in the Scripture, can be defended against the malice and depravation of humane Spirit, which tends always to infidelity and disobedience to God, and is prompt and subtle, from his birth, to deprave and reproach the word and commandment of the same, by mean whereof we say, that so much the more every good Christian ought to enforce himself to hold & preserve this Article whole, without either suffering any exception, or to restrain it to our single pleasure or purpose, under colour of incertain pretended repugnances of Creatures moving in the Spirits of men, for want of direct understanding, & comprehending the greatness of God: for as the Scripture gives to us always this Omnipotency in general, without any restraint in regard of creatures and doings of God, so it teacheth us, that creatures are under his obedience, as the Clay in the hands of the Potter to receive such change and form as he thinks best, without that they can say, why do you this to me, or why change you me? such similitude of speech use the Prophet Esay, Jerome, and S. Paul. We say further, that so much less aught it to be licensed to men to limit and bond the said power according to the contradictions which they imagine in their fancies, of the nature, wisdom, or eternal will of God: seeing the express sentence of the Scripture is, that as God can do more than we understand, so he smiles at such as will meddle with his nature, wisdom, & eternal will: as if they were his Counsellors, and knew further of his judgements and ordinances, than his own word doth pronounce: and in the end, all spirits created are constrained with S. Paul, to cry out, confessing their ignorance of the power & wisdom of God, and of his doings: O depth of Richeses of the knowledge & wisdom of God? O that his judgements are incomprehensible, and his ways impossible to find. For who is he, that hath known the intent of the Lord? or who hath been his Counsellor? Wherewith we may also note upon this point a godly sentence of S. Augustine in an Epistle of his to Volusianus: We confess that God can do something, which in searching we cannot find, meaning that as God can do something, so albeit in our natural judgement we think it impossible, yet let us hold it possible: only the capacity of our spirit is not able to comprehend it. We say further, that by such licence and mean to exempt from God's power at our pleasure, under colour of certain impossibilities of nature, or repugnancy supposed by our own judgement in the nature, wisdom, or will of God, every one may study to feign the like in all matters of Faith, wherein such things may be easily invented or disguised. And that it be so, if all the Heresies be observed that have withstand it in every time from the first Article of the Creed even to the last, it will appear, that they all have kept this way and method, to shake every Article of the Faith, as impossible to God, considering the impossibility of the fact according to nature, and certain pretended inconveniences against nature, wisdom, will, and glory of God. To this effect also we apply the two first Books of Tertullian, whereof the one is of the Incarnation of jesus Christ, and the other of the Resurrection of his Flesh, against the marcionists: wherein the Christian Reader shall read like Arguments of the said marcionists, labouring to exempt the Incarnation of our Saviour, and Resurrection of his Flesh, from the Omnipotency of God. Now to conclude this point, we speak it to all good Christians, that to the end to add nothing to the Scriptures, whose speech is always of the power of God to his Creatures, without any lymitation, and to the end to glorify the infinite power, wisdom, and eternal will of our Creator and Redeemer: and also not to open the vessel of the secrets of God to every impudent, who of his own folly will set Laws to men, but to the power, wisdom, and eternal will of God. And lastly to the end not to bring into the world all Heresies only, but also an Atheism, who (according to his sense and fancy,) may and will oppose and gainsay the infinite power of the true, living, and eternal God. We affirm eftsoons that it is necessary to believe, confess, and maintain, that our God is the Almighty Lord without end, to whom as nothing is impossible, so even the lest of his works standing daily afore our eyes, cannot be comprehended. And in plain speech, he is no more a Christian, nor a faithful man, who restrains or draws into any limit the power of God: for thereby he reverseth the maintenance of the Faith, which aught to be general, as to the which no exception can be given. But as the Omnipotency aught to be kept in his generality and perfection, so our opinion is, that it is not enough to say, that God is almighty, and hath the virtue to do any thing, as to infer that it is done: for all that our Lord can do, he hath not yet done, nor never will do, because his power is infinite. But the knowledge of this omnipotency serves to confess & magnify the greatness of our God, & to maintain his works incredible by nature which are comprehended in his word, & in our Faith: and also to confute all such as would deny any of them as impossible to be done by any manner what so ever. And because Caluin and Beza with their Ministers, raise themselves against the power and greatness of our Lord, and openly deny him to be able to commit the body & blood of jesus Christ under the forms of Bread and Wine: and because also that in the Religion pretended reformed, (to resist the efficacy of the word, This is my Body, this is my Blood) they teach not a more great reason, nor more familiar to all those that are out of the way, than the impossibility of God, to be able to make a body to be in two or many places, that is to say, in the Sacrament, and in Heaven: we object with good right to the Ministers, that in their Doctrine they derogate the first Article of Faith, which is, of the Almightiness of God. And also we know that the ancient manner of the Christians, disputing against the adversaries of Faith, was oftentimes to begin to ask, whether that whereon they doubted were possible to God or not, or whether only he would not do it: in which sort and order Tertullian and others propone the points wherein they enter into contention against the Heretics. In like sort, afore we pass further into the matter of the holy Sacrament, we would (in preamble wise) feel of the Ministers, whether they judged it to be in God's power to make a body occupy many places, or whether only he would not etc. wherein we are enforced to advertise all Christians of one manner of dealing common to all the Ministers of the pretended reformed Religion, which is, when they are asked, if God can establish the body of jesus Christ in the Sacrament or not: they answer, that there is no question of the power of God, but of his Will only. And when we produce matter which declares the will of God, then (of the contrary) they deny that his will is such, because it is impossible to him. Alleging here, their contradictions according to the nature of the body. And because they think this to be impossible in action, they deprave and interpret the word of the Supper otherways than either it bears, or is written. Here is also to be noted that, wherein an Almain called Heshusius, reproacheth Caluin, that he & his fellow Ministers are goodly & noble amplifiers of the power of God, but when it comes to the deed and push (as the saying runs) they neither give or grant him any more, than they think meet, to introduce their errors and fancies, resembling (as the said Almain compares them) a good Traitor, who most doth cherish and magnify a man, when he is most ready to betray him, as judas did our Lord: wherein we are constrained to say of the Ministers touching God's Almightiness, as Tertullian saith of the Heretics, Credendo non credunt, which is, in believing the Omnipotency, they believe it not: for when they have said, that there must be no exception, they hold again an other way, that it must not stretch to every thing that man's spirit can conceive, and so they will not apply it but to what they think good, covering themselves with the nature, wisdom, & eternal will of God, which are no less unknown and incomprehensible to them, than his Omnipotency: in which respect we advise every one not to be abused with the speech of Caluin nor his ministers, but to consider the works which they deny to be in the power of God. We have produced to them these four questions: Whether God may make a body to be in two places, and (of the contrary) two bodies in one place: Whether he can lodge one body in one space, less than his greatness, and whether he can make it invisible, which have been specially culled and chosen, for that upon them are founded the principal arguments of the pretended reformed Religion against the true presence of the Body and Blood of jesus Christ in the Holy Sacrament. We believe simply (as all other things) that the four questions are possible to God, and have proved it by the infinity of his power, both by the scriptures, who give unto him all virtue over creatures without any exception, and also by Examples and strange miracles done upon bodies against their natures, which are written, as Tertullian holdeth in his Book of the Resurrection, to the end we believe that our God is more mighty than all Law and nature of all bodies, whereunto he adds, that such know God very evil, who think that he hath not in his power, things which they cannot comprehend in their fancy. From whence it comes (as S. Cyril saith) that such wicked spirits reject and condemn all things as impossible, because they understand them not. Besides, we think we have sufficiently showed no less by express scripture, than by the Exposition of the same, taken of the Ancient Christians, that it was not only in God's power to make two bodies to be in one place, and one body without place equal to his greatness, but also that he had already truly done it in the birth of the body of our Lord jesus Christ, in the Resurrection of the same, ●●is entry through the doors shut, and in his Ascension above all the Heavens: like as also we have deduced, that there was equal and like repugnancy in those deeds, as in the other of one body in two places, which by the scripture is no more excepted from the power nor will of God than the others, as to judge it impossible to be done: neither hath there been any Christian afore our time which durst affirm the same to be impossible and out of the power of God, notwithstanding the occasion was often offered, if they had any way esteemed it impossible, as the Ministers of the supposed reformed Religion pretend. Of the contrary, the most part of the ancient Authors of the Primitive Church have holden expressly, that it was in God's power to bestow a creature in many places, according to S. Jerome's opinion against the Heretic Vigilantius, that the souls of the Saints may assist in many places, with the immaculate Lamb our Saviour jesus Christ. Yea there was question, Whether the said souls and spirits of the Holy ones, did assist at any time the Churches, where their Graves and Monuments were: the same resembling with S. Augustine in his Book which he wrote of the care to be had of the Dead, Chapter 16. where he saith, that by the power of their nature, the souls cannot be here below, and in Heaven, or in many places, but that the same may be done by the power of God, and he will not resolve, whether they understand our affairs by such assistance in many places, or by revelation of the Angels, or other mean of the power and grace of God. moreover it is most certain, that the Ancient Fathers of the Church, in the matter of the Holy Sacrament, have acknowledged & maintained that the Body of jesus Christ by Omnipotency was in many places, as S. Ambrose upon the tenth of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and S. Chrysostome in his seventeenth Homily upon the same Epistle, where they both almost in one phrase and words, writ, that albeit in many places there be many actions and oblations of the Body of jesus Christ, yet having regard to the thing which is offered, (that is, to the true Lamb and body of jesus Christ) that Sacrifice offered in many places, is but one, because it is but one self thing, the true Lamb and true body of jesus Christ, which is but one, and remains whole in all places where he is offered. And they add further, that the Oblation of the same in divers places, is not an iteration of the sacrifice of the Cross, but in commendation of the same: so that in the sacrifice of the Mass, they acknowledge and distinguish two points, the one, concerning the Realty of the thing that is offered, which they say is the true Lamb, and true Body of jesus Christ, who as then remaining one and in his entire, is notwithstanding in many places. And the other concerns the action of such a thing by the Priest, which is no iteration, nor like action, or oblation to that of the Cross, but divers in commemoration notwithstanding of that which was made on the Cross. S. Chrysostome in his third Book of priesthood, cries out, and saith, O miracle and power of God: He that uts on the Right hand of the Father above, is holden between the hands of every one in this sacrament. S. Augustine upon the 33. Psalm declares, that the body of jesus Christ in the supper, was in two places, that is, in his visible place amongst his Apostles, and yet between his proper hands, in such sort as he carried himself. But afore he concluded upon this, S. Augustine debates with himself how it was possible, that a person should bear his Body between his hands: And after he hath examined it to be impossible to David and all other creatures, he descends at last to the Divine power which was in jesus Christ, by the which, to him alone amongst other men that miracle was possible. But leas●e we depraud or wrist the intent of S. Augustine, because he was carried in a certain manner (as though that diminished the truth) let us consider that the end & meaning of S. Augustine is, to show that jesus by his Omnipotency carried himself, which was impossible to any Creature. But if he had only carried in the Supper between his hands, the Figure, Sacrament, and Sign of his Body, and not the Real Truth, he had done no more than the least man might have done, seeing every one may bear the Figure, Image, Sign, or Sacrament of his body between his hands, or fastened as a Brooche to his Cap, without miracle or power supernatural: so that the certain manner which S. Augustine useth, diminisheth nothing of the Truth: which is, that he was visible between his hands, and in one manner supernatural, albeit Real and true. S. Basil, with others in his Liturgy, avows the body of jesus Christ to be in Heaven, and yet present in the Sacrament by Omnipotency. And yet the Ministers are grounded principally upon the said S. Basil, to prove the impossibility that one body or an other creature may be in many places. But he protests expressly in the very place alleged by the Ministers, not to speak but according to the natural property. And in his Liturgy he declares, that it is not only in God's power to bring to pass, that the body of jesus Christ be in Heaven, and in the Aultare, but also that it be truly done so. To end this question of one body in many places, we say that it is not only in the power of God, but also we must believe that it is so done in the Sacrament, to the end God be not found a liar or a deceiver in his word, by which jesus affirmed to his Apostles that that which he gave with his hands was his true Body delivered for us. Which Argument Tertullian makes in his Book of the Resurrection after he had disputed against such as denied it to be possible to God: wherein it seems that they said (as the Ministers said first) there was something impossible to God by Scripture, which is, that he could not lie nor deceive: of which they took occasion to pass further, and dispute that the Resurrection was also impossible to him: like as also the Ministers, of the point that could not lie, have laboured to infer, that to put one body in two places, was impossible to him, as well as to lie and deceive: in the end, Tertullian accords with the Martianistes that he had rather confess that God could not deceive, and that he is only weak and impotent in deceit, to the end that thereby it might be seen, that he hath not otherways taught or spoken, nor otherways disposed the fact, than is contained in his word. Then, if he can not (as Tertullian concludes) deceive and abuse, we must believe the resurrection, as his word bears it, and not otherways, to the end there be no deceit in the said word and in God: Even so we say, and willingly confess that God can not lie nor deceive, in regard whereof we must believe, that he hath so willed and ordained the truth of the supper, as the word pronounceth, and not otherways. And if it be so that the word bear Verbatim, and expressly, that he affirms that that which he gave with his hands to his Apostles to eat, was his body delivered for us, we must then believe that his word speaks not otherways then his will is, lest he be esteemed a liar: And that as he hath said, this is my Body, this is my blood, that truly it is so, which (God willing) we mean to handle in the next conference for declaration that not only he might establish his body in the holy Sacrament, but also that he would, and did so. Articles proponed by the Doctors, for the next conference and others following according to the order of the said Articles. ALbeit, (according to the order of the conference) touching the creed of the Apostles, we aught secondly to entreat of an other Article: (like as even the ministers themselves in the first days of conference did not only consent, but made request, offering the Articles of their Confession Imprinted under Date .1564. to be examined by us from the first to the last) yet we, seeing it can not be much from the matter, after we have handled the omnipotency of God, (which stretches so far as to make him able to bring to pass that the body of jesus Christ be in heaven and in the sacrament) continuing still this matter, to enter into the proof of his will are content to show that not only he could do it, but also he would do it, and so consequently are determined to refute all the blasphemies & heresies of the supposed reformed side, which are contained in the supper, to the end also we be not thought to eschew the combat of the supper & the Mass, as the ministers have reproached to us: protesting notwithstanding to keep in meaning, that after we have concluded & resolved upon this matter, to return to the examination of the monstrous errors of the ministers, which contain great numbers against the other Articles of the creed: which the ministers fear, by all likelihood, in that they are not willing we pursue the order begon, as foreseeing, that in the next conference, we would open unto them an other blasphemy maintained by the reformed church against the bounty of God, according to Calvin's doctrine, which is, that God works in the reprobate the evil & sin which they commit, which is an execrable atheism, & no less than the denial of god's omnipotency: and in like sort, as such as shall read these conferences if they continued to the end & discussing of the ministers errors & their religion against all the articles of the creed) shall marvel to understand the absurdities & blasphemies descending from them: so yet there is an other point the draws the ministers to demand the disputation of the supper, which is, that they have all their matter readily prepared by many of their sect which have written thereof: as especially they will not want the great Book of Peter Martyr by which they are furnished with sundry infamous objections, & certain texts of the Ancients either cut of & depraved, or evil applied, to impugn (in show) the truth of the body in the sacrament: but to the defence of all their other errors, they are very slenderly provided: wherein their conscience is a sufficient witness, that by the scripture, judgement of general counsels, & common consent of the authorities of the ancients, they are convinced & condemned of their errors against the said creed. But to enter into the supper of the ministers, we say it is a profane eating & drinking, not differing from the common eating & drinking, saving that it is so much the worse, as they abuse the holy institution of the supper of jesus, and pollute and defile such their banquet withal impiety & blasphemy: we maintain also that they do great wrong to the sacrament of jesus Christ, to attribute falsely to such their banker so profane and defiled, the name of sacrament: And to the end to prove it more clear, we ask them, if they receive a common doctrine, allowed not only in the catholic church, but also of all the sects which are separated from it: the same is, that in the confection of sacraments, there be two things essential and necessary, the matter (or the element) and the word. Secondly, what word is necessary with the element to constitute a sacrament, & namely that which they call the sacrament of the supper, and whether they must use certain words or not. Thirdly, if the word have any virtue or efficacy in this sacrament, and what: And if it work any thing in the matter of bread and wine. Fourthly, whether by the same word the consecration be made of the matter of the sacrament or not. In the fifth place, if by the word, there be not made consecration of the matter: that is, how the same consecration is made, and by what virtue the sacrament is made. For the sixth, if besides the bread & wine, and the spiritual graces & benefits of jesus Christ, is received in the supper really the true body & blood of jesus Christ in his proper substance, & not only in spiritual effect: upon this Article we require of the ministers, an open confession of faith. We ask further, if in receiving the bread afore they take the wine, they receive by the eating of the bred, the body & blu● of jesus Christ, or only the body: to be●●●rt, if they admit that which the divines call a concomitance of the body & blood of jesus Christ. We ask also, if the supper, besides the assurance it gives them of participation in the flesh of jesus Christ in their redemption, do work in them re●ission of sin. We ask lastly, if by the supper, there is received any thing which can not be received out of the Supper, or, if without taking of bread to go to the Supper, or to assist it, may be received as much of the body and graces of jesus Christ, as if they did assist the supper. We will debate afterwards the other Articles contained in the last pamphlet of the ministers, because the former demands are to be first examined as grounds of the other Articles proponed by the ministers. For the rest, after the supper of the ministers is confuted, and the Real presence of the body and blood of jesus Christ in the sacrament, confirmed: we will proceed by order and without confusion, to teach clearly by the pure and most express word of God, that the Mass was instituted & said by jesus Christ, and that also he commanded his Apostles to say it, which they did according to the ordinance of their Master. That the Mass is a true sacrifice of the evangelical law. That such as reject the Mass, and admit no outward sacrifice in the Church, nor priesthood, are without true law and without true Religion, and therefore worse than Idolaters. That the Mass is of value to obtain remission of sins, favour and grace of God, and that it is of value both for the quick and the dead. That it is no abuse in the Church, if the Priest communicate alone in the Mass, when the assistants will not communicate with him. That such commit horrible blasphemy, which call the worshipping of the body of jesus Christ in the Sacrament, the worshipping of bread and wine, and falsely do they call such veneration of the body of jesus Christ, idolatry. To be short, there is nothing in the mass as it is celebrated in the Church at this day, which is not good and holy in itself, and conformable to the word of God. We require the ministers to Answer to the demands here before written, pertinently, clearly, and by order. Sunday .28. of julie, the years aforesaid. The Answer of the Ministers to the writing of the Doctors, sent to them by the Duke of Nyvernois the .28. of Julie .1566. about .7. of the clock in the Evening. THe Doctors in the beginning of their writing reproach us, as that in our complaint against them, we imitate the Donatists: wherein they justify our former judgement and opinion of them, that the most part of their writings swarmed more with matters of repetition, injuries, scoffs and invectives than with arguments and good reasons: like as also the example of the Donatists, becomes them far better than us: because the Donatists sought to restrain the name of the Church, who comprehends universally all the chosen and Faithful, that either are, or ever were: and attribute it to the only company of those that followed their customs and errors, as at this day the Doctoures allow not to be of the Catholic and universal Church, other than such as follow the traditions and abuses of the romish Church. Besides, as the Donatists persecuted such as stood against their Doctrine, using every violence and cruelty they could imagine according to S. Augustine's testimony in many places, so the whole world stands to judge of the rage and fury, as well of the Doctoures, as their complices, priests and hypocrite Monks, against the poor Christians in times past, like as also for the present, there is none that knows not, both by their Sermons, writings and conferences, what hateful and grudging minds they bear against the servants and children of God, and how much they would delight to root them up, if their power were equal with their desire: By which may be judged, whether they or we resemble nearest the example of the Donatists. And where they say, we are nevertheless blasphemers, because we shake of and detest the name, we Answer that they are also nevertheless reprochers and backebiters, notwithstanding they deny it and disavow the title: Like as the mutual effects on both parts stand as Arbitrators, to which of us these crimes and names may appertain or be attributed. And where the Doctors in the same Article say, that it is a blasphemy against the bounty of God, to charge him with imputation to be author of vice and sin, we confess it: with this addition, that it is also a blasphemy against his truth, to say that in him is yea and not: as they do, who under a colour and false pretence to establish the omnipotency of God, affirm, that in one instant, he may bring to pass that one body be in divers places, which is to say, that he is, and is not. Touching that which they say after, that we err in the grounds of the omnipotency of God: as saying that he was almighty, for that he doth what he list, and that nothing can hinder or let the execution of his Councils: we Answers that in that we followed the Definition of S. Augustine in the Enchiridion, cap. 96. whose words be these, verbatim: truly he is not called Omnipotent by any other reason than that he doth all that he will, and that the effect of the will of the almighty, is not hindered by the will & effect of any creature. Touching an other their matter of imputation against us, in that we should say that the almightiness of God, aught not to be stretched generally to all things that men's wit● can conceive and imagine, we Answer, and (under correction of the Doctors) say, we said not so, but that God's omnipotency aught not to be stretched without some discretion or distinction, to all things generally, that men may forge and imagine in their foolish fancies, wherein it may eftsoons appear to every one, how they cut of and falsify our speeches and sentences, as to have mean and colour, to slander us. Against that they say after, that it is a blasphemy to hold that God can do nothing against order, we say, in the contrary, that to think and speak that he can do any thing which is not well ordained, is to blaspheme his wisdom and eternal providence. In the Article following, the Doctoures pretend that for one body at one instant to be in divers places, is not a thing that derogates the truth of God: we maintain the contratrary, that it would derogate both his truth, because there should be in him (as is said) yea and not, and also his wisdom, for that in his works there should be disorder and confusion: and by consequent, it would derogate his omnipotency, seeing that in his doings there would be imperfection: And we say further, that it would not only be against the disposition and ordinary course of nature (as the Doctors feign to think and understand) but also against the eternal and immovable will of our God. And where, the Doctoures, to prove that God may do any thing against order, affirm that he may change and altar the order he hath established in the world, we confess it but deny that in doing so, he should do any thing that was disordained, as (for Example) all the Faithful and Christians, believe that God, in the end, will renew the state of all the world, and yet in this time, notwithstanding, there shall be nothing which is not well ordained, perfect and accomplished in all his parts. In the Article following, the Doctors confounded the distinction proponed by us in our Answer, between the will of God manifested, & that which he holds hid in himself, and is equal to his power, as we have heretofore amply declared: wherein the Doctors propone a false touching the will of God manifested, as taking generally, that which we agreed unto them only, in certain particular cases, which is, that God can do more in certain things, than he hath declared he will, which no man doubts: as S. Augustine saith in his book of perfect justice, that he can not well bring to pass, that a man be perfect in this world, and so sanctify him, that there rest no more infirmity or imperfection in him, and yet he never declared to us by his word, that he would do it. But of the contrary that the flesh will always resist the spirit in all those that are regenerate, in such sort that all the time of their lives, they shallbe imperfect in many parts: But be it that in this case, and any other like to it, God can do more than his will bears that is manifest to us in his word: yet, it is not to say for all that, but that there be other cases, wherein God hath revealed to us his will, against the which he can not do or order any thing: as (for example) he hath told us that he is one, that he is immovable, incomprehensible, altogether good, wholly just, no way imperfect, and every way true: against all which things (which are disclosed to us, and plainly pronounced in his word) it is impossible to him ever to think, say, do, or order any thing: it is not so then that the matter proponed and debated by the Doctoures touching a body to be in divers places at one instant is comprehended within this, being (as is said) contrary to the truth of God, which shall serve to answer their flanders, and to all else which they have proponed in this Article: as also in an other Article following, where they say, the God can not only, but that he will also bring to pass that one body occupy divers places in one instant, which shallbe more impossible to them to prove the power aforesaid, by the which they have made so much labour hithertofore in vain. In the definition which they use of a body in the Article following, they say against themselves, in holding that the dimensions are essential to him, and yet notwithstanding he may be incircumscript: For if it be necessary, that the dimensions whereof he is composed, be terminable, it follows then necessarily that he is termined, limited, and circumscript. Afterwards where they say, that our reasons taken of the Creed, & alleged to prove that the body of jesus Christ is in heaven in place certain, are frivolous: we Answer, that therein they show, the reverence they bear to the word of God and his holy spirit which hath revealed it unto us, and to his Apostles who have pronounced it to us. To justify Gratian and the Canon which we allege of S. Augustine, as proving thereby that the body of jesus Christ must necessarily be in a certain place: We allege again for more ample confirmation, the Master of sentences, Lib. 4. Distinct. 10. who reciting the self same text of S. Augustine, useth this verb Oportet, and not Potest. Where the Doctors allege justine to prove that the miracles which were done when Christ appeared in the midst of his Disciples the doors being shut, and when he walked upon the waters, were done in his person. We marvel much, that the Doctors do yet repeat that, seeing the same justine (as hath been already answered them) saith in express terms, that at the time when the said miracles were done, there happened no change in the body of jesus Christ, which as it had been necessary, if the miracles had been done in his person: so we confess still (as many times we have done) that the cause of the said miracles, and the Divine virtue of which they proceeded, rested in jesus Christ, as when he healed the sick that touched him, with other miracles recited in the Histories of the Gospels, which were done by him, but not in him, but in the person of those that were healed. There is great difference between those miracles, and them of his Transfiguration and Resurrection, which were done by his only virtue, and in his proper person. Upon the importunate repetition which the Doctoures make, aswell touching the mean of the birth of our Lord jesus Christ, as of the term Aphantos: The Ministers no less to avoid the loss of time, than to grieve or trouble the Readers, send them to their former answers. We marvel also that the Doctoures to prove their penetration pretended of two bodies, and their dimensions, will ground their proof and principell Argument upon the proper signification of the word to Penetrate. For be it that by the French term they would interpret the Greek word P●e●cliestai, or the Latin word Penetrare, yet it should be always impossible to them to prove that which they pretend. And to show it is so, in the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 1●. 10. it is said of the angel, and S. Peter, that they passed the first & second ward. And in S. Luke, 4. 3●. but he passed through the mids of them, and went his way. And in S. john 4.4. He must pass by Samaria: in all which places the Doctoures cannot find that the term Diercherstai (alleged in the said places) may be any ways applied to their penetration of dimensions, neither can they prove any more that the term Penetrare, which the Ancient Translator hath used in 2. Timoth. 3 may be referred to their said penetration. We say further, that the Doctoures ought not to find it more strange, that jesus Christ mounting into heaven with a body termined and limited, made himself opening to enter therein, than when he descends between the hands of Priests, singing their masses: for then as S. Gregory saith, the heavens are opened to make him passage: albeit that according to their imagination his body be then separated from his measures & dimensions. The Doctors aught to have contented themselves with the answer which we made them upon the similitude & parable of the Camel. For first they could no way prove that the saying of jesus Christ upon the end of the speech aught to be referred otherways than to the next member of the same, where is spoken of the conversion & saving of the Rich: seeing the pronoun Demonstrative Hoc shows it clearly. After, notwithstanding the proposition general which is upon the end & conclusion of the said speech (that all things are possible to God) stretcheth aswell to the Camel, as to the rich men (as the doctors hold) yet, to accommodate the two parts of the comparison, they must confess, that as changing is necessary to the rich man to be saved, so is it also to the body of the Camel, to make him pass through the hole of a needle: but what so ever it be, & in what manner so ever that may be done, the doctors shall never prove or conclude by that, that two bodies may penetrate one an other. Because the doctors by their most mighty and strong Arguments could not conclude any their said absurdities, nor enforce us by force of their reasons to confess them, they do nothing but cry blasphemy, blasphemy, the same being the last shift of all men that despite and whet their teeth against the Truth, and maintainers thereof, when they can not overcome them. If we would subscribe to their errors and abuses, we should be good and Catholic men: but because we resist and reprove them, we are (in their opinion) Heretics, Seducers, Blasphemours, and Atheists. Yea, they have in us such horror, that it is marvel they rend not (as did Caiphas) their hoods and hats in spite of God's word proponed & defended by us, and condemned by them as Blasphemy. The doctors have dissembled our place of scripture alleged to prove that faith is a work of God, that it produceth in the heart of the faithful, when he will regenerate him, speaking by change of Free will, and Merit of Works: wherein we are determined to answer, and maintain the truth of these two points, with God's grace, against the enemies of his glory, when they shallbe proponed to be debated upon. And touching the joy that they say they have received for that we have confessed to have read in no ancient Author, or express terms, that God cannot bring to pass, that one body in one instant be in divers places: they have no great cause to rejoice at it, seeing that albeit the said ancients have not spoken it in express speech, yet have they both said and written it in terms equivalent, and that in infinite places. A short resolution of all the discourse and answers which the Ministers have made upon the matter of God's Omnipotency, in the conference which they have had with the Doctoures. THe craft & art of Satan hath been always from the beginning of the world, to transfigure himself into an Angel of light, & search some fine pretence to colour & distinguish himself, as under such colour to insinuate into the church of God, & there to set abroach his Lies & trumperies: like as we see that under the colour to honour God, he hath established all the Idolatry which ever hath been in the world: laying the worshipping of Images, the invocation & intercession to Saints, the veneration of relics, & other like impieties, to the honour of God, persuading the ignorant, that all the was done to advance him. Under pretence likewise of his service, he hath brought in all the contradictions and inventions of men, and changed with the time, the true and lawful service of God, (which consists in the obedience of his Holy will, as he hath declared it to us in his Law and his word) into observation of their commandments & ceremonies by them invented: under pretence and colour of the Sacraments ordained by God for confirmation, exercise and nurture of the Faith of his Church, there is crept in the Mass: which is not the ruin and absolute subversion of the supper, but also an abolishment of all the benefits of jesus Christ, and by consequent, of the Faith of all true Religion: under colour & shadow of Holiness, and under shadow of chaste, shamefast, and honest conversation, which is principally required in the Ministers and Pastors of the Church, he hath established serilitie or singleness, and hath taken from them all liberty of Marriage, which hath been the occasion of much Filthiness, Infamies, stinking & execrable whoredoms, & Lechery, which are amongst the Papists seen: under colour of Prayers, which we are commanded to make one for an other, and Charity, by the which we are bound to secure the poor and needy, he hath brought in Suffrages, which have been sung for the Dead, Merits and Works of Supererogation, and other like Abominations: under colour of the day of Rest, which God hath chosen and assigned to the sanctifying of his Holy name, to the contemplation of his Works, to the recording and preaching of his benefits and favours, he hath brought forth infinite profane Holy days, in which God's name is blasphemed, his Ordinances corrupted, and his Alliance violated. Yea, who can number the wicked abominations which were committed in those days? under the pretence of the Keys and Discipline of the Church, whereof the Administration and use was given to the Ministers of lawful vocation, as to have a mean to preserve the Doctrine pure, to entertain a good order in the Church, and to withstand the slanders which might happen by the insolency of others, he hath established a tyranny, whereof is happened an entire dissipation of the Church of God, a corruption of all estates, and the diminishing of the lawful authority which God hath given to Kings, Princes, and Magistrates, of whom some have been wholly spoiled aswell touching their goods, as dignities by the Pope and his Bishops: and others so weakened, that they are constrained in many places to bow their necks, and lay it under their yoke and power. To be short, this may be noted and observed in all the enterprises and actions of the Devil, that as he is a Serpent, so hath he always ramped, creeping as it were covertly under leaves and likelihoods of godliness into the house of God, to sow there the disorder, confusion, and destruction which he pretended: wherein we see at this day, that continuing and following (as it were) his earnest, he brings in the almightiness of God (a title peaceable and favourable to all the world) to the end that under the honour and light of such an occasion, he may dim the eyes of the ignorant, and nussel them still in the opinion & persuasion of their errors, which have no ground in God's word. We beseech the Readers, as all others also in whom remains a fear to God and zeal to his honour, that with great wisdom they consider of the said artificial practices of the Devil, believing not all spirits afore they have well sounded and examined them: neither let them approve all things that may be proponed to them under the name of God, which at the first may seem to resemble and appertain to his honour & glory, but let them remember the advise of the Apostle, to try and prove the spirits, with diligent regard to the end, and mark of such as propone them such doctrines. And if on any behalf & part we have to stand upon our guard against such subtleties and deceits, which are snares cast out to entrap the simple, we have special need of singular regard in this matter of God's Omnipotency, whereof the question lies at this present: for we confess, that it ought to be known, believed, and worshipped of all creatures universally that are in Heaven and earth: and that the faithful cannot have a better ground, nor better bulwark to defend them aswell against the force of the Devil and the World, as their other enemies, together with all other temptations wherewith they may be assaulted. We say, this Omnipotency is as the point of the Shield, upon the which the world and all his parts is turned and holden up. We confess also, that this Almightiness is not only to be reverenced of the Angels and happy Souls in Heaven, and of the chosen and holy ones that are in earth, but also to be redoubted of the reprobate, and devils that are in Hell: whereof, the one sort of free will do follow it, and submit to it, and the other are constrained to stoop under it, and obey. lastly we confess that it is infinite, and of a greatness incomprehensible to all creatures, as the wisdom, bounty, justice, truth, and other virtues and properties of our God. This is it that which we confess and believe of the Omnipotency of God, as also that which we think all Christians aught to hold and believe. And now to use rightly this Omnipotency, and apply it as appertaineth, we must judge of it according to his Will, and of his Will, according to his Word: so that we aught not to attribute indifferently to the power of God all things good & evil, ordered and disordered, convenient and contrary to his nature, false and true things: But, the better to rule and lead the thoughts and cogitations rising in our minds of the Almightiness of God, we must measure them (for our regard) according to his holy Will, believing that it can not be limited, staid or hindered by any other will or power, which would or can be set against it: which S. Augustine teacheth at large in many places, as in the fifth Book of the City of God, Chapter 10. where speaking of God, he saith, that he calls himself Almighty, because he doth all that he will, and suffereth nothing unless he will it. Also in his 21. Book, Chapter 17. he calls himself Almighty for none other reason, than that only he can do all that he william. Also in the Book of the Symbol and Catec. Chapter 1. our God doth all that he will, and that is his Omnipotency. lastly in his Sermon 119. De Tempore, he is almighty, as doing all things which he will, and ordeines them to be done. These sentences with many other like found in the writings of this good Father and other ancients, teach us clearly the manner how to make our profit of the Faith we have in the Omnipotency of God, which is, in referring it to his Will, and judging his Will by his Word, and not by false imaginations, which either our spirits may conceive, or others would propone to us: as Satan did to jesus Christ, whom he went about to induce to throw himself headlong, under a vain trust to be succoured by the Omnipotency of God. And likewise the Monarchians, who under the colour and pretence of God's almightiness, which they gathered of other miracles, would prove & establish their Heresies, and take away the personal distinction which is between the Father and the Son: saying, that God being almighty, might by that reason make himself Father and Son altogether. There be also anabaptists in these later times, who under a vain assurance they repose in God's almightiness, which hope that he can nourish them as he did the birds, will not incline to travel. Many other such like or greater inconveniences may happen to all those, who having such wandering & dispersed thoughts of the omnipotency of God, would not restrain nor refer them to his will: which we see is also happened to the Doctors, who seeking to measure God's almightiness rather by their imaginations, than by his will & word, are (as S. Paul saith) become vain in their discourse, & their hearts (forsaken of understanding) are fillrd with darkness. And as in seeking to behold the majesty of God without the limits & bounds which he hath appointed in his word, they are become overwhelmed & engulphed in his glory: so they are also fallen into the which they touched in their own resolution, that because they have not taken God's Word for their guide, nor followed the Paths and footsteps of his Holy Spirit, they are swerved from Faith, which (contrary to the opinion of the Doctors) is not defaced nor reversed by the consideration of creatures & works of God (which are as mirrors of his glory and Divinity) if not, that by the same we might be turned from the promises of God, by the which we are assured of his will, and his Omnipotency, which doth warrant and assure to us the effects and accomplishmentes of this his Holy will: which may be clearly seen and observed in those that were sent by Moses to espy and know the Land of the Chananites: two of the which (josua and Caleb) could never be drawn from the trust they had put in their God, because that turning their minds from the consideration of all such things as might kindle doubt in them (as from the strength and munition of Towns, the numbers, force, weapons, and experience of the Country men) they fixed their minds upon the only remembrance and contemplation of the promises which God had made them: where, (of the contrary others forgetting the said promises, and considering nothing but what they saw afore their eyes, fell, and made to fall all the people with them into this cursed and damnable infidelity, for the which they were so graeevously punished in the Desert, and shut out of the entry and joy promised by God to their Ancestors. And in the example of Abraham, whose Faith remained firm and stable, chief by the consideration of the promise and will of God, as S. Paul saith, so that the consideration of God's Omnipotency comes after, to sustain and accompany that which he had of the promiss. By these examples we may see what danger there is to depart and fall from (never so little) the word of God, by which we are guided to the knowledge of his Will, and by the knowledge of his Will we are drawn to the consideration and judgement we ought to have of his Omnipotency. For want whereof, the Doctoures are fallen into the errors and mad fancies proponed to us in their last resolution, that the Body of jesus Christ at one instant may be in divers places: which as it is contrary to the faith we aught to have and hold constantly of the wisdom, providence, and eternal truth of God: So likewise it is against the faith we aught to have of the humanity of our Lord. Neither doth that serve any thing to prove and confirm their error, which they allege chief of S. Jerome against Vigilantius, where his speech imports no other matter, than that the souls of the holy ones, are enclosed in a certain prison (as Vigilantius dreamt) but do accompany the Lamb where so ever he goeth: neither that which they allege of S. Augustine in his Book of the care we aught to have of the dead, seeing in the same Book he himself confesseth, that he stands doubtful of that which the Doctoures assure: and much less the three authorities alleged of S. john Chrysostome, S. Ambrose and S. Augustine, whose sentences aught to be understand of the sacrament, and not of the thing signified by the sacrament, as we hope to unfold at large in the next conference. We marvel much that the Doctors draw back thus, and will not enter but unwillingly into the conference of their Mass, to defend it, as also of the supper celebrated in the reformed Churches, to impugn it. For, seeing they hold it as the principal ground of their Religion, and propone it as a mean to salvation to all the world, therefore in respect not to be found seducers or light to believe or teach a thing which is not certain nor well assured, they aught to stand continually furnished with reasons, both to prove and defend readily that which they believe and teach, and also to convince such as would deny it. But here the world may discern what is a wicked conscience, who being fearful, eschews always the light & combat: it is long since we have urged them with importunities to enter into conference of these two points, and the rather to induce them to it, we have alleged, that it was the end and purpose why the assembly was erected, and that the Duchess of Buyllon (in whose respect the company met) had required it publicly once or twice, like as also (for our parts) we had often pro●essed not to come thither in other regard than to satisfy the Duchess in that point, and not to be examined by the Doctors, as they falsely pretend: For we delight not to go to such Doctors to be examined to be priests: as also, to be taught in points of religion, and to know the truth, we would not choose such masters, nor haunt their schools to such end: Notwithstanding all which declarations repeated so often by us, yet the Doctoures have always hitherto deferred to confer of the said points, expecting (as is most likely) some occasion to dissolve and end the said conference, afore there be any beginning to speak of it: albeit, if they were led with any zeal to God's honour, and the edifying of his church, they ought to enforce by all their means, that these two points might be wholly revealed and resolved, whether in fortifying and confirming the faith on their parts, or to draw us and our side from our error as they pretend: for there is no great need as now to dispute of Saintes, of Purgatory, of Pilgrimages, and other like points, in regard of the which, the most part of the worlds at this day is settled and cleared: so that as well the Doctoures as we, ought principally to insist upon the two points, and to labour with them to make them clear and intelligible to every one, and not to use sophistries and cavillations to darken them, and so entertain the simple in their ignorance: which is the whole endeavour of the doctors: who having set speech & matter, lay aside our Articles proponed to them in their last Answers in order and good Method, and put out confusedly certain questions gathered of their school divinity, as to wrap us more and more in that matter: resisting herein (as they have always hitherto) that which they have so many times protested, which is, to examine the confession of the reformed Churches, of the which notwithstanding they have not handled one only point in all the conference, whereby as they have, so still they do declare evidently, their distrust to be able to fight against a truth so clear and apparent, as is that which is proponed in the said Confession. An Answer to the Preface of the Doctoures Questions. THe Doctoures in their Preface, and afore they propone their Questions, call the Supper which is celebrated in the reformed Churches, a banquet profane and polluted: wherein, without either shame or fear, they first blaspheme jesus Christ, which hath instituted it, and is the Original Author, and then condemn the Apostles of impiety which have celebrated and taught it, with all the Ancient Church following and observing (whilst she dwelt in pureness) the form and manner which the Evangelists and Apostles had taught & left by their writings. But we would gladly require those our masters, to note particularly, wherein we may violate the institution & ordinance of jesus Christ, and leave his example and the Apostles, in the celebration of the supper. For when we go about to celebrated it, we assemble first all the church, as Christ did his Apostles and disciples, where, after confession of sins made publicly, & to be understand in the name of all, we pronounce a Sermon to the people: wherein, according to the grace & faculty which God hath given us, we declare the causes, occasions, purpose, use, points, and effects of the holy supper, the rather to raise up the hearts of the people to consider the incomprehensible charity which the father hath showed to his Church, seeing in her favour, and to save her, he spared not his proper son, but committed him to a cruel death, accompanied with a curse: to the end that every one revolving in his mind so great a grace & mercy, might not only be warmed & kindled in God's love, but also, abhorring the unthankfulness, rebellions, faults & sins which he hath committed against his majesty, might with grudge and displeasure against them, go thorough himself between the arms of his son stretched upon the cross, to the end to abolish them wholly and generally, and so with faith & penance to prepare himself worthily to come to the table of the Lord, & receive the benefits which are there administered: this sermon being done, the minister directing his face to the people, recites with a loud voice, the institution & ordinance of the supper, with a brief and distinct declaration of the same, he than denounceth to all such, as be not sufficiently instructed and catechized, that that is no place to present themselves to, and likewise to such as be Excommunicate or attainted of any sins and slanderous crimes for the which they have not satisfied to the Church, to abstain, as not to pollute the Lords table: After all which, he goeth to the table, where having taken bread, he gives thanks to God, breaks and distributes it to the people that are assembled: and so after, presents the cup to all such as communicate, the which being done, he yields thanks to God, and gives leave to the people. And thus, following in all respects the Example and rule given by jesus Christ, we can not imagine whereupon the Doctoures can ground their saying and sentence of the supper, as to call it a feast profane and polluted: neither can we gather, what it is that they either could or would reprehend in all our action, unless peradventure they would challenge & tax us because we have no Albes, stoles, fans, crosses, holy water, banners, jackets, lights, incense, bells, and singing in an unknown tongue, music, organs, holy linen, altars and clerks to answer & cum spiritu tuo: or peradventure because we have no direct words to the bread and wine (which are without ears) as the enchanters have, nor cross and signs, nor levation of the bread and wine, to the end to make them be worshipped, and lastly because we use not such like toys, invented by men, and drawn partly from the jewish, and partly from the pagan order in the observation of which things we should make great conscience, as being but Idolatries and superstitions, by the which the pureness and integrity of christian religion is wholly spoiled and corrupt. An Answer to the questions proponed by the Doctoures touching the Supper. TO Answer the first question we say, that the sacrament considered in his perfection, consists in three things: whereof the one is the Element, which Ireneus calls an earthly thing: an other the thing signified, named by the same Author a celestial thing: the third is the word, by the which the earthly thing is deputed or assigned to signify the heavenly thing, and to assure such of the exhibition of the same, as with faith present themselves to receive it. To Answer the second Question, we say, that the ordinance of God, contained in his word, and declared by his minister according to his commandment, is the word necessary with the Element to constitute the Sacrament, and not only the secret and base pronunciation of certain words not understanded addressed to the Elements, nor any virtue that lies hid in them. For Answer to the third Article, we say, that by the word aforesaid the signs are changed, not touching the nature, or in respect of the substance, but only in regard of the use, and that only during the Action in the which they serve. Touching the four question, we Answer, that the bread and wine which were common before the Action of the supper, be consecrated in the supper, that is, deputed by the word aforesaid and ordinance of God declared by the minister to a holy and sacred use: which is to represent and exhibit the things signified by them. This Answer to the fourth, satisfieth also the fifth question. To the sixth question, we Answer, that in the supper, the faithful do not only receive the gifts and graces of jesus Christ (as his justice, life, and other fruits of his sacrifice,) but also they receive and possess even himself, and are made one with him, no less truly and strictly then the members be conjoined to one head: we say further, that this conjunction is the fountain and mean, of all the benefits, which descend unto us by him through God's grace: But we say with all, that this receiving ought to be attributed in all and by all, to the free working of the holy Ghost: who makes us fit and capable to know our Lord jesus Christ, with all his virtues and properties, and in knowing him, to put our trust in him, and in reapposing our trust in him, to possess and enjoy him wholly. To Answer the vij question, we say, that we reject and reprove the term of concomitance, together with the thing it signifieth: as being the occasion that the common people have been bard and secluded from one of the essential parts of the sacrament: which is the participation of the cup: and we say, it is an attempt against the divine majesty, to seek to separate that which the son of God hath conjoined, & deny to any of his members that which he hath willed and commanded to be common to all: Like as also the reason of the sacrament requires it, the same being instituted for our spiritual nouriture, the which (as doth the corporal) consists in eating and drinking. To the end therefore that there be a certain correspondency between both, it must be that as we are filled with the crucified flesh of jesus Christ, that even so also we be licoured with his blood shed for the remission of sins: To be short, seeing the supper was principally instituted, to declare the death of our Lord, & that in his death, his blood was divided from his body: it is very convenient the bread & wine be there administered, to represent both the one and other, & more clearly to propound to us the whole mystery of the death of Christ. To the eight Question, we acknowledge no other cause or mean for remission of sins, than the grace of God, the blood of jesus Christ, & faith, by the which the effect of god's grace, & the fruit of the death of jesus Christ, are applied unto us. Our Answer to the ix question is, that the faithful coming to the Supper, come not to receive there a new jesus Christ: with whom they have not been conjoined before, neither a new justice, which hath not been communicate to them: But we say, that if any man present himself there, without faith, by want whereof he was not united, incorpored, & knit in jesus Christ to participate with his justice, his life, & other his gifts and blessings, in this case the holy supper is unprofitable to him, as meat to a dead man: But, if living by the means aforesaid (by gods grace, the blood of jesus Christ, and faith) he present himself there in such estate, that then gods graces are multiplied, confirmed, and increased in him more & more: as the Circumcision brought not to Abraham a new justice, but sealed and ratified that which had been communicate to him before by the promiss, the which being known to the faithful, in what degree of virtue so ever they be, aught not to mistake the holy supper, nor in any sort abstain from it, when they have the occasion and means to assist it, considering that they cannot be so far advanced in the knowledge and fear of God, and in the faith of his promises, but that they may further profit and increase therein (in what estate so ever they be) by the means which God hath left and ordained for this effect in his Church: neither is it possible that a man, having a true faith, in his heart, do otherways, having the commodity of it: Because, the nature of faith, is not to comprehend only the promises of God, but also to engender and bring forth in the hearts of the Faithful, a will to obey him, with observation of his commandments and ordinances. To Answer the first Articles proponed by the Doctors touching their Mass, we say they blaspheme openly jesus Christ, as to authorize under his name, and by his example, such an abomination: and that also they make a scoff of the church and the world, to preach and write such impieties. To the second Article of the Mass, we Answer, that there is no other sacrifice in the church, by which men are reconciled to God, and which makes him merciful and favourable to them (in appeasing his wrath) than only that which jesus Christ hath once offered to his father upon the cross: the virtue of the which being eternal, to sanctify all the believing and obtain remission of their sins for ever, there is no need of any others, nor that that which he hath once offered, be ever repeated. For Answer to the third Article, we say, that such as approve the Mass, and other sacrificature, than that of jesus Christ, and seek to establish for remission of sins, an other Sacrifice than that which he himself offered in his body of the Cross, are Antichristes, and deface (in so much as in them is) all the virtue and fruit of the death and sacrifice of the Son of God. To Answer the fourth, we allege that which S. Paul writeth, that where is remission, there is no more Oblation for the sin: And if it be so, that by the death of jesus Christ, remission hath been obtained for us, it followeth that there is no more Oblation for sin, neither in the Mass nor out of the Mass: And if there be none for the living, there is less for them that be dead. For Answer to the fifth, we maintain that the Communion is of the essence of the supper according to S. Paul in the first to the Corinthians. Chap. 10. and .11. and as the Canon and other parts of the Mass imports. For Answer to the sixth, we allege three things: First that the Mass of the Papists is no Sacrament, and then, that the body of jesus Christ is not there, and conclude thereupon, that there can not be worshipped therein but the bread and wine, which rest there: which being creatures can not be worshipped, but that such as do worship them, are Idolaters. To Answer the seventh and last Article, we say contrary to the Doctors, that there is nothing in the Mass, which either directly or indirectly, is not contrary to God's word. And for Conclusion, we advise and pray the Doctoures, not to exceed or forsake the limits of the matter proponed this day to dispute upon, as they have done heretofore, to the end that these two points, which stand at this day in debate between them, may be perfectly and wholly decided, to the contentment and edifying of such as shall read the Acts of this conference. Tuesday the .30. of julie, the year aforesaid. A summary Reply of the Doctors against the last Answer of the Ministers, sent to them by the Duke Nyvernois the first of August at seven or eight of the clock in the Evening. 1566. AFter we had given our Resolution upon the Article of God's Omnipotency, we meant not eftsoons to return upon that Argument, as having already sufficiently handled it: but such is the horror of the new Blasphemies contained in the last pamphlet of the Ministers, that (against our said meaning) we are forced, if not to reply, at the least to admonish them, together with the Readers of this present conference, in the matter of the said most execrable blasphemies, with such are urged to confess, who will not acknowledge the Real presence of the Body of jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Aultare, are not ashamed to deny also even the power of God himself. The consideration whereof (as we hope) will not only confirm the Catholics in the faith of the said Article, but also (with God's aid) bring home again many that are strayed and separated from the Catholic Church, upon the understanding of the detestable errors and blasphemies succeeding with the contradiction to the Real presence of the Body of our Lord in the said Sacrament: which might also serve the Ministers for their conversion, if without passion they would examine & sincerely judge of the reasons & acts proponed touching the power of God: where, as resisting the Holy Spirit, in place to confess their errors, they are turned into all sorts of wrongs and injuries against such as of good will revealed them, misconstruing our purpose, as not to tend but to deface and root them out: wherein as we were never moved so much as in thought, so of the contrary, we desired nothing more than the salvation of the Ministers, together with all such as were fallen from the true Catholic Church: whereof, what better witness can we prefer, than that in our ordinary preaching we persuade the people to pray to God for them: only we seek to root up the reign and kingdom of Satan, and to abolish all heresies and perverse Doctrine, rather by the preaching of God's word, than any other mean: And much do we marvel, that the Ministers seem so hotly nettled against us in their last Answers, seeing it is without occasion on our side, as only challenging many of our propositions to contain matter of blasphemy, which they might have sufficed either to deny, or disprove, leaving the Readers to judge, without entering into so warm choler, seeing that as they make profession of patience and modesty, so though they were urged in injury, yet they should not enforce revenge. They aught to remember the goodly titles wherewith they honour the Catholic doctrine, as with the name of superstition, idolatry, impiety, abomination and many other like, yea not sparing the persons, calling the Popes, Bishops and Priests, Antichristes, and ministers of Satan: Against which checks we are content, when occasion moves, to prove by God's word, that such titles are inconvenient no less to the persons, than to the Doctrine preached by them: And so albeit, the ministers & their fury, deserve a sharp reply, yet to qualify their Waspish stomachs, we will forbear to Answer the injuries that touch our persons and estates, and leaving all to the judgement of the Readers without passion, we will only proceed to the points that concerns the Doctrine. In the first place, the ministers do great wrong to us and ours, to resemble us with the Donatists, as imputing falsely to us to draw the Church into a certain place as did the Donatists, who placed her only in Africa: For it is most manifest, that we neither know nor confess other Church than the Catholic, who (as the name bears) hath been visibly since the Apostles, and stretcheth thorough all the world, in what Region, Country, or place so ever the faithful believing in jesus Christ, be: albeit we reverence the Romish church, as, amongst others, the first and principal, as Ireneus Tertullian, S. Cyprian, S. Augustine, with other ancients, gave her this honour, to confess her principally, and as mother of all the other Churches: And therefore with far more just reason, that objection might be applied against the ministers, who can not say that their Church is Catholic, as having taken her original in our time, seen and known at Geneva, and founded upon the private opinion of one man, without that, in any time before, it can be showed that any such opinion hath been holden in any nation what so ever, which shall be handled in his order, when we descend to examine the errors maintained by the Ministers against the Article, I believe the holy Catholic Church. For the rest, the Ministers ought not to have alleged the violence, cruelty, and fury of the Donatists against the Catholics: seeing such example condemns them and their like. But because it doth but kindle a memory of the hurts passed, which France hath suffered by the setting on of the Ministers, and for fear to stir up eftsoons to new wrongs, we will stay no longer upon this speech, showing notwithstanding to the Ministers, that the Donatists reproached the Catholics to endure persecution by them, and that to root them up, they solicited Emperors and Magistrates, as the Ministers do evil apply to us: who confess to desire first of all the Conversion of all Sects, and if they will not come to amendment, that then by good and holy laws, the Magistrates to lay such punishment upon them, as God be not blasphemed, nor the people tormented, according to the Doctrine of S. Augustine in an Epistle sent ad Vincentium contra Denatistas', where he Confesseth that the Catholics persecuted the Donatists, as, of the contrary, the Donatists afflicted also the Catholics: Only their persecutions differed, for the Catholykes did not execute but by the Magistrates, and that proceeded of Charity, to root up the evil which hindered the public peace and tranquillity; where, of the contrary the Donatists persecuted without authority of the Magistrate, and proceeded of malice, pretending nothing but ruin and subversion: S. Augustine allows the first to be good, and according to God, and the second he makes to be wicked, and of the inspiration of Satan: wherein he brings many examples of the scripture: we have stand somewhat long upon this point, the rather to purge the slander which the Ministers have laid upon us, as that in our preachings, writings, and conference, we have not searched but their destruction, and always to persecute them: construing it as a matter of particular hate against them, and not of charity and zeal to the truth, to convert as well the ministers, as such as are seduced and abused by them: wherein we call God to witness, and protest all the contrary, with request to the ministers to believe us, attending God's judgement upon it, who is the only searcher of the hearts and affections of men. Touching the Article, where the Ministers say that God is almighty, because he can do all that he will: if they would have read the writings of S. Thomas (whose Doctrine they disdain) they should well know that this reason is nothing: because the Angels and such as are blessed, being always conformed to the will of God, may do all that they will do, and there is no creature that can hinder the effect of their will, and yet they are not omnipotent: touching the saying of S. Augustine (taking it as the ministers do) the reason of God's almightiness is too weak and false. But to have a true understanding of this sentence, we must consider, that there is difference between the will of God actual, and the power of the will, for God may will many things, which he will not, nor never would: and therefore, he can will more than he will not actually, wherein we aught rather to measure his omnipotency, then according to his actual william. In this sort must we interpret the text of S. Augustine, that God's omnipotency stretcheth to all things, which he can will, and not according as he actually willeth: S. Augustine also is recited by the ministers, being destitute of testimony of the scripture, albeit in their former Answer they vaunt to have taken that reason of the scriptures. In the Article following, the ministers charge us falsely, to have curtalled some words of their last writing, which shall not be found true: For our text bears these words: it is undoubted that above all conceit and imagination of man's spirit, God's power is great, infinite, and incomprehensible: by which may be clearly seen, that we speak universally of all conceit and imagination, without exception of any, whether it be of wisdom or of folly: therefore it was without need to express the words of the ministers, seeing the Doctors spoke generally: the which that which goeth before, doth show, as the ministers have recited it, where it is said that we reprehended them, in that they gave some restraint and limitation of the omnipotency of God: as not suffering it to stretch generally to all things that man's wit might imagine or conceive: where, in these words, generally, and all things, they declare that we would comprehend according to humane judgement, even the foolish fancies and imaginations, which men may comprehend: And that we would not cut of anything of the writing of the ministers, who perhaps were of opinion that we would not say that God can do all that a fond brain can imagine, as fearing that we would infer against them, that God could do any folly: which should not follow: for albeit in the judgement of men, certain things are esteemed fond, yet seeing they are possible in themselves, they may be done of God, but wisely, notwithstanding the wit of man judge the contrary: Like as in many judgements, man beguiles himself, esteeming that for folly, which is wisdom with God, as S. Paul saith. So that we say, that all things which are to be imagined by man, are to be done with God, without excepting any thing saving such things as imply contradiction to be and not to be, which can not be done in respect of repugnancy proceeding of their part, and not by fault of the power of God: wherein we pray such, to whom these conferences shall come, to note that the ministers are always found slanderers, when they lay that crime upon us, like as in the former writing they stand as convinced therein. The Ministers will also be found slanderers in the Article following, where they clip our sayings, and falsely lay upon us to have written that God can do any thing against order: in deed we said, that to hold that God could do nothing against the order which he hath established in the world, is to blaspheme God: in which may be discerned the slander of the ministers, who mangling the speech, have taken away these words, established in the world: where they infer that it is a blasphemy to say, that God may do a thing which is not well ordered, it is out of doubt: but to do any thing contrary to the order established in the world, imports not any thing disordered, but only mutation and change of order, without any disorder, which the Ministers confess in their Article following. We greatly abhor the blasphemies contained in the next Article, whereof the first is, that one body be in divers places, is a thing derogante to the truth of God, because in God there should be yea and not: so that the Ministers hold that God should not be true, if he brought to pass one body to be in divers places, and yet they neither teach, nor can teach, that God hath ever said that one body could not be in divers places: it impugns the wisdom of God, because in his works, there should be disorder and confusion, wherein likewise they confess that God should not be wise, if he made one body at one instant to be in divers places. The third is, that such thing resistes the omnipotency of God, seeing in such act, there should be such imperfection, that much less (according to the opinion of the Ministers) that God in doing this, should be omnipotent, but of the contrary, he should be imperfect and impuissant. The fourth is, that if such a thing were done, it should be against the eternal and immovable will of God, and therefore God should be mutable: Out of which blasphemies is necessarily vomited a manifest Atheism, that God should not be God, if he made one body in one instant to be in divers places: For God can not be but true, wise, almighty, and immovable: which blasphemies we are content to coat and mark only, with admonishment how many miseries spring of their Doctrine that deny the Real presence of the body of jesus Christ in the holy Sacrament: and not to stay any more to confute them, as being too manifest, and having regard with all, to the saying of Ireneus, that there be heresies, whom to discover, is to refute them. In the Article following, they resist that with so many times they have said, that God could not bring to pass that one body be in two places at one instant, because it impugned the order which he hath established in the world, as though God could do no other ways, than according to the order which he hath already established: and in this present Article they confess that God can change and altar the said order, out of which Confession we draw this argument: God can change and altar the order, which he hath established in the world, and that without any prejudice to his truth, his wisdom, power, and immovable will: then he can change the order by the which he hath established (as the Ministers seem to hold) that one body should not be but in one place, and to bring to pass (in the contrary, the order being changed) that one body shall be in divers places, and yet in that, there is no derogation to his truth, wisdom, power and will: and by consequent that God of his omnipotency may bring to pass that one body be in divers places. Touching the Article of the distinction of the wills of God, the ministers mumble all together, understanding nothing in the said distinction, no more than where they say, that a body to be in two places, is of the society of those things which God hath declared by his word, that he can do nothing against them. First there is question of god's omnipotency, which is referred to that which he can, & not to his essence, & that which is in himself: as is to be all one, wise, & good: which things belong not to the omnipotency, but of the essence in himself. Secondly, what reason is there to confer the being of one body in one place, or to know whether God can make it to be in two or more places: with the essence of God which is one, incomprehensible. etc. seeing that such things being numbered, appertain to the essence of God: And to be able to make a body in many places belongs not properly to him, nor is referred to the same. Thirdly, the ministers say that God by his word hath declared his will concerning that he was one, which serves nothing to the present matter: But pardoning them those follies, how dare they compare with the essence of God, that which is in contention, of the being of one body in one or divers places: seeing God hath never said, that he could not do it, as he hath pronounced manifestly all the other perfections which appertain to the divine essence: by which may be espied, that it sufficeth the ministers to fill the paper, without grounding their opinion upon any substantial reason. Seeing they take for reproach, when they have any word cut of, notwithstanding the sense remain whole, we marvel they feared not to receive the like Objections from us: as in the Article where is mention made of the definition of a body, they conceal that which gives solution to their difficulty: we defined a body to be a kind of quantity constant of three dimensions, length, largeness, and depth, which definition comprehends all the essence of a body, which is of the predicament of quantity: neither is there mention made of the circumscription of place in any sort: the ministers say, that by our definition, we limit the body, and therefore it is circumscript: but they have left out this little word, place, maliciously, as is to be supposed. For the question is not whether a body be limited or not, seeing no man saith it is infinite: But the Question lies, whether it be circumscript of place essentially, so that it cannot be a body, if it be not in place: wherein because they could not Answer to the argument, they have cut of that which was against them. The four next Articles, are worthy of no new Reply, and therefore we send the Readers to that which hath been said before: only, it is a great matter that the ministers hold that a miracle can not be done in the body of jesus Christ, without change of his nature, imposing that opinion upon justine, who (as well as other ancients) hath said and maintained, that the body of jesus Christ, without change of nature, did pass thorough the doors, although the operation of the miracle was done in the nature of the body, without changing it, but in giving it a quality and spiritual perfection, above the natural qualities of a body, that is subtlety. With like boldness, the ministers call the Scripture for the place of the Camel to pass thorough the eye of a needle, a parable and similitude: as they do that of the supper, and all others which resist their errors: and to escape, they say, that God saves not the rich man, if he be not changed and converted: And so they say, he can not bring to pass that a Camel pass thorough the eye of a needle without diminution and change of his greatness: But the ministers do not admonish, that when our Lord spoke of the entry of a Rich man into the kingdom of Heaven, he put not the difficulty properly in the entry to the kingdom, but in the conversion of the Rich man, whereby he may obtain the entry and possession of Heaven: wherefore when our Lord saith that it is more easy to God, to make a Camel (or Cable) enter by the eye of a Needle, than a Rich man into the kingdom of heaven: he means to compare the conversion of a rich man (which is impossible to men) to the passage of a Camel being in his grossness: otherways as there should be no likelihood of difficulty, so our Lord would not say, that such a thing was impossible to men: We say further, that we have not produced this place, as to prove the penetration of dimensions properly, but to show that God may bring to pass that a body occupy a place, which shall not be proportioned to his greatness: which is as much against the nature of gross and thick bodies, as that one body be in divers places. Where the ministers glory, in that they are not constrained to confess any thing of the doings of God alleged out of the scripture by the Doctors: it followeth not that the said Doctors have brought forth vain reasons to enforce and convince them, referring themselves to the Acts of the conference: And touching to know if God could do such miracles alleged above the nature of a body, the ministers can not escape, what evasion so ever they pretend, that they are not convinced to have denied as well the power as the fact: though not openly, yet at the least covertly: For affirming that God can not bring to pass that one body be in divers places, because it doth impugn the order he hath established in the world, his wisdom also and his will, which dispose all by good order, and that it was against the nature of the body: if there may be as much said, as truly there may, of all the other things mentioned touching a body, with like reasons: in confessing the one, they must necessarily confess all the other, as containing like reason, whereunto the ministers have secretly accorded, being not able to give any difference, nor show why God can not do the one, and be able to do the others: And albeit they will never confess the debt, nor yield as overcome, as they vaunt, yet there is no marvel, seeing it is the nature of Heretics to become obstinate, and resist the truth, what reasons so ever are proponed: The Scribes and pharisees never confessed to be overcome of the Lord, notwithstanding his arguments were irreprocheable: Likewise, albeit, such as contended against S. Steven, had no more to Answer, yet they forbore not to resist the holy spirit that spoke in him: even as the ministers resist the self same holy spirit speaking by the scripture, & the mouth of the Ancient fathers of miracles done in the body of jesus Christ above nature, which the ministers impugn I know not by what vain and frivoious escapes: Touching this matter, S Jerome saith, heretici convince possunt, non persuaderi: As also Tertullian. Duritia haeretica vincenda est non suadenda: And touching the injuries which the ministers multiply in this behalf against us, in that they follow all the adversaries to the truth, and give good testimony, what disquiet of mind such kind of people suffer, when their errors are laid afore them, of whom such is our pity, that we pray God to restore them to their good mind, as knowing that the Conversion of an heretic, is one of the things reserved to the omnipotency of God. The ministers labour in vain to produce much Greek, to show that penetrare coelos, signifieth not to pass the Heavens without opening, because this verb, Dierchestai is found to pass where is opening: But we never said that penetrare, or Dierchestai can not be applied to places opened, or that in opening them, they were pierced thorough: For we know in all Authors that doth encounter: We said, that as the ministers would infer the Real opening of the heaven by the rigour and property of the verb aperire, so might they allege that the heavens were shut in the Ascension of jesus Christ by the verbs Dierchestai, and penetrare, signifying with rigour, to pierce or pass thorough, without that of itself, it import opening, notwithstanding it may be used, where is a place open: But by the rigour of their signification, opening can not be necessarily inferred, if, by some word, from else where, or evident condition of the thing that is pierced, the opening be not showed: as it is in the texts alleged by the ministers: In the Ascension these Verbs Dierchestai and penetrare be used, as to pierce, neither is any word added, which imports division of the heavens: whose condition, nor the estate of the glorified body of jesus Christ, do not enforce any necessary understanding of opening to be made, to suffer the said body of Christ to enter. Therefore we argued of the rigour of penetrare, as the ministers did of the wresting of aperwe, which is found in the scripture, and not to signify a Real opening of the heavens, more often than penetrare is read in the Scripture to signify division or actual separation of the heavens: for eperire coelos, is found very often for spiritual and imaginative opening: and penetrare coelos, is scarcely ever taken for actual division of the Heavens. And therefore better was our reason to conclude by the rigour of the verb Dierchestai, or penetrare (to pass without actual division of the heavens) than the ministers to infer the opening of the same, by wresting the Verb aperire. In the last Article, the ministers object to us to have passed over certain places of scripture, by which appears that Faith is a work of God: whereunto we say, that in some of our writings we have expressly confessed that Faith, in that it is a gift of God, is a work of God. But in that he that believes, works with God in believing, (for Nemo credit nisi volens) it is a humane work: and it is not repugnant, one self work, for divers considerations, to be a work of God, and a work of man. And where they bring the ancients to have said (if not in propretermes, yet in like) that God can not bring to pass that a body be in divers places: that is false: for they never either could or can show it, as also they gainsay their last writing: for, bringing the reason why the ancients said it not in express terms, they alleged it was because they never thought such absurdity could fall into the brain of man: which reason ought to take place, as well to speak it in terms like, as in express terms, seeing it is one self thing signified as well by the one as by the other. For the rest: the ministers never Answer to the principal, whereof they have been often warned, and eftsoons we do admonish them, although they term a thousand times our speech, matter of repetition: it is, that we require them to bring scripture to prove that it impugns the order established in the world, the truth, wisdom, omnipotency, and immovable will of God, one body to be in two places: which they can not do, but Answer according to their custom, nothing: wherein may be discerned, that their Doctrine is not founded upon God's word, but upon their proper opinion; or particular inspiration, which can not be but of Satan: for being contrary to the common consent of the universal Church, it can not be of the holy Ghost. And upon the same are founded also the other Articles of their Religion, albeit they disguise and promiss at every word, the word of God. A short advertisement of the Doctors upon the resolution of the Ministers touching the omnipotency of God. WE marvel of the manner of speech and writing used by the Ministers, who since the beginning of the conference, could never endure to pursue & conclude one only point, without intermeddling of others which belonged nothing to the matter of the question as may appear by the reading of their Acts: Wherein afore they set down their resolution of God's omnipotency, they heaped together as many Articles as they could remember, and thrust them one upon an other, without occasion and reason. Notwithstanding (upon their own request) we had set afore them articles of the Supper: yea to the intent that after we had disputed of the almightiness of God (to make present the body and blood of jesus Christ in the holy Sacrament) we might descend by order into the declaration and proof, that such was God's will, and also that he is there: But we are not ignorant of the good customs of those of the religion pretended reformed, to blow in the eyes of the Christians, all the articles of their religion, together with the pollutions they invent thereupon all upon one line, to the end nothing be determined, but all rest in confusion, and that the Serpent run away when he hath vomited his poison. Besides by the observation of their answers, it is to be discerned, that they never rested upon any certain and self answer: But to every question they have returned answers no less divers than impertinent, and sometimes not to be suffered: of the which we give warning to all such as shall read the conferences, and laying ourselves upon their judgement, beseech them to have good regard to the doings of the Minister's side. Moreover, we tell the Ministers, that either they may or aught to know, that all the sects of our time blear the eyes of such as they mean to blind with the self same train of articles which they have gathered together in their resolution, and that to obtain audience in the catholic Church, and to bring in their errors and heresies under the name of God's glory. Of the which they vaunt themselves to be protectors no less than the Ministers: wherein, like as notwithstanding all these, they are not to be received or allowed in their opinions and conclusions, so the Ministers can not pretend any right to exalt the power & glory of God by such a confusion and hotchpotche of all matters together. Moreover we let the Ministers understand that with better reason we could return upon them the conclusion they pretend to infer of the subtlety and art of Satan, the same being (as they writ) that under a godly pretence of piety, Satan (in the manner of a Serpent) slides into the Church of God, to the end to plant their disorder, and at last to set upon even God himself. Let every one see and consider in himself, if this be not the true enterprise of the Ministers, both by their deductions, and generally the principal points of their doctrine. For under a fairy pretence to root up certain abuses and errors, which falsely they seek to persuade the world to be in the catholic Church, against God's word, and under colour of preaching, that they search to exalt the name of the Lord, they go about to despoil God of his properties and perfections, notwithstanding they declare it not, no more than Satan opened his intent to the first man. The Ministers besides deface the merit and efficacy of the blood of jesus Christ, and by their doctrine open the gate to all vices and sin. For proof whereof, albeit we should spare to repeat what they have holden of the power of God, yet their writings stand as their accusers: only in good resolution (although they utter fair speech) God can do no more, as they hold, than it pleaseth them to receive of his wisdom and will, which they disguise after their sense, when it is found declared in the scripture. Against the bounty of God they hold, that he is author and worker of evil and sin. Against his mercy they teach that he neither doth nor will pardon a man that hath impugned by malice the knowledge of the truth, or resisted it. Against the merit of the blood of jesus Christ, and passion of the cross, they have written in proper terms, that if jesus Christ had died only by the anguishs of corporal death, and the effusion of all his blood, he had done nor profited nothing for our redemption: If being upon the cross, and afore his death, he had not endured the pain of the damned in his soul, with other horrible blasphemies contained in the article of his dissension in to hell. They instruct also their adherentes, that manslaughter, adultery, robbery, theft, sacrilege and all other crime what soever, are but venial sins to the predestinate, whom they say are never out of God's grace, whatsoever they do. Assuring their faithful, and such as stand in their Church, to believe constantly that they be in grace, and predestinate, which in plain speech (though they would otherwise excuse it) is to give full licence to do all evil: With sundry other articles which we intend to verify, as the matter requires. But if they deny these points to be written and published in their sect, the places in Calums books, which we have noted in the Margin, are to give witness. In effect that is the glory of God, and his Son jesus Christ whereunto the Ministers incline and tend, by the extirping of the pretended impieties mentioned in many articles of their last resolution. To answer the which in short speech, we say, that some are spitefully and falsely laid upon the catholic Church by the Ministers, others be expressly written in holy Scripture, and others drawn out of the same, and confirmed by the tradition of the Apostles, and universal consent of the first Christian church: except the slanderous impositions which in every article the Ministers do add. And so in time and place we will declare and prove by piecemeal, if the patience of the Ministers will consent to handle every difficulty in his place. But if they continued to cavil withal to put confusion in the doctrine, we protest to answer them with scoffs. For the rest, they babble much of God's power in general, alleging that we aught to take certain knowledge of it by the Scriptures, which we have always advowed unto them. They say also that it is infinite and incomprehensible, but when we offer particularities, to know wherein omnipotency consists, than they forget the holy scriptures, and without them measure it according to the wisdom and eternal will of God, and the order established in the world: yea and as if they were without all remembrance, that that almightiness were infinite, they wrist it to a condition, property, and natural order of creatures: as if to do any thing against or above the order, condition and natural property of the said creatures, were a thing repugnant to the wisdom, nature, and will of God. This is the short resolution which we may gather of their opinion touching the omnipotency of God, the same appearing in their papers and answers given to us, wherein, touching S. Augustine produced by them, we have sufficiently answered before. Where the Ministers lay upon us to hold as a sufficient argument, that a case being done of God, declares that he could do it, we refer ourselves to our writings, whereof our resolution and objections contain all the contrary. We are also slandered by the Ministers, to affirm that faith cotrarieth nature every way: only we said, that ordinarily the contradiction done to faith, founded upon the word, proceeds of the consideration of things natural against the power of God. Touching Abraham, the scripture of Genesis witnesseth always, that he and his wise made a certain difficulty touching the promise of God: and considered corpus suum emortuum, et mortuam vuluam Sar●ae until he heard the assurance of the omnipotency, as also S. Paul speaks enough of Abraham, since his first vocation, till after that assurance, without putting distinction in the history of that which was afore or after such assurance, according to the saying of the Apostle, that he did not consider corpus suum emortuum, resting upon the assurance of the power and promise' which had been made to him. We say, we have better concluded touching the faith we aught to have of the power of God (to make one body in divers places) than the Ministers, who have no word of God to assure their faith and belief that God cannot do it, or that it impugns his wisdom, providence, and eternal virtue, or the humanity of jesus Christ, yea only the nature of a simple body: But touching all this, the Ministers trust in their presumption and particular revelation, without one only place of the scripture, whereupon they may settle or rest their opinion: Where, of the contrary we have grounded our faith (not only touching the power of God, to bring to pass that a body be in divers places, but also to believe the fact, and that God would it so) upon the holy Scripture, as appears in our resolution, together with the places of the ancients alleged for that purpose, the same being so manifest, that as the Ministers are not able to gainsay them, so touching their escapes, they are to be convinced by the simple reading of the books. Touching the residue of the Ministers resolution (containing many injuries, slanders, and wrongs against us) we answer nothing, having regard to the manner of their doings. Like as also we consider, it should be but pain lost to teach the Ministers, who for their instruction, esteem more their particular revelation, than all the doctrine of the universal church, and all the Christians together. And lastly we pardon them with all our hearts, at the wrongs they have done us, as being people estranged from their full sense, and without judgement, which they well declare by the manner of their doing. The Doctor's objection touching the Supper against the Answer of the Ministers. IT appears sufficiently in the acts of the first days arguing, why in the beginning of the conferences, we touched not the articles of the supper: wherein the Ministers do maliciously slander us, in saying we refused to enter into the matter of the same: as is truly proved, as well by our sundry offers made to them to confer thereof verbally, to the end to advance it with more speed, and so at leisure to set it down in writing (which the Ministers refused) as also by our former objections touching the article of the almightiness. By these we touched the grounds, whereupon are builded the errors of the religion pretended reformed, against the real presence of the body and blood of jesus Christ in the holy Sacrament. The same being to be justified further, in that we object to them certain arguments against their Supper, the rather to make them enter into it: To the which either they have answered nothing at all, or at lest so impertinently, that even the words of their answer discover their disposition to flee the combat. As yet they continued by their last writings, hiding, so far as they can, that which they think of the supper: notwithstanding they have been required to answer both to purpose and truth. But whether they or we refused, the effect stands to judge. For though they will not answer, yet we will not forbear to advise them, and reveal to the whole world the intolerable errors, aswell in the Supper, as in all the doctrine of the Ministers: Who being asked, yet dare not confess and justify what hath been written by the inventors of their supper. But now to begin to speak of the supper, the Ministers maintain it celebrated, according to the ordinance of jesus Christ and manner with the apostles, used in all the primitive Church, when she flourished, and whilst she remained in her pureness. Whereunto we answer with this question, how many worlds they think that the doctrine hath remained in her pureness touching the Supper, and whether as then the Church stood not as pure in the doctrine of all the other Articles, as in this? Besides, whether since that time there was not found any place through the whole world, where the true doctrine of the supper, and the other Articles, was retained and preserved? As also in what place, and by whom, from world to world, it was preached and advanced? In these we desire to be satisfied by the Ministers, as importing much, because that afore Caluin preferred his Catechism, there was no memory in any Region of such doctrine as he taught, neither was the supper celebrated in the manner it is now in the reformed Church. And we would gladly relieve the Ministers, who in their writings seem strangely passioned, that we have said that their Supper differs not from a common Banquet, saving that it is worse, as being profane and polluted. But to encounter this, they make a great speak of all the action of their said Supper, and by goodly accessories, carrying a form of all piety, they labour to make it highly commended: covering a goodly nothing between two platters. And of the contrary to tread down and deface the most precious sacrifice of the body and blood of jesus Christ in the Mass, by tearing in pieces some accessory of the same, as though we used it without reason and signification, which the Ministers either understand not, or dissemble not to understand. But as things aught not to be taken and esteemed by their accessories, but according to their value, nature, and truth: so the Ministers have to foresee, that all the sects standing at this day in all the world against the catholic Church, for the matter of the Sacrament, use at lest this bravery that they do. Who if they were asked, there is not one of them which would not enforce to prove, that their sect approacheth nearer jesus Christ, his apostles, and the primitive Church, than the Religion pretended reformed. Touching all which, we refer ourselves to the writings of the Lutherians, Zwinglians, anabaptists, Trinitaries, Master Alasco, with other like. Therefore it is not reasonable by these fair voices and speeches, to prefer the supper of the Ministers afore other sects, with judgement that it is good, holy, impoluted, and according to gods word: but rather to repute it infected and defiled with impiety, as covering a dream in place of truth, and gives the accessaries of piety, to impiety and falsehood. Neither have we dispraised their Supper, for the thanks they give to God, or in respect of their confession of sins, or their preaching (if it contain matter of truth) or for any other preparative: But in this have we named it to be detestable, as not containing but common bread and wine, contrary to the ordinance of jesus Christ: and yet they attribute unto it some spiritual effect, with other goodly accessaries of piety: the same being a matter of more abomination, and invented by Satan, who seeks by such manner of supper, to quench and abolish the true supper according to the institution of jesus Christ, and rob the faithful of the fruit and truth of the said true supper, in making them give only common bread, in place of the body and blood of our saviour jesus Christ. Here we could recite the wicked accessories, as well as they speak of the goodly, which are in their supper, as the secret and new enterprises which are practised under colour and shadow of the assemblies drawn together at their said supper: but lest the Ministers reproach us, that the Clerk speak of weapons, of contributions. etc. we will altogether hold our peace, and refer ourselves to that which is: contenting ourselves to deduce certain causes, by the which we maintain that there is no truth in the said Supper, according to the institution of jesus Christ. First, that in the supper of the Ministers and their likes, there cannot be made any consecration of the matter of the bread & wine, which are there proposed: and therefore there is not made in the said matter any mutation either before the use, or in the use, or after, and by consequence, that the bread and wine in that Supper cannot be but common. That there is no consecration made in their Supper, it appears first by this, that it belongs not to all persons to consecrated the bread and the wine in the supper: but only to such as are lawfully ordained by the imposition of the hands of the Pastors and Bishops, according to the succession since the Apostles till our time. And it is most certain that the most part of the ministers of the supposed reformed church, are not ordained by the authority of the hands of the Pastors, who have power by succession of one to an other, since the Apostles: So that we must conclude, that such ministers usurping the office that pertains not to them, can not make any consecration, and by consequence, they give but common bread and wine: of which Article shall be spoken, when we handle the sacrifice, and priesthood. Secondly, to make consecration of bread and wine, it sufficeth not that the person be fit to consecrated the matter, but it is also necessary, that by a certain mean the lawful minister make the consecration, which is, by Benediction and pronunciation of certain words upon the matters proposed, as jesus Christ did first observe, wherein, because the ministers, albeit they were lawfully ordained, and had authority and power to consecrated, do not use Benediction and pronunciation of certain words upon the Bread and Wine, (impugning first that which jesus Christ did, and after left it to the Apostles and their successors to do so) they can not pretend any consecration of the Bread and Wine, nor that in them do come any mutation: whereof it followeth, that as they differre not from other Bread and Wine, so that banquet and feast is but common, and that it is blasphemy to attribute to it the name of Christian Supper: And this is a party cause, why we said the ministers supper was a banquet profane and polluted. We have required the ministers to Answer pertinently and fully, to our Demands, which because they have not done, to the end to intercept all vain travail, we think it not good for the present to impugn their Answers: only we summon them eftsoons to Answer that which is proponed to them, without shifting of the conference which they pretend to hold in so dear regard. The first Demand was general for all the Sacraments to weet, if the ministers believed that two things were essential and necessary to the confection of the Sacrament: which are: the matter or element, and the word: the Ministers Answer, that the Sacrament considered in his perfection, consists in three things. etc. they speak in determinately, so that it can not be judged, if their speech understand the Sacrament only, which they call of the Supper, or generally of all, as they were asked: albeit in respect they allege Ireneus, it may be easily guessed that they mean not but the Sacrament of the Supper: we have also to note the words of their Addition, considered in his perfection, as always to have a hole to creep out when we speak of the essence of the Sacrament. We demand that they Answer to the Question proponed in general of all the Sacraments, seeing there is like reason touching the essence of the Sacraments in general: and that also they declare openly, what things are essential and necessary in the Sacrament, to be made a Sacrament, without speaking for the present of the perfection of one Sacrament, containing the essence and spiritual fruits, which are not of the essence of the Sacrament. Touching the second Demand, the Ministers Answer no more pertinently, than to the first: And specially, where we made a Demand that certain words must be used for the confection of the Sacrament, and what was necessary for the Sacrament of the Supper: the ministers have said, that the base and secret speech of certain words addressed to the Elements, was not a necessary speech to the confection of the sacrament: We did not Demand whether that speech should be pronounced high or low. But the Question was, if there be any necessary speeches to make the sacrament, which aught to be pronounced upon the matter, or in administering the matter: and what might be those words for the supper: wherein it is not enough to say, that the word by the which the ordinance of jesus Christ is declared, is the word of the sacrament, But they must Answer in what words that speech consists, and when it aught to be pronounced. Touching the sixth Demand which is the principal, the ministers care not to Answer pertinently and clearly: only they exhibit a captious Answer, by which it can not be perceived what is their opinion of the presence and participation of the body of jesus Christ in the supper: And so do they temper their speech, that there is neither Zwinglian, nor Almanist, which confesseth not as much or more than they, that is to say, that they are conjoined to our Lord jesus Christ, and that they possess him two. virtue of their Faith, and by the operation of the holy Ghost, as to be made flesh of his flesh, and bones of his bones. etc. But it is far from the question, which was, if in the sacrament of the supper, the Faithful receive in their souls, besides all the spiritual graces (amongst the which is communication with our Lord jesus Christ) the true body and the true blood of him, Really, truly, and touching the substance: And if in the supper, the Ministers make not distinction of the substance contained and perceived in the Sacrament, from the fruits and effects which proceed thereof: And to be short, we ask, if the Ministers receive and allow, that which Caluine in his Catechism, Institution & other Books hath written of the Supper, and that which is received therein. Touching the seventh Demand, the Ministers have not understand what was proponed to them, touching the concomitance: for they have taken it as if the Demand ran, whether it was lawful to receive the sacrament, under one kind or not: which was not meant nor put in question: only this was the difficulty that was proponed to them, whether in their supper, when the bread is received, and afore the wine be received, they participate really with the true body of jesus Christ, and not participate with his blood, till they have taken the wine, or, whether, in eating the bread, the body be received, afore the cup be taken. To which Demands, to the end Paper be not spent and moiled for nothing, we admonish the ministers to Answer without swerving or variety, and yield open Confession of their Faith: And that we may know what Doctrine we may impugn or approve. Touching the Articles of the Mass, we reserve them to their proper places, which is of the Sacrifice of the body and blood of jesus Christ, after it be known and proved that they are present in the supper, and holy sacrament. Sunday the fourth of August, the year aforesaid. An Answer of the Ministers, to the writing of the Doctors, sent unto them by the Duke of Nyvernois, the Wedensday morning, the seventh of August. 1566. THe Ministers forbearing all that is superfluous and immaterial, in the writing of the doctors, as their repetitions: and dissembling withal, their wrongs and accustomed scoffs, (by which they prove much better the spite they bear to the truth, and us, than the questions proponed) we will rest only upon the points which seem to require Answer. In the first place, we deny to have imposed upon the Doctors, that they have drawn and restrained the Church into a certain place, but rather to a certain company, and to the traditions given, followed, and approved by the same: wherein we praise God, that the said Doctoures are come now to acknowledge that the Catholic Church stretcheth thorough out all the world, and that it is not enclosed within bounds and limits of the authority and traditions of the romish Church: which as we confess was highly esteemed of the Ancients, when errors, abuses, and vices did not abound in it, (as is happened since.) So now, being so corrupted as well in manners as in Doctrine, as nothing is more hateful than the word of God, the light, the truth, and virtue: we say, that as the estate of the said Church hath been changed, so also ought the value and reputation, wherein it hath dwelled: And yet in what degree of honour so ever it hath been raised in times passed, the Ancients never esteemed it an universal Church nor her Bishop, an universal Bishop: as appeareth by that which S. Jerome writeth to Euagrius, and the resolution of one of the Counsels of Carthage: And touching the reformed Church in France, we say not that it is the Catholic and universal Church, but only a member of the same, and that she hath her foundation, not upon the opinion or Authority of men, but upon the Doctrine and writings of the Prophets and Apostles. For the rest, touching the protestations of charity & zeal by the which the Doctors fear to be driven forward into the invectives and pursuits which they raise against us and other the Faithful, by the example (as they say) of S. Augustine and other Bishops, who not long since solicited the Magistrates against the Donatists: Their proceedings which they have and do use against us, and other the Faithful, reveal plainly enough, that with false shadows they cover themselves with those examples: Because even the Catholics, which they allege, persuaded the Magistrates to use moderation and softness to the Donatists and other Heretics, proving all means to reduce them, afore they ministered the rigour of pains and judgements, enforcing themselves furthermore to bridle and repress the fury of the people, that they should not be put to the spoil, and overrun: Where they (of the contrary) sharpen against us both the people and Magistrates, and that by slanders and false imputations, with all other means they can suborn to that end. Touching the omnipotency of God, and the Definition we have laid of the same, drawn out of S. Augustine's books: the Doctors in their last writing infer no new thing, to drive us from it: For, that which they allege of the Angels, to be able to do what they will, and therefore to be almighty as well as God (if the definition aforesaid of God's almightiness had place) is no Example either to the present purpose, or to prove that there is in Angels, a power equal with God: seeing it is most certain that their will and power depend elsewhere, and that God rules over them, to change, suspend, and stay them, as it pleaseth him, and as he can do to all other creatures: which can not be said of God without blasphemy. But, be it in what sort so ever, if they will reprehend the definition of God's almightiness proponed by us, it is not with us, but with S. Augustine that they have to do: for the said definition was taken word by word out of his writings. We much marvel, that, having so amply advouched to them our opinion of the omnipotency of God, with declaration, that it stretched indifferently to all things which men's fond fancies could conceive or imagine, that yet they will eftsoons regrate upon that point, alleging that God can do wisely that, which the foolish imagine fond. For it is most manifest that Fools may imagine many things which are impossible to God: As, (for example) that God is not, as is written in the Psalm .14. and .53. that he is corporal as the Anthropomorphites did deem: that the world is eternal as the Peripaticiens did teach that there be two Princes, as the Manicheans held: All which things can not be attributed to the omnipotency of God without blasphemy: But in this are we best contented, that touching this Article, our masters after long and sharp debate, with so many blasphemies even when we stood in the truth of it, are yet constrained in the end to consent with us, and follow the interpretation and restriction which we gave touching God's omnipotency, as appeareth by one speech of their last writing, whose words be these: All things (say they) that are to be imagined of man, are to be done of God, without excepting any thing, but such as imply contradiction to be and not to be. Then what reason is there, that for such things wherein they consent to us which be excepted from God's almightiness, that we for excepting them should be guilty in blasphemy and not the Doctoures, who say and confess the self same thing: This proposition, that a natural body (even that of jesus Christ) is in divers places at one instant, is of the numbered of those things which imply contradiction, as hath been already sufficiently proved: therefore we conclude that the omnipotency of God ought not to be referred and stretched so far. The Doctoures charge us afterwards with four horrible blasphemies as they term them: grounding them upon our opinion, defending that one body can not be in divers places at one instant, as to resist the truth, wisdom and omnipotency of God: this the Doctoures find so strange and far from reason that they disdain to refute it, thinking it is unworthy of Answer, and that only it sufficeth to recite it: whereunto we Answer that to say it is a blasphemy unworthy of Answer, is an easy and most ready mean to shake of all difficulties wherewith they may be entangled. The Doctoures are also importunate with us, to bring forth by God's word that one body can not be in divers places at one instant, whereunto we Answer once again, that it belongs to the Doctors to prove the contrary by one text of the scripture: that one body may be in one instant in divers places, seeing they are proponantes, and we respondents in this conference. And yet we have declared here before, by lively reasons drawn out of the scripture, and essential properties of God, the nature of bodies, & the Authority of the fathers, that the matter of the question is altogether impossible: and touching their argument containing this nature & form, God can change the order which he hath established in nature, than he can also bring to pass that one body, at one time, be in many places: we deny the consequence, and by this reason: such a case would not only change the order, but also would entangle contradiction, which, even by the Confession of the Doctors, is out of the omnipotency of God. In the Article following, they do the same which they reproach in us, as darkening that, which we clearly proponed in our last writing: by mean whereof, if they will that we Answer them at large, let them unfold it better. Where the Doctors accuse us to have maliciously concealed this word, place, in the matter of circumscription of a body measured, we say it was not needful to use that word expressly there, because there is no man so ignorant, who understanding that a body is circumscript, inferreth not immediately that then he is comprehended in a certain place. Touching the Camel, if they suffice not with that hath been already said, let him read again S. Jerome's opinion in his first Book against the Pelagians, who expounding the words of jesus Christ, saith as followeth: in this the Lord hath not said that which might be done, but hath compared one impossibility with an other: for as a Camel can not enter the hole of a needle. so a rich man shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven: or if thou show me that a rich man entereth there, it shall follow also that a Camel may pass thorough the hole of a needle: do not allege to me Abraham and others whom we read in the old Testament to be rich, and being such, did enter into the kingdom of heaven: because, they using their riches well, and employing them to good works, did cease by that mean to be rich: thus it is written in SAINT Jerome: So that, as it is necessary (by his opinion) that for the salvation of the rich man, there be a change in his heart, and that he forbear to be rich, to the end to enter into the kingdom of heaven, so there must be mutation in the Camel, and he to change his proportion to make him pass thorough the eye of a needle. Touching the Article following, we say, that with god's grace we can discern the light from darkness, & dreams from matter of truth, the same being the occasion that we cannot approve either the arguments or the conclusions of the Doctors, touching one body to be in many places at one instant: being most assured by good and certain testimonies of the Scripture, that all that they go about to prove, proceeds not from other where, than of the spirit of error and lies: Who by this means labours to retain the impiety and idolatry, which heretofore he hath established in the world, to the destruction almost of all Christendom. Touching the Verb Di●rchesta● the Doctors find themselves somewhat troubled to save their penetration, which they cannot any way ground upon the proper signification of that term, neither yet upon any authority of the scripture, as hath been to them by the places heretofore produced. To prove that faith comes partly of ourselves, and not wholly of God, the Doctors allege that no man believes nisi volens (which is that no man believes but willingly) we answer that (under correction of our Masters) that is to evil purpose, because such will and consent are of God, who works in the faithful the will and well doing, the same being very well taught by S. Augustine in one of his epistles, where he saith, that when God calls the faithful to salvation, he finds in them no good will at all, but that he makes and creates it in their hearts, if he mean to find it there. That which the Doctors allege of S. Paul that we work with God, serves no way to their purpose: For the Apostle speaketh thereof the Minister, not meaning there other thing than that which he writes more clearly to the Cor●●●●●●s, in these words: we are Ambassadors of Christ, as if God exhorted by us. And that which they add, that none of the ancient Doctors have taught that a body cannot be in divers places at one time, we say they have: As our former writings have proved, as being alleged in the texts of S. Augustine ad Dardanum, and in the .30. treatise of S. john. We answer only to two points of the advertisement of the Doctors. The first is, that our sermons, our writings, the discipline observed in our Churches, the censures we make of the slanders there committed, the care we have to discover, reprehend, and correct them: the pain we take to reform what is there disordered, the public prayers we make in all places to that end, defend us towards all honest men, and justify us against the slanders of the Doctors. The second is, that the Doctors abuse their advertisement, in saying that Abraham doubted of the promise, the same being all together contrary to the opinion of the Apostle in the fourth to the romans, where he saith in proper terms, he made no doubt of the promise of God by distrust, but was strengthened by faith, giving glory to God. To answer the last objection of the Doctors made (as they say) against our answer given to their former question upon the matter of the supper: how soever they fayne not to have delayed the conference and disputation of the Supper and the Mass, yet they are not able to persuade any, of any judgement, that hetherunto they have not always, and yet do not shifted off to enter into it. For what requests so ever came from the Lady of Buyllon, or at any time made by us, yea, notwithstanding the desire, will, & many means made by the Duke of Nyvernois to draw them to it, yet they have stand always unwilling, yea (and as it were) impossible to enter upon these two points. The which when we well perceived, containing notwithstanding our desire, not to departed from them, till we had first conferred therein. We often protested not to dispute further with them, if those two articles were not first decided and resolved. To which end we proponed certain arguments, as well of the one as the other, by order and good Method: to the end they might advise what they would oppugn and gainsay in the said arguments. But the doctors dissimuling herein, in place to pursue them, propone other frivolous and unprofitable questions, drawn out of their school divinity. And notwithstanding our just occasion of grief in that our arguments were omitted by the Doctors, yet to cut of all further pretence or colour to defer, we have answered their last questions. And now in place to follow our answers & reverse them, if they had mean, they propone eftsoons other new questions, no less frivolous than the first, the same revealing sufficiently their fancies & dissimulation with discovery to every man, that they disguise their will to confer upon the said points, seeing they do what they can to altar the conference, to the end it dissolve afore this matter be cleared. In which respect to conclude and resolve in all the conference, we are determined with God's grace, to set down in writing no less briefly, than as clearly as we can, all that which God hath taught us, and we learned by his word, of these matters, as well to satisfy our duty to God and his honour, & our obedience to the Lord of Nevers, and the Lady of Buyllon, as also to content in the end, and edify the church. A conclusion and resolution of the points aswell of the supper, as of the Mass, containing that which the Ministers believe and teach thereof in their churches by the word of God. THe end & sovereign felicity of men is to be knit with God, & dwell in him, Psal. 7.5.2.8. for that it is the only mean by which their desires may be contented and satisfied, and their hearts and minds fully delivered from the hard and cruel servitude of sin, and all other passions, lusts, fears & distrusts, which oppress them, 1. Cor. 15. the same being the occasion that S. Paul placed perfect blessedness and everlasting rest of the happy, in that the God is in them all things. But because men are naturally corrupt and vicious, and of the contrary, God is pure and holy in all perfection, 2. Cor. 6. the difficulty is how to choose the mean, by which they may approach unto him, seeing there is no society between light and darkness, nor any communion between justice and iniquity. This mean cannot be found in them, because that of themselves they are altogether enable and incapable to be raised from the misery and malediction, whereunto they are fallen headlong, in such sort, as being blind of understanding, they cannot know what is good for them, and much less seek for it, being froward and of hardened hearts. And therefore it is necessary to forsake and come out of themselves, and search the mean aforesaid in jesus Christ, who was given unto them of the father, to be their justice, wisdom, 1. Cor. 1. john 14 Ephe. 3 sanctification, redemption, way, life and truth. Only there rests now to know, how they may be united and conjoined with him. The Apostle teacheth us it is done by faith, by which jesus Christ dwelleth in our hearts, and rests in us, john. 17. so that he and we are made all one, as he is one with his father. There be two principal causes of this faith, the one is outward, 1. Cor. 4.13 and the other inward. The inward is the holy spirit, which is called a spirit of faith, because he is the author thereof, and hath created and produced it in the hearts of men, inclining and disposing them to receive in all obedience the word and promise of God, preached unto them by the faithful Executors and Ministers of the same, Rom. 10. which word is the external cause of faith. And as this faith increaseth and riseth by degrees, so doth also the unity we have with jesus Christ, and (by this mean) with God: until as S. Paul saith, that we concur and meet all together in the unity of the faith and knowledge of the son of God in perfect man, in the manner of a perfect stature of Christ. This increase of faith comes by the operation and virtue of the holy spirit, which was the original and first author of it. And then after by the continuance of the word purely preached and pronounced. And lastly by the lawful use of the Sacraments, provided as seals for the certainty and confirmation of the faith, and assurance which we have of the said conjunction with God by jesus Christ, together with participation of all the benefits, grants, gifts, graces, and blessings, which are purchased for us by his favour, as remission of sins, our regeneration, and mortification of the flesh with his concupiscence. For the better signification of which things, and to assure us of the exhibition and use of the same, Baptism was ordained of God, to the end that in the water sprinkled upon our bodies, and in the promise of God added therewith, we may behold (as with our eyes) the invisible grace which God doth to us, to wash us, and make us clean of our spiritual ordures, and so to sanctify us and make us new creatures: as also to assure us continually of the eternal life, and make us increase in the hope we have by our participation of the flesh of jesus Christ crucified for our redemption, and of his blood shed for the remission of our sins: The bread and wine are distributed to us in the supper, by the ordinance of jesus Christ. But as we acknowledge an unity and sacramental conjunction between the exterior sign, and the thing signified by it: so we say of the other side, that between them both there is such a distinction, that the one aught not to be confused with the other: neither the spiritual thing so tied to the corporal (which representeth it) that either the one without the other cannot be received, or by necessity they both be always indevidablye knit together: Whereof it followeth that such are in error who hold that in the supper the bread is transnatured into the substance of the body of jesus Christ. And likewise those that say, it is there knit and united corporally, so that who soever receives & takes those signs, be he faithful or infidel, takes and receives immediately the thing signified by them. Which error, with the most part of others crept in upon this matter, hath proceeded, in that men have not well comprehended what it is to eat the body, and drink the blood of jesus Christ: which aught not to be understand as a manner that corporal meats are taken & eaten, but only of a spiritual fashion, as is declared in the sixth of S. john which consists in that that jesus Christ dwells in us, and we in him, the same being done by the faith we have in him. As S. Augustine teacheth in his .25. treatise upon S. john, saying, why dost thou prepare thy belly and thy teeth? believe, and thou hast eaten it. Likewise in his third book of Christian doctrine, chap. 16. as followeth: when jesus Christ saith, if you eat not the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. It seems he commands to commit a great crime: so that it is a figure, by the which we aught not understand other thing, but that we must communicate with the passion of the Lord, and keep in memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. Then the eating of the flesh and body of jesus Christ is no other thing than a strait conjunction and unity we have with him: which is wrought by the faith we repose in his promises, even as by the mutual promises made and received between a man and his wife, the marriage concludes and is established between them, wherein albeit being so knit, they happen by any occasion to be separate and far of one from the other touching their bodies, yet are they for all that one flesh and one body by mean of the society and matrimonial acquaintance between them. In like sort, be it that jesus Christ (with whom we are knit and united by faith and trust we have in him and in his promises) be, as in respect of his body, resident in heaven, and we remain here on earth, so that there is a great distance between him and us touching his body: yet that doth not hinder us to be flesh of his flesh, and bones of his bones, and that he is not our head, and we his members, he our husband, and we his spouse, that we are not of one self body tied with him, that we are not clothed of him, and that we devil not in him, as the branches in the vine. Neither is there distance of time or place what soever it be, nor difference of seasons, which may hinder that conjunction, & that the faithful eat truly his flesh and blood. For as the ancient Fathers, notwithstanding they were two or three thousand years afore Christ died, yet forbore not to communicate in his flesh crucified, and eat the same meat spiritually which we eat, and drink the same drink spiritually which we drink: so the faithful also which are comen twelve or fifteen hundredth years after, forbear not, in what place soever they be, to participate, as the Fathers, with the same meat and drink which they did. Neither is there any other difference between the eating of the Fathers that were before the coming of jesus Christ, and such as have followed him, but the reason of the more or of the less, which is, that in the one there is more ample and express declaration of God's good will towards us, than in the other. By which we aught to conclude, that from the beginning of the world, until the end, there was never, nor ever shall be, other conjunction between our Lord jesus Christ and his Church, than spiritual, that is, purchased by the spirit of God. For even as there is but one faith in the Fathers, and in us, which considereth always on the one and other side our Lord jesus Christ: even so are not we conjoined with him in other sort than they were. So that as the Fathers had no other society or communication then spiritual, even so it followeth also that we neither are nor can be otherwise united with him, than spiritually. And yet do we not say that we and the Fathers are not flesh of his flesh, and bones of his bones, & that altogether we participate not as well with his humanity, as with his divinity. But all our saying and opinion stretcheth to this, that this participation which we have there, is by the operation and virtue of the holy spirit. Which jesus Christ in S. john, speaking of this conjunction, john. 6. 1. Cor. 10. teacheth clearly in these few words: the things whereof I speak to you, are the spirit and life: as also S. Paul, our Fathers (saith he) have eaten the same spiritual meat, and drunk the same spiritual drink. Wherein when we speak of this spiritual eating both in us and in our Fathers, it must not be thought therefore that we would reject the holy Supper of the Lord, or once think, that in the same the use of bread and wine is superfluous: no more than the use of the water in the Baptism. For our Lord, knowing the hardness of our understanding, together with the infirmity and weakness of our hearts, and by a pity & compassion he hath of us, seeking to remedy the same, was not only content to leave unto us the ministery of his word, to assure us of the participation which we have in his flesh and blood, and all the benefits likewise depending thereupon: But he hath also added thereunto the signs of bread and wine, which he hath annexed to his word as seals to seal in our hearts, by the use of the same, the faith which we have of the said conjunction by his word. Like as it did not suffice him to have contracted the alliance with Abraham by the word and promise he made him, but he added further the sign of Circumcision, as a seal to confirm and assure more amply the said alliance. To the end then that every one understand what is the supper of the Lord, and also what we believe and teach of it, there must be considered and acknowledged in the same three things. First, the ordinance of the Lord contained in his word, and declared by his Minister, according to his commandment. By the which word this holy ceremony was ordained and established in the Church, to edify and entertain the members of the same: which must be diligently observed, as to have it in such honour and reverence as appertaineth, and not to put it on the beadroll or sort of other ceremonies, who have no other ground or reason of authority, than the only will and traditions of men: yet there must be heed taken, that by the institution and ordinance, whereof we speak, there is understanded a certain pronunciation of words, or any virtue which is hid in them, as do the priests of the Romish church, who by ignorance, and their superstitious opinion think to have consecrated and transubstantiated the bread and wine which is in their Mass, by the virtue of five words, Hoc est enim corpus meum, breathed and pronounced upon the elements. Wherein they are no less deceived than abused, because the word which is the formal cause of the sacrament is not a word said and spoken simply, but a declaration of the institution and ordinance of God, done by the Minister, according to his commandment, and a predication of the death of jesus Christ, with the fruit of the same: by the which the hearts of the hearers are raised into contemplation and meditation of his benefits, and their faith kindled and inflamed in his love. And where this is not done, as is said, we must not think that the elements are sacraments, as S. Augustine teacheth upon S. john. 80. Treatise, in these terms: from whence comes this virtue to the water, that in touching the body, it washeth the heart, but that it is done by the word, not because it is pronounced, but by reason it is believed: this word is the word of faith which we preach sayeth the Apostle: which is, if we confess with our mouth that Christ is the Lord, and believe in our heart, that God hath raised him from the dead, we shallbe saved: wherein continuing his matter, he adds in the end these words: this word of faith which we preach, is the same (without doubt) by which baptism is consecrated, to the end it may cleanse and wash. The ministers infer here before two things, the one, that the word of Consecration is not (as is said) a simple pronunciation but a public and manifest declaration of the institution and ordinance with all the mystery of the death of jesus Christ. The other, that the signs and Elements consecrated, are not changed in respect of their nature and substance, but only touching the use and signification, and that only during the Action in which they serve: For, to consecrated the signs (as the water in Baptism, and the bread and wine in the supper) is no other thing, than to assign and make them serve to a holy and sacred use by the public declaration of the ordinance of God, made to that end, and not to change them touching their nature and substance: the which vanishing, and being made nothing, there should be no more sign nor (by consequence) any sacrament: So that even as the water in the Baptism, after the Consecration, remains water, without that his nature or substance, be in any thing changed or altered: so the bread and wine in the supper, touching their substance, remain, after the consecration, such as they were afore, for there should be no Analogy nor correspondency between the sign and the thing signified. For what comparison & conformity is there between the accidents of the bread, and the truth of the body of jesus Christ: seeing that the accidents of the bread, as the whiteness and roundness, destitute of their substance (as the Sophisters do falsely imagine) could not nourish or sustain the body, and by that mean should not be proper to signify that the flesh and blood of jesus Christ nourish and sustain our souls. So that we must hold this for resolute, that the bread and wine remain in their substance: the same being clearly verified by jesus Christ, who speaking of that which he gave to his Disciples to drink in the Supper, calls it specially the fruit of the Vine: Math. 26. Which can not be referred to the accidents, but is necessarily to be understanded of the wine in his proper substance: 1. Cor. 11. As also by that which S. Paul saith calling the Elements of the Supper Bread and Wine, three several times, yea after they were Consecrated: Like as also he writeth elsewher, we that are many, are one bread and one body, because we participate all of one loaf: wherein he teacheth us there by his comparison of the loaf, that even as it is made of many grains, so wrought and mingled togsther, that they can not be distinguished or separated one from an other, even so also aught the faithful in the Church, to be so knit and united together in one self body, as they may seem to be members one of another. This comparison would be altogether foolish & out of purpose, if the bread which we eat in the supper, were not true bread: Gelasius Bishop of Rome writing against Eutichus, saith, that the sacrament which we take is a thing Divine, and yet forbears not to be a substance and nature of bread and wine: Theodoret also in his first Dialogue, useth these proper terms, the Lord hath honoured with the name of his body and of his blood the visible signs which represent them: without changing their nature but adding only grace to the nature. The same Author in his second Dialogue, speaking also of the bread and wine distributed in the supper, saith, that after the sanctification, these mystical signs forsake not their nature, for they remain in their proper substance, kind and figure: by mean whereof, they are seen and handled after the Consecration, neither more or less than afore. S. john Chrysostome writing to the Monk Cesarius, saith: in the Supper we call bread that which is there present, afore it be sanctified: And after the sanctification, by God's grace and mean of the minister, it hath no more the name of bread, but of the body of our Lord, yet the nature of bread remains there. By the places aforesaid, as well of the holy scripture, as Ancient Doctors, and others which might be yet alleged for this matter, it appears that the bread and wine in the supper remain always (as hath been said) in their proper nature and substance after the Consecration as well as before: wherein it need not to be doubted that the Faith of the ancient Church hath not always been so, and that Transubstantitiaon was neither established nor held for an Article of Faith in the romish Church until the time of Innocent the third. To withstand and reject all that hath been said touching the nature and substance of the signs which remain after the Consecration, such as be adversaries to this Doctrine, allege ordinarily the words of jesus Christ, speaking of the bread, in the institution of his supper, take, eat, this is my body: And staying upon the proper and natural signification of the terms, they defend obstinately, that the substance of bread is vanished in the Consecration, and that there remains no other substance, except that of the body of jesus Christ. The reason of this, is, that they observe not the Figures and manner of speeches, which are ordinarily used in the holy Scripture, when and as often as there is Question of the matter of the sacraments: For then the name of the things signified is ordinarily attributed to the signs which represent and signify them: as the name of the alliance is attributed to the Circumcision, Gene. 17. Exod. 12. Tit. 3. because it was assigned to signify and ratify it. The Lamb, by like reason is called the passage: and Baptism, washing of regeneration, and that not because they be things like to the signs and mysteries signified by them: But for the conformity that is between them: Epist. ●3. The signs (as S. Augustine himself doth say) take oftentimes the name of the things which they represent: So that the error proceeds in that they take and understand the manners of speeches figured, as if they were proper and natural. That this speech, take and eat, this my body, is figurative: it appears by that which our Lord jesus Christ adds after of the cup, saying: this cup is the new Testament in my blood, which is shed for you: Here he calls the cup Testament, and new alliance in his blood: wherein we must necessarily confess that there is figure, and that with out it the said place could not be well understand, nor aptly interpreted. For it is a thing manifest, that an alliance (which is a contrary covenant between parties made and conceived under a certain promiss and word:) is not the wine, and yet it is so called by figure: because the wine which is distributed in the supper, is as the seal, by the which the said alliance is sealed, and the faith of the same confirmed: By such or like manner, must we also understand and expound this sentence: this is my body: the same being as much to say, as, this is the new Testament in my body, which is delivered for you: For, as by the effusion of his blood, the new Testament was ratified, so was it also by the death of his body: we need not search better interpretation of the words of jesus Christ, than jesus Christ himself. For it is certain, that that which he said of the cup, is as a gloze, and clear and familiar exposition of that which he said of the bread more briefly and darkly, ●. Corrin. which is also proved by S. Paul: The bread which we break (saith he) is not the Communion of the body of Christ, which is a manner of figurative speech, because that to speak and understand properly, the bread which is a corporal and material thing, is not the Communion which we have in the body of jesus Christ, which is a thing spiritual and invisible, and yet it is so called, as being a sign thereof, to represent it to us, and assure us of it: even as we call commonly the letter signed and sealed, which contains the declaration of the last will of a man, his Testament, albeit it is not his testament, which is properly the declaration which he hath made verbally of his said will, but it is so called because it is the instrument and testimony thereof. And even as the Scripture and the Ancients, as well to recommend and raise the dignity of the signs, and cut of by that mean the mistaking of them, as also for the conformity and likeness that is between the signs & the things signified, have attributed sometimes, the names of the same things signified to the signs which they represent, and speaking of the signs, have used figurative speech: So they have spoken of them sundry other times properly, to take away all occasion of abuse, and prevent, that in taking without distinction the signs of the thing signified by them, there should be attributed to them the effects which appertain not but to the matters only which they signify: of these two sundry reasons and manner of speech, there be examples as well in the scriptures, as in the Ancient fathers. Of the first, we have an example in the Circumcision, when it is called by figure, alliance, Gene. 17. vers. 13. And of the second, there is also an example in the same Chapter, vers. 11. where the Circumcision is properly called sign of the alliance, in Exo. 12. ver. 11. there is also an other example of the first manner of figurative speech, where the Lamb is called the Passeover of the Lord: and touching the second man, which is proper, an example also in the same place, vers. 3. where the blood of the Lamb is called a sign. In like manner and order, when is mention in the scripture of the supper, the words run sometimes of the bread by figure, as when it is called the body of jesus Christ, or the Communion of the body, as hath been said before: and sometimes also it is spoken of properly: as when it is said, who so ever shall eat of this bread: 1. Cor. 1. also every one than proves himself, and eats so of this bread: Like diversity in both the manners of speech is found oftentimes in the Ancient fathers touching the matter of the supper: For sometimes they speak of the bread by figure, calling it the body of jesus Christ: In a Sermon of the supper. as S. Cyprian when he sayeth, the body of the Lord is taken with foul hands, and his blood drunk with a profane and defiled mouth: and in an other place, that we suck his blood, and fasten our tongues in the wounds of our Redeemer. Likewise S. Jerome when he saith that Exuperius Bishop of Tholoze carried the body of our Lord in a little pannier of Willows, and his blood in a glass. S. Chrysostome also, when he writeth, that jesus suffereth himself not only to be seen, but also to be touched and eaten, and that teeth are fixed in his flesh, and touched with tongue. Lastly S. Augustine: With what care do we take heed, when the body of jesus Christ is administered to us, that nothing of the same fall from our hands to the earth. All which sentences, with their likes, are figurative wherein is no doubt, that in the right and direct interpretation of them, aught not to be taught to the readers, but that in them the name of the thing signified, is applied to the signs which signify it: which may be easily gathered of other sentences and texts of the said Ancients: where speaking properly of the bread and wine which are distributed in the supper, they call them signs and figures. As Tertullian, jesus Christ (saith he) took bread and distributed it to his Disciples, and makes it his body, when he saith, this is my body, which is to say, a figure of my body: And Cyprian, by the wine shows the blood of Christ: Also in a Sermon which he made of the supper of our Lord: As often as we do this, we whet not our teeth to bite, but break and distribute the holy bread in true Faith, by the which we distinguish the matter divine and humane: Also in a Sermon he made De C●●●●●le, the Lord gave with his proper hands, bread and wine in the Table, wherein he performed his last repast with his Disciples: but on the Cross, he delivered into the hands of the armed men his body to be wounded, to the end he might imprin●e so much the more deeply the truth into his disciples, and they to declare to the people how the bread and wine were his body and blood, and how the sacrament agreed with the thing for the which it was instituted: and also how one sacrament is made of two things, and therefore is named with two names, and one self name is given to that which signifieth, and to that which is signified. S. ●asile propones to us figures and patrons of the sacred body and blood of jesus Christ: And likewise S. Augustine, the Lord had no horror to say, this is my body, when he gave the sign of his body. The Lord received judas to his supper, wherein he recommended and gave to his Disciples the figure of his body: S. Jerome, After he had eaten the Paschal Lamb with his disciples, he took bread to strengthen the heart of man, and past to the true sacrament of the passage, to the end that as A●lchisedech had done before in his figure, he might also there represent his true body: S. Ambrose, this sacrifice is a figure of the body and blood of our Lord jesus Christ: Chrysostome, he hath dressed this Table, to the end he may show us daily the bread and wine in mystery and similitude of the body and blood of Christ. And it happeneth sometimes, that a Doctor in this matter expounds the other: as may be perceived in the conference of the two places, the one of S. Augustine already alleged, and the other of Tertullian in the Book of the crowning of a Knight: where he saith, we hardly suffer, that any thing of our bread and wine fall on the earth. In place of that which S. Augustine to the same matter saith, (as hath been recited here before) we take diligent heed that nothing of the body of our Lord fail on the earth. And even as in divers places, the ancients (as hath been declared) have used the two manners of speech aforesaid, speaking of the supper sometimes by figure, sometimes simple and properly: so it is oftentimes found, that in one self place, the two manners of speech have been usurped in their writings: as in a Canon of the Council of Nace, where is said, it hath been thus concluded of the Table of the Lord, and of the mystery upon the same, meaning of the worthy body and blood of jesus Christ. At the Table of the Lord, we aught not to re●● fixed basely upon the bread and wine there se●te out, but to raise our hearts on high by Faith, with persuasion, that upon the holy Table is exhibited the Lamb of God which takes upon him the sins of the world, which is sacrificed of the Priests, and not killed: And communicating truly with his body & precious blood, we ought to believe that those things are signs of our Resurrection. By which may be seen how in one place, the fathers have spoken properly, calling bread and wine the signs and elements which are presented in the supper, and by figure also naming the same signs the Lamb of God which takes upon him the sins of the world. Such therefore as read the scriptures and Ancient Fathers, are warned by the discourse of the two manners of speech aforesaid, to use diligent heed, that for not distinguishing the places where the said speeches are usurped, they confound them not, taking that which ought to be understand by figure, as if it were properly spoken, and proper speech, as if it were understand by Figure: wherein must be always remembered in the reading of the scripture, as also the ancients, the opinion of S. Augustine in his Book of Christian Doctrine: we must beware (saith he) that we take not a Figurative speech for the letter: whereunto may be referred the saying of the Apostle, the letter killeth and the spirit revives: So that to understand that which is said by figure, as if it were spoken properly, is a fleshly wisdom. Upon the end of the Chapter, he remembreth one worthy sentence, that it is a miserable servitude of the soul to take the signs for the thing signified, and not to be able to raise the eye of the spirit above the corporal creature, to draw the eternal light. To come to the third part of the supper, being the spiritual and celestial thing which is there represented and exhibited unto us, as well in the elements, as in the action, we say, that it is jesus Christ crucified & offered on the Cross to God his father, for the expiation & perfect satisfaction of all the sins of the world: And to make us enjoy the fruit of this sacrifice, and to apply to us justice, remission of sins, life, grace of God, with all the other favours and blessings, which by the same sacrifice have been purchased & obtained for us: The word and the Sacraments have been left and ordained for us, and specially that of the Supper, wherein as upon a table we behold jesus Christ suffering for us all the dolours and anguishes of death, paying our debts, and canceling the bond that was against us, carrying upon himself our malediction, to discharge us of it, and by his obedience reconciling us to God his father, and appeasing his wrath towards us. All which things are represented and assured to us in the Supper, when with a true faith we come thither to celebrated it. Then the Supper was not ordained to be a sacrifice propitiatory (as the Doctors teach, and the Romish church falsely believeth) but to be a Sacrament, to keep fresh, and preserve always the memory which we aught to hold constantly of the death and sacrifice of jesus Christ. There is great difference between sacrament and sacrifice, because in sacrifice we present to God our oblations, and in the sacrament, God (of the contrary) doth offer and communicate with us his graces and gifts. Also in the sacrifice for sin, there is death and effusion of blood of the host and oblation, and not in the sacrament, but only the application of the fruits and effects of the sacrifice. So that in the Supper jesus Christ is not eftsoons sacrificed, but the fruits of his obedience, and of the merit of his sacrifice are there distributed and received by the faithful. By the reasons aforesaid we conclude, that it is a blasphemy and sacrilege, to call the bread of the Mass of a romish Priest, an host saluatorie. And if to prove it the ancients be alleged, in whose writings it is found, that sometime the Supper was called oblation and sacrifice: we answer, that first, that belongs nothing to the Mass of the Priests, between the which and the Supper there is no affinity. And then, that which the ancients have said, that they never understood it a Sacrifice propitiatory, by the which remission of sins is gotten and obtained. Neither have they believed or thought, that there was an other sacrifice to appease God's wrath, and purchase a reconcilement between him & men, than the only sacrifice of jesus Christ made by him, only once upon the cross. We say then in effect three things: first that there neither is nor can be other sacrificator of the new Testament than jesus Christ. The reasons are, because there is none but he of whom it hath been said, thou art priest eternally, according to the order of Melchisedeck. Also there is none but he to whom may be applied the conditions and essential qualities of the sacrificator, and of the sacrificature: which be that the sacrificator be holy, innocent, without spot, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens, who hath not need every day to offer sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. Also there is none but he, which either is, or may be mediator between God and men, that is able to satisfy the divine justice, capable to bear & endure the wrath of God, that can tame and overcome death, that by his death and proper blood is able to procure the ratification of the new testament, and who lastly is able in favour and contemplation of his merits and dignities, to obtain of God the remission of sin, with other graces which are necessary to such as seek him and trust in him. Secondly, we say there is no other sacrifice for sin, but that of jesus Christ, who is the only Lamb that bears the sin of the world, that there is but his blood, by the which our abominations are washed & made clean. To be short, that God takes no pleasure in other sacrifice or oblation, and that he requires no other Holocaustes nor offering for sin, and that for this reason, jesus Christ (as is written of him in the roll of the law) is come to do and accomplish the will of God his father. Thirdly we say of the sacrifice of jesus Christ, that it is only, and once offered by him●elfe, without need ever after to repeat or reiterate it, considering his perfection and virtue, by the which sin is abolished, and perfect and eternal sanctification obtained to all the choose, as appeareth in the. 9 &. 10. to the hebrews. By mean whereof it is no less blasphemy, & matter contrary to the doctrine and meaning of the Apostle, to approve the repetition and reitteration of the sacrifice of jesus Christ, than the plurality of sacrifices for sin. And if the Doctors would (as hath been their custom) to disguise and colour such an abuse, prefer their distinction between the sacrifice propitiatory, and applicatory, as to say the Priests pretend not in their Masses to sacrifice jesus Christ for other end than to apply the merit of his death to those by whom they celebrated them: We answer, that in doing thus, they would attribute more than they do to jesus Christ, because all the fruit of his sacrifice comes to us by the application of the same, even as the healing our cure comes not so much of the confection and preparation of the medicine, as by applying the same. Besides we make this question to our Masters, by what means the benefit of the death of jesus Christ was applied to the fathers afore his coming, seeing at that time there was no Mass song. All men of any spirit & judgement may perceive that those distinctions are frivolous, & suborned only to darken the truth, & blear the eyes of the simple and ignorat. For jesus Christ who hath offered the sacrifice, is the self same which he applies to us by his spirit, his word, and his sacraments. And now to return to the matter of our beginning, & to declare to what end the ancients have called the Supper & all the action of the same sacrifice: there is to be noted that in the supper there be many sorts of sacrifices, as the sacrifice of a contcite heart, which is offered by public confession of sins done there. After, the sacrifice of our bodies, which is there offered by open prayer following the said confession: thirdly, the sacrifice of praise and thanks giving, there offered, when after the confession & prayers they sing Psalms. The preaching of the gospel (which is called a sacrifice Rom. 15.) comes after, as when the confession & prayers being done, the Minister presents himself to the people, to reveal the word of God. Alms (which is an other kind of sacrifice) were in times past laid to the supper by the faithful: who by this mean would testify not only the memory they had of the graces and benefits of God, but also their charity and des●re they had to relieve the necessities of their poor neighbours. Over and beside all these kinds of sacrifices, there be two particular in the Supper, whereof is mention made in the writings of the ancients, the bread and wine which were chosen and taken of the alms brought thither for the poor: and were consecrated, that is to say, assigned and deputed to the holy & sacred use of the supper. The other kind is the memory of the death and sacrifice of jesus Christ celebrated and repeated in all the action of the Supper, which for this reason is called sacrifice by S. john Chrisostome upon the Epistle to the hebrews, Chap. 16. Hom. 17. his words be these: We do every day no other sacrifice, than that of jesus Christ, no rather saith he (in correcting himself) we make the memory of the same sacrifice. S. Ambrose calls it the memory of our redemption, to the end that we remembering our Redeemer, may obtain of him to multiply his graces upon us. S. Augustine propones it also more clear, Epist. 29. under a comparison of the days of the passion & resurrection of jesus Christ, which he applies in this manner: Often times when the feast of Easter approacheth, we use this manner of speaking, to morrow, or within two days we have the passion or the resurrection of jesus Christ. It cannot be properly understand of the day that Christ suffered death, (which is passed long since) but only of the memory of his death, the which is solemnized and celebrated as upon that day, every year. A little after he addeth to apropriate his comparison, hath not jesus Christ been offered in himself one only time: and yet in the Sacrament of the Supper, not only the day of Easter, but every day he is offered to the people. In an other place: the flesh and blood of this sacrifice afore the coming of jesus Christ were promised by the figures of sacrifices: Against Faustine. in the passion of jesus Christ they were delivered up and offered in truth. And since jesus Christ ascended into heaven, they are celebrated by the sacrament of memory. By these places and many other like, we may deduce that the fathers have often called the supper sacrifice, because in it the memory of the sacrifice of jesus Christ is restored and celebrated. The name of sacrifice is also often times applied by the ancients to the alms brought by the faithful in the supper, as by justine Martyr in the second Apology, by S. Augustine in his .20. book, chap. 20. against Faustus, by S. Cyprian in his book of the alms, by S. Chrisostome, hom. 46. upon S. Matthew which may also be verified even by the canon of the Mass, where it is said, we offer to thy majesty part of thy gifts and benefits, the same to be referred to the alms of the faithful, offered by the Minister to God, in the name of all the church. Sometimes the prayers which were made there, were called sacrifices, as Cyprian upon the dominical prayer, and Eusebius in the vij of the Ecclesiastical history, Tertullian in the third book against Martion, where alleging the place of Malachi of the clean offering which aught to be made to God from the sun rising, till the setting of the same, saith, it aught to be understand of the Hymns and praises to God, which S. Jerome also confirms in his exposition upon the said place. For conclusion of this matter, we say, that all the places of the books of the ancients, wherein touching the matter of the supper, is mention made of the sacrifice, aught to be referred to one of the said kinds: neither can it be found, that either they have said, written, or thought, that there was other sacrifice propitiatory, than only that which jesus Christ hath once offered on the cross in his proper body for our redemption: by which mean it is sure that he aught to be acknowledged in the Christian church sacrificator of the new testament. And touching the other sacrifices, as that of a contrite heart, mortification of the flesh, of thanks giving and alms, and the pronouncement and memory of the death of jesus Christ: we say that generally it belongs to the church to offer them, and that there is neither faithful, nor any member in all the body of the Church, who for this respect is not sacrificature: as S. Peter saith in his first Epistle, chap. 2. and S. john in the apocalypse, chap. 1. and that for that reason we aught to offer in the Supper such sacrifices unto God, as appears even by the canon of their Mass, by them evil understanded & applied to the sacrifice which they pretend of the body and blood of jesus Christ, where it is said, for the which we offer thee, or who offer thee. etc. That which we say of the sacrificature, that it is common to all the church to offer to God sacrifice of thanks giving, aught not to be slanderously interpreted, as though we would confuse the ecclesiastical ministry, with the said sacrificature, and by that mean reverse and trouble the order of the church, giving to every one an authority & power to govern it. For we know well enough that vocations are different amongst the people of God, and that it is necessary, that in the church there be Pastors & Doctors, with other Ministers (as Deacons and Ancients) to guide it well and edify, as well by continual preaching of the word, as careful execution of other things concerning their charges: only we must distinguish those vocations which are particular, from the sacrificature aforesaid, which aught to be general and common (as is said) to all the Church. Such now, as with diligence will observe the matters here before discoursed & proved by God's word, may easily see & judge, that the Mass as it is celebrated at this day in the Romish church, is the whole corruption & reversement of the institution of the supper which jesus Christ hath established and left in his church, so that at this day it is impossible to find or discern one only mark of his first ordinance. For of a sacrament which jesus Christ left in his church to ed●y and entertain it in a present memory of his death, they have made a sacrifice, by the which the remembrance of the same jesus Christ is altogether buried & defaced. Wherein there is this thing specially marvelous, and no less worthy to be well noted, that the which appertained not but to the son of God, & impossible to any to do but to himself, as to sacrifice for sin, to reconcile men unto God, to appease his wrath towards them, & to intercesse for favour and help of them, the priests attribute to themselves. And that which is lawful & commanded, yea & possible for them to do, as to solemnize the memory of jesus Christ, & in taking, breaking, distributing and eating the bread, and drinking the wine, to declare his death, they have altogether left. So that as we may say that whatsoever Christ did in the supper, and commanded to do, the Priests do nothing at all, even so, what he did on the cross, and commanded man never to do it, the Priests undertake and seek to do it. The errors and abuses aswell of transubstantiation, as of sacrificature, and sacrifice expiatory, and the repetition of the same, which be the principal parts, and (as it were) the grounds of the Mass, have been heretofore confuted, and sufficiently overthrown, as well by God's word, as other reasons here alleged in the declaration of the parts of that supper. And now there rests no more to batter wholly this Idol, but to show that the residue of the Mass is no better stuff, nor better grounded in God's word. For the adoration which is there done to the bread and wine is an idolatry condemned and cursed of God. And it is not likely to be true, that jesus Christ instituting the supper, had not ordained it, & S. Paul reciting this as he had received it of the Lord, had not taught it, and that the ancient church had omitted it, if it had been a thing wherein God might have been any way honoured. Besides, the separation of the Priest from the people, is directly contrary to the article of faith of the Communion of the church, and contrary to the purpose & end for the which the supper was ordained: the same tending to confirm and entertain the society that aught to be between the faithful, and bind them always more straightly one to another. So that as it cannot be more rightly termed than a presumption intolerable, and a manifest disdain of the rest of God's people: So that which the Doctors have alleged to excuse and cover such a sacrilege, is no less vain and frivolous, which is, that the Mass of the Priests doth not forbear to be good, not withstanding the assistants will not communicate ther. For first, they are forbidden to eat alone in the supper, and there is no supper where is no communion, as S. Paul teacheth, rebuking the Corinthians, for departing one from an other in the celebration of their supper. When (saith he) you assemble yourselves together, it is not to eat the supper of the Lord, seeing when ye come to eating, every one advanceth to take it particularly. 1. Cor. 11. Therefore, upon the end of the chapter, teaching them what form to use therein, he saith: therefore (my brethren) when you assemble to eat, tarry one for an other. Besides, it happeneth often times that in their Mass, there is none but the Priest, and a little Clerk to answer him, whom they will not take to communicate with them. Also, how can they excuse the Masses which are song in Monasteries, where the people are defended to communicate with the monks that celebrated them? yea, it is ordinarelye seen in great parishes, in Paris and elsewhere, that when the people communicate, they are separate from the priests, who doing their business a part, disdain to eat and communicate at one table with them. And what communion is there between the Priests and the people, seeing that in place to break in the assembly, one self loaf (to the end that all participating therein, should by that mean be the more straightly conjoined and knit in one self body) every one hath his own a part: the Priest a greater, and the people one somewhat less: Seeing also the Chalice is in no sort distributed. Furthermore, what endeavour is used by the priests to invite and exhort the people to communicate with them, yea even the Bishops, who at this day hold it as a matter of shame to communicate with Artisans, and other people of mean condition. For conclusion, if the Doctors had well considered the customs of the ancients, who caused to go out of the place, where the Communion was done, the Catachumeni, and others not prepared to communicate: And likewise if they had remembered the doctrine of S. john Chrisostome, shame would have forbidden them to defend such an abuse and impiety, Sermo. 3. ad Ephesi. as is that of their Mass. Wherein to the end the people shall not rest ignorant in the opinion of that holy Doctor, we will here divide it word by word: It is in vain that the daily oblation is done, it is in vain that we remain at the altar, there is no body that Communicates there: I say not this to the end you Communicate in any fashion, but to the end you make yourselves worthy of it. Art thou not worthy to Communicate? no more art thou to pray. A little after he saith further: if any were called to a banquet, and washed his hands, and being set at the table, did not eat nor taste any thing of the meats there served, should he not do dishonour & wrong to him that invited him: had it not been better for him not to have come thither, even thus is it of thee: For thou art come, thou hast sung Psalms with the rest of the people, thou hast confessed thyself to be of the number of the worthy, and not departing from those that are unworthy: how then dost thou tarry, and not participate at the table of the Lord: thou sayst, I am unworthy, I answer thee, that even so art thou also, touching the Communion of Prayers. Thirdly, the gobbins and tronshons of the Gospels and Pistles, the Creed, Prayer, and other pieces referred to the scripture, altogether confused and shaken of, pronounced to the people in a tongue not understand (contrary to the express commandment of God, and without any edifying of the multitude) is no other thing than a vain usurpation of the name of God, against the express defence made by the same: which ornaments are too narrow and short to cover the shame and horror of the Mass. Fourthly, what execrable abuse is it to say, that the Mass serves not only to the living, but also for the dead, to obtain remission of their sins: wherein the priests forgetting neither shame nor blasphemy, divide their oft into three parts, with this visor upon it, that one is for them that be in heaven, an other for such as live on earth, and the third serves for the souls that abide in purgatory. But the Sacrament, which is not ordained but to confirm the faith of the word, stretcheth no further than the ministery, and the ministery no longer than this life: so that if it be so that those that are in heaven, & such likewise as are feigned to be in purgatory be dead and departed this world: we must necessarily conclude that as God's word can not be preached unto them, so also they cannot partake in the administration of the sacraments, and if they be not administered to them, they can nothing profit them. The end of the Resolution. An Answer to the last Objections proponed by the Doctoures touching the Supper. WE say, that there be many things in the said Objections, impertinente to the matter of the Question, as where they demand, how many worlds the Doctrine hath remained pure, both touching the supper, and other articles of religion: whereunto we Answer, that even in the time of the Apostles, there were heretics and Antichristes, as Ebion Cerinthus, Simon Magicien, the Samaritans and others, who, by their errors and heresies went about to shake even the Apostolical Churches, and corrupt the pure Doctrine of the same, whom the Apostles resisted valiantly in all possible sort, revoking and referring always all things to their former institution, and foundations of the pure word of God: as we see S. Paul did on the behalf of the Corinthians and galatians, whose Churches albeit he had most well planted and licoured, yet they were corrupted in his life time both in manners and doctrine: And where the Doctors ask, how long time, the purity of the doctrine and Religion hath persevered in the Church of God after the decease of the Apostles, as well touching the Article of the supper, as for others: we Answer that the continuance hath been, even so long time, as God's word hath been followed and preached. Touching the Objection of the Doctors following, blazing the supper celebrated in the Reform churches, as that we should abuse the Communicantes, by giving them no other thing than a nothing between two platters: we Answer, that that blaze doth more aptly become them than us, because they offer to such as they summon to their Masses, but the Accidents, individible waves, and only the sight of forms of bread and wine, to feed them withal. A little after, they call the sacrifice of their Mass, most precious: wherein we condescend with them, and say, they have reason so to exalt it with a noble and most precious title, because of the great revenues and riches which this precious sacrifice brings them: which we may say hath been to them a fleece or mine of Gold more rich and plentiful, than ever was that of jason, or all the mines of the east: as having brought the world to believe, (and specially the founders of abbeys, Priories, and other benefices) that their sacrifices were available, for the redemption, remedy and relief of their souls. Afterwards, the Doctors, without all shame call the supper of the Lord, detestable, because (as they say) we offer nothing there but common bread and wine: whereunto we Answer, that in our supper, we offer in deed bread and wine to the people, which after the consecration remain in their substance, as before: but we deny, that, for all that, the said bread and wine are common, because (as hath been heretofore amply declared to the Doctors) that both the one and the other by the preaching and pronouncing of the ordinance of God is changed, as is said in respect of the use, but not touching the nature: where the doctors offer to charge us with monopolides, contributions, conspiracies & secret practices against the state of our Prince, under colour & pretence of our supper: we Answer, that that is not to impugn our doctrine, but impudently to despite & slander us, for such hath been the faith of the reformed religion, as besides that it hath been proved, with the loss of their blood & life, yet the king in his council & by his edict, hath declared us his most faithful & well affected subjects: but it is not to be marveled, if the doctors heap these slanders upon the reformed churches, seeing in all times, the Christians have been accused of such crimes by the enemies to the truth: As appeareth by the Apologetike of Tertullian and S. Augustine's Books of the City of God: By the Treatise of S. Cyprian against Demetrius, and by the Book of Arnobius, which he wrote against the Gentiles. Only we marvel how the Doctoures are so evil advised, as to allege the Suppers in the Reformed Churches, to verify their accusations, seeing that as they are at this day publicly done every where, in the view and presence of so many as will behold them, so there is nothing hid, nor so hard, as every one (if he will) may not easily be informed: only it is the zeal & great charity of our masters the Doctors, (wherein heretofore they have protested even by the Invocation of the name of God) that carries them without shame or likelihood, thus to slander us, whose justice in this case is to Answer for us both afore God and men. And to prove and confirm their points afore recited, the Doctors add, that it appertains not to all men indifferently to Consecrated the matter of the sacraments, but to such only as are ordained by imposition of the romish Bishop's hands: whereunto we Answer, and confess the first point, as having said in other places, that the vocation is necessary to such effect: But not that this vocation is the imposition which they pretend, assuring ourselves, that our vocation is more lawful and better grounded, than that of the Doctors. Where the Doctors, in the Article following, allege that we have not Answered them to their sufficient liking, touching the parts of the sacrament, and the word required for the consecration of the matter in the same: we Answer, that in our writings, is no ambiguity, no dark sense, nor any involution, but such as the Doctors list to find there: wherein as we lay ourselves upon the judgement of the upright hearers. So, also it becomes no more strange to us that the doctors challenge us of dark writing, than it was to S. Paul, that his gospel was hid and covered to those that perished, & whose understandings the God of this world had blinded. Touching the presence of jesus Christ in the supper, wherein they would urge us to declare more amply, than in our former Answer, we say, we have Answered sufficient clearly: notwithstanding the doctors rest not satisfied, whereof we make no great marvel, as knowing that they have seldom in custom to be contented, unless we consent both to their demands and desires, which we are not now settled to do, and much less that our Answer exceed the limits and bounds of the scripture, neither in this Article of the supper, nor in others: but only to follow the phrases and manners of speech of the same as near as we can possibly: By mean whereof, for a full and resolute Answer, we acknowledge no other eating of the flesh and blood of jesus Christ, whether in or out of the supper, than that which jesus Christ declares in the sixth Chapter of S. john, who eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, he hath life everlasting: also, he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, he dwells in me and I in him: as the living Father hath sent me, so I go thither because of my father, and he that shall eat me, shall live also because of me. Upon the last Article which is of the concomitance, we Answer that the Doctor's demand was not so hard, that we conceived it not: only we dissembled it, as not to loose time to speak and writ of such dreams: wherein also we judged the Doctors of sufficient subtlety to understand, that in denying them Transubstantiation, was not to approve their concomitance. And now to satisfy them we make this addition, not to seek to know more, than that which jesus Christ teacheth in his word, that in the supper, to participate in his flesh crucified, and blood shed for remission of sins, we must take and eat the bread, and drink the wine which are administered, and not divide or separate them in any sort, the same being also defended by the Canons, De confecr. dist. 2. Cum omne crimen. Wedensday the fourteenth of August the year aforesaid. This writing being dispatched and sent away, the Ministers not long after, went to the Lord of Nevers, with declaration that for their parts, they had at large handled this conference, as finding the doctors by their impertinent and vain questions hitherto to seek only to win time, without any advancement at all of the solution of the supper & the Mass: And albeit they disguised their demands as necessarily to tend to a prepratiue for this disputation, yet they contained no other purpose, than not at all to enter the conference, but rather to keep things in suspense until they grew weary, by which means this holy purpose might altogether dissolve & break: in the ends, they besought him humbly to advise the Doctors (without vain variety or change of matter) to avoid the difference, and refute that which the Ministers had maintained of the supper, and defend that which they had condemned of the Mass: wherein they obtained his promiss which gave them a hope of profitable matter hereafter, and such as might serve to edify the readers, and purge the greatest abuse and error that then occupied the romish Church. All this notwithstanding, there ran immediately a brute thorough the town that Vigour was fallen into a dangerous sickness, without likelihood of speedy recovery, the same giving a fear to the Ministers to be intercepted in their last hope: which they doubted so much the more, as at the instant they were told that Doctor Saints, was also gone out of Paris to the Cardinal of Lorraine by which they could not otherways presume, than that they should be enforced to a long abode in Paris without any set exercise to occupy the time, as being come thither but by chance: for Spyna but made it in his way to pass into Aufon, and for the other, being Minister to the Church of Orleans it was not long since he was taken out of prison, whether he was led in june afore, upon a false imputation by the enemies of God's Church; charging him to be Author of a most pernicious & wicked Book written against the obedience to Kings and Princes, by which he found it very inconvenient for him to tarry so long in the Town, whether he came not at the first willingly. For these respects they resolved eftsoons to return to the Lord of Nevers, and also to tell him that seeing doctor Saints (who might have tarried and drawn to him in Vigors place some other at his pleasure) was departed without any advertisement of his return: there was also no reason of their abode still, as well in respect of the incertainty of their business, as also that their Churches had need of them for the exercise of their charge as they desired: notwithstanding, in the end, they yielded to their proper incommodity, as to remain there until the Lord of Nevers parted from Paris, which should be upon the end of August, being minded then to go to a Lordship of his called Conlomiers, for then, having neither the presence of the Lord of Nevers, nor the company of the Doctors, the Ministers were at a gaze, as having nothing to do, nor any man to dispute withal. Upon these declarations, the Lord of Nevers delivered them their passport in writing, signed, Lodovico de Gonzague with promiss to sand unto them the Answer of the Doctors, & that by the mean of the Lord de Buci S. Georg, who undertook the charge of the business: The Ministers for their parts promised also to be ready to return to Paris, either else to Answer from the place where they should remain, as often as the Doctors would write. This business being thus settled, the Ministers departed immediately, with expectation of some speedy news from the Doctors: from whom as yet they have hard neither argument nor effect: only they have hard that thorough the city of Paris there hath been public sale of certain writings, within whose titles is included this word of conference, as to make seem to the world that they contained matter touching the former disputations: this policy was not without great profit to the Printers, so vehement was the desire of men to know the truth: for whose satisfying and contentment, we thought good to spread abroad the matter as it passed in deed, reserving till an other time to publish that which the doctors would write against it, if they will write at all, and also the Ministers Answers, which shall never fail. In the mean while let every one make his profit of the present Contents, with prayer to the Father of all light to pour more and more the clear light of his spirit upon his Church in the true understanding of his holy word, for the restoring and advancement of the spiritual kingdom of jesus Christ his Son our Lord. FINIS.