Acts of the Dispute and Conference holden at Paris, in the Months of july and August. 1566. Between two Doctors of Sorbon, and two Ministers of the Reformed Church.  
A most excellent Tract, wherein the learned may take pleasure, and the ignorant reap knowledge.  
Translated out of French by john Golburne, and divided according to the days.  
Magna est veritas & praevalet.  Ecclesiasticus. 33. 16. 
Behold how I have not laboured only for myself, but for all them also that seek knowledge.  
LONDON Printed by Thomas Creed.  
1602.   

TO THE RIGHT Honourable Sir Thomas Egerton Knight: Lord Keeper of the great Seal of England: Chamberlain of the County Palatine of Chester: and of her majesties most Honourable privy Counsel.  
I. G. wisheth all health, honour, and everlasting happiness.  
RIght Honourable, my good Lord: If affectionate duty shall be held presumption, or any tax me of rashness, for still troubling your Lordship with my rude labours; I plead mine excuse, with the Poet Affranius: who (blamed for guilt of like crime to trajan) yet dared to present him, with homely Poems: excusing himself still, with the courtesy of the Emperor, which as Princely accepted, as the other poorly offered: And so shrouded with the shelter of your honourable courtesy, I shall be shielded from the storms of idle imputations, stop (as did Affranius) the mouths of my Taxors▪ and adventure once more to present unto your Lordship, my prison-night-watches, as a simple token of my thankfulness, and pledge of further duty: then deeming myself happy, when I may acknowledge your honourable goodness, with any performance of duty, or acceptable service to your Lordship, to whom, both myself, and poor endeavours, are wholly devoted. The worthy and necessary use of this Treatise, I leave to the grave judgement of learned Censors: and in all duty and zeal, do offer it to your Lordship's Patronage, & assure me of your like good (as former) acceptance. For a good vine yields grapes, still answerable to it nature▪ and an honourable mind, the fruits of an honourable disposition. Long live, and prosper (ho. Lord). Pater sis Patriae, & Ecclesiae, & Reipublicae charus. So in all humility, I take leave. Fleet this 25. of March. 1602.  
Your Lordship's most bounden 
 in all dutiful affection; 
 john Golburne.   

The Translator to the Christian Reader.  
AMongst all the means, prescribed by wisdom, to attain the perfection of true knowledge, there is none (good Reader) in my poor conceit, more necessary for the ignorant, next to the fountain of life, the word of God, than the reading of Controversies; wherein the truth is debated, the reasons on both sides deduced, and laid open to the view, and Readers judgement. For, as by striking together of the steel & flint, the fire is out forced: even so by disputation and conference, the truth is bolted out, and decided. But because it is hard for a blind man to judge of colours, and we being all blind by nature, and ignorant of God and goodness, are of ourselves uncapable of right judgement in matters of faith: for flesh and blood cannot attain unto it; neither can the natural man discern the things of God: we must therefore use the appointed means of our salvation; namely, hearing, reading, and meditating of God's sacred word: which is only able to make us wise unto salvation, and to enlighten the eyes of the simple. So that by this touchstone, and faithful invocation of God, in the name and sole mediation of Christ jesus, for the direction of his holy spirit; we shallbe enabled to know all things, and to try the true and pure Gold from the false and counterfeit: and then (comparing the sayings and assertions of both sides, with the sincere & undeceiveable milk of God's word) we shallbe likewise able to discern the spirit of God, from the spirit of Error: and discerning, shall perceive the incomparable beauty of the one, and the ugly deformity of the other. Which thing weighing with myself, and finding in this Treatise, both the deepness of Satan, and the invincible force of truth, which is the power of God unto salvation of all true believers, I resolved at the special instance of a religious friend, who had begun the Translation, to attempt, effect, and finish the same: which by divine assistance, I have faithfully performed, and here present it to thy view. Read it with consideration, consider thereof with judgement, and judge with discretion; so shalt thou find not only pleasure, but much profit, in matters discussed of greatest moment. For which, and all things else, give God the glory, make use for thine instruction, and accept my poor endeavour; whose desire was to do thee good. Farewell.  
Thine in the Lord, 
 I. G.   

The Preface containing the occasions of the Dispute following.  
FOr that I doubt not, but many persons (filled with the common brute of the conference should be made at the house of my Lord the Duke de Montpensier, between the Doctors of the one part, and the Ministers of the other, appointed for that purpose) desire to know the truth: and that others speak thereof diversly, according to the reports thereof made unto them, or their conceived imaginations concerning the same: Me seemeth, that to satisfy the one, and take from the other all occasion of lying or giving credit to lies: it should be good to put briefly in writing all the matter as it passed: and likewise to declare, what was the motive, & first occasion of the same.  
My Lord the Duke of Montpensier, who (as each one knoweth) is very zealous of his Religion, and dearly loveth his children; seeing that his daughter the Duchess of Buillon was departed from the Komish Religion, thenceforth to follow that of jesus Christ: and that without chilling, she still persevered, and more and more increased in the knowledge and fear of God: in zeal, godliness, and all other good and commendable virtues; (his speech he had in the beginning with her, and other means he had since assayed, to reduce and call her back from the way wherein she was, nought prevailing): willed for a last remedy, to attempt if he could, to win her by the means and remonstrance of a Doctor named Vigour, whom he much esteemed. And to the end that the said Lady should remain more satisfied, having called my Lord of Buillon her husband, he declared unto him his mind, and said; he was contented that the said remonstrance should be made to his daughter, in the presence of some Ministers; as namely of Spina, & such others as she should please to choose: to the end that had they any thing to say against the doctrine of the said Vigour, they should allege it; And if after they had conferred together, they were not confuted by him, and wholly vanquished, that his daughter should then abide in her opinion; without that he, or some others of his side would ever assay aught to divert her.  
My Lord de Buillon promised to accomplish his command therein: and to show his obedience to him. Shortly after he imparted the same to my Lord the Admiral; by whose advice, and other Lords which he spoke too, De Spina was suddenly sent for; who being come unto them, and having understood all that aforesaid, said; that he hoped for little fruit of all this Conference; considering the quality and humour of the man with whom he was to deal: because he is much more partial for the Pope and his traditions, then zealous for the word of God, and truth of jesus Christ. Which thing, those that were present did well approve. Nevertheless, he was purposed for two considerations, to present himself at the said Conference: the one, to support and 'stablish my said Lady de Buillon, against the Sophisms, and cavillations of the said Vigour: the other, to take from him the occasion to boast (as his custom is) that the Ministers durst not appear before him.  
And then was the proceeding and order advised of, which they should hold in the said Conference. And that the said De Spina should first require, that it might be authorized by the King's permission: Afterwards, that to avoid all confusion, it should be made in the presence of a few persons; Thirdly, that there should be some certain theme and subject proposed, whereof they should confer: Fourthly, that there should be two Moderators of the whole Action, and two others deputed, faithfully to collect all the reasons and arguments which should be brought forth by the parties.  
All which things having been proposed to my Lord the Duke of Buillon, as well by Monsieur the Admiral: as by the said De Spina, he found them very reasonable, and promised to give the best order he could to all the business: admonishing De Spina to be ready the first day of july, 1566. for after dinner he should make the said Conference. By means whereof, the same De Spina to prepare himself, went to find out Monsieur Barbaste, Minister to the Queen of Navarre, whom he prayed to vouchsafe to accompany, and second him in the said conference. Which he granting, both two, together with three other Gentlemen, left by my said Lord de Buillon to conduct them; went after dinner, the day and year above said, to the house of my Lord the Duke de Montpensier; where when they were arrived, the Duke de Buillon advertised thereof by one of the said Gentlemen, came unto them in the Hall where they were. And speaking to De Spina, demanded of him (induced as is likely by the Doctors, assembled in the chamber whence he came) if he were purposed and resolved to pray, after the custom of the reformed Churches, before they began the said conference. He answered yea: and that neither he, nor his companion, could not, nor aught to attempt a thing of such importance, as to handle the Mysteries of Christian Religion; without first being prepared thereunto by the invocation of God's name. That heard, he entered the chamber where the Doctors were assembled: and having communicated to them the answer of the said Ministers, they appointed Doctor Ruze, to declare unto them, that they would not be present at their prayers, and that no more reasonable it was, that they should be there, than they at their Mass. The Ministers answered: that they could not with good conscience begin the conference, before they had prayed unto God: and that it was in the Doctor's choice & pleasure to be present, or absent at their prayers; And they for their part would content themselves to pray in the place & assembly, wherein the conference should be made. But nevertheless, that their prayers, which are (as they themselves confess) conformable to the pure word of God; and their Mass, wherein are many things contrary thereunto, (as they may easily know and judge that will try and examine it by the rule of the scripture) were not like things; And so, by means of the impiety and Idolatry which is in their Mass, they could not any way communicate thereat, without offence to God, and making themselves highly culpable before him: but that he, and the other Doctors his companions could not be letted by any such difficulties to be present at their prayers: For as much as there was no article which (by their own confession) 〈◊〉 not holy, and according to God. Hereupon replied Doctor Ruze, that the Ministers stayed on a thing of small moment. And they answered, that the principal exercise of Christian Religion, was prayer: and that it is a necessary mean to obtain the favour and grace of God; without which, men cannot attain success, nor any good speed in all their works: and that therefore the omission thereof was very pernicious. And that they for their part were abashed, that he, which called himself a Doctor, and Divine, should make so little account of prayer; which is the true practice, fruit, and use, of all the knowledge which can be had of God, and his word: and that therein one may know what was the judgement of them, which measure divinity by Idle and vain speculations. Then said he un-them: that the Duke de Montpensier, would never suffer, he should so be braved in his own house: nor that it should be said, that the Ministers had made their prayers. Whereunto answered the Ministers, that to brave, was a thing contrary to their profession. And that so far off were they from braving of Princes, (to whom they owed all honour, fear, and obedience) that they would condemn themselves if so be they had used it, to a man of the basest quality in the world. And added moreover, that the Doctors, and such others, which charged them with such slanders towards Princes, to stir up, and move them against them, should be assured they should once answer before God for the same. Hereupon spoke Doctor Ruze, and demanded of the Ministers, why they stood so stiffly upon that point of prayer. They f●● answer proposed unto him; first, that the end of the Conference, was to manifest the true meaning of the scripture, and make the hearers understand it: which thing could not be done, without the spirit of God; who enlighteneth the mind and understanding to comprehend it; and openeth the mouths to express the same: And therefore it behoveth to implore and obtain his grace by prayers. Afterwards, that God commanded all those that want wisdom, to ask it of him; and to seek what they would find; and to knock, if they would have him to open unto them. All which things cannot otherwise be obtained, then by prayers. And therefore concluded, that for this cause they were necessary. They alleged further, that all things ought to be reduced to the glory of God: and that invocation was therefore requisite in the beginning, and thanksgiving at the ending and consummation of all our works, nor more, nor less, than we begin and finish our repast, in blessing and praising the name of God.  
Then said Doctor Ruze unto them, that they would not hinder them to pray unto God: but that they should do it in their hearts. And they answered: that it was not sufficient; but that it behoved to pray also with the mouth, as S. Paul commandeth: withdraw yourselves then into some place apart (said he) and make your prayers all alone. They answered: that in such an act, it ought not so to be done: and that they were bound by the commandment of God, to make their light to shine before men, to the end, that seeing their good works, they might have means to glorify God, and to be thereby edified. Also that in so doing, they might give occasion of scandal to their neighbours, confirming the evil opinion imprinted by their adversaries in some of their doctrine and exercises: to wit: that by reason of the errors and blasphemies which were therein; they dared not to publish the same: and that to quite them of this slander, meet it was, that as they spoke in public, their prayers should be also in public. To be brief, that they ought not, neither could they with reason refuse that which the King had granted unto them in the Conference of Poissy: where, in all the assemblies there made, they were always permitted to pray to GOD publicly, before they spoke of any matter. And added for their last reason, that it was very needful to comprehend in their prayers them, and all those that should be present at the said conference: to the end, that God might grant grace both to them and others, to despoil them wholly of all their passions: and that there should be nothing which might hinder them, to judge rightly of whatsoever should be proposed on the one side, & on the other: And that he would also make the hearers docible and attentive to gather to themselves some profit thereof. I shame here to recite one word which scaped from Doctor Ruze in this behalf: who in contempt of God, and his service, said: that if the Ministers would go pray, he would go piss during the time of prayer. Whereupon the Ministers cried out, saying: What resolution? what counsel? what good word can be hoped for, of a heart filled with so an apparent contempt of God?  
My Lord the Duke of Buillon, and the said Doctor Ruze, seeing the Ministers settled, and firm in this, not to enter into any conference before prayers were made, in the presence of the assembly, where the same should be made: after they had reported the same to my Lord de Montpensier, and the Doctors which were with him; they purposed to send them back; and that on this condition they should not confer with them.  
Hereupon they departed: and as they were now arrived at the little Bridge of our Lady, they called them back, and they forth with returned; supposing they would grant them what they requested. But herein were they deceived. For Doctor Ruze came towards them to the gate, and for a final resolution, said unto them: that if they would pray, they would give them a house near at hand: but that my Lord de Montpensier would not permit, they should make them in his house; nor that any of his family should be present thereat. Whereunto they answered, that they now yielded less unto them, then in the beginning they had done: and therefore they could not answer otherwise then they had answered.  
Then Doctor Ruze addressed particularly his speech to the Minister De Spina; to whom in scoffing manner, he said two things: that he well saw, he had no great desire to enter disputations: and that in times past he had been of their company; but that he was now cut off from them. Whereunto answered De Spina, that had he fled the conference, he would not in that great heat, have come eight long miles, nor left his Church, which was to him more dear and acceptable than any other thing, to find them in their own houses. And as touching his departing from them, that he thanked God he had withdrawn himself from them: and that it was the greatest good, that ever happened to him. And to the end that he and his companions should no way doubt but that he was ready to confer with them, he showed them a way, by which both parties might be satisfied: to wit; that they should confer together by writing: showing, that it should be much more profitable; for as much as by that mean, they should withstand all contentions: that the arguments and answers should better be meditated and digested: that many should thereby be edified, and in so doing, there should be no danger, that by adding or diminishing, they should be any way altered.  
Ruze answered, that they could write nothing which hath not been written. And De Spina replied; that they could not also speak aught, which hath not been spoken. This was the end and conclusion of all their speeches. Whereby may be seen, what will the Doctors had to confer with the Ministers: to whom, at their arrival (to stop their passage) they proposed such a condition, as they were well assured, should never be accepted of them: namely to enter into public conference of the scripture, before they had publicly prayed to God in the place and assembly where it should be made.  
Moreover one may also judge, what was their intention, by the order they had given, to direct their conference. For in stead of procuring some place and rest to the said Ministers, which were come unto them; there were at the least, a hundred persons of all qualities about the Ministers, to astonish them: some by scoffs: others by injuries: others by threats: So that, had it not been the care which the three gentlemen of the Duke of Buillon had of them, and to drive them often back, which approached too near them; they had been in danger to have suffered outrage. One may also imagine, how the Doctors do endeavour to serve God, and pray unto him: seeing they cannot endure him to be prayed unto in their presence. And for conclusion, what understanding can they have of the scripture? with what faithfulness can they handle it? And what dexterity and faculty can they have to preach it, considering they disdain, and think it strange, that for the obtaining of all these things, God should be prayed unto in their presence? As though their sufficiency were in themselves, and that it came not from him who is the wellspring and author of all light.  
It followeth: of the occasions declared in the precedent Preface, and first of the Dispute on Wednesday the ninth of july, 1566.  
Albeit the Doctors by the means here before declared, had sought occasion to hinder the conference which was to be made between them and the Ministers, in the house of my Lord De Montpensier: Nevertheless, to avoid the evil opinion that might be conceived of them, by reason of their refusal, to enter into the said conference, they raised a rumour, that the Ministers, perceiving themselves weak, and that their doctrine was uncertain, had fled the combat. Which thing being come to the ears of the King and Queen, Mounsieur the Admiral, seeing it might bring some scandal and damage to the reformed Churches, if it were not presently met with: knowing also, that it was a false reproach which they had put upon the Ministers, began to excuse them: assuring the King and the Queen, that the Ministers would always be ready to confer with the Doctors, and to defend by the scripture, the confession of their Churches, in what place soever, and before such persons, as they would it should be. So that they were permitted to pray unto God (as they had required) in the beginning of their conference, and that they should there observe the order and means which they had proposed, or other better, as they should think good: to the end to avoid all wranglings, and the confusion of voice and cries, as is ordinarily seen in schools, and disputes of Sophisters, and contentious persons.  
My Lord of Nevers having understood these words of my Lord the Admiral, found them very reasonable; and persuaded (as it is certain) first by the spirit of God, and afterwards by a haughtiness and generosity of heart; which thrust him forward, with a will to understand the truth of each thing, solicited the King and Queen, that by their commission, and under their authority, the said Conference might be established: And so wrought he, that he obtained of their Majesties what he demanded. By means whereof, having advertised my Lord the Admiral of their pleasures, they consulted together, of the order should be held in the same conference. And resolved in the end, that my Lord De Nevers, and my Lord the Duke of Buillon, should be the chief judges therein; and that of the one side, and the other, should some Gentlemen be present, to be witnesses and beholders, of whatsoever should be done in the same. And further, that there should be two Notaries of both sides, of the little fort at Paris, which should put in writing, and sign whatsoever should be alleged, and proposed by the parties.  
These conditions thus conceived, and agreed of among the said Lords; were also accepted by the Doctors, Vigour and De saints of the one party, and by the Ministers De Spina, & Sureau, of the other party: Who began to assemble themselves together on Tuesday the ninth of july, 1566. in the house of my said Lord of Nevers: where in his presence, and of other Lords which were with him, (after prayers made by the Ministers, in the absence of the Doctors, who because they would not be present, had withdrawn themselves apart) Doctor Vigour spoke, and began by protestation: That the cause why he and his companion were entered into Conference with the Ministers, was not to be instructed in any point of Religion: nor any way to withstand the Constitutions of the Counsels, and chiefly that of Trent, by which they are forbidden to dispute with heretics: And that they for their part, were wholly resolved to abide in the faith of the Romish Church: but that at the request and pursuit of the Lord de Montpensier, (who for the reducing of his daughter Madame de Buillon, had required the said Conference) they were come thither to the end, to satisfy him, & declare the holy zeal they have to seek and bring back to the flock, those which are thence departed.  
Whereupon (their speeches ended) the Ministers speaking, protested likewise, that, that which had led them to conference with the Doctors, was not, because they doubted of any article contained in their confession, which they knew to be drawn from the pure word of God: but that it was to maintain the same, against the Sophistries and cavillations of them which would impugn it, and to retain Madame de Buillon, in the good and holy institution, which she had received by the grace which God had given her.  
Thus the protestations on both sides made, the Ministers supposed that the Doctors (then following the intention of my Lord de Montpensier, and the desire of Madame de Buillon) should have begun the Conference by the Dispute of two points, the Supper, and the Mass. But as they that will besiege and batter a Town, begin a far off to make their Trenches, and approaches: to prepare themselves to the deciding and conference of the said two points, they began to lay their foundation, by the authority of the Church: whereupon they would establish the certainty of the Articles of faith, and generally of all the holy Scripture. And therefore the demands and objections were proposed by the Doctors. And the answers given by the Ministers; De Saints beginning, and De Spina answering; as followeth.   

Acts of the Dispute and Conference holden at Paris.  

Question.  
Whereupon do you ground your Religion?   

Answer.  
Upon the word of God.   

Question.  
What do you understand by the word of God?   

Answer.  
The writings of the Prophets and Apostles.   

Question.  
Do you receive for their writings all the books of the Bible, as well of the old, as the new Testament, attributing unto all, one like authority?   

Answer.  
No: but following antiquity, we distinguish between the Canonical books, and the apocrypha: calling those Canonical, upon whose doctrine, the faith and all Christian religion is builded: And those apocrypha, which have not such authority that we may build or establish upon them any Article of faith; but are proper to teach and well govern the estate of life, and manners of Christians: by reason of the goodly, and notable sentences which are comprised in them.   

Question.  
By what means do you know, that the one is Canonical, the other apocrypha?   

Answer.  
By the spirit of God, which is a spirit of discretion, and enlighteneth all those unto whom it is communicated, to make them capable, to be able to judge, and discern things spiritual, and to know and apprehend the truth (when to them it is proposed) by the witness and assurance, which thereof it giveth them in their hearts. And as we discern the light from darkness by the faculty of seeing, which is in the eye: even so may we easily separate and acknowledge the truth from untruth, and from all things in general, which may be false, absurd, doubtful, or indifferent, when as we are furnished with the spirit of God, and guided by the light, which it lighteneth in our hearts.   

Question.  
Yea: but some man may boast to have the spirit of God, which hath it not. And we see by Histories, that all heretics have ever thought to have the truth on their side, and endeavoured to authorize their doctrine by inward revelations, which they feign to have received of God's spirit: Whereby it may appear what danger there should be to refer the censure of a book, or doctrine, to the witness of the spirit of God, which one particular man shall imagine or feign to have received in his heart.   

Answer.  
Very easy it is to avoid such danger, in following the counsel which Saint john doth give us in his first Catholic Epistle; not to believe indifferently all spirits, but to prove and diligently to examine them, before we receive or approve what they propose. And the trial to be made in such a case is, first to regard the end whereunto a doctrine tendeth, which shall be declared unto us: or a book that shall be presented unto us: For if it tend to establish and advance the glory of God; it is true: as jesus Christ saith in S. john, That he which seeketh the glory of God, is truth, and there is no unrighteousness in him.  
Afterwards we must consider whether being reduced to the proportion, and the analogy of faith, (as saith S. Paul) it 
Rom. 12. 6.  well agreeth and acordeth with the principles and foundations of Religion.   

Objection.  
All say, and may say as much thereof: and therefore this reason is no sufficient argument (as I conceive by effect and other proofs) how I ought to stay myself thereupon. Moreover, this answer passeth the limits of the proposition: For it presupposeth the Scripture to be the known foundation of Religion. And the proposition was to know the reason which should assure me, that the Scripture was of God, and that it behoveth to distinguish between the Books thereof.   

Answer.  
It is easy to judge, if the end of the doctrine proposed, tendeth to establish and advance the honour and glory of God. As if men were exhorted thereby to withdraw wholly their trust from creatures, wholly to settle and repose themselves in God; to resort to him in all their necessities, and to depend upon his providence in all their affairs, to praise and thank him for all the goodness they have. This presupposed, no man could doubt, that the doctrine which tendeth to such an end, should not be good and receivable. And to that which hath been proposed: that the former Answer was out of the limits of the first proposition it seemeth not: for that the first thing proposed, was: What is the foundation of our Religion? Whereunto it was answered: That it is the writings of the Prophets and Apostles.   

Objection.  
This answer is common to the Lutherans and Anabaptists, yea also to the Deistes, which say more than all others, that they seek the glory of God: and all that which in the answer is written. And generally each man that should use the like saying, should not cease to err in all the Articles of the Creed, the first excepted. But to return to the point without so much wandering it seemeth to us not lawful to use the foundation of the Scripture, before it be notorious and certain that it is the holy Scripture, and that there is difference amongst the books thereof. And before it be known that I have particular inspiration of the holy Ghost; and that such a particular inspiration of the holy Ghost be a sufficient foundation of Religion.   

Answer.  
The Deistes, and other heretics cannot be holpen (by the foresaid answer) for confirmation of their errors: Forasmuch as the Desties, denying Jesus Christ, cannot glorify God: seeing that to glorify the Father, it behoveth first to know and to glorify the Son; no more also other heretics: For that, not knowing the truth, nor consequently jesus Christ (which is the way, the life, and the truth) they cannot know nor glorify God. And touching that objected, that the answer was from the purpose; that may be judged by the conference of the demand and answer. And for the latter point of the objection, wherein it is said: that the revelation which each particular man saith he hath of the Spirit of God, is to him the foundation of Religion: that was not answered; But that the foundation of all true Religion, is the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles. Of the truth of which, all the Church in general, and the members thereof in particular, are assured, by the witnes●e and inward revelation of the Spirit of God.   

Objection.  
Then it behoved to add whatsoever is here said to the other answer before it were good: and it seemeth, that the answer doth contain (as it were) a mockery. For it is certain: that when all truth is in the doctrine of a man, that man is no more evil, nor an heretic. But we search out the beginning of truth, what it should be. And touching the reply, which denieth that the particular revelation is the foundation of Religion. There is no great difference: For if the particular revelation be a sufficient foundation for every one to know what is of the Apostles and Prophets, that particular revelation by consequence is the foundation of Religion. For that is the foundation of knowledge, whereupon every particular man knoweth, and sayeth his Religion is founded.   

Answer.  
The answers have been made according as the demands have been propounded: and it will not appear by the reading of them that they are willing to mock: For in such a Conference as this, where the matter is to seek out the honour and glory of God: Mockery should be joined with impiety. And as touching revelation, that it is equal to the Scripture (which is the foundation of Religion) we deny it, and say: they be things different, although they be conjoined together, and that they do follow the one the other, even as appeareth by that which is written in Esay: Behold my covenant with them (saith the 
Esa. 59 21.  Lord) my Spirit that is in thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed. And that which followeth: From whence a man may judge the distinction which the Prophet putteth between the revelation of the holy Ghost, and the word.   

Objection.  
For conclusion of this Conference, I leave each man to judge of the agreement of the answerers and objections. And for that which is alleged of the union of the word, and of the holy Ghost, out of the text of Esay: they are things from the purpose, and new matter. And we must not compare the revelation of every particular person (whereof was the question) unto that of the Prophet Esay: who had other proofs that the Spi●●t spoke by him, and had oft times made demonstration thereof▪ And of all that above said, I leave the judgement to every Christian.   

Answer.  
We leave also the judgement of what hath been spoken of the one part and the other, to the hearers and readers. And for the passage of Esay produced, the question is not of the revelation of the Prophet, nor of the spirit, communicated unto him: but of the spirit, and the words which God promised to all his people: with whom he made his covenant. And as touching the other pretended proofs which the Prophet had of his vocation; we make no doubt thereof. But we say, that the principal and most assured was, that, which he had by the testimony of God his Spirit, as appeareth by the sixth Chapter of his Prophecy.   

Objection.  
Be it so, that by the person of Esay be spoke to his people, it followeth not that he spoke not to Esay first. And I allow that he promised indeed his spirit to his people that is to say, to his Church universal. Not that he will that every one, yea, being in this Church, may brag and usurp to have this spirit particularly promised unto him. And as touching the particular inspiration of Esay, it was not founded on his only fancy, and presumption: but on the assurance that God gave him by a work supernatural: as is said in the 6. Chapter. And further, it was not yet sufficiently founded to be believed, as having inspiration, had he not showed the same by other effects, and by other Prophecies already come to 
Deut. 18.  pass. As it behoveth every Prophet should do, before he were believed: But leaving all those things as far fetched, and from the first proposition, I refer the judgement as before.   

Answer.  
There is not one of the Church, if he be a true member thereof, unto whom the spirit of God is not communicated: 
Rom. 89. 1. joh. 22. 27.  As S. Paul, and S. john in his first Catholic Epistle teacheth. And as touching the pretended presumption, there is great difference between the presumption and imaginations of the spirit of man (which is but darkness, and of itself knoweth nothing of the thing of God) and the revelations of the holy Ghost, which are certain and assured. And where it is said, that the answers are far off from the first proposition; if it be so, the dema●nds are so also.   

Objection.  
The conclusion is, if each one ought to be believed in saying he hath a particular revelation of the holy Ghost, without otherwise showing, that they are holy Scriptures: and that there is difference amongst them, let every one judge if the demands and answers be pertinent to this difficulty, or no. And forasmuch as some of the new doctrine do show no proof, more than others, of their particular inspirations, whether the one ought to be more believed than the other concerning the same.   

Answer.  
By the former answers it hath been declared, how the revelations pretended by particular persons, aught to be examined by the means, by which men may judge whether they be of the spirit of God, or no.  
Then spoke Doctor Vigour, saying: that in the discourse aforesaid, he had understood many sayings contained in the answers of the Minister, which were against the word of God: as when he said, that it behoveth first to honour the Son before the father: Which the said Vigour reproving, the said Spyna maintained that thing to be true: affirming, such proposition to be grounded and contained in the holy Scripture; as in the Gospel, and first Catholic Epistle of 
joh. 5. 23. 1. joh. 2. 23.  S. john.  
Unto which Vigour replied; that in the said places, the word (First) is not found. Nevertheless, lest he fall on that which hath been put forth and proposed in the beginning of the conference, he will not now enter into the confutation of that saying: reserving it to the end of all the conferences.   

Answer.  
The said Spyna required that Vigour should quote the places of the Scripture, which he pretended to be contrary to that was contained in his answer. And where it is said, that it first behoveth to glorify the Son before the Father (according as it is written in the places above noted) for confirmation of his saying, he proposeth this reason, founded on the Scripture. We cannot know the Father, if we have not known the Son. We cannot glorify the Father, if we have not known him. Therefore it 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 the said Vigour, to be more amply handled in the end and conclusion of all the conference, the said Spyna is so contented.   

Objection.  
The said Vigour (without wading further in this dispute) objecteth: that by the same reason alleged by the said De Spyna, It followeth: that it first behoveth to honour the Father, before the Son: for by the Father we come to the knowledge of the Son: as it appeareth by that which our Lord said to Saint Peter: Caro & sanguis non revelavit tibi: sed pater meus qui in Coelis est. Flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father which is in the heavens. Where it is manifest, that the heanenly Father did reveal to Saint Peter, that our Lord was the Son of the living God. Whereupon the said Vigour doth thus argue. If the reason of the said De Spyna be good: by the Father we know the Son: it behoveth then to honour the Father before the Son.   

Answer.  
To follow the order of the knowledge we may have of jesus Christ, and of his Father proposed unto us in S. john: It behoveth to begin by the Son, and from the Son to come to the Father. For Saint Philip, having once required that he would show unto him▪ and his other companions, 
joh. 14. 9  his Father, he said unto him: Philip, he that hath seen me, he hath seen my Father. To teach them, that the mean to come to the knowledge of the Father, is the precedent knowledge of the Son: which may be also confirmed by that which is else where written: where jesus Christ saith: That no man knoweth the Father but the 
Matth. 21 27.  Son only, and he to whom the Son will reveal him. And to answer the authority of Saint Matthew, alleged by the said Vigour, the said De Spyna sayeth: that in the text by him produced, there is no mention made of the knowledge of the Father, nor of the mean to come unto it. But only of the revelation made by the grace of GOD, and his holy Spirit unto Saint Peter, and his other fellows, to know JESUS CHRIST, and the Father in him. Whereupon Vigour said: he referred himself to the hearer and reader, that his objection is not answer, dreseruing for another Conference, to treat more amply of that point (if he will maintain it) lest he should fall upon that which hath been formerly proposed; whereunto the said De Spyna answered, that he so agreed.  
The said Vigour (upon an answer made by the said De Spina: where he putteth difference between the certain revelation made by the Lord to a particular person, and the holy Scripture) addeth: that he is abashed of the same answer, considering that men believe not the holy Scripture: But in that they are acertained, that the Lord is author thereof, who cannot lie. Then likewise, that if a particular man have assurance, that the revelation is made unto him by the Lord: or else, that one is assured of the revelation, made to another: as much is he bound to give faith to the revelation, as to the Scripture. The which saying also, he will not (as he may) handle and declare at large: but come presently to the first question, which is not yet resolved. And prayeth the said De Spina to set forward the same.   

Answer.  
Where the said Vigour is abashed, that the said De Spina should say in one of his answers, That the revelation of the Lord and the word, were things different, the same is befallen him for not well conceiving the sense of the saying: For De Spina will not put difference touching the certainty, between the true revelations of the Lord, and the Word: which (proceeding from him) is as true, as the revelation; And the revelation reciprocally, as true, as the Word. Yet doth it not therefore follow, that the word, and the revelations of the spirit of the Lord (by the which we may be conducted to the understanding of the word) are not things different: and that the one doth not go before the other. And where the said Vigour prayeth the said De Spina to hasten to the point, he answereth: That he cannot else where ground his answers, then upon the demands which be made unto him.   

Reply.  
Whereunto the said Vigour replied: that he referred himself touching the sense, to that which is touched in the answer of the said De Spina. And where he saith, that the word goeth before the revelation: that is of no value to make difference upon the question proposed. And to come to the point: the said Vigour demandeth, whether a man may be assured that he hath revelation from the Lord, that a book, is a book of the holy Scripture? and when he may judge assuredly of his inward inspiration? Also, how he can assure any of this inspiration given him of the Lord?   

Answer.  
Touching the first Article of the last demand: It is not a thing impertinent to distinguish the scripture from the interpretation thereof: inasmuch as they be things divers, and divers gifts of the Lord. And to answer to the question proposed, how a particular man before the revelation and inward testimony of the spirit of God in his heart, may acknowledge that it is Canonical. The spirit of God varieth not from himself. And abiding in one particular man, he will acknowledge the Scripture which is come from him▪ and beareth his marks. And for answer to the second demand, he also saith: that the self same spirit, being likewise in a third person, will acknowledge both that the word, and the revelation are of him, for the reasons alleged: That is to say, that the spirit of God in divers persons is always equal and like unto himself.   

Objection.  
This is no full satisfaction to the first question proposed: by the which it was demanded, how some man may judge in himself that he hath the holy Ghost, to discern one Book to be the holy Scripture, and another not, but Apocrypha: and how he may declare unto another, that he hath his inspiration from God.   

Answer.  

1. Cor. I. 22.  The spirit of God, is called a seal in the scripture: therefore is it, that the first effect which it produceth in the heart of him unto whom it is communicated, is to assure him of his presence. As for assuring a second person of the revelation that one hath received of the spirit of God, it is easy: Forasmuch as the spirit of God which openeth the mouth of the one to speak, doth also open the ears of the other to listen to his word, and the heart to believe it, & to be persuaded thereof▪ So that between the master, and the scholar, between the teacher and the hearer, when they be both furnished and enlightened by the Spirit of God, there is always one mutual consent to acknowledge one another.   

Objection.  
Such certainty, is a great incertainty. And there is not any of what sect soever, which doth not assure himself to have the holy Ghost, and the truth on his side: which is a foolish presumption. How can a man distinguish a presumption, from a true inspiration?   

Answer.  
S. john Chrisostome saith: that in vain a man boasteth of the spirit, without the word: which is a mean to repress sects and heresies, and to judge of all things, which heretics & others would propose, under the authority & title of the Spirit of God. For as by the spirit we know the true sense of the word: so do we also mutually acknowledge by the word, who those be, which have the spirit of God or no.   

Objection.  
This is no answer to the question; For the question is not, to examine the doctrine by the word: but the question is to know, whether it be the word of God, by which a man will examine and approve a doctrine. And how a man shall judge assuredly that he hath a revelation of the Lord, that, that is the word of God.   

Answer.  
If he be faithful, therefore shall he judge by the Spirit of God, which is in him: as in him, which telleth the same unto him. And if he be unfaithful, as impossible it is that he should judge thereof, as it is to a blind man to judge and discern of colours presented unto him: Forasmuch saith 
1. Cor. 5. 2  S. Paul.) as the Spirit of God is he, by whom we know, and judge the things that are of God.   

Objection.  
Yet is not this an answer to the question proposed, let the judgement thereof be left to the readers and hearers. Now make they another demand, that is to say: Whether we be not very certain by the word of God, that the Lord doth assist his Church, and will assist it, unto the end of the world. And whether it be not a more assured thing to stay on the consent and judgement of the Church, touching the determination of the Canonical books of the holy Scripture, & the distinction of them, from the Apocrypha: then to lean upon his own judgement: esteeming it to be an inward inspiration; whereof a man can make no proof: but supposeth that he hath the holy Ghost.   

Answer.  
The Doctors do confound the opinions which fantastic men may have, with the witnesses and revelations of the holy Ghost: although between those two, there is as much distance, as is from heaven to earth: And as touching the consent of the Church, suppose that it proceedeth from the spirit of God: infallible it is, & also certain, that particular revelations may be, as of Esay and other Prophets. And forasmuch as the one and the other, do proceed from one self same Author (which is the Spirit of truth) The certainty of the revelations of God his Spirit, made unto all the Church in general, and to every member of it in particular, is of one self same moment.   

Objection.  
The Ministers cannot show to the Catholics, nor to any others, that they are not fantastical: for as much as they make no proof (more than do other sects) of the revelation of the holy Ghost made unto them: and as touching that is said: suppose that it proceedeth from the Spirit of God. They doubt it seemeth of the assistance of the holy Ghost in the Church of God: which saith S. Paul) is Columna & firmamentum 
1. Tim. 3. 15.  veritatis, the pillar & ground of truth. And a thing it is to be well considered, that they are more certain of the assistance of the Lord in one particular person, then in the Church universal. And where they say: that to know the truth, the holy Spirit assisteth as well every member of the Church, as the whole church: By that might a man conclude, that the particular faithful could never err: & that, the particular faithful man should be aswell the pillar of truth, as the universal church. Moreover in making of particular revelation, of like weight with the judgement of the church; they plainly contradict the 4. article of their confession of faith: where it is thus written. We acknowledge those books to be canonical, and very certain rules of our faith, not so much by the common consent and agreement of the Church: as by the testimony and inward persuasion of the holy Ghost: which maketh us to discern them, from other Ecclesiastical books. By the said article men may see, how much more they attribute to themselves, then to all the universal church. Which article, they now contradict: attributing as much to the one, as to the other. And also in their confession of faith lastly printed, the said article hath been taken away, as is seen by that which De Spina, hath now brought hither, imprinted at Geneva, 1564. Whereby it appeareth, that they be retracted: as confessing that it behoveth to rest more upon the common consent of the church, them upon any particular man's judgement. Which thing is very reasonable: seeing the holy Ghost is promised to the church universal, & not to every particular person.   

Answer.  
If men may esteem the Ministers fantastic, although they have the word of God: more shall the Doctors be holden for such, in things they maintain and defend without and contrary to the word of God. Touching the second point, where the Doctor's reproach the Ministers, that they do doubt (as it seemeth by their answer) of the assistance of the spirit of God to the church. The answer is: that that is not the doubt: but to know which is the true Church. And touching the third point, whereof (say the Doctors) might be inferred, that particular persons could not err. The consequence is nought: for as much as the spirit of God may sometimes depart from particular persons, and in 
Psal. 30,  this case they may fail and err: as David confesseth to have happened to him. To the fourth point, the Ministers do answer: that they no way contradict the alleged Article of their confession: for that comparison is made in the answer, of two revelations of the holy Ghost: the one made to the body, and the other to the members: which they maintain to be of like weight, touching the certainty thereof. And in the confession mention is made of the revelation of GOD his spirit, which is the cause of the Church's consent, which doth follow as the effect thereof. Now so it is, that the cause being preferred before his effect: there is great reason, that the revelation of God his spirit, compared with the consent of his Church, be preferred unto it: as the cause, to the effect which it produceth. And touching the contrariety which they pretend to happen in the confessions, printed at divers times, and by divers Printers; they shall be answered, when it shall please them to debate the Articles particularly.   

Objection.  
Where they set forth the doubt they have of the true Church: as much men may say of pretended revelations of God his spirit unto particular persons. Of whom likewise it may be doubted, whether they be members of the Church. For the other point, where they deny that they contradict the fourth article of their confession, it seemeth in show, that there is contradiction: for as much as they compare the particular revelation, with the consent of the church: as by their answer appeareth. Also that which is alleged, that revelation is cause of consent; to prefer it to that, as the cause to the effect, seemeth to serve to small purpose: for it is, as if one should say, that the revelation is to be preferred to the word of God, and the holy scripture. For very certain it is, that revelation goeth before the word, and scripture. And as it appeareth in the text of the Confession, (as every one may easily judge) the authors thereof, speak of the certainty and infallibility of two revelations: as holding themselves more assured of that they have in their own spirit, then that which is of the judgement of the Church. And touching an other point; where it is said, that particular persons may sometimes fail, when the holy Ghost doth leave them; By that we may conclude, that we must not infallibly rest on the pretended inspirations of particular persons: because we may doubt of them, whether they be destitute of God his spirit, or no, which cannot be done of the Church. Wherefore more sure it is, to stay upon the Church, (infallably governed by the holy Ghost) then upon private pretended inspirations. And so do the Catholics therein, never following their private judgement, and therefore cannot be esteemed fantastic. But rather those, which prefer their proper judgement, which they shroud with the title of particular inspiration. The Doctors require one text of the scripture, by the which, the holy Ghost is promised unto every one in particular, as it is to the Church universal, to know, and judge, and discern which are the scriptures.   

Answer.  
Touching the first point. As indeed they approve not all Churches to be true Churches which say they be so: So do they not also approve them all faithful, who boast themselves to be so. For the second point: the comparison of the Doctors is not proper, which thus they have made: as who should say, that revelation is to be preferred to the word of God, etc. Forasmuch as the word of God, & all the writings aswell of the Prophets as of the Apostles, are as much of the revelations of the Spirit of God, & that no more difference there is between the one and the other, then is between Genus and Species. And touching that which is added in this article, that the revelation precedeth the Scripture. It behoveth to distinguish between the revelations made to the Prophets before they put them in writing; and those which have been made to them that read their writings: for the understanding of them. Touching the first, we confess they go before the Scripture. And touching the second, we say: that they follow the same. For the third article, the Ministers do answer: that it is easy to judge whether the Spirit of God assist a particular person, or whether it be withdrawn, by the things which he proposeth, when they be reduced to the word of God, and censured by the rules which are there proposed unto us as is said. Touching the demand, it should be too tedious a thing to allege all the places where it is written. That the Spirit of God is communicated to the particular members of the Church only: let them see in the 1. Cor. 2. where expressly it is said: that the Spirit of God is communicated to the chosen, to know and discern the things which be of God. And in Esay 55. the Lord doth promise to shed his Spirit upon the faithful, as water upon the earth. And in joel likewise the second, and jeremy 34. And the 1. Epistle of Saint john 2. under the name of Ointment, and in many other places.   

Objection.  
The places heere-above alleged, make nothing to prove that the Spirit was promised to all, to judge of the doctrine: otherwise, even women, and all faithful Artificers should judge of the doctrine, as the Prophets▪ and Apostles. To the contrary whereof Saint Paul sayeth: Nunquid omnes Prophetae, etc. Are all Prophets? he putteth down expressly: that the discerning of Spirits, is to have understanding of the Scriptures: and are gifts which are not common to all the faithful, but particular to some.   

Answer.  
The consequence which the Doctors gather, is nothing worth: forasmuch as the Spirit of God is more abundantly oft times comunicated to some then to others. And some also are better exercised in the Scripture, than others. Touching the place of Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 12. the Ministers say, It maketh nothing against them: forasmuch as the Spirit of prophec●e, and the spirit of discretion are different gifts: as it appeareth by the declaration which the Apostle maketh in the same Chapter.    

The second days Dispute, being Wednesday, the tenth of july.  
THE Doctors required, that their protestations the day before made, might be registered, which was such; That they protested they would not enter into any Dispute of things received in the universal Church, from the Apostles time hitherto: decided and determined by holy Ecumenical and general councils: holding them for certain and indubitable: and that all doctrine to the contrary was false. But following the good and holy desire of the Lord Montpensier, and Madam de Buillon his daughter, they were ready to make known by the very express word of God, interpreted by the said universal Church and councils, that their doctrine, wherein the said Lady was formerly instructed, is sound and wholesome. And that the instruction which hath been given her to the contrary▪ is pernicious and damnable. And that this Conference is by way of instruction, and not of Dispute.  
The Ministers likewise protested, that they assembled not with the Doctors, for any doubt they had, that whatsoever is contained in their confession of faith, is not certain and true, and founded upon the word of God: as appeareth by the places of scripture quoted in the margeant of the said confession. And do believe, that whatsoever is contrary and opposite thereunto, is damnable, and to be rejected: yea though an Angel from heaven should propose it. And as touching themselves, they were not come thither to be instructed in other doctrine, than such as they follow, and have learned of jesus Christ: whom they acknowledge to be the only master and instructor of the Church.  
It was declared by my Lord of Nevers, that he desired (after the objections and answers) there should be given a short resolution both of the one side and the other, of that was conferred of the day before. Following which remonstrance the Doctors say: that to judge of a book whether it be the writing of holy scripture, or not: and likewise to discern a book Canonical, from one Apocrypha, or Ecclesiastical, a man must not rest on his own private opinion, or private and particular inspiration: for as much as none have ordinary assurance, that it is a true revelation of the holy Ghost, without reducing himself to the common consent and agreement of the Church universal. And also that God, albeit he had power to reveal and imprint in each one the true knowledge necessary to salvation: yet hath he ordained a certain mean, whereby faith is obtained, which is a revealed truth: that is to say, by hearing of the word of God, preached by lawful Ministers, sent by the Pastors of the true Church: as by the text of Saint Paul to the Rom. 10. and Ephes. 4. appeareth. If then the mean to have faith and inward revelation of the knowledge of salvation be, by the hearing of the word of God lawfully preached by the Ministers of the same, according to the ordinary mean, to be assured that a man hath inward revelation It behoveth necessarily to be assured, that the word by which faith is obtained, hath been preached by the lawful Ministers of the true Church. And by consequence, to be first assured of the church, before his own inward revelation, following the mean which jesus Christ hath followed. They say further, that the true and certain mark of a true inward revelation is, when as it is reduced to the common consent of the Church. And chose, that every pretended inward inspiration, particular and private, is a false persuasion, if it be different from the common consent of the Church: For the spirit of God is not particular, but common. And say moreover, that to find out a false doctrine, it behoveth to examine the same, to know whether it be private or common, even as our Lord hath given the true mark in Saint john. 8. saying: Qui de se loquitur, mendacium loquitur. He that saith any thing of himself, and of his own proper inspiration, is a liar. And likewise as it is written in Ezechiel; Son of man, prophesy 
Ezech. 13  against the Prophets of Israel, that prophesy: and say unto them that prophesy out of their own heart, hear the word of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord God: Woe to the foolish Prophets which follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing. And afterward, they have seen vanity, and lying divination, saying: The Lord saith it: and the Lord hath not sent them: and they have made others to hope that they would confirm the word of their prophesy. And the verses following do serve to the purpose. Which false Prophets said, they had an inward revelation, and the word of God.  
They say also, and let it be well weighed, that the prop of Religion, grounded and assured upon an inward inspiration, is the foundation of many Sects in our time, as of Anabaptists, and Suencfildians: who stay their doctrines upon private revelations, and allege the same texts, to serve them for foundation of their doctrine, which the Ministers yesterday alleged: that is to say, jeremy in the third Chapter, and joel. 2. and Saint Paul. 1. Cor. 2. which Brentius and Bucer considering, have confessed: that by the only tradition of the Church, we are acertained of the books of the holy scripture, in following the doctrine of the ancient Fathers, as Saint Jerome, who confesseth he received by the tradition of the Church, and by the same did know, that there be four Gospels. As much thereof saith Origen, reciting the Canonical books of the new Testament, saying: I have learned by tradition, that there be four Gospels. And you shall not find any ancient Catholic, which hath stayed his faith to discern and judge of books upon his only private and particular inspiration. And Saint Augustine, Liber Confess. cap. 25. useth these words: Veritas tua domine, non mea; nec illius aut illius, sed omnium nostrum, quos ad communionem advocas: terribiliter admonens ne privatam veritatem habeamus, ne privemur ea. Thy truth o Lord, not mine, nor of him or him, but of all us, whom thou callest to communion: terribly admonishing that we have not the truth private, lest we be deprived thereof.  
And touching the books of the old Testament, which the Ministers will not receive for Canonical by the judgement of their inward revelation; the Doctors do show, that before Saint Augustine's time, or (at leastwise) in his time, in the Church universal, all the books which are contained in the holy Bible without distinction, were holden and received for Canonical: as witnesseth the Council of Carthage, where S. Augustine was▪ And also the Council of Laodicia. Now thus say the Doctors, the Fathers which were present in these Counsels, (if by inward inspiration we must judge of books) they had it, or at least they might persuade themselves to have it more assuredly than many others.  
The Ministers say, that they judge by their inward revelation, that they be not Canonical. The Doctors leave it to judgement, which men ought rather believe: whether the inspiration of the ancient Fathers, received by the Church for so many hundred years until now: or else the private and particular inspiration of the new Ministers. They add further: that they submit themselves to prove, that the ancient Fathers, yea near the time of the Apostles (as Ireneus, S. Cyprian, Origen, S. Jerome, S. Augustine▪ and others) do use the testimonies of the books rejected by the Ministers: yea for proof of the doctrine against the heretics. And Saint Augustine himself in the 2. book of Christian doctrine, Cap. 2. doth put all those books by name among the books Canonical. And Damascen likewise in his fourth book de Orthodoxa fide. Cap. 18.  
To know then, whether a man have the spirit of God, to discern and judge of the books of the scripture, he must be reduced to the common consent and agreement of the Church: for this is the ordinary means left by God to that effect: and the experience may be made, is an argument sufficient to convince, that the faithful by inward inspiration, cannot discern the Canonical books, from the pretended Apocrypha. Which might easily be verified, would the cause to come at this present, some of the same pretended reformed Religion, which have not yet been instructed in the division of the books; unto whom should one propose the books which the Ministers hold for Apocrypha; they would in no wise distinguish them from other books of the holy Bible. And upon the whole they conclude, that if one person hath the spirit of God, etc. ut supra.  

Answer.  
Touching the first Article, the Ministers never said (as may appear by the reading of all the former answers) that their religion is founded on their particular revelations; but upon the word of God, as is proposed in the writings of the Prophets and Apostles. Of the truth whereof, they have said to be principally assured by the testimony and revelation of the holy spirit. They also say, that faith is not the truth (to speak properly): but the persuasion of the truth, which in the scripture ●s ●aught us. Moreover, that this faith is not of our own getting▪ but a pure gi●t of God: adding, that the Ministers to make them lawfully, aught to be sent not from the pretended Pastors, which have not but the ●y●le, and only name of Pastors: but aught to be sent from God, a it appeareth in jeremy: where this mark is proposed, to know and mark a false Pastor or Shepherd when he thrusteth in himself, or is sent of an other then of God.  
Touching the article following, they add that the true mark whereby one may certainly judge of the revelation, is rather the word of God, than the consent of many: for as much as it oft times happeneth, that the multitude in the Church, declining from the word do altogether err: as in the time of Micheas, the time of jesus Christ, and afterward also of Constance the Emperor.  
Concerning the Prophets, which do follow they● own spirit (as be those which leave the word of God, and depend upon the commandments and traditions of men, or on the vanity of their own sense) there is no doubt but they are false Prophets; and that such persons are to be shunned and rejected. But great difference must be put between the revelations and testimonies of the spirit of God, and the vain imaginations of the hearts of men.  
Touching that which the Doctors have set forth, that heretics (as Anabaptists and others) do use for confirmation of their errors, the texts of scripture alleged by the Ministers. It may so be, for as much as the scripture being common, may be produced and alleged of every one. And yet men must not stay upon that which is alleged: but weigh and examine how and to what end and purpose it is alleged: and in so doing, men shall know the difference between the Ministers and heretics.  
And concerning that produced of Brentius and Bucer, namely, wherein they affirmed, that by the only tradition of the Church, the Canonical books may be discerned from the Apocrypha. This it seemeth cannot well serve the Doctors, seeing they maintain all the books of the Bible to be Canonical: and nevertheless by that they have said of Brentius and Bucer, it appeareth that the one and the other, following the tradition (as they say) put a distinction therein: calling the one Canonical, and the other Apocrypha.  
Touching the Article following, wherein the Doctors allege certain texts of the ancient Fathers, to take away the difference between the books Canonical and Apocrypha. The Ministers do answer, that as they have alleged some to prove the same; so can they also for their part allege some to that purpose: as Saint Jerome in his Prologue called Galeatus; and in an other which beginneth Frater Ambrose: unto whom, writing the sum of every book of the Bible, he mentioneth those only which the Ministers call Canonical.  
They may allege also two or three Catalogues recited in Eusebius: which they receive not for Canonical books; but those which the Ministers themselves approve. Moreover, the Council of Laodicia, which the Doctors have alleged, is for the Ministers: for as much as it comprehendeth not the books in question. And touching the experience, they answer: that it is a question of fact: and that it may be alleged, rather against the Doctors, than the Ministers. And finally, that they lose not more time in often repeating of one self-same thing, but hasten to confer of the points of the confession, which the Doctors will debate. The Ministers do show, that the 24. books of the old Testament, which are in the Canon of the Hebrews, with all the books of the new Testament, be on both sides approved Canonical. And they are wholly sufficient to decide all the points of their confession, & all that in general which appertaineth to true religion. And by means thereof, they have no cause at all to draw back from the Conference, for the difference between both parties, touching the distinction of the books Canonical and Apocrypha.   

Objection.  
Although the Ministers do affirm, that they build their Religion upon the word of God, yet build they God's word upon their inward revelation. So that such a revelation is the foundation of the Word, and consequently of their religion. For they receive not for the word of God, but that which they think to be particularly revealed to them.  
Touching the other Article, wherein they find fault that the Doctors have said, that faith is obtained by hearing of the word of God, it seemeth they will stay upon small things, because they will not go to the principal. And where they say, that faith is the gift of God, and therefore is not gotten▪ it is too plain by manifold texts of Scripture, that one self-same thing to be given and obtained, is not repugnant. As the kingdom of heaven, which is given to the blessed, and notwithstanding men obtain it by true faith, working by charity. And the scripture itself doth 
Heb. 13.  call it a reward, and recompense of good works. And Saint Paul saith: that by liberality and almesdeeds, the grace of God is gained. Yea that which Saint Paul saith, Fides ex auditu: Faith cometh by hearing, cannot otherwise be understood, but that faith cometh by hearing the word of God, which is the obtaining thereof, by the mean of hearing the word preached; although it be a gift of God. The like subtlety they use, willing to reprove that which hath been spoken, that faith is the truth revealed: as putting great difference between the truth revealed, and the revelation of truth. Meet it were, that the subtlety were vaileable 
I. Cor. 1. 10  against S. Paul, who saith: Panis quem frangimus nonne communicatio corporis Domini est? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of the Lord? Which is as much to say, as Panis fractio nun, etc. The breaking of the bread, is it not, etc. And therefore to speak properly, it behoveth that the text of S. Paul be subject to such reprehensions. And as touching this article, that they may not enter thereinto, albeit the Ministers do reply; the Doctors will say no more of it: as being a thing too much impertinent. For in the end, should we speak of Merit, and from that matter fall into an other.  
It troubleth them to deal with the vocation of lawful Ministers of the Church; and to eschew that matter, would not allege (what they might without straying) that first before we receive their doctrine, it was meet to examine, whether they were Ministers lawfully sent from the true Church, to preach the word of God, and in their preachings to be heard of the people, according to the text of S. Paul 
Rom. 10.  above alleged. Which thing, had they of the new Religion well considered, a very sufficient argument should they have had for not receiving of their doctrine, because it is more clear than the day, that they be not Ministers sent by the Pastors of the Church but thrust in themselves to preach, unable to show any sign of their calling from men, and much less from God. And were it lawful for every one to preach the word, which saith he is sent, there would be infinite Sects: as we see at this time have happened. And they say no more of this matter, for fear to aggravate these things any further.  
Touching the Article, where mention is made, how a man may know that a revelation is of Ood: where it is said by the Ministers, that men should rather know it by the word, then by the consent of many: that maketh nothing to the purpose of the Doctors. For the question is, how a man should judge a book to contain the word of God, and not to judge of the doctrine, by the word already received. The Doctors would willingly desire, and do pray the Ministers to answer directly to the very point. Touching that they have said, Of the consent of many. The Doctors said not so, but spoke of the consent of the Church, which is also as infallible, as the word of God. For as it is certain that the holy Ghost is author of the Word; so also is it certain, that he is the soul of the Church: by whose conduct she can never err: witness S. Paul, who calleth her Columnam & firmamentum veritatis. The ground and pillar of truth. But they will not enter into this question, whether the multitude of the Church may err or not.  
Nevertheless it will not be found ●ithens the Church was planted after the death of jesus Christ, that she hath been of less number, than the Sects of heretics. And that alleged of Constance, and of the time of the old Testament serveth nothing to that purpose: for there is great difference between the Synagogue of the jews and the Church: which is the congregation of all Nations believing in jesus Christ, and which cannot be or consist, but in a most great multitude: otherwise the promises made to the Church of the Gentiles, should be vain: for it is said to Abraham that his ●eed (this must not be understood of the carnal) should be multiplied as the stars of heaven, and the sand of the sea.  
Concerning the Article which beginneth, Touching the Prophets, etc. The Doctors do say, that they confess there is great difference between fantastical imaginations, and the revelation of the holy Ghost: but the Ministers do not answer how they would prove their particular persuasions, to be revelations, rather than the vain and foolish imaginations of the Prophets, which Ezechiel spoke of. The which notwithstanding they called inspirations: and what they said, and preached, they called also the Word of God.  
Concerning the Article which beginneth, Touching the Anabaptists, etc. The Doctors say, that to one self-same end, do the Ministers and Anabaptists wholly produce the self-same places, of which mention is made: that is to say, to stay and assure their doctrine to be of God, because thereof they have particular revelation, as God hath promised them by the Prophets. And for this self-same cause, have the Ministers produced the said testimonies of the scripture, to prove that every faithful man may judge by his particular inspiration, if a book do contain the word of God: and distinguish a book Canonical from Apocrypha: to judge and discern the true doctrine from the false: which is the self-same foundation of the Anabaptists and other heretics.  
To that Article which beginneth, touching that which is produced of Brentius, etc. The Doctors say: that the Ministers have not well conceived their meaning. For they bring not the saying of Brentius and Bucer, but only because they say, that they know the Canonical books of the holy Scripture, by the tradition of the Church, and not by particular inspiration, as the Ministers.  
Touching the Article following, the Doctors say: there was a time when some made doubt of certain books of the Scripture: as of the apocalypse, the Canonical Epistle of S. john, and others. But in time the Church guided by the holy Ghost, with common consent received indifferently for Canonical, all the books that be in the Bible; which consent (continued by so many hundred years) hath more authority than the sayings of one or two: the which nevertheless, spoke not but of their own time. And further, there is no comparison between the sayings of one or two particular men, & the determinations of Counsels, and consent of the Church: as hath already been said. And it will be found, that S. jerom hath approved these books as Canonical. And for the same, will refer themselves to the Prologue which he made upon the books of the Macabees, where he saith: Touching the Hebrews, they are not Canonical histories of the Church: or other words to the like effect. For the Council of Laodicia, they refer 
Inter divinorum voluminum anotantur Historia●.  them to that which is contained therein. It may be, they are deceived, in citing one Council for another. For the Article beginning, Touching the experience, etc. Although it be a question of fact: yet it ceaseth not to be much available. And if it be found as the Doctors have proposed, (of which they doubt nothing) the foundation of their particular revelation is overthrown.  
Touching the Minister's conclusion: the Doctors do show, that they have oft times complained, they fell into by-matters. They refer themselves to the judgement of all men, that their last resolution was deducted all of one thread, continuing without straying, in the same matter: In which, albeit they had found something wherein difficulty had been, had the Ministers so much desired to proceed to the conference of the chief points; they might briefly have admonished them of the said difficulty. The Doctors upon these articles had verily said something: but to hasten the business for the which they be called, they do forbear to multiply words.  
Where the Ministers show, that they receive the 24. books of the old Testament, with all the books of the New. The Doctors say: that that is not the point. For all the conference they have made hitherto, that is to say: by what rules men might discern some books from other some, and judge whether they were of the Scripture or not, was to range them in this point, that they received them by the tradition of the Church: which is judge of the number of the books: and by the same means, when the question should be, of the understanding of the word of God (even in the conference of the places of the same Scripture) the Ministers and Doctors should have such reverence to the Catholic Church, that she should be of both parts accepted for judge, of the understanding of the Scripture, which they acknowledge to have received of the same: whereof she is an infallible judge, and more certain, than the one or the other. And notwithstanding the Doctors do make offer to the Ministers, that they will not use at this time against them, but those books only, which they receive for Canonical. But when they shall fall into difficulty of the interpretation of some text, or of the conference of many: the Doctors esteem it more reasonable to have recourse to the Catholic Church, and to the ancient Fathers, then to their proper sense, or that of the Ministers.   

Answer.  
For conclusion, the Ministers do accept of the offer made them by the Doctors, to decide the points and articles of their Confession, by the books Canonical, whereof they are agreed: that is to say, the 24. books of the Hebrews, and all the books of the new Testament: protesting nevertheless, that in the last writings proposed by the Doctors, there be many things which they no ways approve, and do hope to confute as occasions shall be offered: and would presently have done it, had it not been that they will show (against that imputed to them by the Doctors) that they will not stray, nor any way retire from the conference of the points of their Confession.   

Reply.  
The Doctors reciprocally do agree to the Ministers in the said offer: with this moderation, to add the authority of the universal Church, and the ancient Doctors, for the interpretation and understanding of the holy Scripture, when they cannot agree.    

The third days Dispute, on Thursday, the eleventh of july.  
THE Ministers have showed what are the protestations which the Doctors have made, not for other end to appear in this Conference, but to satisfy Madam de Buillon, and not to be instructed, and otherwise informed of the points of Religion than they be. And those which the Ministers have on their part made also, not to confer with them for any doubt they have of the points of their Confession, whereof they be wholly resolved: By reason of which protestations, they have required that the first point, whereof they shall confer, may be that which Madam de Buillon hath publicly required to be decided: that is of the Supper, and of the Mass: that they may be discharged of that also which hath been imputed unto them by the Doctors: that they wandered and would not come to the principal point, which is, that aforesaid of the Mass: but contrariwise that they fled away & drew back from the conference. Finally, that it may be known who do fly the deciding thereof: They offer, after they have cleared that point, to confer with them (if they please) of all the other points which be in controversy, as leisure and time shall therefore be granted. And do also require, to avoid all confusion (and such as happened in the Conference the day before) that the Doctors may propose their arguments particularly each one apart: and that the answers also may be made unto them particularly by the Ministers. It else, if they will propose all their arguments and reasons together, that one whole day may be granted unto them, wherein they may do that without any interruption: conditionally that the Ministers may have the day following to answer by order to all their arguments.  
The Doctors say, by that which is above written in the behalf of the Ministers: That it is easy to know, they have always recoiled, and yet do recoil from conference of the things which they have put in controversy: and they are marvelously abashed, that they will not now permit the articles of their confession to be examined by order: as the day of the first Conference they had required (my Lord of Nevers, my Lord and Lady of Buillion, and other Lords and Gentlemen being present) in presenting their said confessions, contained in a little guilded book, making offer to the Doctors to examine them in order (if they pleased) which they found very reasonable. And indeed the Ministers themselves having demanded of the Doctors whereof they would entreat, departed yesterday, contented to begin this day to examine the Articles of the Creed. And as touching their speech of the protestation that the assembly was made for the instruction of my Lady, who desireth (as they say in her absence) to be first instructed concerning the Mass: The Doctors say; that the Ministers by word of mouth, have instructed the said Lady, not only in the error which concerneth their Supper: but also in many others, as they will make it appear, when they shall handle the articles of the Confession by them exhibited. Then willing to instruct the Lady by order in the Catholic Religion: they purpose to follow the order held by the Fathers of the Church; that is to say: to show unto her, how many errors against the Articles of the faith, are contained in the Catechism of their Ghurch: although they show to them of their religion, that they differ in these articles nothing from the Catholics. And because to catechize and instruct one, it behoveth to begin at the foundation, and that of certain articles of the Creed (in which the Ministers & their like do err) dependeth the beginning of the proof of the real presence of the body of jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar: they will hold the order which all good teachers or instructors do keep in all discipline, and the Ministers themselves do observe, following in their Catechism this method. And rightly were the Doctors to be mocked (whom men do take for instructors) if they should begin (for the Minister's pleasure) to instruct one in that point, wherein they ought to end: as endeth the same Catechism of the Ministers upon the matter of the Supper.  
Moreover, seeing the Ministers are content (as they say) that all the articles of their confession be examined: no privilege have they, but that one begin at the first, for as much as all order so requireth: and it is always at the choice of the Apponent to propound (in such order as seemeth best to him) the questions for the Dispute, were there any. And for as much as they are bound to give a reason of their faith, as often as they be thereof required: expedient it were for the good of the Lady, & for the instruction of those that shall read the Conference, to follow this method. And if they refuse what the Doctors do offer, they cannot avoid it, but all the world will judge (by the eye) that distrusting their own doctrine (which they dare not uphold) they confound the Conference.  
Whereas they require, that the Doctors in the Conference, put forth but one reason at once: whereunto they may answer without confusion: or else, that in one day the Doctors put forth all their reasons, and on an other day the Ministers may come to answer. The Doctors do say, that the first offer is reasonable; and to avoid length of speech, they accept it: but they never heard say, that the second manner hath been practised: and no need it were to assemble together in one place for that purpose, but to send their writings the one to the other.  

Answer.  
Touching the exhibiting of the confession, and the offers which the Doctors pretend to have been made by the Ministers, the Ministers do report themselves to the Registers. And do add moreover, that it appeareth by the Doctor's last proposition, that it is not upon the confession which the Doctors say was exhibited unto them, but upon the Catechism, that they will ground their Dispute. For conclusion, the Mivisters do eftsoons protest as abovesaid, that men may know who they be that do fly the Lists, and require that henceforth the order of arguing and answering, may be by course, between them and the Doctors. For as much as it behoveth that things be equal, and that it is reasonable, that the Doctors as well do render a reason of their faith, as the Ministers.   

Reply.  
The Doctors do refer them to what hath been put in writing in the two first Conferences: where speech was always of examining the articles of their confession, without making any mention of the Mass. And where they say that it seemeth the Doctors would examine the Catechism, and not the articles of the confession: the Doctors are content to examine the said articles, by conferring them with the Catechism. This considered, that these two ought to agree together: they make all men judges that shall read these writings, in whom is the let, that they begin not the Conference. And for the order which the Ministers will now change, a new fashion it is, and also a new trouble▪ considering that hitherto they have holden the place of respondent, and have presented to be examined, the articles of their confession. As for the Doctors, they have been always arguers, and have not for their part proposed aught to be examined. Nevertheless, they are contented after examination of the said confession, that the Ministers do propound the difficulties they shall have against the Catholic doctrine: whereunto by the grace of God, the Doctors will answer.   

Demand.  
Whether the Ministers do believe the Creed, called the Apostles, to have been made by the Apostles? and whether they do believe all that is contained therein?   

Answer.  
It is a thing in difference, whether the Apostles being together, themselves did write it, each one of them bringing his sentence (as some do hold): or whether it hath been gathered out of divers places of their writings. But so it is, that in the reformed Church, men believe every point to be drawn from the pure Prophetical and Apostolic doctrine contained in their writings: as if one should say, that it is a Summarie of the doctrine which the Apostles have preached, because it beareth and containeth the same.   

Question.  
Leaving (to avoid tediousness) whether it be a thing indifferent for a Christian to believe, that a doctrine hath been written by the Apostles, or no: if it be conformable to that which shallbe found in holy writ: they demand whether all doctrine conformable to the said Letters, may take indifferently the title of the Apostles, or other authors of the scripture?   

Answer.  
No man can fail to call it Apostolic doctrine: but in naming it Apostolic writing, one might give to understand, that it was written by their own hands▪ or spoken by them. But howsoever it be, where we shall acknowledge any doctrine to savour of the spirit, wherewith the holy men of God have been moved, that call we Prophetical and Apostolic doctrine.   

Objection.  
The demand was not, whether the doctrine be Apostolic, for any such conformity: but whether for this reason, it may be attributed to the Apostles, and of like authority as the Scriptures, unto which it is conformable: forasmuch as it proceedeth from one self same spirit, as is said in the answer.   

Answer.  
The Answer thereto is made: to wit, that such a writing doth contain Apostolic doctrine, and in some sense it may be said to be the Apostles.   

Objection.  
The Answer (under correction) nought pertaineth to the question. For it is not demanded, whether men may esteem it Apostolic in respect of the conformity, but whether for this conformity, men may attribute it to the Apostles, and give unto it the title and name of the Apostles: and whether for the said conformity, it be of like authority with the proper writings of the Apostles?   

Answer.  
The first question was, whether the Creed were made by the Apostles? Whereunto hath been rendered sufficient answer. After which it is lawful to make the second demand, which is divers from that.   

Objection.  
The second, dependeth on the first, and so hath it been made. Whether it be thought sufficiently answered, let the judgement thereof be referred to the reader.   

Answer.  
Because it dependeth thereupon, it is not therefore the same.   

Question.  
Whether they approve the Creed only, because they know it to be conformable to the writings of the Apostles? Or whether there any other cause, which inciteth them to believe it?   

Answer.  
It is not only conformable, but the doctrine itself: and for that cause do they believe it, and approve it.   

Question.  
Whether a man be not bound to receive it, but for so much as he knoweth it to be the same writing, or conformable to the writings of the Apostles, as is aforesaid.   

Answer.  
The principal cause that may move him that believeth it, to believe it, is the knowledge afore spoken of.   

Question.  
Although this be the principal cause, they require an absolute answer, whether there be not other sufficient cause to believe it, in such wise as this first is necessary.   

Answer.  
For the Creed, and every other thing we believe, the principal cause is, the knowledge we have that the same hath been left in writing, or collected of the writings of the Prophets and Apostles. And we for our part seek no other reason but that of the faith which we have.   

Objection.  
They answer not (under correction) to the question: which is, whether to receive the Creed of the Apostles this cause be necessary, to know the conformity of the said Creed, with the writings of the Apostles: and that without the same, none can or aught to receive it. The Doctors pray them to avoid circumlocution, and answer absolutely the one or the other. And more simply to explain the question, this it is: to wit, whether one ought not to receive the Creed of the Apostles, but because he knoweth that it is conformable to the Apostles writings?   

Answer.  
The matter considered after the doctrine of S. Paul, that there is no true faith without knowledge and assurance of the word: to believe, it behoveth to know that it is the word of God.   

Question.  
It would be known, 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 the Christian faith.   

Objection.  
The Ministers do then maintain, that before the believing of the Creed, or proposing it to be believed, it behoveth to be instructed, or to instruct an other, in the writings of the Apostles and Prophets. Now that is contrary to all the order ever holden in the Church, and contrary to that which is contained in the form, prescribed for administration of the Sacraments in the Church at Geneva, made by Calvin, and inserted amongst his works; which beareth these words, addressed to them that have charge of the child they baptize: For as much as the matter we have in hand, is to receive this child into the fellowship of the Christian Church, yea do promise when it shall come to years of discretion, to instruct it in the doctrine which is received and approved of God's people. And after these words, is inserted the Creed: after which, it is said they shall proceed to the instruction of the child in all the doctrine contained in the holy scripture of the old and new Testament: so that before they propose the Creed to be believed, they propose not to be believed that there is any word of God written, nor what it is, nor that therein contained, to know the conformity of the Creed with the same. Also they place not the foundation of the believing of the Creed, upon the knowledge and conformity of the scripture, but upon the doctrine received and approved by the people of God. As the ancient Church, yea before the scriptures of the new Testament were written, did wontedly propose both to great and small, the belief of the Creed, before they proposed the holy scriptures unto them, as by Christian antiquities appeareth. And therefore the belief of a Christian touching the Creed, dependeth not on the written word, but upon the word revealed to the people and church of God.   

Answer.  
Touching the first article, it is very necessary that in teaching a child, or any other ignorant person, the Creed of the Apostles, they also forthwith teach him the doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets, seeing that which is contained in the Creed, is no other thing, but the self-same doctrine: and that they are things not only conjoined, but also like, if not in words, yet at least in sense and substance.  
Touching the second article, they deny that that abovesaid, is any way contrary to the established order in the church of Geneva, or any other well governed Church. And as touching the reason drawn from the form of the Baptism used in the said Churches, it followeth not, by the alleged words and sayings thereof, that Calvin proposed them to exclude the Creed, and to separate the same from the writings and doctrine of the Prophets & Apostles, (which is impossible) but plainly to show, that when he added that word, he meant therein to comprehend it, and generally (which the Doctors have omitted in their allegation) to comprehend that which remaineth in the holy scriptures, after the deduction he had made of the points of doctrine, particularly comprised in the Creed. And for the other reason added, that the Creed was proposed to those that were catechized, before any book of the new Testament was written, they grant it. But it followeth not therefore, that it was not founded on the word and doctrine which the Apostles did preach: (although then not put in writing) And likewise on the writings of the Prophets, whereupon is founded the doctrine of the Apostles. For conclusion, the Ministers put no difference as touching the sense between the word of God preached and written.   

Objection.  
The Ministers (it seemeth) have not well conceived the meaning of the Doctors. For the question is not whether the Creed be conformable in itself, to the writings Apostolic; but whether it first behoveth to believe and understand, that the Apostles and Prophets have put a doctrine in writing, unto which the Creed is conformable: and that otherwise, the Creed cannot be believed. And for more easy explanation, the question is, whether it be not possible for a child, (being come to years of discretion) or any other, by the instruction of the father and mother, or others, to believe the articles of the Creed, without being first instructed by them, that there are certain Apostolic writings, unto which, the Articles of the Creed are conformable. And whether to move them so to believe, it be necessary to know that conformity; Let the Ministers absolutely answer thereunto.   

Answer.  
Faith is by hearing, and hearing by the word of God: 
Rom. 10.  whereunto agreeth, that which jesus Christ saith: putting the hearing of the word before the faith thereof, saying: He 
joh. 5. 24.  that heareth my word, and believeth in him that sent me, etc. Also that which he commanded the Apostles, first to preach the Gospel, that the hearers might by preaching, be disposed and brought to the faith. For these reasons, knowledge that the doctrine which is taught, is the word of God, is necessary to believe: And without that, it is not possible for a man to have faith, or believe in God, except he be first assured, that what is taught him, is the word of God. And for the demand made touching the instruction of children grown to years of discretion, or others, whether it be requisite they should know the word, before they believe it. The answer is, yea. And Thomas himself saith, that the faith of the articles of the Creed, aught to be expounded; that is to say, cleared: which cannot be done without the knowledge of the word.   

Objection.  
In such an answer there is multiplying of words, without aught touching the point proposed: for they doubt not but that they ought to catechize children and others, and to expound by the word of God, the Articles of the Creed unto them: but the question is, whether they must understand, that this Word is written in the books of the Prophets and Apostles: so that without the knowledge of those writings, they cannot have the knowledge and belief of the articles of the faith contained in the said Creed.  
The Doctors pray the Ministers to answer yea or no: and after their answer, to add what reasons they will. Which thing if they will not do, the Doctors will proceed to an other article; after notwithstanding (for conclusion of all) they have showed unto them, that if this knowledge of the scriptures were necessary to understand the articles of the Creed, in examining them according to the conformity of the same scriptures, that it behoveth (sith the foundation is so necessary) to place this among the Articles of the Creed: [I believe that there be holy scriptures.] And it is to be noted, that there is not any mention made in the said Creed, that there are holy scriptures. So that a man may be truly a Christian, before he understand that there is any Christian doctrine, and word of God written. And therefore to believe and understand the Creed, it is not necessary to know the word of God to be written. And the Doctors do protest that they will speak no more of this article.   

Answer.  
By conference of the demands and answers, it is easy to judge, who more abound in speech, they which propound, or they that answer. Touching the second article, the answer is as before; that to believe, and be a Christian, the knowledge of God's word is necessary, whether the said word be written or revealed. And as touching the remonstrance made, the Ministers do answer, that they for their part will in no wise allow men should aught add to the pure word of God. And they believe that the Creed of the Apostles is nothing else but the pure word of God, which is proposed unto us by his spirit, saying, that it should be a breach against his commandment to add thereunto new articles. And they do maintain, that had there been other articles which had been necessary to salvation, the spirit of God would not have omitted nor forgotten them. For conclusion, albeit no express mention be made of the holy scripture in the Creed, yet so much is there covertly understood, that the Church (which cannot stand if she be not built and founded upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles) is there proposed for an article to believe.   

Reply.  
The Doctors say, that this answer is impertinent, and no more to the purpose then the former. And although the Prophets and Apostles had not written, yet had the Church been built upon their foundation, as it was in the time of Abraham, and before there was any scripture: which, were it necessary to salvation, it had been put amongst the articles of faith.   

Answer.  
The Ministers say, that this reply is yet more impertinent: and for the reason thereto added, that the faith was in the time of Abraham, although there were no word written: they do agree thereunto. But it is ill inferred: there is no written word. There is therefore no word. And it is a fallacy in argument, which the Logicians do call, A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. From a qualified saying, to a saying simple.    

The fourth days. Dispute on Friday the 12. of july.  
THe Ministers do show, that they still continue their former requests, considering the protestations aforesaid made by the Doctors: who have twice declared, that they were not assembled, but only to satisfy the Lord Montpensier, and my Lady of Buillon: considering also the request publicly made by the said Lady in the assembly, to be instructed in the point of the Supper, and not upon the others, whereof she thinketh herself sufficiently instructed, and not to need therein any further teaching. And for these causes do the Minister's request, as before they have done, that the first thing, whereof they shall confer, be that of the Supper▪ and of the Mass. And the rather, for that they understood by some worthy of credit, that the Doctors intent not to enter into conference upon that point.  
Upon this declaration, the Doctors say, that they are ashamed to hear so often protestations; and that the Ministers (it seemeth) will thus spend the time, to flee eftsoons the Conference of the articles of their confession: which nevertheless they have oftentimes set forth to be examined. And where they say, that Madam de Buillon (for instruction of whom the company is assembled) hath required publicly to be instructed in the articles of the Mass, and in no other. They say, that some mention she made for Conference of the Mass: but they never heard say that she held herself sufficiently instructed concerning the other articles. The Doctors do offer, that if the said Lady will confess that she believeth all the other articles proposed by the Ministers, and their like against the doctrine of the Catholic Church, to be erroneous, they are presently ready to enter into Conference of the Mass. But chose, if she be seduced with errors, contrary to the doctrine of the Church Catholic, to keep the order which appertaineth to instructors, and to lay the foundation of the Mass, the Doctors have determined, according to the good & holy des●e of my lord Montpensier, to car●chife & teach the Lady his daughter concerning every article, & by order. And they further say, that the Ministers do what they of their Church are accustomed; which is, always to fly back from the Confere●ence with the Catholics, and be for●the point proposed by them be decided, they put an other in Dispute: as did Be●a and the Ministers with him at Poissy: who seeing the Supper was to be handled against them in the chamber of the Prior of Poissy in the pre●●ce of the Queen, of the Princes of blood, & of the Lords of the Council, they often requested to leave that point undecided, hand to enter into some other which should be more evident against the Catholics as of Images and other things. And chose, the Ministers to avoid now the great 〈◊〉 which be in their interpretation of the Creed, would set forth the point of the Supper. The Doctors beseech, as they have 〈◊〉 that there be no confusion in their doing; and 〈◊〉 their religiose examined by order; and that it be no● thought that the Doctors do refuse ●o enter into the Conference of the Mass, and the Supper, as they have always determined and never said (under correction of all persons) that they would not confer thereof: for my Ladies brief instruction, they are ready to dispute thereof by word of mouth, and plainly to show by the express word of God, that jesus Christ instituted, and said Mass, and his Apostles also. They do also offer, that whatsoever shall be said by word of mouth upon this matter, be put in writing the next day after, to be placed in it order: as the instruction of my Lady doth require. And do refer them for the day, to the said Lady's opportunity.  
The Ministers do answer, that all these answers are superfluous, and unprofitable, for as much as all such Conferences are nothing but debates and al●rications, which do● offend and scandalise more than they edify.  

The Resolution of the Doctors.  
THe Doctors ensuing the order already begun, and their charge which is to confer with the Ministers, and afterwards to give a resolution for the instruction of my Lady of Buillon, upon the two points proposed yesterday: to wit, whether the Apostles were authors of the Creed. And why we ought to believe it. They say, that to know whether the Apostles did make and erect the Creed, ought no more to be esteemed a thing indifferent, then to know whether the Apostles be authors of their own writings. For much more is the authority of them, when a man is assured that they are certainly proceeded from the Apostles. And chose, it should be far less, if men did doubt thereof, or esteem it a thing indifferent. Moreover they say, that it is no sufficient reason to call this Creed Apostolic, and to entitle it, the Creed of the Apostles: in regard of the conformity it hath with their writings. For by this reason, the other Creeds (as that of Nice, of Ath●n●sius, and all other the like writings) may as well be named the Creed of the Apostles; because they contain a doctrine agreeable to the Apostles writings. Therefore say the Doctors, it must be believed, that the Apostles did make it, and gave the same Creed unto Christians▪ and that it must be believed, as being a writing composed by the Apostles. And their proof thereof is, that they always find since the Apostles time until now, that this Creed hath been proposed in Baptism and Catechism: as it appeareth by the authors which have been from the Apostles unto us. And also that no man can name, or note any Author or Council (but even before that Author, or Council, immediately to the Apostles time) that Creed hath been proposed in Baptism and Catechism, and called among Christians, the rule of faith. And the like argument S. Augustine in many places against the Donatists, doth esteem to be firm and invincible, to prove and show, that something is from the Apostles.  
They willingly omit to avoid tediousness, the ancient writers: as S. Ambrose, S. Jerome, & others, who acknowledge this Creed to have been made and received, namely of the Apostles. For the second point, the Doctors do affirm, that the bond and necessity to believe this Creed, doth not depend o● the knowledge of the Apostolic or Prophetical scriptures, nor on the knowledge of the conformity with them. For it was made and contained among the Christians in Baptism, before there was any Apostolic writing. And in Baptism they proposed the said Creed to be believed, before they entered into the scripture, or to speak thereof. And in the primitive Church, they examined the scriptures whether they were to be received or nor, and the understanding of them, and whether a doctrine were true or false by this Creed and rule of faith; and by it likeness or conformity with the same. Ireneus, Tertullian, and others, do teach it. And although it should so happen, that a man had never heard but the Creed, without knowing whether there be holy scriptures or not, he might believe the said Creed, and be a true Christian: so that he were void of other particular false opinion. And chose, if the belief of the Creed did depend upon the knowledge of the Prophetical o● Apostolic scriptures, to understand and to be assured of the conformity that is therein, as 〈◊〉 as to believe it 〈◊〉 none but the learned and well exercised in the scriptures (who should be assured of the said conformity) should be bound to believe the Creed, or should at least be assured of the truth thereof. And so should there he very few Christians, Therefore the belle●ing of the Creed, doth not depend upon the knowledge of the scriptures.  
By means whereof the Doctors do hold by tradition of the Church 〈◊〉 by the holy Ghost, that the Creed is the Apostle and that none ought to doubt thereof. And by the same tradition it must be believed, as 〈…〉 of the Apostles of like authority with that in their writings, although they had no knowledge of the other scriptures. And the Doctors are sorry that they have so much declined from answering pertinently and absolutely to these two points, which they have only proposed to show, what faith and authority men ought to give to this Creed, and to all other doctrine received by tradition of the Apostles, (without Canonical scripture) which they will prove to have been left by them; by the same mean and reason by which is showed, the Creed to have been delivered to the Christians by the Apostles without that they put the same in writing. Finally the Doctors do admonish such as read this Conference, not to be astonished, nor manuel at so many perplexed declinings from the true end of the said points proposed. And do pray them to remember the conferences made by S. Augustine, with the Donatists and Pellagians: wherein they shall find like manner of dealing, as that of the Ministers, with whom they do confer. And for the present Conference, refer themselves to the reader's judgement.   

The Resolution of the Ministers.  
THe Ministers following that which before hath been proposed, and always by them maintained; and for the confirmation also of the faith of the Lady of Buillon, say that it is uncertain (as S. Ciprien hath written) whether the Creed, called the Apostles, was made & composed by them: or else drawn or gathered out of their doctrine: and why also it is called the Apostles Creed: or whether it is because each of them added his part and portion thereunto: or else whether it be because it is a mark and certain ensign of Christian Religion. And as touching the same; that it is a thing indifferent to salvation: in as much as it hath always one weight and authority, be it that the Apostles have written it, or that it hath been faithfully gathered out of their writings. So have also the Creeds, as well of Nice, as of Athanasius, whereof the Church hath never doubted, but that they contain a pure Apostolic doctrine, as she hath evidently declared, in ordaining that the said Nicen Creed should be publicly proposed and published to the people, on the days of their assembly to communicate, which at this day is yet observed in the Church of Rome: where that Creed is read or sung every Sabaoth in their Churches. And did it not contain Apostolic doctrine, it should withstand the 59 Article of the Council of Laodicia: in which it is forbidden to read in the Church, any thing proposed of private invention, but only the doctrine comprised in the Canonical books of the old and new Testament, the number whereof is there made.  
The Ministers say further, that the reason and principal motive of the faith which Christians give to the Creed, is the knowledge they have, that it is the pure word of God, and him that teacheth it, do they also maintain, to be the word of God: as may appear by that which S. Paul writeth: who after he had proposed to the Corinthians, the 
1. Cor. 15.  death, burial, and resurrection of jesus Christ, which be the chief articles of the Creed, and those upon which principally justification is grounded, addeth these words. That he delivered unto them, that which he received: to wit, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was afterwards buried: and that he arose again the third day, according to the scriptures.  
jesus Christ also proposing his death and resurrection to the two Disciples, alleged to them the scriptures, thereby 
Luk. 24.  to assure them, saying: O fools and slow of heart to believe all that the Prophets have spoken, ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And he began at Moses and the Prophets, and interpreted unto them in all the scriptures, the things that were written of him. In the self-same Chapter, appearing after his resurrection, even before the Creed was made, proposing unto them his death and resurrection; to assure them thereof, he alleged unto them the scriptures, saying: It is thus written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer and rise again from the dead the third day. Whence may be inferred, that for the foundation of faith, and assurance of the articles of the same, there is no better means then to propose the scriptures. And although in the time of the birth of the Church, the Creed was proposed to those that were catechized, before the Apostles and Evangelists had put any thing in writing: it followeth not therefore that there were no other scriptures, whereupon every article of the faith might be builded. And to decsare the same particularly, The article of the creation hath it foundation upon the beginning of Genesis. The article of the almightiness of God, hath it foundation upon the 40. Chapter of Esay, and divers other places of the scripture. The article of the conception of jesus Christ, upon the 7. Chapter of Esay: For the place of his birth, upon the 5. of Micheas: and in respect of the time, upon the 49. of Genesis, and the 9 of Daniel. The article of the death and of the Cross, upon the 22. Psalm, 53. Chapter of Esay, and 9 of Daniel. The article of the Resurrection upon the 16. Psalm. The article of the Ascension, upon the 68 Psalm. The article of the judgement, in Daniel, 12. The article of the sending of the holy Ghost, in joel 2. The article of the Church, Esay. 2. and Micheas. 4. The article of the remissiof sins, upon the 32. Psalm, and 37. of Ezec. The article of the resurrecton of the flesh, and life eternal, in Daniel the 12.  
By this discourse, and places of scripture quoted, it may appear to every man, that there were clear and evident scriptures to ground all the articles of the faith upon, before the Creed was put in writing: and that men might & aught to allege them to those that were catechized, to assure them of that which was proposed unto them to be believed. And it is not possible that a man can believe, that hath not first heard and understood the Word: and that is not assured thereof, and holdeth it as certain, and more also (were it possible) than things conceived and comprised by Mathematical demonstration: as it appeareth by the definition of faith, when the Apostle calleth it Hypostasin, & elenchon. 
Heb. 11.  That is to say, the evidence of things which are not seen. The Ministers do add, that it implieth a contradiction, to call the Creed a doctrine not written▪ and yet to affirm that the Apostles have written it. And they cannot show how long it was an unwritten doctrine, and at what time it began to be written. And the Ministers are much displeased, in that they which confer with them, do not more propose the edification as well of those that be present at this Conference, as of others which may see and read the Acts thereof. For where as they might handle and decide points tending to edification of the simple, they stay on proposing and handling some things whereof they no way doubt: which is as much, as to prove a thing confessed, and resolved on, and to light a candle at noonday. And they assure themselves, that they which shall read the acts of this Conference, will not at all be abashed, because they decline to treat of that point, whereof they be so oft required: for that (as jesus Christ saith) he that doth evil, fleeth the light.  
For conclusion, the Ministers do protest to confess and believe, that the Creed of the Apostles, in every article thereof, is the pure word of God, and in the faith whereof, it behoveth every faithful man to stay and petsevere unto the end. So that they would no way receive nor approve the man in their Churches, that should deny, or aught doubted 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. The first is against the article of the Almightiness of God, when as they say and teach, that God cannot cause one body to be in two places. The second is against the article of the creation, when as they say, that God not only permitteth evil and sin to be done, but also himself doth it. The third is, that one while they deny, and an other while they confess for an article of faith, that the Virgin Marie remaineth a Virgin after her childbirth. The fourth, that jesus Christ descended not into hell, but by imagination, and not really. Also say the Ministers against the said article, that jesus Christ despaired of his salvation upon the tree of the Cross: that he was troubled in conscience, fearing to be damned: and many other errors contained in this Article. Upon which objections, they warn the Ministers to be ready to answer thereunto.   

Answer.  
The Ministers will be ready to answer to the slanders aforesaid.    

The fifth days Dispute on Monday the fifteenth of july.  
THe Ministers do require, that the request fomerly made, and now again repeated by the Lady of Buillon, namely, that the Doctors should speedily confer with them concerning the points of the Mass, may be registered, to the end the occasion may be known why the Doctors do delay and go back from the said Conference.  
The Doctor's unwilling to lose time, and willing to pursue the last days agreement, according whereunto the Ministers ought to answer, touching the errors contained in the doctrine by them preached, against the articles of the Creed: as the Doctors have noted and proposed the same. And to enter forthwith into the matter, they show that the said Ministers have evilly alleged Saint Cyprian for them, to deny the Creed to be the Apostles. For S. Cyprian doubteth not, nor putteth in doubt as a thing indifferent, whether it be the Apostles or no; but showeth expressly, that before they departed asunder, they composed the said Creed: as in the Preface of his exposition may appear.  
The Doctors demand further upon the article of the omnipotency, (which is the foundation of the Supper, and the holy Sacrament) why the article of omnipotency, being the first and principal article of faith, is not contained in the confession, proposed by the mouth of Beza at Poissy, before the King, and many times since, and inserted in many books?  
And why they have made so many different confessions of faith, taking out of one what they have put in: and adding (chose) to others that they have omitted. And how it happeneth, that the article of the Trinity, is not expressly in the first confession of the 1564. year? which yet they do confess in all obscurity.  

Answer.  
It shall appear by the last days acts, that the Ministers have required what they yet require for the present: namely, that the point of the Mass be first put forth to be decided: because it is the chief occasion, for which the Conference was appointed.  
And concerning that they propose touching the Creed, the Ministers never doubted, nor yet do they doubt but that it is a pure Apostolic doctrine. Which to every man that shall read the acts of the last day aforesaid may appear: where (at least) in half a dozen places, they have always confessed and repeated the same.  
And that which they have maintained to be doubtful, is only, whether the Creed were written by the Apostles themselves, or not: whereof nothing can appear to be verified by the Doctors. And S. Cyprian himself, whom the Doctors have produced, in his Preface doth advertise the readers of the great variety there is touching the said Creed: for as much as divers Churches have added thereunto divers articles: He doth also advertise them, that he followeth in his explication, the order of the Church of Aquilea. Yea and expounding the article of the dissension into hell, (of which the Doctors make so much ado) he specially saith: that it is not in the Creed of the Roman Church, nor yet of the Eastern Churches. Whence may be gathered the incertainty of that above said: and that there is no article of which men may reasonably doubt, whether it be of the number of those which the Apostles have written, or whether some Church hath added the same: or else it must be said, that the Apostles had written divers Creeds. And for the difference which the Doctors do pretend to be in the confessions of the reformed Churches, printed and published at sundry times, the Ministers deny them, as touching the sense, to differ one from the other: although for more ample declaration thereof, some terms have possibly been changed. And where they propose that in some of them the article of the omnipotency of God was omitted, the Ministers do deny it, and require the Doctors to bring forth a copy of the confession, in which they maintain the same to have been omitted: for were it so, it should be falsified and corrupted. Adding that there is nothing in their confession, doubtful or obscure: which some of the said Doctors have well declared, when they made a form of confession by the pattern of that of the reformed Churches, using the proper terms and sentences: unto which they added nothing to make it vary, that excepted for which they are in difference with the Ministers, and which they would hardly ground upon the scriptures.   

Objection.  
The Doctors say, that the Ministers by their denial that S. Cyprian holdeth the Apostles were Authors, makers, and composers of the Creed, do sufficiently show, how bold they are to deny things manifest. All which, they refer to the auditory present, and to the readers of this writing. For ground of which denial, they rest upon a simple reason: to wit, upon the article of the dissension into hell, whether it were inserted by the Apostles, or added by others to make it doubtful, whether they are Authors of all the other Articles. For it is, as if a man should say, it is uncertain whether Saint john composed his Gospel, because there be 
john. 8.  that doubt whether the History of the Adulteress be of him. But leaving that, the Doctor's demand, whether they confess not by their doctrine, that God by his almightiness, cannot cause one body to be in two places: two bodies in one place? Thirdly, that God cannot cause a body to be invisible. Fourthly, that one body may be in one place without holding place equal to it greatness.   

Answer.  
All these questions are impertinent and enstranged from the confession of the Churches: which nevertheless the Doctors have chosen for foundation of all the Conference. Wherefore the Ministers require, that they dispute to the purpose, and choose one article or many of the said confession, whereupon they pretend to build their said questions.   

Objection.  
These questions are very pertinent to impugn the Articles of the Ministers confession. For the question is not, of the proper words contained in the said confession, which is not but a Summary of the faith: but the Doctors will impugn the sense of the Articles which they do know by their proper writings. By which they openly witness, touching the article of the omnipotency, that God cannot do the things aforesaid. And the Doctors do show, that it well and fitly serveth to impugn the doctrine of heretics, and for the true means to prove against them, that they receive not the holy scripture, when they prove that they receive not the true sense thereof.  
They say also, that the Ministers themselves having desired conference of the Mass, are the cause of such questions: and the Doctors by this mean will draw them thereunto. For this article of the omnipotency, is the chief foundation to prove and maintain the word of God, and the real presence of the body of jesus Christ, in the Sacrament of the Altar. And the Doctors are abashed at so many declinings: for when their confession is spoken of, they demand the Mass: and when they come to the Mass, they demand their confession.   

Answer.  
The Ministers do abash at so many superfluous things proposed by the Doctors. And where they say that albeit they oppugn not the words of the said confession, yet do they oppugn the sense thereof. The Ministers answer: that the sense cannot be known but by the words. And for this reason they wrap themselves in a contradiction, when as leaving the terms thereof, they say they will confute the sense. And as for the conclusion which they will draw from God's omnipotency, affirming that one body is in divers places at one self-same instant, the Ministers do deny that that by good consequence, can be inferred of the omnipotency of God.   

Objection.  
The Doctors say, that it doth well follow, God cannot cause one body to be in two places at one self-same instant. God therefore is not almighty.   

Answer.  
The Ministers deny the consequence aforesaid, and allege 
2. Tim. 1.  reason; because it appeareth by the holy scripture, that God cannot deny himself: and that it is impossible that he should lie. Nevertheless, it were blasphemy to infer and 
Heb. 6.  conclude thereupon, that he were not almighty. For the omnipotency of God, aught to be measured according to his will, and the things agreeable to his nature; as teacheth the Mr. of the sentences, saying: In that is God omnipotent, wherein his power is of might, and not of infirmity. S. Jerome writing to Eustochius, and confirming that above said, saith as followeth. I will boldly say, although God can do all things, yet can he not restore and re-establish a virgin after her fall. Saint Augustine likewise writeth in the fifth book of the City of God, cap. 10. in these words. The power of God is in nothing lessened, when it is said, he cannot die, nor be beguiled. And a little after, God is almighty, because there be things which he cannot do. The same Author in the 26. of the same work, cap. 8. thus saith: He that saith, if God be almighty, let him cause the things which be made, that they be not made. Perceiveth not, that it is as much as if he said: if he be almighty, let him make the things which are true, in as much as they be true, to be false. Teodoret also in his third Dialogue, conformable to that above said, saith: We must not without determination, say that all things generally, are possible to God. For he that so saith, absolutely comprehendeth things good and evil, which are contrary in themselves. And a little after, he affirmeth: that God cannot sin, because it is a thing contrary to his nature. Whereupon he concludeth, that although many things there be which he cannot do (for as much as there be many sins) yet for all that doth he not cease to be almighty.   

Objection.  
The Doctors say, that the reasons formerly brought, do avail and serve to show, that the Ministers do confess the antecedent, which seemed only to be supposed: to wit, God cannot cause one body at one self instant to be in two places, no more than he can make the things by them alleged. For to this end do they allege them, to declare that something there is which God cannot do. And to the present question (to wit, that one body cannot be in two places) can they not apply them, but to show that the same is impossible to God.  
And as touching the reasons alleged out of the holy scriptures: God cannot lie, nor deny himself: these places (under correction) serve nought to this purpose. For, as they have brought out of the Mr. of the sentences, power to lie, power to sin, is not power, but impotency: chose rather, if God could sin, he should be impotent and weak: and such thing also God cannot do, for than should he repugn and destroy himself. And as touching the examples brought out of S. Jerome and S. Augustine, that God cannot make a virgin deflowered to be yet a virgin, or a thing done, not to be done, that understood as the Logicians say, In sensu Composito, (that is to say, the things being such, and so made) is true. And the reason is, for that it would otherwise imply a contradiction. But in the question proposed, there is nothing like thereunto: for the question only demandeth, whether God by his power, can alter & change the nature and quality of things created: as whether he can make a thing heavy and massy, abiding in it quality of weight and massiness (which naturally tendeth downward) by the only power of God, to hang in the air: as in the holy scripture we read, that the fire which naturally ascendeth, doth descend by the power of God. Also that the fire naturally hot, and burning, cooleth, the quality thereof (that is to say the heat) remaining in the substance. As also that two bodies be in one self-same place: as appeared when our Lord did enter where the Apostles were, the the doors being shut: or that a gross and large body, remaining in it grossness and largeness, do pass through a place unproportionable to it greatness and largeness, as a cable through the eye of a needle. All these examples are taken out of the holy scripture. And if it must be, that God cannot make one body to be in two places at once, no more should he be able to do the things aforesaid: for, the reasons to this purpose they will afterwards declare. And it will not be found, that it hath ever entered into the brain of any Interpreter, to deny such a power: And the first that ever did openly deny it, was first Peter Martyr: and after him, Beza.  
The Doctors further say, that the form of the argument which the Ministers do use, doth withstand and destroy that which God useth in the holy scripture, and the Angel speaking to the virgin. For God ordinarily when he will assure something impossible to nature, and which men cannot comprehend, he generally allegeth his power. And the Angel willing to make a ground of the incarnation of our Lord, doth allege in general, that there is nothing impossible to God, in regard of the creatures, as the Angel speaketh. Now so it is, that the generality of an argument is destroyed by particular exceptions, and is made by this mean unprofitable and forceless. When God then allegeth in general, that his power can do it, one may doubt thereof, and esteem the thing proposed of God, to be of those, which are to him impossible, as well as the exceptions by the Ministers alleged. And that should be false which the Angel saith: That there is nothing impossible to God: because men do allege & propose many things to the contrary. To the end therefore, that God and his Angels be maintained true in their words, it must not be doubted, but God can much more easily change and alter his creatures, and all their qualities, than a Potter can play with his clay, and form at his pleasure some vessel thereof.  
Moreover, there is danger, that if we limit God's power towards his creatures, we fall to deny him his Lordship and dominion over them. For no other thing is it to be Lord of a creature, then to have power to change, alter, and give it such a nature and quality, best pleasing to him: as having the same in his own power. And therefore God in jeremy, 
jer. 32.  to show that he had power to destroy and ruinate, or to maintain jerusalem, as seemed him good, saith: I am the Lord of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me? Therefore the Doctors do conclude, that there is danger (if this question be maintained, as impossible to God) that each one therein will dare as much: alleging the same examples which the Ministers do, to exempt from the power of God, every thing shall displease him. And when men shall produce unto him such things out of the scripture, he may interpret the scripture in an other sense, saying: that such a thing shall be impossible to God by the natural sense of the words of the scripture: Even as the Ministers do change and alter the scripture, which saith that the body of jesus Christ is in two places. To wit, the word of the Supper, compared with that of the Ascension: and say, that that of the Supper ought not to be understood literally: for, that one body should be in two places, is impossible to God. So say the Doctors, that each one will corrupt the literal sense of the scriptures, saying: that the thing is impossible unto God. And therefore must the scriptures be otherwise understood. And notwithstanding it may be because it displeaseth him: and yet will he bring forth the self-same reasons and allegations as do the Ministers, to show that all things are not possible to God. The Doctors do again conclude, that it is better to maintain the scripture in the truth thereof, (albeit it propose in our judgements incomprehensible and impossible things, then to open a gap for every one, to deprave the word of God, to range and subject it to his will and judgement, under shadow of saying, that it is impossible to God: and alleging for the same some examples. They will not omit that the Ministers, who have often protested to rely upon the pure word of God, do allege only ancient Doctors against the power of God, flying for aid to them, against God's express word, which importeth, that generally without exception there is nothing impossible to him.   

Answer.  
The Minister answer, that the Doctors prove not their consequence, and that they leave it for some distrust they have (as is likely) that they are not able to prove it. They mention but the antecedent of their said consequence: to the confession whereof, it is not possible for them to lead the Ministers, by their reasons and authorities alleged to weaken their said consequence: for as much as of one particular, they infer a general: which is contrary to the rules of Logic. And where they say that the authorities alleged by the Ministers, nothing serve to reprove their consequence, and to show that God leaveth not to be almighty, although he cannot do any thing which doth derogate to his nature, they refer themserues therein to the said ancient authors; which for the same end and reasons as the Ministers, do allege and propose the above said exceptions.  
Where they pretend that the authorities and sentences alleged out of the ancient Fathers, do nought appertain to the present question: for as much as they deny that they should be understood of other things, but those only which do contain in themselves contradiction. The Ministers do answer, that so also doth that which they propose of a body, that at on self instant, it may be in divers places. For as much is it, as if they should say, that a body is, and is not, at one self-same time: and that a body is one, and is not one. Also that a creature is incircumscriptible, and not enclosed within certain limits: which happening, it should no more be a creature, but God. As may be gathered of that which S. Basil writeth in his book of the holy Ghost, Chapter 22. saying thus: The Angel that appeared to Cornelius, was not in the same place where Philip was. And he that spoke to Zacharie from the Altar, filled not whiles he spoke unto him, his seat and place in heaven. But the holy Ghost is in Habacuck, and Daniel in Babylon, and in Ezeehiel upon the flood of Chobar, for the spirit of God doth fill the earth. And the Prophet writing thereof, saith: Where shall I hide me from thy spirit? or whither shall I fly from thy presence? Didymus in his book of the holy Ghost, confirming that above said, saith thus: Were the spirit of God a creature, his substance should he have circumscript and limited, as have all things made and created. As then so it is, that the spirit of God doth fill the world, and is not circumscript, nor in any place limited: thereof it followeth, that he is God. Vigilius in the disputation he wrote between Sabellius, Photius, Arrius, and Athanasius, under the person of Athanasius, thus writeth.  
Thereby may it chiefly appear, that the spirit of God, is God: that he is every where, and is not contained in any one place, as the Prophet writeth: Whither shall I fly to hide me from thy spirit? Of these places may we conclude, that if a body be not circumscript, finished and closed in certain limits, it is not a creature: which ought to be understood, not only of other bodies, but of that also of jesus Christ himself: as appeareth by that which Theodoret writeth in his second Dialogue, where he thus saith: Then is the body of our Lord risen, exempted from all corruption, impassable and immortal, adorned with divine glory, adored and worshipped of the heavenly powers. Nevertheless, albeit it be in such sort qualified, yet ceaseth it not therefore to be circumscript, as it was before it was glorified: whereof it followeth, that being a true body, and a creature, it cannot be in divers places at one instance.  
Whereas they allege that the foresaid examples do nothing pertain to the question proposed: for as much as in it, the question is only to know, whether God can change the qualities in a substance, the substance remaining. The Ministers do deny it, because in the question there is mention of a body, which cannot be without his measure. Now the measures and dimensions are not as qualities and accidents which may happen to a body, and depart from it without corrupting thereof, (which is the nature and condition of accidents) but are of it proper essence. So that it is impossible that a body should be a body, which is not measured and circumscript.  
The first example they produce for confirmation of their saying is, that a massy thing (which naturally for the weight thereof declineth downward) may be lifted on high. Whereunto the Ministers do answer, that it may be done, and that by violent motion. But that this example nought serveth to overthrow that they have said, for as much as such things in themselves contain no contradiction; and that they are not contrary to the essence of the thing where they happen. For a stone which a man throweth upward, doth not therefore cease to be a stone, neither by such a moving, is it not deprived of the weightiness thereof. To the example of the fire, they answer: that it is one self-same reason of light, as of heavy things: and that without any corruption of their essence, their natural movings may be changed by some force and violence done unto them. And as touching that they allege of fire, which (contrary to it nature, namely to heat and burn) refreshed the three jews in the Babylonian furnace: they answer, that the fire therefore was nothing altered in the essence nor qualiries thereof: which may easily appear, in that it spared the three jews, and burned and consumed those which kindled the same. Whereof may be inferred, that the cause why it did not offend them, proceeded not because the nature or qualities thereof were any way changed, but only because the action thereof was suspended.  
And where they allege, that two bodies may be at one instant in one self-same place together: and for proof thereof, propose that which is written in S. john, that jesus Christ did enter where his Disciples were, the doors being shut: the Ministers do answer, that it is not so in the text: but the text showeth that the Disciples being assembled in a place, jesus Christ stood & appeared in the midst of them. Whereof can be no way inferred, that he entered into the place where they were, without opening of the doors, nor that he pierced them to enter therein. And very like it is, that they were opened and shut again, as well as those 
Act. 12. Act. 5.  which the Angel did open and shut again, when he was sent to deliver S. Peter out of prison: and when likewise he was sent for the Apostles deliverance.  
As touching that they propose of a gross body passing through a strait place, alleging the example of a Cable through the eye of a needle. The Ministers answer, that it is ill to the purpose alleged, and is an argument grounded upon a thing impossible. They say moreover that the Doctors have all understood the word Camilos: usurped in the scripture, not for a Cable, but for a Camel: as to them it is manifest, which are but meanly seen in the antiquities of the Hebrews. And as appeareth by that which Angelius Caninius writeth in the end of his Chaldean Grammar. And for the conclusion which the Doctors draw from the precedent examples, it is from the purpose, and founded upon presupposed antecedents and premises by them brought; which in the sense they allege them for the reasons above declared, they neither have, nor will confess unto them.  
Where they say, that what the Ministers have said touching a body, that it cannot be in two places at one instant, were it the body of jesus Christ itself, was never written by any of the ancient Fathers, nor proposed before the coming of Peter Martyr, and Theodoret Beza. The Ministers do maintain that it was. And that S. Augustine in his Epistle to Dardanus, saith the same in these terms: According to this form (meaning the corporal form of jesus Christ) we must not think that it is every where. And we must beware least in establishing in him his divinity, we take not from him the verity of his body. And elsewhere he saith: That by reason of the nature and measure of a true body, he is in one place in heaven. The self-same thing saith Therdoret in his second Dialogue, as hath been before alleged. And so doth Vigilius in his fourth book against Eutiches: where he writeth as followeth. If the word and flesh be but of one nature, how cometh it to pass that the flesh is not found every where as the word (of which word it was taken, to constitute one self-same person and Hypostaly) is every where? for when it was on the earth, it was not in heaven: and now that it is in heaven, surely it is not on the earth. And so far off is it that he is there, that we attend jesus Christ to come according to his flesh: whom nevertheless we believe as he is the word, to be here on earth with us.  
By these and other like authorities, often found in the writings of the Fathers, men may know that Peter Martyr and Theodoret Beza are not the first authors of this doctrine, and that it is falsely imputed to them: for as much as they have but drawn, and word by word, copied (as it were) the same, out of the books of the ancient Fathers.  
To that which the Doctors pretend, that the form of arguing which the Ministers have used, affirming some things to be impossible to God, doth not derogate his omnipotency: overthroweth the form of the argument which the Angel speaking to the virgin, useth for confirmation of that which he declared unto her: that is, that nothing is impossible to God. The Ministers do answer, that it is nothing to the purpose, for as much as the question is neither of a thing which containeth in itself any contradiction, nor that is contrary to the truth of God: which be the two matters they have alleged, and yet do allege for the exposition of the omnipotency of God. And touching that which the Doctors do add, that God can change the nature and quality of things, there is no man doubteth the same. But when that is done, it behoveth also to avow, that the things be changed, & that they remain not in their first nature. And the Ministers say, that it is not all one with the thing here proposed: for as much as the Doctors will have a thing to remain in it essence and nature, although the essential parts thereof be changed, & altogether extinct and abolished. Touching the limitation of the power of God towards his creatures, there is none so presumptuous to attempt to limit the same, in whatsoever he will: and which confesseth not, that he may ordain & dispose of all his creatures in general, as it pleaseth him, & as a Potter doth of his earth. And thereunto (say they) ought the authority of jeremy to be referred: as it appeareth very clearly by these Hebrew words. L● gippale Mimmecha col-davar. To wit, nothing shallbe heard to thee o Lord. Concerning the danger which the Doctors pretend may come of the abovesaid answers of the Ministers, they answer, that men of sound and good judgement will never draw thereof any evil consequence, seeing that all this doctrine is true, and doth contain no manner of obscurity. And if any peradventure take harm thereby, it must be imputed to themselves, and their evil understanding; whereby not only some doctrine, but also the word of God itself, may be sometimes perverted and corrupted. To be 
Tit. 1.  short, all things (as saith the Apostle) be clean to those that be clean, and polluted to those that be polluted, and have an evil conscience. And where the Doctors allege that one may take occasion by the doctrine abovesaid, to interpret the scriptures according to his own sense and fantasy, the Ministers say no. And where some one would attempt the same, they say it shall be easy to reject his interpretation, as not answerable to the rules and analogy of faith: as the foresaid doctrine and interpretation of the Ministers is answerable thereunto. Where the Doctors say, that the Ministers do change and alter the scriptures. The Ministers answer, that it is a slander, which can no way be proved against them: neither by their writings, nor by their speeches, nor by any thing they ever said or thought. Concerning what they add, that the scripture saith that the body of jesus Christ is in two places, the Ministers deny it, and do say, that chose the scriptures do establish it in heaven, and nor elsewhere: according as it is written. The heavens 
Act. 3. 21.  must contain him until the time that all things be restored which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. And where they allege that the scripture ought not to be interpreted according to every man's sense and fantasy; the Ministers do confess it, adding that all interpretations ought to be examined, as S. Paul saith: but that such examination must be done by conference of the scriptures. And where the Doctors accuse the Ministers not to have alleged any passages of the scripture for confirmation of the foresaid doctrine, before they produced the ancient Fathers. The Ministers do answer, that it is a false accusation: and that they should well have remembered in the beginning of their discourse, that they alleged to this end, S. Paul. 2. Tim. 2. Where it is said, that God cannot deny himself. And that which is written Hebr. 6. It is impossible that God can lie. Which places, with those they produced out of the ancient Fathers, were not alleged to diminish aught the omnipotency of God: But rather to establish the same; and cut off the way to many impieties and blasphemies: which they would falsely propose and shroud them under pretext of the omnipotency of God, without having regard to his revealed will, whereunto we must refer the Omnipotency.    

The sixth days Dispute on Tuesday, the 16. of july.  
THe Doctor's object, that they have made such an argument, God cannot cause one body to be in two places. God is not therefore Omnipotent. That this consequence is necessary it is most manifest: without other proof, by the law of contradiction. For according to the rule holden in all schools of Philosophy, two contradictions cannot be true: To have power to do all things, and to have no power in certain particular things, be contradictions. For this particular thing, is a part of all. If then the Antecedent be true, of necessity the consequence must be false, according to the law of contradiction: for they two as contradictories cannot be true together. And notwithstanding, albeit that by the knowledge of the terms themselves, a man might judge the consequence to be good: nevertheless, it is plainly known by the deduction of the objection against the answer of the Ministers, that the Doctors have proved the consequence. The reason of the Ministers was thus: God cannot lie: he cannot sin: he cannot cause that things made, be not made. Therefore it either repugneth his nature, or there is repugnancy on the behalf of the creatures: because there is a folded contradiction. Now the Doctors in their objection have said, that there is nothing like in the question proposed: that is to say, whether one body may be in two places. Whereupon they make such an argument, taken from their objection, God can do all things which are not repugnant to his nature, or where there is no repugnancy in the behalf of things created: and that no contradiction is therein implied. But to affirm one body, may be in two places, at one self-same instant, is not a thing repugnant to the nature of God, and on the behalf of the body, implieth no contradiction: God therefore can do it. Or else thus. God cannot do it: It followeth therefore, that God is not Omnipotent. And so is proposed the reason and deduction of the antecedent and consequent. Yea and the proof of the assumption or second proposition: For they have proved there is no contradiction in saying that one body might be in two places; and that it doth not repugn the nature of GOD, whereof the probation hath been made, by example of like things. As God can cause two bodies to be in one place, and other like reasons deducted in the Objection.  
And where the Doctors (say they) preposterously argue from a particular to a general, It seemeth (under correction) they have forgotten the rules of logic. For very certain it is, that this rule hath place in affirming, and not in denying. But chose, when there is some thing affirmed in general, and the default in particular proved, (as say Logicians) Ad negationem particularis, sequitur negatio eius quod universaliter affirmatuum est. Likewise when there is some of a whole thing which hath many parts affirmed: and default is proved in one part, the destruction of the whole followeth. As if one should say: All the body is sound. He that should prove one part of the body diseased, should prove this proposition [All the body is sound] to be false.  
Such is the argument which the Doctors have made (to wit): If God cannot do one particular thing (as to cause one body to be in two places) than he cannot do all things. Or if he can do all things, he can do that also.  
They are aggrieved to be sent back to their Logic. For they regarded no other end, but to make the antecent to be granted: to wit, that God cannot make one body to be in two places. And are very glad, to have understood the resolution of the Ministers upon this Article: that is to say, That God cannot cause, nor will one body to be in two places: for as much as it implieth contradiction. And where the Ministers do say, that the Doctors by their reasons, could not thereof infer the truth of the antecedent: The Doctors confess the same. And thereby do the Ministers also sufficiently perceive, that the reasons they have brought, are nothing worth to the confirmation of the antecedent, which is their resolution. But the Doctors say: that these reasons, albeit they be nought, were to this end nevertheless produced by the Ministers, to prove, that it was impossible to God, to make one body to be in two places.  
Concerning this Article, which beginneth [Touching that which they say that the authorities, etc.] The Doctor's object that the ancient Fathers never thought to make exception of any thing, which is not subject to the power of God. For (as it is manifest) he that saith all, excepteth nothing. Therefore, when the Scripture saith, that God is almighty, it giveth sufficiently to understand, that there is no exception. And to give exception therein, should be to contradict to many places of the word of God, and to blaspheme against his power. But well say the Doctors, that the Fathers have interpreted the Omnipoteucie of God: not to comprehend that which toucheth the perfection of his nature, but that only which concerneth the Creatures: So that there were not on their part too apparent contradiction, and repugnancy.  
Now the present question importeth not, that there is contradiction for a body to be a body, and in divers places at one self-same instant. For concerning the essence of bodies, in speaking of a body having it dimensions, as speak the Philosophers, De praedicamento quantitatis: Certain it is, that the dimensions are of the essence of a body; but to be circumscript and enclosed in a place, that is an accident. Which thing is showed by Philosophy itself: For the most high heaven, according to all, is a body, and nevertheless is it not in place according to it all. Therefore is it not an essential thing, for a body to be enclosed in one place.  
And to speak of the present matter, the Ministers should be very much troubled to prove, that the body of jesus Christ is in one place in heaven: seeing it is written in the 4. Chapter to the Ephesians, he is mounted above all the heavens: out of which, there is no place, as they speak of places, in regard of bodies, according to nature. And were it so, that it should be essential to a body, to be in one place (according to the rule which the Ministers deliver) an other blasphemy would follow against the Omniporencie of God, that God could not make a body, and place the same above all heavens. And to speak more universally, that God could not make a body without place, and roomth equal to it greatness.  
Touching the Allegations proposed by the Ministers, of certain ancient Authors, The Doctors do object, that the said Allegations are against themselves: For as much as to be enclosed in a place, doth not depend of the essence of a body, nor of it measures: as appeareth by the authorities produced, wherein there is mention made of Angels, which have not bodies. It is not therefore an essential reason for the dimensions of a body to be contained in a place. And all this furniture of authorities maketh nothing to the purpose: For they tend but to show, that the natural propriety of creatures, is different from the divine nature, as S. Basil saith expressly in the place by the Ministers alleged. And S. Ambrose in his first book of the holy Ghost, Cap. 7. where the same Authors do declare, that God by his nature may be every where: and the creatures by their natures, not so. But the said Authors pretend not, that God by his Omnipotency cannot make one body to be in divers places: For the same Authors (or their like) when they come to speak of the power of God in the holy Sacrament, they affirm, that the body of jesus Christ is in heaven, and in the holy Sacrament. And affirm, that the Angels and spirits of the blessed, may by the same power, be in many places. As the Doctors will show in their resolution.  
Where the Ministers say, that a body must be circumscript without place, according to the essential propriety: that hath been formerly showed to be false. And the Ministers do confound the name of body: which sometimes doth signify substance, sometimes quantity, having it dimensions, breadth, length, and deepness: which dimensions be essential in a body, taking the body for a kind of quantity: and not in a substantial body: for it is an accident. Now certain it is, that God can separate the accidents from a body, and make a substance without accidents: otherwise there would follow an other blasphemy: that God could not separate the accident, from a subject and substance. And where the Ministers say, that a stone by a violent moving, may be cast on high, that is no answer to the question. For the Doctors do demand (for as much as it is essential and natural to a massy and terrestrial body, in regard of the massiness and weight thereof tending downward) whether God by his only power, contrary to the natural propriety of a massy and weighty body, cannot hold and hang it up on high?  
And as touching the evasion which the Ministers make from a very strong and mighty argument against their doctrine, that two bodies may be in one place, by the proof that is made, taken from the scripture, (not only to prove that God can cause two bodies to be in one place, but even that he hath done it) serveth nothing to cover their error, in saying that it is not said in S. john, that our Lord did enter by 
joh. 20. 19  the shut doors: but that he was found standing in the midst of them: where the said Ministers have concealed and omitted this verb venit: and do stay only upon the verb stetit. For the express text in S. john. cap. 21. 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. They demand of them, for as much as the scripture saith, that he came thither, the doors being shut, and that he was found in the midst of them: whether he were found in the midst of them, and in the said place, without entering thereinto: or whether he there entered, for as much as the text saith; that the doors were shut when he came; How they will prove by the scripture that he entered, if not by the shut doors? For a much greater miracle should it be, to be found in the midst of his Disciples, without being entered into the place where they were. Too light is that shift, to say it is not written that he entered. For S. Augustine in his book De agone Christiano, cap. 24. saith thus. Nec nos moveat quod clausis hostijs subitò eum apparuisse Dicipulis scriptum est: ut propterea negemus illud fuisse corpus humanum, quia contra naturam huius corporis videmus illudper clausa hostia 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. Let it not move us, because it is written, that the doors being shut, he suddenly appeared to his Disciples; that we therefore deny that body to have been human, because we see it against the nature of this body, to enter by the closed doors. For to God are all things possible. For to walk also upon the waters, is manifestly against the nature of this body: And yet the Lord himself not only walked before his passion, but also caused Peter to walk.  
Where it appeareth, that S. Augustine saith plainly, that our Lord did enter by the shut doors: and referreth all to the omnipotency of God.  
Moreover, the text of S. Luke, joined with that of Saint john, doth show that he entered through the doors. For no reasonable occasion had the Apostles had, to think it was a spirit, and not a body, seing him before them in the likeness of a man: but for that he was entered otherwise then a true body, and very man could enter. That is, for that he was entered by the closed doors: which thing a true man, and a true body in no wise can do. To say that the doors were opened, and afterwards shut again by miracle, or otherwise, should nothing avail. For so may a true man, and a true body be there: and therefore no cause can a man have to think it a spirit, or vain vision.  
The Doctors say moreover, that all the ancient heretics and Christians, did commonly agree, that jesus Christ passed through: but such was their difference, as now it is between the Ministers & Doctors. The ancient heretics said, that jesus Christ after his resurrection, had not a true body, because he did works contrary to the nature of a body, which implied contradiction to a natural body: to wit, that at one self instant, he was in one self-same place with an other body: as when he passed through the doors. The ancient Catholic Christians answered, that such indeed was the nature of a body, that it could not pass through the doors: through the body of the virgin in his birth, without fracture: through the stone of the Sepulchre in it resurrection: but nevertheless, that two bodies should be together, by the omnipotency of God, implied no contradiction: for as much as it so happened in the three cases done and recited.  
The first that speaketh thereof, is justine Martyr, in the 117. question against the Gentiles: where he saith. If a thick body be hindered to pass through the doors, how did our Lord after his resurrection enter the shut doors? And if it be so, why was the stone removed by the Angel from off the Sepulchre, to the end his body might rise again? He answereth thus. That even as our Lord without changing his body into a spirit, walked upon the sea▪ but by his divine power he made the sea solid to walk upon; not only for his own body, but for that of S. Peter. So by his divine power he came forth of the sepulchre, the stone remaining thereupon, and entered to his Disciples, the doors being shut. Hereby we understand, that the things which proceed of divers virtues, aught to have the same faith. And we must know, that the things which surpass nature, when they are wrought in it by divine power, ought not to be measured according to the reason & propriety of nature. For this cause, our Lord seeing his Disciples troubled at such an entry, did propose unto them the parts of his body, and the places and marks of his wounds, to be touched, to show he was not entered by change of his body into a spirit: but with his body composed of it dimensions and thickness: and by his divine almightiness, which made all things that surpass the strength of nature.  
Saint Hillary in his third book of the Trinity: But thou (saith he) which will't search into the things insearchable, and wil● be judge of the secrets of God▪ and his power: I ask counsel of thee, give only a reason and solution of this fact, to me that 〈◊〉 and do simply believe in God concerning all things, even as he hath said and pronounced them? I understand that the Lord was often present after his resurrection to he seen and known of them which believed him not. The self-same Lord, applying himself to the weakness of out understanding, and to satisfy the doubts of the 〈◊〉 doth show a secret and a work of his almightiness▪ Expound to me the●, whosoever thou art, which wilt beeade archer of the omnipotency of God, the reason of this dee●●t The Disciples being shut up and withdrawn together in secret, the Lord is proposed to Thomas, to confirm his faith, according to the conditions he desired: to wit, that he might touch his body, and prove his wounds, And for this cau●ent behoved him to bring the true body with him, wherein he had received such wounds. I demand then, for as much as he was corporal, by what part of the house entered he in? For I see that the Evangelist diligently expresseth, that jesus came when the doors were shut, and was found in the midst of his Disciples: to wit, whether he pierced the thick walls, and the great lets of timber between both? Certain it is, that without fiction or guile he there entered. Let thy conceit follow and consider his entry, and thy understanding enter into the house shut within. All thou seest, is whole and fast locked; and yet is l●ee found in the midst of his Disciples: but it is, because all things by his almightiness are open to him. Thou slaunderest things invisible. I ask thee again the reason of this thing there visible? Nothing of the wall or solid doors gave back, or made way. chose I see that wood and stones by their nature cannot receive such an entry.  
The body of our Lord was not quite vanished, to be eftsoons taken and made of nothing. Whence then cometh it, that he is found in the midst of them without opening? Sense and speech do herein fail, and the truth of the deed, is beyond human reason. As than we are abused, concerning the birth of the son of God, we lie also concerning such an entry. The deed is false say we, it so happened not, because we cannot understand the reason thereof: and for that our sense and iudgemenr faileth, we say there is no such deed. But the faith and belief of the deed, doth convince our lying. The Lord (the doors being shut) is found in the midst of the Apostles, and the son of God is borne of his Father. Deny not that he thus entered, because by the infirmity of thy spirit, thou canst not comprehend such an entry.  
I could amplify like deeds in all the creatures: but the Lord hath well provided for himself, to have contained us in necessity and modesty, by the nature of our bodies. Sufficiently we show, that we would make ourselves an other God, had we power so to do. For as much as we cannot by the boldness of our wicked will, ruinated the nature of truth, we gainsay it at least, and contend with the word of God.  
S. Ambrose in his tenth book upon S. Luke, cap. 24. saith, through the doors. S. Chrysostome upon S. john, proveth by such one ntrie, that jesus Christ was so borne of the Virgin, that she remained a Virgin in her childbirth, and after, without any manner of fraction. And concludeth, that the one and the other deed proceedeth from the omnipotency of God. The said Chrysostome in his second Homily upon the Apostles Creed, saith these words: How is it that jesus Christ entered the closed doors? etc. because such things are above our reach, and we cannot render a reason of that miracle, we hold it by faith.  
S. Jerome in his first book against jovinian, and in the Epistle to Pamachiuns, against the errors of john of jerusalem, who said, that jesus after his resurrection, had not a true body, because it was impossible that a true body should pass through the doors: and that it should be in one self-same place with an other body) answereth: It hindereth not, but that the nature of the body remaineth, for as much as this act proceedeth from the omnipotency of God. And thus saith: Tell me, thou subtle disputer, which is greater, to hang the huge greatness of the earth upon nothing, and to balance it above the brickleness of the waters: or for God to pass through a shut door, & a creature to obey his Creator? To that which is the greater thou easily agreest, and slaunderest that which is lesser. S. Augustine in his 13. Epistle, for an example of the omnipotency of God, reciteth also this deed: to show that our Lord was borne of the Virgin without any rupture of her body: and to declare that the omnipotency of God is greater than we can comprehend. Againct the Valentinians and others, which denied the true substance of the body of jesus Christ, for that contrary to the nature of a body, he so passed. S. Augustine in his book called De agone Christiano, allegeth the same deed. Amphilochius and Theodoret in the 2. Dialogue, disputing of this deed against Eutiches, who said also, that after the resurrection, the humanity of jesus Christ was changed into his divinity: because, contrary to the nature of a body, he so passed through the shut doors, do answer as the others. That such an effect importeth not contradiction to the nature of a body: for as much as it proceeded of the omnipotency of God, and not of the nature of the body. Cirell in his 12. book upon S. john, reprehendeth those also which will measure the miracles and works of God according to their own judgement, and the propriety of creatures: and very sharply speaketh against them. S. Augustine in his first book against julian, cap. 2. reciteth, That jovinian was an heretic, because he said, that there was fraction in the virgin in her childbirth. And so said he, for fear of falling into the heresy of the Manachees, who thought that jesus Christ had not a true body, because he was borne without fraction of his mother. To avoid then this heresy, he rather denied that the ●rgin remained a Virgin. The like heresy is imputed to Origen, and some also allege that the Fathers (as Tertullian) had such an opinion. By these testimonies do the Doctors conclude, that two bodies to pierce themselves, and be in one self-same place, by divine power doth not imply any contradiction. Which places were they well considered, they would not receive a new interpretation against the very express word of God: seeing the text without contradiction doth bear that jesus Christ came to his Disciples, the doors being shut.  

The 4. book. cap. 17. sect. 39  How Calvin in his Institution hath deptaved the sense of that place of S. john, with other like, may plainly appear, where he saith thus. That which they eftsoons allege, that jesus Christ came out of the Sepulchre without opening the same, and that he entered in to his Disciples the doors of the chamber being shut, is of no value, further to maintain their error. For as the water served jesus Christ for a firm pavement, to walk upon the lake: so also ought it not seem strange, if the hardness of the stone were softened to give him passage. And Beza in his second Dialogue against Heshusius saith, that the stone was vanished, to the end that our Lord might pass in his resurrection: and God did afterwards reform it. It followeth in the text of Calvin: As also to enter into a chamber the doors shut, is not to say that he pierced the wood, but only that he made an opening by his divine power: so that by a miraculous fashion, he was found in the midst of his Disciples, although the doors were were shut. Moreover he saith: That which they bring of S. Luke: to wit, that he vanished suddenly from his Disciples which went to Emaus, serveth nought for them, and maketh for our advantage. For he was not made invisible by taking away the sight of his body: but he only vanished. As also witnesseth the same Evangelist: In walking he was not transfigured nor disguised, to be made invisible, but their eyes were holden. Such ridiculous and frivolous expositions are brought by Calvin and his like, to avoid confessing, that God can make one body to be in divers places.  
And nevertheless, the proper text of the scripture doth witness that two bodies may be by the power of God, in one self-same place. As also it witnesseth that a body having colour, and before visible, by the power of God, was made invisible, without any let to their sight that could see. As S. Luke doth confirm, saying: Aphantos Egeneto Ap'auton, invisibilis factus est ab ipsis. Although there was no defect on the behalf of the Disciples. For it is said before, that their eyes were opened, that they might know him: and hereupon agreeth all antiquity. another act do the Doctors add, for confirmation of the penitration of dimensions. Which is, that our Lord ascended into the heavens, which he neither divided, nor clave asunder. Therefore of necessity did he pierce them: as the scripture itself in proper terms importeth.  
The Doctors show also to the said Ministers, that they cannot produce one only renowned Father, having expounded these places, from whom they might learn their so divers interpretations. And that which they bring of the Acts of the Apostles, where mention is made, that S. Peter came forth of prison, nought serveth to colour their exposition. In which text, there is nothing spoken of the opening of the prison doors. And it is not said (as in S. john) that the doors of the prison being shut, S. Peter came forth: but that the Angel came thither, when the keepers before the door kept the prison. Where if they say, that the doors were opened to S. Peter, that agreeth not with the saying of Saint john, that the doors were shut when as our Lord entered. The like reason brought by the Ministers out of the fifth of the Acts of the Apostles, and for the same cause, is as unprofitable for this purpose, as the former.  
And to show clearly and evidently, that God (contrary to the natural propriety of a body) can make a great and thick body to pass in a space and place unequal to it greatness, largeness, and thickness. The Doctors cited what our Lord saith in the 19 of S. Matthew: It is easier for a Cable to go through the eye of a needle, then for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.  
Two things have the Ministers answered unto: the one, that in the translation we must not use Cable, but rather Camel: although nevertheless their own French Bible of Anthony Rebulls impression, which they have brought, containeth the translation of this word Cable. And Calvin himself likewise in his Harmony of the four Evangelists, saith that to be better. But here in appeareth to be truth what Tertullian against the Valentinians; and before him, Ireneus in his first book and 14. Chapter against the Valentinians do say: That they which separate themselves from us to go to an other school, do always invent some new thing, that the disciples may be found more cunning than their Masters. But well, this word [Camel] being yielded unto them, (as the Doctors doubt not to have been expounded by Saint Hillary, S. jerom, and others) the reason thereof is yet more strong. For it is yet more repugnant that a crooked, gross, and great Camel (than a Cable) should enter through the eye of a needle. The other reason given by the Ministers is, that God cannot make a Camel or Cable to enter through the eye of a needle: which is notwithstanding, against the pure word of jesus Christ, who saith not, it is is impossible to God, but rather easy to do that, and by comparison, more easy unto God, then to make a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven: which nevertheless is said by our Lord to be possible: not unto men, but unto God: to whom there is nothing unpossible. Whereupon the Doctors say thus, If God can do that which is more difficult, he can do that which is more easy. Now by the text of the scripture, it is said that God can make a rich man enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is the more difficult; he can therefore make a Camel (or Cable) to enter through the eye of a needle, which is more easy.  
The answers of the Ministers here above confuted, tend to such absurdities and blasphemies, that jesus Christ by his almightiness, could not enter through the closed doors: that he could not come forth of the belly of his mother, through her body without fraction: that he could not make a visible body, to be invisible: that a gross and great body might be in a place unequal to it: that he could not by his divine power make penetration of dimensions: and that he could not make by the same divine power, one body to be in two places (for it is like reason, of the last article and of the others) albeit such things are declared in the scriptures, not only to be possible, but even the most part of them to have been done. And the Doctors do wonder how the Ministers dare deny such things, seeing themselves must necessarily confess (if their doctrine of the Supper be true) that the body of jesus Christ is in divers places: which they prove thus. The faithful really receive in their souls the substance of the body and blood of jesus Christ, by the working of the holy Ghost, and not the bread and the wine only: or else (as saith Calvin in the 4 book, 17. Chapter, and 11. section of his Institution) the effect and virtue of the same Sacrament.  
Now the Doctors conclude thus. It is impossible for a man to receive into him the substance of the body of jesus Christ, but the body of jesus Christ is in him. But all the faithful in the Supper do receive the same into their souls, therefore must the body of jesus Christ be in them: and by consequent in divers places: to wit, in all places where their Supper is made: and likewise in heaven. They say further, that Calvin in his Institution, the fourtth book, 17. Chapter, and 24. sect. saith: That in the Supper, the power of God is required: to the end that the flesh of jesus Christ may pierce even unto us: and that human nature cannot comprehend the same. But it behoveth that the power of God do work therein. And by this mean, Calvin doth admit by the power of God, the flesh of jesus Christ in many places: to wit, in heaven, and in us, into whom it must pierce by the power of God. And in the tenth number he saith: That the truth signified, and represented by the signs, must be represented and exhibited in the same place where the signs be. Which he proveth by reason in many places: to wit, that the signs must no more be void, than the Dove was void of the holy Ghost. But as the essence and substance of the holy Ghost was conjoined and present with the Dove: so the flesh and blood of our Lord, before there be a true Sacrament, must be conjoined and united with the signs. The passages are against Heshusius, and in his book of the Supper: and upon the first of the 11. Chapter to the Corinthians. And although the Ministers will answer: the Doctors beseech them well to weigh and consider the text of Calvin, and of the reason he giveth of the holy Ghost. They do object further, that the Ministers in their Supper do attribute more to the human power, then to the omnipotency of God: yea they do more than God can do: which is, that they brag to do a thing by their faith, which implieth contradiction: saying in their confession of faith exhibited to the Bishops in the congregation at Poissy; That faith maketh things absent, to be present, in one self-same instant and place. That is to say, in the souls of the faithful, when they celebrate their Supper: which is as much to say, as faith maketh things not present, present at one self-same instant and place. So that to every faithful in the Supper, coming worthily thereunto, is the body of jesus Christ there present by the power of faith. And nevertheless it is not there present; for they say so: and that it is only in heaven. Wherein appeareth that there is implication of contradiction: to wit, present, & not really present. And the small starting hole they told us of, that the body is above corporally, and spiritually in the Supper in the hearts of the faithful, can serve for nothing. For the spirituality cannot take away the substance of the thing: and their faith cannot make a body, not to be a body: and that a body have not it dimensions, as heretofore they have said.  
Therefore howsoever they confess, that the faithful in the Supper receive into their souls the substance of the body of jesus Christ, will they or nill they, must they necessarily confess, that either their faith is more mighty than the infinite virtue and power of God: or else that God can make his body to be locally in heaven; and Sacramentally (really nevertheless and substantially) in the Sacrament of the Altar. Thus would the Doctors desire to hear the Ministers upon this point: and then afterwards to put their answer in writing. And the Ministers shall never be able to show by the word of God, that their faith can make at one instant, and one self-same place, a thing to be present, and not present. And one thing present, and not present by faith: is as much to say, as that the body of jesus Christ is in, and not in a faithful person. And no Coduit pipe of the power of the holy Ghost should there also be needful, to convey the flesh of jesus Christ hither unto us from heaven, were not the said flesh but in heaven, and notwithstanding came unto us.  
And as touching the points objected by the Doctors, that Peter Martyr and Theodoret Beza were the first which said, that God could not make one body to be in two places: and the Ministers have willed to confirm by antiquity this new doctrine, which they cannot name otherwise then blasphemy. The Doctors say, they have often prayed the Ministers (that time might be spared, things better cleared) to speak nothing from the purpose. Notwithstanding they bring forthwith the testimonies of Fathers, to show that a body by nature is circumscript, and cannot be naturally in many places: but those Authors say not that God cannot do it. But S. Augustine, and others, in the places cited by the Doctors, touching the article of the closed doors, do rather witness, that two bodies by the power of God, may occupy one self-same place, which is of like difficulty. And when they shall come to the proof of the real presence of the body and blood of jesus Christ, they will evidently show, that wholly all the ancient Fathers which have spoken of that Sacrament, have not only confessed that he could make his body to be above in heaven, and here below in the Sacrament: but all with one accord, have declared that they believe according to the word of jesus Christ, that he is in heaven, and here in the Sacrament. The Doctors demand of the Ministers, whether they have any, that before Peter Martyr and Theodor Beza, denied such power of God. And let them no more set forth the authorities of the Fathers, to prove that one body is not naturally in two places. The Doctors do not marvel if the Ministers do magnify Peter Martyr, from whom they have taken all the places they have brought.  
Concerning the Article which beginneth (Touching that which the Doctors pretend, that the form etc.) The Doctors say, that this form is common, as often as men will debate of the power of God. And they cannot be better guided to prove it, then to follow the words of the Angel: That there is nothing impossible to God. From the which, when a man will except something, he will always bring, what the Ministers do bring: that there is some repugnancy of things, whereof ensueth some implication of contradiction. As did the old heretics against the flesh of jesus Christ; who brought always some impossibility according to nature. And as much did they against the Article of the Resurrection, and incarnation: as though there had been contradiction, that God should be man, and man should be God. And it shall be always easy for an evil spirit, to forge some contradiction in his conceit, according to the proprieties of nature. And concerning the Article beginning (As touching that which the Doctors do add, that God can change, etc.) The Doctors say, that the Ministers have not well conceived their meaning: for they take for an absurd thing, that a substance remaining affected of his qualities, can by the power of God have effects, contrary to his qualities. As if God by his omnipotency could not make the fire, having his natural heat, to cool, in stead of burning, which none of sound and Christian judgement will deny.  
Concerning the Article beginning (Touching the limitation of the power, etc.) The Doctors say; that it seemeth by the Ministers answer, that the power of God is limited according to his will: as much to say, as God cannot do but what he will: which is notoriously false. For the Hebrew alleged, the Ministers (it seemeth) are willing to show they are skilful therein. For such summoning is not to the purpose, when as they stay chiefly upon the word Davar: which is as much to say, as one thing. But it ought not to be understood of a thing done: they said, to be done. And such is the sense of the place ad verbum. Shall there be any thing hidden from me? And because hard things are hidden, & things impossible also are yet more hidden; Behold why they have translated, Is there any thing hard (or impossible) to me▪ Which holy Pagninus, and other Interpreters of the Hebrew tongue, do well declare, that the verb [Pala] signifieth to hide. The Doctors had no desire to answer hereunto, but to make it be understood that an Hebrew word doth not appaule them. Concerning the article beginning, Touching the danger, etc. The Doctors say, that they are words superfluous; and whatsoever the Ministers can bring, the same may other use, and retort against the said Ministers. And where they say it is a slander, in that they object unto them, that they corrupt the scripture, the Doctors say, that the Ministers cannot deny but they change the sense & gloze the words of the Supper. This is my body. This is my blood. And with like authority, as they (under pretence of I know not what reasons) may each one pretend to corrupt the other scriptures, & allege some impossibilities, & contradictions of nature. As touching the article beginning, To that which they add, that the scripture saith, that the body etc. The Doctors do say, that in time and place they will show what they have objected, when as they shall treat more amply of the Sacrament of the Altar.  
Where the Doctors have objected that the Ministers do not ground their affirmation; to wit, that God cannot make one body to be in two places, upon the express testimony of the scripture: or can thereof deduct the same. The Ministers for all places have only brought but these: that God cannot lie: God cannot deny himself. But the Doctors say that this consequence is nought worth. God cannot lie: God cannot therefore make one body to be in two places: which nevertheless the Ministers should have made such had the places produced served to that purpose. joined, that when it is said God cannot lie, as the Ministers themselves have cited, to be able to lie: is not power, but infirmity. So that according to the true sense, it was meet so to say; God is not weak that he can lie. Therefore God cannot make one body to be in two places: which consequence should be ridiculous.  
And where the Ministers have brought certain authorities of the ancient Fathers, to prove there is diversity between the creatures, and Creator: and that the Creator by nature is every where, and naturally the creatures be not in divers places: the Doctors reverently embrace the authority of the holy Fathers: But to produce the said places for confirmation of a thing so well known, and not doubted of, their travel was now needless. But the Doctors yet attend one sole place of the scripture; or one sole testimony of the ancient Fathers, which saith: That God cannot make one body to be in divers places. The Doctors pray the Ministers, that with like reverence, they receive the ancient Fathers: chiefly touching the interpretation of holy scriptures: whose exposition (as are the places above cited) shallbe agreed upon between them and the Ministers.  
Upon request made to the Lord Nevers on the behalf of the Ministers, that he would please to assign a day for answer, particularly to all and every article and slanders here above proposed by the Doctors in their objection: The said Lord ordained, that the Ministers should carry with them that evening, one of the Copies of the Doctor's objections against them; to be ready the next morrow by noon, to answer thereunto: which the Doctors agreed unto. And made likewise request to the said Lord of Nevers, to have leave (if it so seemed them good) to reply to the answers that the Ministers should make. And therewith to deliver their resolution, touching this article of the omnipotency of God. To th' end to proceed, and examine the real truth of the body of jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar. Whereunto the Ministers added: that they also for their parts, would deliver a brief resolution of all that which shall be deduced by them.  
The company assembled on the morrow being Wednesday, the 17. of july, My Lord of Nevers, considering that the Doctors the day before had employed all the time, without any left for the Ministers to make present answer to them: supposed no less time would be needful for the Ministers to answerefully, which had been a thing tedious and irksome. For this cause, and others by him declared: he ordained, they should thenceforth speak by writing. And that the Ministers should carry with them the Copy which was given them, to make answer thereunto: and to send it unto him, signed by them, and two Notaries. Of which he would cause a Copy to be written by his Secretary, to give it to the Doctors, reserving the Original to himself. And in like sort would he keep for the Ministers the Copy of that which the Doctors should send him. Whereunto both parts submitting themselves, they disputed afterwards by writing as followeth.  

The Answer of the Ministers to the Objections of the Doctors, given on Tuesday the 16. of july, 1566.  
THe Ministers deny, that the consequence proposed by the Doctors, (to wit: God cannot make one body to be in two places at one self-same instant. Therefore ●e is not omnipotent) is necessary: For as much as the omnipotency of God ought not to be measured, but by the things only, which be agreeable to his will, and are not derogate, either to his nature, or to his wisdom, or to his truth, or to the order he established in the world. Unto which, that directly repugneth, which the Doctors set forth: that one self same body, at one self-same instant, may be in divers places. For it would follow, that a body should be a body, without being limited: And by consequence, that it should be, and not be, altogether. For the measures (as to be long, large, thick, and to be bounded & limited with certain bounds) are so essential to a body, that without that, it is no more a body. And so far of is it, that the Ministers in so saying, do diminish the omnipotency of God: that chose they establish the same; and will not attribute to him any mutability, and change in his counsel: nor any contradiction in his will, for fear to make him lie: which by the scripture is impossible to him.  
And where the Doctors allege from the Fathers, that they have not denied the omnipotency of God, The Ministers have heretofore showed, that they have: and in what case it may happen. Tertullian in his book written against Praxeas, speaking of this matter, saith as followeth: Surely nothing is hard unto God. But if without judgement we will use this sentence, and interpret it according to our foolish fantasy, we may feign all things to be of God: and say, that he hath done them: because he can do them. Now must it not be believed, because he can do all things, that therefore he hath done, what he hath not done: but inquired whether he hath done it? And finally concludeth, that the power of God is his will: and his inability, likewise his unwillingness. The Doctors then, to show that he can do it, should declare that God hath willed to make a body, which at one self-same instant hath been in divers places. And a marvelous thing it is, that they impute to the Ministers, that they derogate from the omnipotency of God, when as they do except from the same, what is contrary to his will: seeing they themselves do confess it, and except the same things. And that there is no other difference between than & the Ministers, but that they say, that God maketh one body to be in divers places, at one self instant: because he can do it. And the Ministers say, that he doth it not, and cannot do it: because he will not do it. For as much (as is said according to Tertullian) the power of god is his wil  
Touching the reason that the Doctors do allege in Phisosophie, to prove, that a body, for being a body, doth not therefore leave to be in divers places: The Ministers say, they suppose a falsehood. To wit, that quantity is accidental, and not essential to a body. For that (to wit, that a body is measured, bounded and circumscript) is in such sort of it essence, that without that, it is no more a body. As S. Augustine him self, speaking of the glorified body of jesus Christ, saith: That if space be taken away from a body, there is no more place where it might be: and by consequence, being no part, is no more at all. The reaso of Philosophy they propose, touching the first heaven; as, that it is not in any place: The Ministers do deny it: for to speak according to the language of the scripture, it must be confessed that there is place e●en 
joh. 14.  above the heavens. As jesus Christ said unto his Disciples; I go to prepare a place for you. And in the same place; In my Father's house there are many mansions. And else where: 
joh. 12. 26.  Where I am (taking the present time for the future) there shall my servants be In the which sentence must be observed, that there be adverbs of place. And S. Augustine writing to Dardanus, expressly saith: That it behoveth that the body of jesus Christ be in some place in heaven, because it is a true body. Moreover, in numbering of the errors sometimes condemned by the faculty of Paris, it is expressly said: That the heaven by them called Empyreum, is the place of Angels, of blessed spirits, and glorified human bodies. Where the Doctors pretend, that of the doctrine (which the Ministers maintain, that a body cannot be without place, nor in many places at one instant) may be inferred, that they blaspheme the omnipotency of God. The Ministers chose say, that the Doctors blaspheme his Majesty, and diminish the same, in attributing to the creature that which appertaineth to him alone: to wit, to be uncircumscript. As it appeareth by that which Didimus saith in his book of the holy Ghost: where he proveth, that the holy Ghost is God, & not a creature, because he is incircumscript: and that all creatures necessarily be circumscript, and limited. As much thereof also say S. Basil, and Vigilius, and the Mr. of the sentences in his first book. Where they confess, that the Angels and blessed spirits be circumscript, although they be not corporal. This reason is against themselves, and proper to prove what the Ministers have here above maintained of bodies: to wit, that it cannot be but that they be circumscript in some place. For by an argument from the less to the more: If the Angels which want dimension and measure, (by their own confession) in as much as they be creatures, be necessarily circumscript: by a more strong reason, the bodies of men, which be creatures, and measured, shall be so likewise.  
And where they add, that the ancient Fathers have not said, that one body by the power of God could not be in divers places: That is contrary to the saying of S. Augustine, in his 30. tract upon S. john, which is recited De consec: distinct▪ 2. C. Prima quidem. Where, speaking of the body of jesus Christ, he saith: namely; It behoveth, that the body of our Lord, wherein he rose again, be in one place: teaching thereby, that at one self-same time, it cannot be in divers places. And touching the reason they add, taken from the Sacrament, to prove their assertion: the Ministers say, that the fathers never understood, nor said, that the body of jesus Christ was in heaven, and in the Sacrament, in one self same sort & manner: nor do they teach, that he was otherwise then Sacramentally in the Sacrament.  
And whereas in their resolution they pretend to prove, that the Angels may at one self instant be in divers places, when the Ministers shall have understood their reasons, than they will answer thereunto. That which they say of a body, it being despoiled of it dimensions, ceaseth not to be a body notwithstanding: is a very absurd thing. For did it happen, that a corporal substance were wholly despoiled of it dimensions, it should no more be a body, but an incorporeal substance: & of like nature as the Angels & spirits. And although God by his power can separate the dimensions of a substance, without corrupting it: yet can it not be, that they be separated from a body, without the corruption of the same. Because the quantity & dimensions are accidents of the substance, but not of the body: which cannot subsist without them, in as much as they be of it proper essence.  
Whereas the Doctors say afterwards in their objection, that the weight in a body, is a thing essential. The Ministers do deny it. And the reason is, that were it of the essence of a body, and the same wanting, the body should cease to be: Nevertheless we see, that the glorified body of jesus Christ, (whereunto the bodies of all the elect shall be like after the resurrection) doth not leave to be & subsist, although it be now exempted from all weight.  
And as touching their alleged very strong and mighty argument: That if two bodies may be in one self place together, one body, at one instant, may be also in divers places. The Ministers not granting the antecedent (under correction) say, that the consequence is not good: and that the argument is very weak. Adding thereto, that the Doctors have nor proved, and never can prove by the scriptures, nor by any authority of the ancient Fathers, nor by any sufficient reason, that which they propose in their antecedent, or the consequent which they infer thereof to be true.  
Whereas the Doctors to prove that two bodies may be together in one self place, allege out of the scripture, that jesus Christ entered into the house where his Disciples were, the doors being shut: The Ministers do answer: that it is not written, that he entered through the closed doors, but only the doors being shut: which the ancient Interpreter hath well given to understand, expounding in one of the places of S. john, (where mention is made of that above said) Cuum fores essent clausae. Then when the doors were shut, jesus came, etc. Nevertheless the Ministers say, they verily believe, and are assured, of that which the scripture doth clearly say, to wit, that the doors being shut, he came and stood in the midst of his Disciples. But they cannot certainly define, nor determine, which way he entered: whether it were through the walls, or doors of wood; which Hillary himself maketh doubt of in that place of his writings, alleged by the Doctors. Howsoever it be, the Ministers do say: that in entering, he miraculously made way. And that a body (be it the wood or wall) did yield and give place to the body of jesus Christ entering: or that an opening was made unto him by the Angel, which opened and afterward shut again the doors in a moment; as before hath b●ne said. And that howsoever it was done, two bodies were never found in one self same place together.  
Touching that they allege out of S. Augustine, in his book de agone Christiano, that jesus Christ entered through the doors: The Ministers deny not, that he entered through the doors: but that two bodies only were never in one self same place together. But if jesus Christ entered through the doors, that the doors at his entire gave him place, as is said.  
For that which the Doctors allege touching the Apostles suspicion, that it was a vain vision, it nought appertaineth to the present matter; nor that also that they marveled at the manner of his entry, which was miraculous: as they ever confessed.  
And touching that which they add afterwards, in the opinion held by the old heretics, of the body of jesus Christ, that it was not a true body: because it did things above nature. The Ministers do show them, that they little think what occasion and foundation of their error, the ancient Fathers had presented unto them, had they confessed what the Doctors have set forth, and do obstinately defend of the body of jesus Christ: that it doth things, not only above nature, but also contrary to nature: yea even contrary to the will and ordinance of God. And there is no doubt, but such an opinion should be a great proof for Martion and other heretics, which have denied the true humanity of jesus Christ: if they should confess by the Doctor's example, that the body of jesus Christ (contrary to the truth, nature, and essence of a body) may be, at one self-same time in divers places: or in one self same place with an other body.  
To that they allege of justin Martyr: The Ministers do answer, that the book by them alleged, is falsely attributed to him. For it there maketh mention of Origen (to wit in the the 82. question) although that Origen was more than 100 years after him. And touching the opening of the Sepulchre, whereof there is mention made in the place by them produced, They answer, that the Evangelist reciteth clearly, that there was a great Earthquake, when jesus Christ rose again; and that the Angel did roll away the stone, which closed the Sepulchre. Whereunto agreeth the saying of Leo, the first Bishop of Rome, writing to the Bishops of Palestine, where he saith: That jesus Christ rose again, the stone which covered the Sepulchre being rolled away.  
Touching the place alleged by the Doctors, out of the writings of S. Hillary; one word there is, shall serve them for an answer. To wit, that this holy Doctor expressly saith: that jesus Christ (to whom all things are open (as the Doctors have expounded the said sentence) or (as the Ministers expound it, that he maketh way every where, by his divine power) entered, the doors being shut. For thereby also he giveth to understand, that to enter into the house where his Disciples were, he made himself way & opening. And by his writing can nought else be concluded, but that his entry was miraculous. Concerning that which the Doctors allege of S. Ambrose, upon S. Luke: No more can they infer thereof, then S. Hillary hath said. And they cannot conclude, neither of the one nor the other, but that jesus Christ entered within the house, by a divine and miraculous power.  
For that which they allege of S. john Chrisostome, touching the virgin, that jesus Christ came forth of her womb, her virginity & integrity no way thereby corrupted nor defiled: yea & that she did remain a virgin before & after her child birth: The Ministers do believe, confess, and teach the same. And yield a reason thereof by the scripture: for as much as she never had known man. But if thence they will infer, that in the birth of jesus Christ, Nula intercesserit apertio uteri: The womb was not opened. The Ministers do say: that such a conclusion▪ should be against the express text of the scripture; and of that said in S. Luke to that purpose: Omne masculinum ad aperiens vuluam, etc. Every male that first openeth the womb, etc. joined thereunto, that many ancient authors have written & approved it. as Origen upon S. Luke: Tertullian de carne Christi: S. jerom in his first Tome, Ad Eustochium. Where in express terms he saith: that jesus Christ came bloody forth of the virgin's belly. S. Ambrose upon S. Luke. Whereby it may appear, that the virgin was truly a virgin, and truly a mother.  
To the authority which they bring of S. Jerome, The Ministers allege no other thing for answer, then that which himself hath said. To wit: That when jesus Christ came where his Disciples were, the creature obeyed his Creator.  
What the Doctors allege of S. Cyril, serveth nothing to the confirmation of their purpose.  
Touching the heresy in jovinian, justly reproved by Saint Augustine: who to avoid the error of the Manichees, fell into an other: namely, that the virgin in her childbirth remained not a virgin. The Ministers say: that it was not necessary that jovinian (to avoid the error of the Manichees) should call in doubt the virginity of Mary: forasmuch as the foundion of the same virginity, is upon this, that she was never known of man.  
Touching the conclusion, that the Doctors would draw from the authorities above said, and apply them to their purpose (which was) that one body may be in two places at one self-same instant, or that two bodies may be in one self-same place together: The Ministers say, that it is altogether impertinent. And that neither by the places they alleged, nor any others that they can gather, can they any way infer the same. Adding further, that it shall never be found in any good Author. By means whereof, they conclude against the Doctors, that their foundation is nothing. And that they will falsely authorize their error by the name & title of the ancient Fathers, for fault of good understanding, and taking the term [piercing] which some of the ancient Fathers have used; and signifieth not a a confusion, and mingling together of divers bodies, occupying one self same place: but only the yielding, that the one made, to give the other passage. As we see, and have experience, that the air giveth place to a man that walketh, and birds that fly. And the Ministers for conclusion say: that, that which they maintain, and propose by their answer, doth not derogate, nor any way diminish the greatness, glory, and power of God: but doth establish the same; and much more advance it, than such prodigious absurdities, (as those are, which the Doctors set forth, and will persuade: without any reason or probable means) would do. For they confess, that all whatsoever happened, both in the entry of jesus Christ into the house where his disciples were, and in his going out as well of the virgin's womb, as of the Sepulchre, there was the miraculous & divine power of God. But they deny, that thereby nothing happened, which was impossible, and contained any contradiction.  
What they allege of Calvin & Beza are frivolous things: and proposed more to slander and contradict, then to search out and make manifest the truth.  
Where as they say that all antiquity, with one consent do understand by the term Aphantos ap'aut●n; That jesus Christ made himself invisible to his Disciples, abiding in their presence. The Ministers for their answer, are content to allege unto them, one only authority of S. Ambrose upon S. Luke: who expounding these words, saith: That he retired from them. And an other of Nicholas de Lyra, which saith upon this place, that it was done by the agility of his glorious body, which can suddenly vanish away.  
To that they allege of the piercing the heavens, when jesus Christ ascended thither, the Ministers do answer, that it is very like they clave a sunder, and were opened; a when at the Baptism of our Lord jesus Christ, the Dove descended upon him: And when as also S. Stephen was stoned.  
Touching that which they reprove in the first answer of the Ministers, saying: that in the 12▪ chap. of the Acts, there is made no mention of the opening of the prison. The Ministers do admonish them to read diligently the text of the said place. And there they shall find, that when they had passed the first & 2. watch, the utter gate of the prison (which was of Iron) did open of it own accord, to make the Angel & Peter passage.  
Whereas the Doctor's reply upon the answer of the Ministers, to the argument of the Camel formerly proposed by them in their first answer: the Ministers say, that there is nothing in their said answer, against the word of God. But that they deceive themselves: referring to the Camel, whereof he had formerly made mention: that which ought to be understood, but of the saving and conversion of the rich man only. For our Lord jesus Christ saying, that that which is impossible to men, is possible with God: nought else pretendeth, but to answer the question which the Disciples had propounded. To wit, who could be saved. Answering whereunto, he said: that it was indeed impossible to men: who of themselves are inclined to trust in their riches. But to God it was possible, which could pull back or withdraw their hearts from that vain confidence.  
As touching the argument which they will build upon the presence of jesus Christ in the Supper, (whereof they will infer, that it is in divers places) the Ministers confess the antecedent, & deny the consequence. For there is no doubt, but by faith our Lord jesus Christ is spiritually present to all the faithful in the Supper. Whence nevertheless must not be inferred, that he is there locally, definitively, no● corporally. And whereas they say, that it is not imaginable, the Ministers do avow the same, in regard of these which are not taught and enlightened by the spirit of God, and have no other imagination, then that which their natural faculty doth furnish them withal. But they that being illuminate by the grace of God, 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 Galathians to represent and propose him unto them, as present and visible, at the preaching of S. Paul: and to those likewise of whom Saint Cyprian maketh mention in his Sermon of the Supper: That in celebrating the same, they embrace the Cross of jesus Christ, suck his blood, and fasten their tongues within his wounds. All which things are done by a lively contemplation, and apprehension of faith: which is no other thing, than the ground of things hoped for, and an evidence of those things which are not seen: as S. Paul doth define it.  
Touching the truth of the thing conjoined with the signs and Sacraments: the Ministers confess, that the outward signs are never without their effect toward the faithful, who cannot be partakers of the bread and wine distributed in the Supper, but that they participate therewithal, of the flesh of jesus Christ crucified for their sins, and of his blood shed to ratify the new covenant which God made with his people. But if the Doctors will infer thereof a corporal presence in the Supper, the Ministers will deny it. And their reason is, because such a presence was not required among the ancient Fathers: who left not for all that, to eat one self-same spiritual food, with all the faithful at this day: as it shallbe by the grace of God, more amply declared when the Lord of Nevers shall please to command conference of this matter.  
To that which the Doctors (slandering the Ministers) do say, that they attribute more to themselves, and to human power, than they do attribute to the power of God: when they say, that by faith they make present, the things which be absent; seeing that God (according to the doctrine of the Ministers) cannot make one self-same body to be in divers places at one instant. The Ministers do answer, that such antitheses be foolish, and unfit for the purpose: and that there is much more great appearance that the Doctors do presume more of their power, and that of the other Priests of the Roman Church, then of the power of God: for God created not by his word, but the heavens, the earth, and the other creatures therein contained. And they in their consecration, do attribute unto themselves, the power to create their Creator: as is contained in their breviary, where the Priest saith: Qui creavit me, creature mediante me. He that created me, is created my means of me. And the Ministers much marvel, that the Doctors call the virtue of faith, a human power, seeing the great and admirable effects thereof proposed unto us, in so many examples of the scripture; chiefly in the eleventh Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews: where Saint Paul saith: That the Saints, by faith, have subdued kingdoms, etc. All which things surmount not only the virtue, but also the capacity of human understanding.  
In that immediately following this article, there is but repetitions in the reply of the Doctors: and many unprofitable and superfluous words: and little or nothing of that, should be necessary to the purpose. And as they have answered them particularly to every point which they repeat, they send them now back to the former answers: and pray them henceforth not to serve them twice with one mess.  
Concerning the Sacrament of the Altar, as they call it: The Ministers neither receive, nor any way approve, that their Mass (which they pretend to be a Sacrament) is a Sacrament: and much less a sacrifice, by which remission of fins may be any way obtained. Yea they say, that both their Priest and pretended sacrifice, with all the things thereof depending, are blasphemies, and impieties: by which GOD is dishonoured, all the benefit of jesus Christ buried, and nought esteemed: and the Church of jesus Christ seduced and abused; as by the pursuit of the Conference shall plainly appear. And also, that the Ministers do no way corrupt either the sense, or the words which jesus Christ used in the institution of his holy Supper.  
Thursday the 18. of july, in the year above said.   

The reply or objection of the Doctors against the answer of the Ministers, touching the Article of the Omnipotency of God, on Saturday the 20. of july.  
THe Doctors say, that this cosequence, God cannot by his omnipotency, make one body to be in two places at one instant, he is not therefore omnipotent: is so good and strong, that the Ministers (without wrapping, and more and more drowning themselves in execrable blasphemies, to the great grief and horror of the Doctors) can no way deny the same: And besides the two blasphemies maintained by the Ministers in their former answers, (that is to say, that it was impossible for God to make one body to be in two places: and that it was impossible for him to will the same) in the first article of their last answer, they add four or five other blasphemies, out of which do flow yet many others: besides the absurdities, falsehoods, and impostures they use to the said Doctors. And first they set forth, that God cannot do a thing which derogateth the order which he hath established in the world. Secondly, that it should be to establish mutability, and change in the Council of God, did they confess, that he can do any thing against the said order which he hath put in the world. And thirdly, that were it so, there should be contradiction in his will: whereby it would follow, that he should be a liar. And for the fourth blasphemy, that the power of God is his will: and that his weakness, is his unwillingness. And for the fifth, the Ministers pretend, that God hath willed to make a body, which at one self instant hath been in many places, before they believe that God could do it: otherwise they intent to infer that he had not power, and could not do it. So that the Ministers will nought acknowledge of the power of God, but so much thereof, as he hath showed by effect. And to that purpose they allege Tertullian. All which blasphemies be drawn out of the proper words of the Ministers first article.  
Touching the first, which is, that God cannot make a thing which derogateth the order he hath established in the world: it is very apparent that it is blasphemy by the holy scripture: which in infinite places maketh mention of the works of God above nature, which the Ministers call the order established in the world. And in proper terms teacheth that God can do infinite things, above the order by him established in the world. Namely, that Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt: that a barren woman in her old age, having an old husband, brought forth a child: that a withered Rod budded: that an Ass spoke: that the son stayed and went back: and other more than innumerable examples, contained in the old Testament. And as touching the new, that a virgin brought forth a child. That a body walked upon the water, & mounted into heaven. And generally all the miracles that Christ and his Apostles did above nature, which is contrary to the order established in the world. And of this blasphemy ensueth an other: that God since he established his order in the world, hath not done, nor could, nor can do any miracle.  
Now to prove that the scripture teacheth clearly, that God can do contrary to the order established in the world, it is written in the 50. of Esay: Is my hand (that is to say my power) so shortened, that it cannot help? or have I no power to deliver? Behold at my rebuke I dry the sea: I make the floods desert: Their fish rotteth for want of water, and dieth for thirst. I clothe the heavens with darkness, & make a sack their covering. And more expressly in the new Testament, where it is said by S. john: That God can of stones raise up children to Abraham. Which place, although it may be expounded allegorically: yet hath S. john willed in the literal sense to show, that it was possible to God. And the dive did know and confess, that if jesus Christ were the true son of God, he could change the stones into bread. Which is nevertheless contrary to the order established in the world. And it must be noted, that there is no more impossibility that the bread should be changed into flesh by the omnipotency of God, than a stone into bread. And therefore they which deny this last, done by the power of God, do show to believe less the almightiness of God, than the devils.  
The confutation of the second blasphemy, dependeth on the confutation of the first. For although God, against the order established in the world, hath done many miracles (as hath been before recited) yet nevertheless there is no mutability, nor change in his counsel.  
Touching the third blasphemy, which is, that if God did any thing contrary to the order established in the world, there should be contradiction in his will, and he should therefore be a liar. The Doctor's object, that it would follow, that the will of God should be such, never to will any thing contrary to the order established in the world. And that God should have purposed and declared by his word, his will to be such. For otherwise can they not know what the will of God should be. And the Ministers do not, nor can they make it appear by the word of God, the will of God to be such, that he will not do any thing against the order established in the world. And it behoveth the said Ministers to teach of such a will of God, before they conclude that God made one body to be in two places (or other thing) against the order of nature established in the world, he should be a liar.  
Touching the fourth blasphemy, which is, that the power of God is his will, and that his weakness is his unwillingness, according to the sense which the Ministers give it (to wit, if God cannot, but that which he will) it is an heresy of the heretics called Monarchians, in the Primitive Church. Against whom, Tertullian wrote, in his book Aduersus Praxean, and afterwards renewed by Peter Abaillardus. And since continued by one called Wickliff: who measured the power of God according to his will. Which is against the express word of God, which often declareth many things possible to God, that notwithstanding he will not do, as by that which is written in the 2. of Wisdom appeareth: where mention is made, that God could send upon the children of Israel, many kinds of affliction, to chasten them, but he would not do it, having disposed all things, by number, weight & measure. And that he could destroy those which had offended, but that he would not, using mercy towards them. And in the Gospel, our Lord said to S. Peter, Thinkest thou that I could not now pray my Father, and he would send me more than 12. Legions of Angels? And notwithstanding he would not pray for that purpose. And his Father would not send them, although he had power to do it to the person of his son. And jesus Christ himself could have letted his enemies from taking away his life, but he would not. And the Father (saith S. Paul) by his power could have saved him from corporal death. But nevertheless he would not do the one, nor the other. Notwithstanding the Ministers might say, that it was preordained: yet the scripture saith expressly, that he could do it, although it had been preordained. And as touching the authority of Tertullian, the Doctors are glad that the Ministers do produce it, because it maketh wholly for the truth, against the blasphemy of the Ministers, who have omitted many words and sentences of the said Tertullian, which served to the confutation of their error: as by the text here inserted, may be easily judged. Nihil Deo difficile. Quis hoc nesciat? Et impossibilia apud seculum, possibilia apud deum. Quis ignorat? Et stulta mundi elegit Deus, ut confundat sapientia. Ergo inquiunt haeretici (Monarchianis scilicet) difficile non fuit deo ipsum se & patrem & Filium facere, adversus traditam formam rebus humanis. Name & Aerilem parere contra naturam, difficile deo non fuit, sicut nec virginem planè nichil Deo difficile. Sed sitan abrupt in praesumptiombus nostris hac sententia utamur, quid vis de Deo confingere poterimus quasi fecerit, quia facere potuerit. Non autem quia omnia potest facere, idioque credendum est illum fecisse etiam quod non fecerit: sed an fecerit requirendun. Potuit (ita saluus sum) Deus pennis hominem ad volandum instruxisse (quod & miluis praestitit) non tamen quia potuit, statim & fecit, potuit & praxeam & omnes pariter haeriticos statim extinxisse, non tamen quia potuit, extinxit. Oportebat enim miluos esse & haereticos: oportebat & patrem crucifigi. Hac ratione erit aliquid & deo dificile, id scilicet quod non fecerit: non quia potuerit, sed quia noluerit. Etenim posse, velle est, & non posse, nolle. Nothing is unpossible to God: who knoweth not this? And things unpossible to men, are possible to God: who is ignorant hereof? And God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise. Therefore say the heretics (namely the Monarchians) it was not hard for God himself to make both the Father and the son, against the prescribed form in human things. For the barren to bring forth against nature: as also a Virgin, was nothing hard unto God. Truly for God there is nothing too hard.  
But if in our presumption we so abruptly use this sentence, we may feign every thing to be of God: as though he will do, because he can do. We must not believe, because he can do all things, that therefore he hath done what he hath not done: but we must seek if he have done it. God could (I am sure) have form man to fly with wings, (as he hath appointed the kites) he hath not forthwith done it because he could. He could presently cut off both Praxea, and likewise all heretics together: yet hath he not therefore, because he could. For it behoved there should be both kites and heretics: It behoved also the Father to be crucified. By this reason shall something be too hard for God, namely that which he will not do: not because he cannot, but because he will not. For to be able, is to will: and not to be able, is not to will. By which text it is easily seen, that according to Tertullian, God can do many things which he will not do: as he can make a man to fly, and doth it not: destroy heretics; nevertheless he destroyeth them not, because he will not, all that he may do.  
And touching the conclusion which the Ministers draw from the said place of Tertullian, (to wit) that the power of God is his will: and his weakness is likewise his unwillingness: The Ministers show, that they have not well examined the understanding of that place. For Tertullian of his own judgement saith it not; (so should he have concluded against what he had said before) but he inferreth the same against the Monarchian heretics, which said: That what God could, he would do, and it was done. And for this reason Tertullian concludeth against them: that it behoved whatsoever God had not done, was to him hard and impossible. So that (after these heretics) it was all one to be done, and to have power to do it. And not to be done, as much as to be impossible to God. And hereof inferreth Tertullian, would follow, that the power, and the will, and the act of God, should be all one. And chose, that a thing not to be done, and to be impossible for God to do it, should be all one: and so the power of God, and his will, all one. And his weakness, & his unwillingness be likewise all one. Which Tertullian concludeth for an absurd thing, proceeding from the opinion of the said Monarchians heretics, and not of his own judgement, which was altogether contrary. Wherein it appeareth, that the opinion of the Ministers, is like to that of the Monarchian heretics, refuted by Tertullian. And that the Ministers maintain such an opinion, it is evident by that which is contained in the fifth blasphemy.  
The Doctors for conclusion against the said blasphemies, do show that God can do much more than he will do, and then he hath established in the order of the world. For otherwise, other blasphemies would yet ensue: namely, that the power of God should not be infinite, but limited. Also that all things of necessity should be done in this world, because God could not but maintain the established order in the world. Which Calvin himself detesteth, saying: That God of his omnipotency, changeth and altereth the order established (as seemeth best unto him) and that otherwise to think, were to limit his power and providence. Where the Ministers say in their said former article, that the ancient Doctors of the Church have denied the omnipotency of God: it is a manifest falsehood, and they wrong them greatly. For deny it they do not, but interpret the scripture, which seemeth to deny it: and give to understand, how it ought to be taken. So that, so far off is it, that by this scripture well understood, exception may be given against the omnipotency of God; that chose the same is confirmed: as saith Saint Augustine in the fifth book, and tenth Chapter of the City of God. The power of God (saith he) is nothing diminished, although it be said, that he cannot die, nor be deceived: for such things he cannot do: because, that could he do them, his power should thereby be lessened. And concludeth, that such things which be of infirmity he cannot do, beccause he is almighty.  
The Ministers in the end of the first article, use deceit towards the Doctors, in that they affirm their difference to be, because the Doctors maintain, that a body is in many places, for as much as God can so cause it to be: and that the Ministers on the other part hold, that it is not in the power of God to do it, because he will not do it. The Doctors do show, that they (for their part) never so concluded for truth, that one true body was in two places, because God could so cause it: but that the question was only to know, whether God could do it, to come afterwards by order, to prove by scripture that he would do it. And they have already heretofore cited the scripture of the Supper and Ascension. And further added the doctrine of Calvin touching the said Supper: to show, that the will of God is, to make one body to be in two places, (as indeed it is) according to the express word of God. Moreover, to this self-same end, the Doctors have produced the scriptures of the closed doors: of the birth of our Lord: and of the resurrection through the stone: which are made like: and by the same reason, to that of a body in many places. The Ministers on the contrary part, to deny the will of God, and deprave the holy scriptures (which declareth the will of God to be such, that one body be in two places) allege nothing more instantly, than the impossibility for God to do this.  
Now, to the end that all the world may understand the present difference, between the Doctors and Ministers, the Doctors declare, that no other difference there hath been hitherto touching this article, then to know whether it be in the power of God, to make one body to be in two places at one self-same instant or no.  
And for the second article, the Doctors say, that the Ministers answer not to the purpose: for the objection was not, whether quantity were an accident of a Mathematical body, Aut de praedicamento quantitatis, as speaketh the Philosophers) but to know whether it were of the essence and of necessity to the quantity of a body, to be circumscript, and in one piace enclosed. And as touching S. Augustine, by the Ministers alleged, he speaketh expressly according to the proprieties of the divine and human natures. And well saith, that the divine, is in all places, but not the human: because of it natural propriety, it requireth a place certain. And of this make the Doctors no doubt, according to the said natural propriety. But the question is, to wit, whether above nature, by the omnipotency of God, he cannot cause one body to be without place, proportionable to it greatness, Which S. Augustine speaking, de januis clausis: not having regard to the nature of things, but to the power of God, plainly confesseth. And the Doctors would desire the Ministers to allege this Epistle of S. Augustine, against the doctrine of Calvin, and his Ministers, for the descent of the soul of jesus Christ into hell, as often as they allege the passage of the place of bodies, against the power of God, touching the body of jesus Christ in the Sacrament.  
In the 3. article the Ministers are deceived. For after the sayings of the Philosophers, and according to the natural reason of a body (which the Ministers do follow) Locus est superficies Corporis continentis. Place is the overmost part of a containing body. Wherefore it should behove, that were the high and last heaven circumscript of place, there should be a body above the high and first heaven, A quo primum Caelum contineretur. Et sic in infinitum. Of which the first heaven should be contained. And so infinite. And moreover the Ministers answer not to the other objections made than upon this article.  
And as touching the passages of scripture, which they allege to prove that there are roomths & places above all the heavens, they captiously conclude, and 〈◊〉 with doubtfulness of the name of place. For in all their 〈◊〉 of the dimensions of bodies (which they have said 〈◊〉 to require roomth and place equal and 〈…〉 their bigness) it is meet they understand 〈…〉 roomths and places, even as the dimensions and of 〈◊〉 do require the same.  
And now, when they speak of place● 〈…〉 meet they understand them, others then 〈…〉 be not such roomths & places, as these wherein 〈…〉 now are: but incomprehensible and unimaginable places, where bodies and spirits indifferently are, without distinction for their greatness, of certain spaces and places corporal. And in such places, the Minister's rule is false, by which they maintain, that a body cannot be in one place, if it be not as spacious, as the greatness of the body. Moreover the Doctors say, that it is the manner of heretics, to interpret the scriptures spiritually, when they are literally to be taken: and chose, to expound according to the letter, that which spiritually and by figure ought to be understood. As the Ministers do expound the house of Cod in the other world, literally and corporally, wherein there are spaces, and corporal habitations, divers and separate one from an other: albeit it ought to be spiritually understood, for the diversity of degrees of blessedness.  
The said Doctors cannot omit, a manifest contradiction of the Ministers in this self-same article: wherein they pre●end, that the bodies and souls of the blessed, are lodged above all the heavens. And yet they place the body of jesus Christ within the heaven.  
And touching the alleged article, condemned by the faculty of divinity at Paris: the Doctor's answer, that the Ministers do ordinarily allege authorities, pared, or evilly applied: For the Article saith, that the Bishop of Paris, having called the Faculty, condemned all those, which would place two distinct heavens: one for the Angels, the other for the souls of men. Which nothing pertaineth to the present question.  
The Ministers in the fourth article do charge the Doctors, who never attribute the propriety of God to any creature: but have often heretofore said, that to be every where, and incircumscript, was not natural to any creatures, but to God alone. And the Authors by the Ministers alleged (as Saint Basil, Didimus, and Vigilius, speak no otherwise than of the propriety of nature, to be every where, or not. And yet they never deny, but it is in God's power to cause one creature or body, above it nature, to be in two, or many places: but (as aforesaid) when they come to the power of God, many of the old authors confess, that it is possible with God, and that he hath done the same in the Sacrament: the answer of the Ministers is therefore to no purpose. For the whole contention is of the power of God, and not of natural proprieties.  
The Ministers in the fifth article have not well conceived the reason of the Doctors: who allege, that the Angels are naturally circumscript, as well as bodies: and hereby would infer, that the circumscription of place simply depended not as of the sole and essential cause of the dimensions of a body: as by all their said reasons, the Ministers pretend. Albeit the Doctors are not ignorant that to put difference between the corporal and spiritual creatures, they have accustomed to distinguish in schools, that the Angels Sunt diffinitiue in loco, and the bodies Circumscriptive.  
In the sixth article to satisfy the Doctors, who made instance they should produce one only place of the ancient Fathers: where it was said, that it is not in God's power, to make one body to be in two places. The Ministers for all the testimonies they could have, do falsely allege a place of S. Augustine, where it is said (as it is cited in Gratian De consecra: distinct. 2. C. prima quidem) that the said Saint Augustine hath written, that it behoved the body of jesus to be in one place: whereunto say the Doctors, that it is not so couched in the proper text of S. Augustine, which is in the 30. tract upon Saint john. For such is the tenor in all the ancient copies of S. Augustine: Corpus domini, in quo resurrexit, uno loco esse potest, veritas eius ubique diffusa est. The body of the Lord, in which he rose again, may be in one place, his truth is shed into every place. Where is not this word [Oportet] as the Ministers city it, having taken the same out of Gratian. And that men may know there is no great trust to be given to the fragments of Gratian, without recourse to the copies of Saint Augustine, in the title of Canon, these words are there extracted out of the exposition of S. Augustine, upon the 54 Psalm. From whence he draweth the only beginning of his Canon: and yet doth he not truly city it. The ●est of the said Canon, is taken from divers passages of S. Augustine. And although there should be Oportat. S. Augustine speaketh after his wont manner, according to the propriety of a body, opposing the divinity to the humanity: without touching the operation of God's omnipotency. Whereof when he maketh mention, and that he speaketh of the Sacrament, he plainly affirmeth, the body of jesus Christ to be in divers places; by the omnipotency of God. As the Doctors hope in their resolution to deduce as well out of him, as other ancients also.  
The 8. artide containeth many errors, against Philosophy and truth. First, because the Ministers make no distinction between the body they cab Mathematical (to wit, having dimension of breadth, length, and height) and the Physical or natural body: to wit, which is composed of a substantial form and matter: by the union whereof, it is made a natural & substantial body. Secondly, although the body should be without quantity, yet should it differ from our souls separated, which be not material substances: and consequently should it also differ from the Angels and spirits. Thirdly, the Ministers by the conclusion of this article, do manifestly declare, that they acknowledge not any substantial body. And where they say, that although God might separate the dimensions from a substance, without corrupting the same, that such substance should remain spiritually, as the Angels, they are deceived. For such substance should not remain immaterial, as are our souls, and the Angels which be not capable of dimensions: and therefore should it yet be different from Angels and our souls.  
Concerning the ninth article, the Ministers answer nothing to the purpose. For the Doctors say not, that the massiness and weight be essential in a body, but to press downward, is essential to the sadness and weight of a body. And by their objection they demanded to know, whether an earthly and massy body, abiding in it substance and natural weight, might not by the omnipotency of God, be hanged in the air, without falling downward, albeit it were against it nature and inclination,  
Moreover, for answer to many articles which concern the act of two bodies in one place, and the passages of holy scripture, and ancient Authors produced by the Doctors, (to prove that it was in God's power to cause two bodies to be in one only place: and chose, that by the same reason it was in the same power, to cause one body to be in two places). First the Doctors say, that the Ministers do wrong, to deny this consequence. Two bodies by the power of God, may be in one self-same place. Then on the contrary part, one body may be in two places, by the self-same power. For as great repugnancy there is to God's established order, in the one, as in the other: and as great contradiction in nature, founded upon one self-same cause and reason: to wit, in the limitation, and circumscription of a body. Which as it is natural to be in place, so is it natural for it, to be in place proportioned and answerable to it measures. And if for the number of divers places where a body should be, one may infer, that it should no more be a body (as implying contradiction) by the same reason, according to one only place, where many bodies should be, may also be inferred, that they should no more be many bodies: or that many bodies should be one. Which would imply the contradiction as the former.  
And where the Ministers deny the antecedent, which is, that two bodies may be in one place, the Doctors to prove it, have produced the passages of scripture, of the closed doors: the birth of the body of our Lord of the Virgin: the going out of the Sepulchre: the passage of a Camel through the eye of a needle: and the piercing of the heavens made by Christ in his ascension.  
And for as much as the Ministers deny these acts, contained expressly in holy scripture, and expounded by the ancient Christians, and deprave the same at their pleasure. The Doctors eftsoons upon the texts of scripture do say as followeth. First as touching the closed doors, Saint john saith: That jesus came, meaning into the place where his Disciples were. But he came not there without entering thereinto. For to be found in the midst of them without entering, there should be a much greater miracle, then that he entered there simply. Secondly it is said, Cum fores essent clausa, or januis clausis. To wit, that he there entered, the doors being shut. And there is no appearance that the scripture maketh mention of doors, rather than an other place, were it not to show the place by which he entered. Thirdly, it is added not in vain, that the doors were shut, without saying that any opening was miraculously made. For it is always said, Quod venit januis clausis. That he came the doors being shut. And were it true, that the doors had been opened by divine power, this should be false, that our Lord entered, januis clausis, for he should have entered januis apertis, howsoever they had been opened.  
And to show, that the common consent of all the ancients have been, that jesus entered therein by the closed doors, the Doctors set forth four foundations, drawn from the ancient Fathers. The first is, that all expressly confess the miracle of such an entry to have been wrought in the body of jesus Christ. The second is, that such miracle was there wrought by the power of God, above the nature of a body. The third is, that the Fathers especially judge, that herein consisteth the miracle, that the body pas●ed through the closed doors: and that so it was with an other body. And for the fourth ground, they add, that the Apostles by reason of such entering, supposed that the body of jesus Christ was not a true body, but a spirit, or vain vision: which the Ministers lightly pass over, without any answer. Now so it is, that if by the power of God (as the Ministers will have it) an opening was made of the doors, or any other part of the house, to give entry to the body of jesus Christ: then the miracle did not consist in the said body, but in the doors, or other part of the house, which was open: and nothing had been there against the nature of the body of our Lord: for it is not repugnant to any body whatsoever, to enter by an opening made by miracle, or otherwise.  
Be it, that justine was not Author of the questions against the Gentiles; yet can they not deny, but they are of some ancient Christian, of the Primitive Church. And the Doctors have attributed them to him, in whose name they are entitled. And so much there is, that the said justine in the place alleged, layeth the miracle to have been done in the body of jesus Christ: which (being gross and thick) entered through the closed doors by the power of God; contrary to the nature of a body. And therefore the Apostles supposed it a vision: by reason of the entry made without opening, as spirits do wontedly enter. Let the text be seen.  
S. Hillary saith not only, that he there entered in what sort soever it were, by the omnipotency of God, (as the Ministers will wrest his authority) but as if he had now to deal with the said Ministers, he repulseth & mocketh at all their evasions and subtleties, which upon this act they imagined. Nothing (saith he) gave place, to open to such a body, and that it lost nothing of it substance: nor by it entry was aught diminished. He addeth: That the doors and clefts were shut, and fast barred. And in this nevertheless lieth the miracle, that the true natural body of jesus Christ, contrary to nature, by the omnipotency of God entered into a house, close and covert, without any opening: wherein he plainly showeth, that the miracle consisteth in the body of jesus Christ. And for this let the text be viewed, which the Doctors wish to be well examined by the Ministers.  
S. Ambrose in the place cited saith: That S. Thomas was abashed, seeing the body of jesus Christ to enter, Per in via septa corporibus. Et quod natura corporea per impenitrabile corpus seize infuderit invisibili aditu. Through closures impassable for bodies: And that the corporeal nature powered itself by an invisible mean through an impenetrable body.  
S. Chrisostome in the Homely of S. john Baptist, and in his Commentaries upon the Gospel of S. john, expressly saith: Qui intravit per ostia clausa, non erat phantasma, non erat spiritus, vere corpus erat. Quid enim dicit? Respicite & videte: quia spiritus carnem & ossa non habet, quae me habere videtis. Habebat carnes, habebat & ossa, & clausa erant omnia. Quomodo clausis octijs intraverunt ossa & caro? Clausa sunt omnia & intrat, quem intrantem non vidimus. Nescis quomodo factum sit, & das hoc potentiae Dei.  
He that entered through the closed doors, was not a vain vision, was not a spirit, it was truly a body. For what saith he? Behold and see: For a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me have. He had flesh, he had also bones, and all things were shut. How entered bones and flesh, the doors being shut? All things are shut, and he entereth whom we see not entering. How it is done thou knowest not, and attributeth this to the power of God.  
Where S. Chrisostome without difficulty, as doth also S. Ambrose, acknowledgeth the miracle to have been wrought in the body of jesus Christ; in that he passed through the shut doors, by the omnipotency of God.  
S. Jerome in the places quoted by the Doctors manifestly writeth: that the body pierced the closed doors, even as the Poets recount that the fight of Lynceus pierced the walls, to see through without opening. S. Jerome then reasoned of the nature of a body, which the Bishop of jerusalem (infected with the heresy of Origen) held not to be truly in jesus Christ after his resurrection: because contrary to the nature of a body, he had passed through the closed doors: wherein Saint Jerome (as the other Ancients) declareth: that it nothing derogateth from the nature of the body: because it proceeded from a supernatural power.  
And in the first Book against jovinian he saith as much: where he useth these words: jesus entered through the closed doors. Quod humanorum corporum natura non patitur. Which thing, the nature of human bodies admitteth not. So that with others, he placeth the miracle in the body of jesus Christ.  
There is no doubt, but S. Augustine in three places (at the least) maketh express mention, that this body passed through the shut doors: and that this was done by the power of God, above the nature of bodies: and that therefore heretics ought not to deny the true body of jesus Christ: besides the passages De agone Christiano, and of the Epistle Ad volusianum, already alleged in the book De Civitate Dei, he saith so also.  
Epiphanius in the first book, upon the 20. Heresy, and in the 2. book, upon the 64. Heresy, against the Origenists, declareth that it is but a spiritual body: to wit, which looseth nothing of it corporal substance: but changeth & getteth new qualities and spiritual perfections, and meet for spirits: as to pass through the walls without opening. And giveth example of the body of jesus Christ, which pierced and passed through the closed doors after his resurrection. And even so judgeth (as others do) the miracle to have been wrought in the body of jesus Christ: and that because he pierced the shut doors, as a spirit, albeit he were a true body.  
Cirillus Alexandrinus determineth also (as the others) this miracle to have happened in the body of our Lord; which by the like miracle, walked upon the waters, against the nature of a body, by the power of God; and reproveth all them, which ought suspected by this deed, that the body of jesus Christ was not natural.  
By all these authorities, the four grounds proposed, are true. And therefore to corrupt the intention and faith of so many ancients and learned Christians, to bring in a confusion of new Interpretations, is overgreat impudency. For besides the diversity of Calvin and Beza, the Ministers to that end produce two others: to wit, that the Angel opened the door: as though jesus had not power himself to open it, or else had need of opening. And the other is, that the opening was made which way he pleased. And by such diversities, the Ministers sufficiently declare, that they know not where to rest. And (which is worse) they could not allege one only ancient Father, for author of their fictions, or that is contrary to all the others, from the Primitive Church. And to allege, that the Iron gate (in the Acts of the Apostles opened to S. Peter of it own accord, serveth nothing to the purpose: For the Doctors never denied the same: but have well said, that the scripture spoke not of the gates of the prison: and if at the entry of jesus Christ the doors had been so opened, the Evangelist had as easily said it, as he said they were shut; and as S. Luke saith, that the Iron gate was opened of itself.  
There is no doubt, but perverse spirits, which doubted of the truth of the body of jesus Christ in this world, were not of opinion touching the passage of the doors, with other Christians. And although they thought to help and aid themselves herewith, to support their heresies (as of all the other miracles happened to the body of our Lord above nature) the Fathers nevertheless have not denied this, nor others semblable acts: for fear to give heretics occasion of error. But have declared and distinguished what was of the nature of the said body, and what came unto it by the omnipotency of God. And the Christians (for heresies) never abandoned the truth: albeit heretics thereby have sometimes abused the same. Sith then the body of jesus Christ passed through the doors without opening; sure it is, that two bodies have been, and may be in one self same place. And hereby have the Doctors well proved their proposition: which without scripture, or testimony of any Father, the Ministers deny.  
Concerning the Birth of jesus Christ without fraction of the virgin, the Doctors say, that many of the Ancients produced for the passage of the doors, have also held, that miracle to have been wrought in the body of our Lord, and not in the body of the virgin, but in as much as she remained in her pureness, without fracture or opening. And for their reason, the Fathers have alleged the scripture: Exce virgo concipiet & pariet. Behold a virgin shall conceive and bring forth. And out of Ezechiel: Porta haec clausa erit. This gate shall be shut. As reciceth S. Ambrose in the 80. Epistle, where a Council is contained, wherein S. Ambrose was present: which determined against jovinian and other heretics, that the virginity and purity remained in her child▪ birth, to the mother of God. Which thing S. Augustine in the place alleged by the Doctors in the first book, and 2. Chapter against julian, repeateth. And where the Ministers say, that the virgin had not lost her virginity, when our Lord was borne as other men: in that they are condemned of heresy by the Fathers: which declare jovinian to derogate her virginity, for the like opinion as the Ministers do hold. Of whom the Doctors would willingly demand, what miracle they acknowledge in the birth of our Lord, touching his body, and the virginity of his mother, if he departed from her, as other children from their mothers, as the Ministers do write. And as touching that which they allege of Tertullian, Origen, S. Ambrose, and S. Jerome; the Doctors say: that Tertullian & Origen held such an heresy, and many others, which were reproved before jovinian. And for this, were condemned with him and his consorts. And for S. Ambrose, it is evident, that he believed the contrary; as well by the Council where he was present: as by that which he wrote in the book De Institutione Virgins. And therefore, where he saith: that Christus vuluam aperuerit, it must be interpreted, not that it was by rupture or fraction, but by effect of generation, and production of his true body, out of the womb of the virgin, by miracle and supernatural power. So that, as the conception was miraculous, so was his birth: Et aperire vuluam, is a phrase and manner of speaking in the scripture, to call and nominate the first borne: howsoever he had power to be borne. And as touching S. Jerome, he speaketh nothing of the fracture, but only that the body islued out bloody, as it was in the womb of his mother: and to be bloody, there is no necessity of fracture of the mother.  
The Doctors for conclusion of this article, would willingly demand of the Ministers, whether they hold for an article of faith, the virginity of the mother after the childbirth: & whether they could prove the same by the express and unreprovable word of God written. For as much as Beza when he pleaseth, maketh doubt of these two points: and that the pretended reformed religion among the articles of faith, of his divers imprinted confessions, reciteth sometimes the virginity of the mother of God after her childbirth, and sometimes omitteth the same. And in some confessions inserteth not that jesus was borne of the Virgin Marie, but only that he issued of the seed of Danid.  
The Doctors employ for the resurrection, and issuing out of the body of jesus Christ through the stone of the Sepulchre, the most part of the authorities alleged by them upon the closed doors: as the whole lecture of the foresaid authorities, with Gregory Nazianzen, in his tragedy of the passion of our Lord, will witness: which conjoineth (as do many other Ancients) these three miracles happened into the body of our Saviour above nature: namely the birth without fracture of the Virgin: the resurrection through the stone: and the entrance by the closed doors.  
The Doctors add, that Calvin and Beza make conscience to say as do the Ministers, that our Lord arose not, the Sepulchre being shut and closed: and rather had the said Calvin and Beza fall into frivolous abfurdities, and ridicclous expositions here afore alleged, then yield to the opinion of the Ministers. Because there is more appearance in the text of the Gospel, that jesus Christ was risen before the stone was rolled away by the Angel: as therein agree the most part of ancient Christians. And by this mean also is there occasion given, more easily to believe the resurrection of our Saviour, then if the stone had been taken away before the resurrection. For one might more easily say, that the body had been transported and not risen again. And the text saith not, that the Angel rolled away the stone before the resurrection, or when jesus arose, but rather afterwards: as there is great appearance in the scripture, in reason, and all antiquity.  
Pope Leo is evilly alleged by the Ministers, which well know to conceal what is written in the Epistle by them cited, touching the closed doors. And they evilly allege that of the resurrection. For it is not said, that our Lord arose after the stone was rolled from the Sepulchre. But well is it said against the Fantasmatiques, that the substance put upon the Cross, and that which rested in the Sepulchre, and that which arose the third day (the stone of the grave being rolled away) is the true flesh of jesus Christ.  
By which words, Pope Leo meaneth not to say, that our Lord was not risen, before the stone was removed: but only showeth, that the body of jesus Christ risen again; was a true, and not a fantastic body: of whose resurrection it appeared by the opening of the grave. And such is the common interpretation of old Authors touching the removing of the stone.  
For conclusion of all these ancient testimonies, the Doctors are abashed that the Ministers (seeing them so manifest, and themselves convinced, that God cannot only cause two bodies to be in one self-same place, but that he hath also done the same) dare slanderously deprave the understanding of them, which every man of good and sound judgement, can by the only reading find out.  
Notwithstanding the Ministers say, that the reasons taken from such and so evident testimonies, be impertinent. So that wiah like liberty (common to heretics) they fear not, without any text of scripture, or any place of ancient Fathers, to interpret, that two bodies to pierce one an other, is no other thing, than one body to give place to the other.  
Of which false and licentious interpretation, the common phrase of speech among Philosophers themselves doth condemn them. And the feat example brought of them which walk through the air beating upon them, and of Birds when they fly, is over subtle. And whereas they boast in the said article, that in denying that two bodies may be in one place by the omnipotency of God, or one body in two places, they advance and magnify the power of God. As true is that, as when in all their other errors, by which they resist the truth of God, and blaspheme him, they ever boast to advance the glory of God. And the Ministers must paint and cover their filthiness and deformity, with some colour of speech, to blind the simple and ignorant.  
Good reason also have the Ministers not to excuse the interpretations of Calvin and Beza, as too too frivolous and ridiculous: and prefer in the mean time their own interpretation, though more ridiculous than those of their Masters: wherein appeareth the concord between the Masters and Disciples; all using one foundation of their religion: which is, to trust always to their own particular and private interpretation, and inspiration: and to prefer the same to all others. Where the Ministers say, that the body of our Lord was not invisible to the Disciples, of whom mention is made in the 24. of Luke: but that his body only being nimble, he suddenly withdrew himself: the Doctor's object, that the sudden departing (whereof speaketh S. Ambrose, and Lyra,) maketh not, but that the body was invisible: as signifieth the Greek word Aphantos: which signifieth, not a sudden departure, but an incapacity to be seen and known. And so the text of the scripture is plainly for the Doctors. joined nevertheless, that when the old and late Divines will give examples that jesus was made invisible, they ordinarily allege this passage.  
The Ministers also who boast, that they rest upon nothing, but the pure word of God, (for exposition of scripture) bring their dreams, above their own persuasion; as touching the closed doors appeareth. And with like liberty use they to expound the text of Saint Paul, which expressly maintaineth, that our Lord pierced the heavens. And it is likely (say they) that the heavens clave a sunder, and were opened. And if one demand, whence they learned such an interpretation, they answer, from the word of God, founded upon their inward inspiration: by which, they appropriate that which is written in Saint Matthew; that heavens were opened when the Dove descended upon our Lord. As though all the heavens were cleft asunder, and the holy Ghost had not power to descend without the opening of them: not nothing that the scripture in many places taketh heaven for the air.  
Concerning that they allege of S. Stephen, who when he was stoned, saw the heavens open, more meet it were for the Ministers, to interpret such visions, to be made in spirit, as there is great likelihood: else should it behove to confess two miracles: the one in the division of the heavens: the other in this, that the sight of S. Stephen, not only pierced unto, but also above the heavens: where the Ministers confess, the body of jesus Christ to be at the right hand of the Father, whom Saint Stephen saw, which is against the order of God established in the would: whereby it is necessary that there be a certain distance between the eye seeing, and the thing which is seen. And no less hard is it, that such thing be done, than that two bodies should pierce one an other. Nor must they forget that the scriptures oftentimes in spiritual apparitions and visions, useth this phrase of speech, that the heavens were opened: and yet in such case was there but a spiritual vision, and likewise but a spiritual opening. And even as the Ministers will take the rigour of the word [the opening of the heavens]: so should they not think it strange if the Doctors with like rigour, take [the piercing of the heavens] especially in the article of the Ascension: where the question is of the body of jesus Christ, which had already pierced more impenetrable bodies than the heavens.  
And the Doctors to avoid tediousness, refer themselves to more ample debating this point [of the piercing of the heaven] hereafter.  
As touching the 28. article, where the Ministers against express scripture, do obstinately defend, that God cannot by his power, make a Camel (or Cable) to pass through the eye of a needle: the Doctors cannot sufficiently manuel, either at the blindness of the Ministers, which seem to see nothing at noonday: or at their obstinacy and boldness. And that the Ministers understand not their fault, the Doctors cannot think, but that impugning the truth, well known to themselves, they sin against their own conscience. And God suffereth that (it seemeth) to happen unto them, in this so manifest a place and text of the scripture: to the end, that by this article, one may perceive how much more bold they are, to give false senses, to scriptures more obscure than this, and to the sayings of the ancient Christians which make against them.  
Now that the great wrong may be understood, which the Ministers do, in denying that our Lord can cause a Camel (or Cable) to pass through the eye of a needle: the Doctors do object, that it should be impossible with God to save a rich man: using such argument, taken from the text of the Gospel. More impossible or hard is it for God to save a rich man, then to make a Camel (or Cable) to pass through the eye of a needle. But God by his omnipotency cannot make (after the Ministers) a Camel or Cable to pass through the eye of a needle. Therefore God by his omnipotency cannot cause a rich man to 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 cannot do a more easy thing, cannot do a thing more hard. So also without contradiction have the Ancients expounded the present scripture: as doth Origen in the Homily upon this place, saying: that it is possible for a Camel to enter through the eye of a needle: yet not possible with men, but with God. And the manner how such thing may be done, is known of God, and his son jesus Christ, and of him to whom he shall reveal it.  
Semblably Saint Augustine in the first and fifth Chapter of his book of the spirit and letter, thus speaketh to Marcellinus, whom he wrote unto: It seemeth to thee absurd, when I say unto thee, that a man may be without sin: albeit that (Christ excepted) such a one is not found. Should it seem absurd unto thee, that a thing may be done, whereof no example can be showed? Seeing thou doubtest not (as I think) but it never happened that a Camel passed through the eye of a needle. And yet is it said, that with God such thing is possible.  
By the Ministers answer unto the 29. article, may easily be seen, that they deceive and abuse their Disciples, making them believe by fair words and writings, that they really receive in the Supper, the true body of jesus Christ, the same which issued from the belly of the Virgin, and was fastened upon the Cross, for the restoration of mankind. And will make them to understand, that they who place not with the bread and wine in the Sacrament, (as they call it) of the Supper, but some spiritual effect only (as are the redemption, righteousness, sanctification, life eternal, and other gifts, and benefits, which jesus Christ bringeth to his elect) diminish the excellency and dignity of the same Sacrament, and that they be Zwinglians. But that besides such spiritual effects, one must believe that he receiveth truly the body of jesus Christ in the Supper.  
They hold nevertheless an other opinion. For when they are pressed with arguments, and cannot defend such an imaginary and fantastic presence, they confess by their writings, they are become Zwinglians, and return to the spiritual presence of jesus Christ in the Supper: which is as much to say, as besides the bread and wine, they receive a certain spiritual effect, and not really the body, as the Ministers do in the present answer: which thing they make manifest, by that they city of the Apostle S. Paul: by which citation may be gathered, what is their opinion concerning the Supper: to wit, that the body of our Lord jesus Christ is not really, but by spiritual effect only in the hearts of the faithful. For the Galathians by the hearing of S. Paul's preaching, received not really the body of Christ crucified, but had only an imagination of the Cross and passion of jesus Christ, and received only the fruit of their faith: that is to say, by this means they were justified and sanctified before God: also the allegation which the Ministers make of S. Cyprian, tendeth to this end, to show that in the Supper are received some spiritual effects only: which nevertheless by these words, to embrace the Cross of jesus Christ, to suck his blood, etc. be allegorically signified. Wherein they deny (against the intent of S. Cyprian in the Sermon of the Supper) the real presence of the body of jesus Christ. The Doctors confess that the argument they have made, is addressed to Caluinists, and not to Zwinglians. And they supposed that the Ministers would not otherwise have thought of this Sacrament, than Calvin, Beza, and the other Ministers, renowned to be Ministers of the Caluinist Church, which they call reform.  
another manner of speech used they, which exhibited the confession touching that Sacrament, to the Bishops at Poissy, who freely confessed the body of jesus Christ to be really present in that Sacrament: which the Ministers in conference with the Doctors, do now deny. And hereby the Ministers in the judgement of the Doctors, of calvenists, become Almanists. Wherewithal, they that maintain the doctrine of the Church, which they call reform, will not be greatly pleased: seeing their principal pillars (for not being able to answer an argument objected by the Doctors) do leave them in the business: considering that in the answer they say themselves to be so much enlightened with the holy spirit, which maketh them understand & know all things.  
Concerninig the article following, they do openly declare what their present opinion is, touching the presence of the body of jesus Christ in the Sacrament, by saying that the faithful receive no more in this time of the Gospel, than did the Fathers before, and under the law: But certain it is, that the Fathers received not really the body of jesus Christ, which as then was not made. Therefore the conclusion must follow, that under the Gospel the body of jesus Christ is not really received in the Sacrament, which the Ministers call the Sacrament of the Supper.  
To the 31. article they answer not: as also they never could answer the same: and they must necessarily confess, that in the power of their faith, they do that which implieth contradiction. For they maintain one thing to be present, and not present, at one self-same time and place. And their spiritual (or rather fantastic) presence, maketh nothing to the purpose. For (according to their doctrine) the body cannot be present but with it measures, locally, difinitively, and corporally: otherwise the body should be wholly abrogate and corrupted. And the manner of it being there spiritually, would not make, that the body is not there: or otherwise they falsely say it is present in the Supper, and abuse the world. Wherefore it is necessary, if the body be there (yea spiritually) and their doctrine of the nature of a body be true, that the body of jesus Christ be corporally, difinitively, and locally in the Supper. Moreover, for as much as it is absent according to their confession: it followeth, that it is not there present. And to conclude, the Ministers say, that it is there, and not there. And for the full solution, (without entering into the principal of the Argument) they suppose to escape, by objecting to the Doctors, some words of the breviary, which the Doctors have not yet seen. The Ministers (they think) have found them in some breviary of Monks, and remember when they were in the Covent, that they were so accustomed to sing and say. But although such things were found in the breviaries, used in the Roman Church, such manner of speech might be defended, in the sense which the Fathers have given, when they said, that the Apostles Conficiunt corpus Christi: do make the body of Christ, as the scripture itself saith: that they baptize, forgive sins, and save those whom they converted: which is meant, as the Ministers of God. Who of his own authority, and as Master, baptizeth, forgiveth sins, and justifieth the faithful persons.  
Where the Ministers do marvel, that the Doctors call faith a human virtue, (the great and marvelous effects it worketh considered): the Doctors say, that the Ministers have no great cause to marvel thereat: seeing that every work, in as much as it is in man, and that he therein worketh together with God, is judged and reputed human. Also the scripture calleth the faith of man, the work of man. The Doctors show unto the Ministers, that after their wont manner, they dwell always on small things, and leave that which is principal in the matter: being ignorant (or dissembling ignorance) where lieth the difficulty of that is handled. As they do in their answer upon the argument proposed by the Doctors: whereby they object, that the Ministers by their faith (call they it divine or human) may do more than God can do: whereunto the Ministers (without touching the point) do answer with songs.  
In the 32. article, the Ministers lightly pass over many obiectious made them by the Doctors. Whether there be superfluity, or repetition in them, or whether they be impertinent, let the reader judge. But for this cause the Doctors will not cease, to require eftsoons the Ministers, that they bring some passage of the scripture, to ground that God cannot make one body to be in two places: seeing that this consequence is overfoolish and ridiculous: God cannot lie. Therefore can he not make one body to be in two places. For so should they make their assumption. Now God hath said and ordained, that one body cannot be in two places: therefore can he not make it so to be. But never will they instruct by the truth of the Assumption or Minor Proposition: the contrary whereof hath been sufficiently verified by many testimonies of the scripture. The Doctors also require the Ministers to produce some Father, yea some man, ever reputed Catholic, which hath dared to pronounce, that God could not make one body to be in two places. For full answer, the said Ministers can bring forth none which ever hath used such a speech, except S. Augustine, but by them falsely alleged, both touching the letter, & the sense of the letter. The Doctors will not cease to beat both into the Ministers, and also all persons; that there is no place of scripture found, nor book of any ancient Father, that God cannot make one body to be in divers places.  
Concerning the last article, the Doctors have resolved to show by the pure and express word of God, expounded by common consent of all antiquity, that our Lord did institute the Sacrament and sacrifice of the Altar, and will teach the effect and virtue of the Mass, according to the institution and ordinance of jesus Christ. And will make it also to be understood, that the Ministers have polluted and defiled the Sacrament by jesus Christ instiruted. And that the Supper which the Ministers maintain, is no way the Sacrament, but a profanation of holy things, containing execrable blasphemy: whereof the whole world ought to have horror.  
Sunday, the 12. of july, in the year aforesaid.   

The answer of the Ministers to the writing of the Doctors, sent to them by my Lord the Duke of Nevers, the 22. day of july, about five of the Clock in the enening. Anno. 1560.  
THe Ministers, before they answer particularly to the objections and slanders of the Doctors, seeing that each way, and causeless, they tax them for blasphemers: have advised to tell them in the beginning of their answer, that to be wronged by them, they hold it not so great an injury, nor themselves the more blasphemers, for being so holden and reputed by them: no more than our Lord jesus Christ, because he was 
Act. 7.  so pronounced by Caiphas the high Priest, and S. St●phen, to whom the like crime was imputed by the enemies of 
1. King. 21.  truth: And Naboth who was likewise accused to have blasphemed God and the king, albeit he was innocent. For it is the manner of all them which hate the truth, and the light, to blaspheme that which they understand not (as thereof 
1▪ Pet. 2.  write S. Peter and S. Jude) and to give the rains sometimes to their fury: so that they shamelessly deny things most apparent, and confess others concerning the same, which be strange and absurd. Which thing is seen to have befallen the Doctors about the Ministers: whom they neither can hear attentively, nor judge of rightly. And the full end of their purpose (it seemeth) is, to contradict them indifferently in all things, and to say without any examination or judgement, that whatsoever they produce, is blasphemy and lies. For the Ministers speaking of the omnipotency of God, according to that they have learned thereof, and is contained in the scriptures, have ever said, that God is almighty, in as much as he can do (without any exception) whatsoever he will: and that there is no power in heaven nor in earth, which is able to let, alter, or in any manner or wise hinder the full effect and perfect execution of his eternal & unchangeable counsels. But nevertheless, that his omnipotency must not be stretched without any discretion or distinction, to all the things generally which men can conceive, or in their foolish fantasies imagine: but to those only, which neither are, nor can be contrary to his justice, to his goodness, to his wisdom: nor consequently to his holy and eternal will, wisdom, and truth: which is, and ever shallbe, to do all things well and wisely, with number, weight, and measure: and without that there is any inequity, disorder, or contradiction in whatsoever he doth. All which things being well understood and considered, will discharge the Ministers among all good and just people, from the s●aunders which the Doctors impose upon them, and fal●ly published, to make them odious to all the world, and stir up public hate against them. Wherefore, to make their slanders more like to truth: by adding and diminishing, they change and alter almost the whole meaning of the Ministers: well knowing, that otherwise they could never have mean to ground their slanders, nor to give any colour or likelihood thereunto: which thing shall now appear by the deduction and particular confutation of the pretended blasphemies, objected to the Ministers, by the said Doctors.  
First the Doctors accuse the Ministers, in that they have said, that the omnipotency of God ought not to be measured, but by the things only which be agreeable to his will, and are not derogate either to his wisdom, his truth, his nature: nor to the order which he hath established in the world. And to verify their accusation and slander, they break in two this whole sentence, and take thereof but the last part only, the which they have separated from those going before, wherewith it was conjoined expressly by the Ministers; the more clearly to expound and show, how the omnipotency of God ought to be known, believed, and adored of all the world. Moreover, they have not taken, nor understood the word [Order] as do the Ministers. Whereby the Ministers have willed to signify the estate and disposition, which God by his providence, and eternal, and unchangeable will, hath established, conserveth, and entertaineth in all things: rightly to govern, and let that no confusion happen in his works, even as S. Augustine hath defined it in his books De Ordine: and he himself hath used the same in the fifth book of his confessions. Which the Doctors not understanding, have reduced that which the Ministers thereof said, to the ordinary and wont course of nature, and to the moving of creatures which be in the world.  
And to give exception to the doctrine aforesaid, they object the miracles which God doth above nature: and thereof infer, that God doth, and can do many things against the order by him established and decreed.  
Whereunto the Ministers answer; that miracles, albeit they be done beyond & above the ordinary course of nature, yet are they not done against the order aforesaid. For as much as all things reduced to the providence, and ordinance of God, are well done and ordained, although that the reason and order therein, be oftentimes unknown to men: which 
Ecclesi. 3.  Solomon wrote saying: God maketh all things good in their season. Whereunto may be also applied, that which is read in the book of Sentences of S. Augustine. Sent. 283. and 284. God who is the Creator and conserver of nature, doth nothing in his miracles which are against nature. And it followeth not, that that which is new to custom, is contrary and repugnant to reason, etc. If the Doctors will know more thereof, let them read the two books of Order; which this holy man composed: and that which he wrote concerning miracles, in the fifth and sixth Chapter of his third book of the Trinity. This answer shall serve for confutation of two other pretended blasphemies, which follow in the objection of the Doctors.  
Concerning the fourth, the Ministers for answer say, that the will of God (after the doctrine of Divines) may in two sorts be considered: to wit, according to that which by words, signs, and effects, is declared to men: and according to that which is retained & hidden in himself. The one is called the will known by signs: and the other the will of the good pleasure of God. For the first consideration the Ministers do confess (as heretofore they have to the Doctors) that God can do many things, which he will not do. But as touching the other, they say: that it is equal to his power: as is also his power (in this respect) equal to his will. According to which consideration, the sentence of Tertullian alleged by the Ministers, and to the Monarchians ill applied by the Doctors, aught to be understood and expounded: As all those may judge, which attentively shall read the passage by the Ministers produced. Who to answer one slander of the said Doctors, which accuse them to have wronged the ancient Fathers, in saying that they excepted some causes of the omnipotency of Cod: are yet constrained here to repeat, that which Theodoret saith thereof in the 3. Dialogues who writeth as followeth. It must not be said without any determination, that all things are possible to God. For who so absolutely saith this, comprehendeth all things, as well good as bad, which no way ought to be attributed to God: whereby it appeareth, that this good author, and the other, before alleged by the Ministers, have not indifferently submitted all things to the power of God: but excepted from the same, whatsoever is contrary to his will and essence.  
To be brief, but one mean there is to appease the difference between the Ministers, who say that it is impossible for one body to be in divers places at one instant: and the Doctors, which affirm the contrary, to wit, that the Doctors (without taking so long circuit) losing so many words, and alleging so many superfluous things, do prove briefly by one only passage of scripture, that God willeth the same.  
Whether the Ministers have well or evilly alleged Saint Augustine, to prove that a body cannot be without place and measures: and also whether they have well or evilly said and defended, that quantity is essential to a body, and not accidental (as hold the Doctors) they leave the judgement to the Readers of the Acts of this Conference.  
Touching that which followeth in the writing of the Doctors: to wit, that there is no place above the heavens, that jesus Christ is not therein comprised nor contained, that bodies and spirits be indifferently there, without any distinction or distance of place: the Ministers say, that touching all these points, they rather believe the scripture, and express word of God (by them alleged) then all the subtleties & sophistries of vain Philosophy, which the Doctors, or others can propose. joined hereunto, that it is expressly contained & taught in one of the articles of our faith: where it is said; Fron whence he shall come to judge the quick & the dead. Whereupon must be noted, that there is [unde] an adverb signifying place.  
As touching the 4. and 5. articles, to know whether the Ministers have aught imposed upon the Doctors which is not true, they send back the readers to the precedent conference. And also to know in what sense, and to what end, the ancient Fathers have been alleged by the said Ministers; which they may easily perceive by the reading, and diligent observation of the passages and sentences of the said Fathers there inserted.  
For the 6. article, wherein the Doctors had rather confess their Canons to be false, then (accusing their authority) to avouch that the body of jesus Christ is a true dody, and that to be such, it ought necessarily to be in one certain place: the Ministers answer, that by the observation of the place of S. Augustine, (whence the said Canon is taken) it is easy to judge, that the word [Oportet] is there much more convenient, then that of [Potest].  
To the 8. article, the Ministers answer, that a substance is not without quantity, and whiles it is such, and so remaineth, it cannot any ways be a body. And the reason is, because that of the substance, and that of the quantity, are two divers predicaments: under which, one self-same thing, for one self-same respect, cannot be any way comprised. Moreover, jesus Christ alleged no other reason to show that his body was not a spirit, but that he had members and parts, which in respect of their measures, might be handled and touched. Whence it followeth, that without this, a substance cannot be a body. And as touching the difference which by the Doctor's opinion should remain between our souls and our bodies exempted from quantity, (if that were possible) the Ministers say, that although they were substances both in number and different, they should nevertheless be like, as touching the kind: and that the one and the other should be contained under the kind of an incorporeal substance.  
The Ministers pass over the 9 article, because it is but a repetition, and that they have largely answered what the Doctors there repeat.  
To the 10. article, the Ministers answer, that the consequence whereof is the question, cannot be otherwise defended by the Doctors, but by the rule which saith: that of one absurdity may all things be inferred. Moreover, they complain of time, which the Doctors make them lose, by reading so many things whereunto they have already answered, and which it seemeth they repeat not for any other end, then to fill up paper, and to make men think they say something.  
For first the Evangelist saith not (as the Doctors pretend) that jesus Christ entered by the shut doors: but only that he came, the gates being shut. So that he speaketh nothing there of the manner of his entry, nor how the doors were opened, or other place about the house by the which he entered. And all that which the Doctors say, cannot be grounded neither upon the scripture, nor upon any authority of all the ancient Fathers by them alleged: which be more against them, then with them. And for conclusion, they have no other foundation of their saying, than their own conjectures and imaginations, and the false interpretations which they give to the writings of the Fathers. To the faith whereof they would gladly constrain & subject the Church: to the end, that having laid that foundation, they might afterwards build thereupon, all the absurdities and errors they shall delight in touching the same. And where they presuppose when Christ entered the shut doors, walked upon the waters, and went out of the Sepulchre: that such miracles were done rather in the person, then in the other things. justine writeth the contrary, saying: that without any change happened, either in his body, or in that of S. Peter, he made by his divine power the Sea against nature, to serve him to walk. As also S. Hillary to the same purpose saith: That by his power he made all things passeable. Whereunto likewise agreeth S. john Chrisostome, attributing all that to divine power, and freely confessing that he knew not the manner and the fashion thereof. By means whereof, the Ministers are much abashed, that the Doctors are so presumptuous to determine a thing which by the scripture and Fathers hath been left undecided: and wherein (as S. Hillary saith wisely) sense and words do fail, & the truth of the deed, exceedeth the capacity of human reason. How dare then the Doctors so boldly say, that the body of jesus Christ passed through the doors; that there was penitration of dimensions; that two bodies were in one self-same place? Seeing that of all that, neither in the scripture, nor in the ancient Fathers, there is not one only syllable: and that (as is said) the Fathers do confess, that their understanding and sense were too feeble to comprehend or declare the reason of such a my sterie.  
As touching the birth of jesus Christ, the Ministers repose themselves upon the scripture, which saith clearly, that the Virgin was with child, that she brought forth, that she gave suck, and that Apertaest vulua, the womb is opened in the childbirth. They add, that the same doth nought derogate nor prejudice her virginity and pureness, which consisteth in this point only, that she knew not, not was known of any man, Moreover, they say that in believing the same, they follow the scripture: and consequently they cannot err, nor be heretics: nor they likewise which subject and subdue their sense to the word of God: as in this have done the Fathers which are by them alleged.  
In the following article proposed by the Doctors, touching the manner of the resurrection of jesus Christ, there is nothing but conjectures, slanders, & repetitions, troublesome and superfluous, which the Ministers by their former answers have largely satisfied.  
All that which afterwards followeth in the writings of the Doctors, are but injuries and scoffs, in stead of reasons and arguments: which is the last recourse of contentious spirits: who seeing themselves destitute of reason, and unable to give place to the truth, defend themselves by clamours and slanders.  
Some reason should the Doctors have for that which they say concerning the word Aphantos, if there followed Autois: but that which the Evangelist saith Ap'auton, showeth clearly, that the interpretation of the said place, and understanding of S. Ambrose, (where unto the Ministers agree) is better than that of the Doctors.  
As touching the opening of the heavens, the Ministers answer, that (using the language of the scripture, which saith clearly, that in the baptism of jesus Christ, the heavens were cloven asunder, and then opened, when S. Stephen was stoned) they cannot fail. And to apply to the air the signification of heaven, is a human imagination. This also seemeth, should diminish the Majesty of God, and of jesus Christ, who is lifted up above all the heavens, to establish so low as the air, the Throne of his Majesty. And there is no likelihood in that which the Doctors say, touching the being of two bodies in one self-same place; and that which the Ministers say of the sight of Stephen, which extended even to the heavens: for as much as the one is a miracle of the power of God in nature, and the other a wonder against nature, and the will of God.  
The Doctors in the article following, do falsely impute to the Ministers, that they affirmed, it was a thing impossible for God to make a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle: for they never touched this point in their former answers, but that part of the sentence only, where it is spoken of rich men. Now to answer too, and resolve their objections, the Ministers say, that even as God can save a rich man, by changing him, and emptying his heart of so much vain trust and presumption, as is therein, and whereof being gross and filled, he is uncapable to enter into the Kingdom of heaven: so to him it is also easy, to make a Camel pass through the eye of a needle, having circumcised and pared off the grossness thereof, and other things which might hinder the same to pass. ******  
First, that the Supper which is celebrated in the reformed Church, is the true institution and ordinance of the son of God.  
Afterwards, that the end for 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 his blood shed for the remission of their sins; and for the confirmation of the new covenant, which God hath made with his people.  
Thirdly they say, that it is necessary that the bread and wine abide in their proper substance, and that after consecration: otherwise they cannot be Sacraments of the body and blood of Christ.  
Lastly the Ministers say, that the unbelievers presenting themselves at the Supper, by means of their unbelief, can there no other thing receive, than the outward signs of bread and wine, and that to their judgement and condemnation.  
The Ministers on the other side propose unto them touching the Mass, that such as it is, and now celebrated in the Romance Church, it is nothing but a human invention and tradition.  
Also, that it is a corruption and profanation, as well of the holy Supper of our Lord jesus Christ, as of the true and lawful use thereof.  
Also, that it is an abuse of the Priesthood of Popish Priests, and that there is no other Priesthood in the new Testament ordained, to get and obtain remission of sins; nor also to make intercession, and by prayers and merits to obtain the favour of God, than the only Priesthood of jesus Christ.  
They say moreover, that it is a blasphemy and sacrilege, but of the sacrifice of the Romish Priests, and that there is no other oblation, then that which jesus Christ once made with his body upon the Cross; by which the wrath of God could be appeased, his justice satisfied, sinners reconciled to God, sins pardoned, and the hand-writing of eternal death canceled and abolished.  
Also they say, that the separation of the Priest in the Mass, from the rest of the people, is an abolishment of the Communion of the Supper: and consequently damnable before God.  
And to be brief, the adoration of bread and wine, (be it in the Mass, or out of the Mass) is an intolerable Idolatry.  
Two points yet remain in the writing of the Doctors, whereof the Ministers will admonish them. The one is, that the said Ministers have never found in the scriptures, 
john, 6. Ephes. 1.  that faith is a human work, but that it is the work of God, and a gift which he bestoweth upon his elect. The other point is, that they confess they cannot bring forth one ancient Author, which hath said in express terms, that one body could not be in divers places at one instant: for so much as the contrary thereof seemed so absurd and strange unto them, and so much against the reason and faith which all faithful people ought to have, that they never thought such an opinion had found place in the heart of any man that was called a Christian.  
The Ministers to end this answer, say that it will much more please them, to handle the questions aforesaid, then to dispute of the opening of doors, of the Sepulchre, or of the heavens; as to their great grief, they have done these days passed: and that for two reasons. The one, because that the deciding and resolution of such questions, cannot be drawn nor gathered out of the scripture. And the second, because it cannot much serve either to the advancement of the honour and glory of God, or the edification and instruction of his Church.  
Thursday the 25. day of july, in the year aforesaid.   

The Doctor's reply to the writing of the Ministers, sent unto them by my Lord the Duke of Nevers, the 25. day of july, about 8. of the clock in the evening, the year, 1566.  
WHere the Ministers say, that they do great wrong to call them blasphemers, seeing thereof they are innocent, as jesus Christ, S. Stephen, and Naboth, to whom men falsely imputed such like crime. The Doctors say, that the Ministers therein do imitate the good personages, the Donatists: who still complained of the great injuries and slanders which they endured (said they) of the Catholics; and yet men know by the histories how it was, and how much they were like to Christ, S. Stephen, and Naboth: as may also be known the conformity of the said Ministers, to such holy examples. As much might the Anabaptists say to them of the Church called reform, when they call them heretics. And as much might and did servetus say, who for his blasphemies was burned at Geneva: reputing himself happy to be judged by Calvin a blasphemer, and to suffer for his doctrine, the pains of death. We must not therefore believe that the Ministers are not blasphemers, because more boldly than all other heretics, they reject the name of blasphemer: but meet it is to examine whether their doctrine importeth blasphemy or not. Now the Doctors say, that there is no blasphemy worthy of more great execration, then to deny the omnipotency of God: and no less it is then simply to deny that there is a God. So that such denial imports an Atheism. For to take from God, that which is proper to his nature, is as much to say, as there is no God. As it well pleaseth S. Basil, writing in one of his Homilies, entitled, That God is not the Author of evil. That it is no less blasphemy to say, that God is author of evil, then to say that God is not God. In so much as to take away from God his goodness, which to him is natural, is wholly to take away his divinity. The like also may be said of the omnipotency, that whosoever denieth or diminisheth the same, he denieth also his divinity.  
The question than is, to know whether the Ministers will abolish the omnipotency of God, not in proper terms (for they seem to confess it) but in affirming that the power of God is measured according to his will, so that he cannot, but that which he will: and other like propositions contained in the precedent answer of the Ministers. Whether the Doctors have proved such propositions to contain blasphemies or no, they refer them therein to every man of sound judgement, who shallbe any thing conversant in holy scriptures, and the books of ancient Christians: which shall also be known by the Ministers frivolous answers in their last writing to the Doctor's objections. Who nothing marvel that the Ministers are deceived in the nature of the omnipotency, seeing they err in the foundation, and know not wherein it lieth, and why God is called almighty. For they have learned of the scripture (say they) that God is almighty, because he can do whatsoever he will do: and that nothing can resist him, which is rather as a sign of the power of God. But it is not that (under correction) wherein it consisteth; for knowledge whereof, it must be considered according to it object: that is to say, according to the things possible to be done: so that there is nothing possible which God cannot do. Now all without any exception, is esteemed possible, wherein is found no contradiction to be, and not to be: and that cometh not by default of the power of God (which can do all things) but of the repugnancy of the thing which cannot be. Which the Ministers from the beginning had well said in every answer: but for that they had answered upon some Interrogatories that the omnipotency of God must be measured by his will, supposing to salve that error, they are plunged in many other errors, out of which (for not confessing to have erred) they cannot rid themselves, without falling into an infinite number of absurdities.  
Moreover, the Ministers deceive themselves when they will limit the power of God, and not extend it to all things generally, that human spirit can conceive or imagine. For chose, it is doubtless that the power of God is great above all conceit, and imagination of the human spirit, that it is infinite and incomprehensible, as saith S. Paul: God can do more than we demand or understand. And where the Ministers say, that God only can do all things which are not contrary to his justice, wisdom, goodness, and truth, and therefore cannot do generally all things. It hath already been showed them, that to be able to do things contrary to the justice, wisdom, goodness, and truth of God, was not power, but weakness. And by the self-same reason (as saith Saint Augustine, in the place by the Doctors in their former objection alleged) that he cannot do such things, it is an argument of his omnipotency, and not of restraint thereof.  
And where the Ministers infer, that because God cannot do such things, he can (by consequence) do nothing; which is contrary to his wisdom, and eternal will, which is, and ever shall be, to do all things well and wisely, with number, weight, and measure, and without that there is any injustice or contradiction in all that which he doth. Men may see how the Ministers disguise the matter in controversy, concealing have couched in their former writing, touching the order established in the world, against which (said they) God could do nothing: and the other words of blasphemy, whereof the Doctors rebuked them, and which they durst not insert in their last answer, because their conscience accused them, and made them know, that such affirmations could not be maintained; and from which, they cannot escape, but in denying to have written them, and in accusing the Doctors of slander: as if by adding or diminishing, they had altered and changed the words of the Ministers. To be purged of which crime, the Doctors pray, that recourse be had to their last objection, where these words are inserted in the first article.  
The which blasphemies are drawn out of the proper words of the Ministers first article. And the Doctors refer them to the conference may be made of their last writing, with that of the Ministers. So that if it be found (as certainly it shall be found) that the Doctors have faithfully cited the proper words of the Ministers writing, which the Ministers themselves will not avouch; it shall be known at the least, that the Ministers have hitherto maintained blasphemous propositions, and that the Doctors therein have no way wronged them: having pardoned their persons, being content (of the doctrine) to say their simple opinion.  
The Ministers to show that they have just cause to accuse the Doctors of slander, say first that the Doctors have broken in two their proposition: which was such, that the omnipotency of God ought not to be measured, but by the things only which be agreeable to his will, and be not derogate either to his wisdom, truth, nature, or to the order which he hath willed to establish in the world: and that the Doctors have not taken but the last part only. Who for their purgation, say that they have always considered what was put in difference: to wit, whether God could make one body to be in two places. And to examine the truth of this question, before they put it in writing, they have reduced the whole to every part of the Ministers proposition, and have thus reasoned. God can do all things which are agreeable to his will: the which is known (as the Ministers do hold) when there is nothing that derogateth, either to his wisdom, his truth, his nature, or the order by him established in the world. Now one body to be in two places, derogateth not from the wisdom of God. For God should therefore not leave to be wise. Also it derogateth not from his truth: for he hath never said, that he could not do it: nor from his nature. For although he should do it, he should not cease to be God. If then there be any repugnancy, it should be, because it should derogate from the order by God established in the world. Which was the cause that they stayed not but on the last article. The Ministers also would not say as the Doctors suppose) that to be able to make one body to be in two places, was a thing repugnant, either to the wisdom, truth, or nature of God: if not, in that they think it to repugn the order by God established in the world. joined hereunto, that the Ministers having put this proposition above said, for a rule to know what God can do; when they would apply this rule to the matter in controversy, then should they thus say: To which things, that which the Doctors put forth (namely that one body, at one self-same instant, may be in divers places) repugneth. But the Ministers have only said & written, to which, (that is to say) order etc. For such relative cannot agree, but to the next antecedent. Wherein is clearly seen, that the Ministers run into the crime of slander, which they falsely object to the Doctors.  
And whereas the Ministers say, that the Doctors take not the term of the order established in the world, in the like sense, as they understand it: The Doctors say, that they have taken the term according to the understanding which the Ministers have thereof given: even as they have known by their words, which they have heretofore used. For when the question was to set forth some miracle done by jesus Christ, against, or above the nature of things created the Ministers have had always recourse to the common order of nature. As when speech hath been of the closed doors, of the going out of the Sepulchre, of the womb of the virgin, and of one body in divers places; No other reason to contradict it have the Ministers alleged, but that it was all against the order established in the world, touching the nature of a body: which cannot be understood, but of the common order which is seen in nature. Therefore the Doctors (so taking the same, as the Ministers have sufficiently declared in their former answers, against the order of nature▪) have well inferred against the Ministers, that God could not then do a miracle, against the order established in the world. The Doctors know, that the ancient Fathers observed not this difference, above or against nature: as by the testimony of Tertullian here before alleged, appeareth: Where it is said, that God against nature, can make a man fly as well as a bird. But they will not stay upon the rigour of words, but apply themselves to the Ministers with whom they confer. Who call it a work against the order established in the world, one body to be in divers places, foras much as it withstansteth the common disposition and proprieties of bodies. And by such reason (say the Doctors) that all other miracles ought also to be esteemed against the order in the world established: because they be against the common disposition and propriety of nature.  
And yet following the understanding which the Ministers now give of the order established in the world, for the estate and disposition which God hath established, conserveth and maintaineth all things, by his providence and eternal and immutable will, to govern all things rightly, and hinder any confusion to happen to his works. Here again do the Ministers commit a new blasphemy against the omnipotency of GOD: for he can wholly change, unchaunge, and destroy such order as he hath established in the world (albeit he will never do the same) and make a new world more perfect than this. And were it so, that he could do nothing against this order, his power should be stinted and limited. For he could not do but certain effects, according to the order which he had established in the world. Which should not happen by the repugnancy of the nature of Creatures: but in as much as God himself should be tied. And so (against the scripture) should his hand be shortened, and his power forced and limited: From which blasphemy, infinite others issue, as the Doctors when occasion shall serve, have purposed to show.  
To the 2. & third blasphemies which the Doctors have noted, the Ministers say, by the new interpretation of the order of the world, in one word they have fully answered. Which (to dissolve the arguments produced by the Doctors) cometh nothing to the purpose.  
And the Ministers pass over the alleged places of scriptures, which declare the blasphemy, and dissemble the contradiction of their doctrine, and of that of Calvin, touching the providence of God, in respect of the order established in the world. And the Ministers answer not to the Doctor's objection, that from the third blasphemy flow many others; lest in confessing the same, they might heap blasphemy upon blasphemy, and make their doctrine by this mean, odious toal the world.  
For answer to the fourth blasphemy, use the Ministers a distinction of the will of God, which may two ways be considered. The first is called the will known by signs: and the other, the will of good pleasure. The Ministers confess, that according to the first, God can do more than he will; and not according to the second, which is (as they say) equal to the power of God, & is hidden and unknown to men. The which distinction if it ought to have place, the Doctor's object, that the foundation of the Ministers, whereupon they stay the pretended truth of this proposition: God cannot make one body to be in divers places, is wholly destroyed. For the Ministers will have the power of God to be measured according to his will, not according to the second, which is hidden unto men. It behoveth then, that this be taken according to the first, by the which they confess that God can do more than he will do. Whereof it followeth, that the rule by them given to measure God's power, is false. For it cannot be measured by his will, seeing he can do more than he will.  
Moreover the Doctors say, that the Ministers should not require them to prove that God hath willed that one body should be in two places, to declare that he could do it. For the Doctors might object, that to teach that God may do something, it needeth not to prove, that he hath formerly willed it. For (according to the Ministers confession) God can do more than he will.  
The Doctors add, for as much as the will of God appeareth not to us, but by signs, words, and effects: and that the order established in the world, according to his providence (as the Ministers agree) is hidden unto men: that the Ministers cannot affirm, and show, that God hath established such order in the world, that one body may not be in divers places. For meet it were they should teach such an ordinance of God, and declaration of his will. Oft times have the Ministers been required, to bring one only place of scripture, where such a will of God is manifest: and where it is said, that he cannot make one body to be in divers places.  
As touching the place of Tertullian, the Doctors for understanding thereof, refer themselves to every man of sound judgement: and say, that the Ministers have ill to the purpose alleged Theodoret: and it maketh more against them, then with them. For when he writeth that it must not be indeterminately said, that God can do all things, comprehending therein good and evil; in that he maketh no restraint of the omnipotency of God: but chose, doth amplify the same: in so much, that not to be able to do evil things, is both a virtue and power, as before hath been largely declared.  
Where the Ministers do instant the Doctors to show, that God hath willed one body to be in two places: the Doctor's answer, that these are two different questions, whether God can do it: or whether he hath willed it. And when it shall be confessed (as it ought to be of all Christians) that the power is in God, very easy shall it be to show the will, by the word, of the Supper, and of the Ascension: which they of the pretended reformed religion have accustomed to deprave, and dissuade men from, by the impossibility which they feign to be in God, to put one body in two places.  
Also the Doctors leave it to the reader's judgement, whether S. Augustine have been cited by the Ministers to the purpose or no. And to that which concerneth whether ihe quantity be essential to a body, or not: the Doctors (speaking of a body as doth Philosophers, namely, In predicamento quantitatis) have never doubted but it is essential. But the difficulty is to know, whether to be circumscript in a place certain, be essential to a body? And the Doctors suppose they have sufficiently proved that it is not essential, but that it is an accident natural to a body. And they verify their saying, by the definition of a body, wherein all essential reason is comprised: and such it is, that a body is a kind of firm quantity of three dimensions, length, breadth, and deepness: where no mention is made of the circumscription of place in the said definition.  
What pertaineth to the question concerning places above the heaven, the Ministers (as they are wont) do lightly pass over. And for want of good answer, they wrong the Doctors, calling them Sophisters. And that which they bring to confirm that our Lord is in one place above the heaven, is over frivolous. For by the same reason might one conclude, that the divinity is circumscript. And adverbs signifying place, shall be found in the scripture, when it speaketh of the divinity, as well as when it speaketh of the humanity of jesus Christ.  
Where the Ministers impute to the Doctors that they confess their Canons to be false, it is a manifest slander. For the Doctors acknowledge not any Canons, but in as much as they are taken out of the Counsels, & other books authentic: and not according as they are extracted of any particular person: as is the polinge of Gratian: whereunto they give no credit, but as much as that which he citeth deserveth.  
For resolution of the 8. article, the Doctors send the Ministers to the school of Philosophers, to understand, that in a predicament of substance, there is a body, which is a kind of substance: and in a predicament of quantity, an other body, which is a kind of quantity. And to learn them also, that the body which is of quantity, is accidental (and not essential) to a body of predicament of substance.  
Moreover, the Ministers do err against all Philosophy, calling a material substance, incorporal. But the Doctors will not rest upon such things, and are much grieved that they have not to do with people better grounded in Ppilosophie. For that, being such, they could better touch the reason then the Ministers do.  
The Doctors do maintain the consequence of two bodies in one placle, to infer it for necessary, that one body may be in two places: for there is like reason, and like inconvenience in the one, as in the other. And therefore if the one be to be done, the other is possible: and so they refer it to the reader's judgements.  
Where the Ministers complain of the time they have lost in reading the reasons, arguments, and allegations, touching the closed doors, and other articles. The Doctors say, that in the matter in question, the Ministers have no cause to complain of overgreat prolixity, for fear of losing time. And that there is matter sufficient to spend the time withal, would they with patience (bringing with them good will, and all passion excluded) examine the testimonies of the Ancients, and reasons drawn from the same. But the Doctors do well prove, that when there is any thing which presseth the Ministers, than set they a good face on the matter, and make semblance to have right on their side. Moreover, the Doctors are much amazed, how the Ministers are so bold to say, that justin and all the Ancients have not placed the miracle of the passage of the doors, in the body of jesus Christ: seeing that justin expressly proposeth the question, how it is possible that a thick body is not hindered to pass through the closed doors. In the answer of which question, they conclude the same: that for as much as such miracle was done in the nature of the body of jesus Christ, the Apostles esteemed it was not a true body, but a spirit: as if the body had been transformed into a spirit: which justin saith did not happen: but that without any change of nature, such an operation, to pass through the closed door, was given to the body of jesus Christ by the omnipotency of God: and justin saith not, that any miracle was wrought in the sea, when jesus walked thereupon: but that by the almightiness which was in him, he made it walkeable, without any change of the nature, either of his body, or of the sea: although that the miracle were in his body, which against it nature so walked. It is not sufficient to allege out of S. Hillary, that the power of God made passage to the body of our Lord. For he saith not that only; but addeth the manner of the deed▪ to wit, that the body passed without change or diminishing of it nature, and without having any opening. But that by the operation of the almightiness, he passed notwithstanding, which wrought in his body, piercing the shut and closed places: Nihil (inquit) cessit ex solido parietum: nothing ceased (saith he) of the firmness of the walls: and other like words which he bringeth: of which can no other thing be understood, but a piercing of many bodies. S. Chrisostome expressly disputeth of the body, which against it nature passed through the closed doors, as through the womb of the virgin, without fraction. And he saith not simply that he knoweth not wherein the work consisted (for he describeth it) but he amplifieth the power of the work: and saith, that he cannot comprehend the reason and greatness thereof, for as much as it proceeded from the power of the incomprehensible Cod. Concerning this whole point, the Doctors refer them to the reading of the books, without more debating thereof against the Ministers: who think always to abuse the ignorance of those which believe them, denying or affirming what they think good. And it troubleth and grieveth the Doctors, that they are constrained to repeat the former reasons so familiarly, and clearly deducted: But the Ministers evasions so often repeated, enforce them eftsoons to inculeate that, which of these articles ought to be believed by the common consent of the Fathers.  
The Doctors are abashed at the manner of the Ministers answer: who without regard of that hath been objected to them, say what they please, without answering to the arguments of the matter proposed: As they do in the article of the birth of jesus Christ: In the deduction whereof the Doctors have brought many testimonies of the Ancients, which hold, that our Lord (as he was also there conceived) myracuculously issued from the womb of his mother: And that the said Fathers did witness, such birth to have been made without any fraction in the body of the virgin, and condemned of heresy all those which held the contrary. Which thing the Ministers will yet maintain, and for full answer, affirm the same: relying (as they say) upon the scripture, and not daring to say openly, that to cleave to their proper sense, they reject the determination of the ancient & primitive Church. Which is very clear notwithstanding by their answer to this article: wherein they falsely city the scripture, as though it contained, that in the birth of our Lord, Aperta fuerit vulua virgins: The womb of the virgin was opened. And where they say, that such an opening repugneth not the corporal virginity, (whereof is the question) they belie the resolution of the ancient Fathers, which have determined of that deed.  
Whether in the Article of the Resurrection there be but conjectures, the reading of the Doctor's objection will witness. The which they may see, that desire to know the truth thereof.  
Where the Ministers do complain in the end of the article of the Resurrection, that the Doctors do wrong and scoff them; the Doctors doubt not, but the Ministers are sore troubled, that their subtleties and manner of dealing are discovered: the which, did men well understand, they would not suffer themselves so easily (as heretofore) to be deceived.  
The solution which the Ministers pretend to give, because it is not Aphantos' autois, but Ap'auton is impertinent. For howsoever it was, our Lord was invisible to his Disciples, were it by sudden vanishing, or otherwise; the which vanishing, in a body present to perfect sight, cannot be done, except the body be made to them invisible. And howsoever it be, the Greek Text beareth invisible and unapparant.  
As touching the article of the opening of the heavens, the Ministers as they are wont, answer not to the purpose: For it is not said, that the heavens were cloven asunder, or opened, when he ascended thither: as at the baptism of jesus Christ, and when it is spoken of the vision of S. Stephen. But the scripture saith expressly, that jesus Christ pierced the Heavens, and not that the Heavens were opened unto him. And the Ministers cannot forbear to slander the Doctors, in depraving the understanding of their writings: as is seen in this present answer, where the Ministers faineto have understood, in that place of the scripture, mentioning jesus Christ to have pierced the Heavens, that the Doctors by the name of Heaven, will have the air to be signified: which the Doctors never thought: but have oft times said, that when it mentioneth the opening of the Heavens, by the Heavens it understandeth the air: which so ought not to be applied, when our Lord is said to have pierced the Heavens.  
By such manner of answer do the Ministers think, to cause the force of the Doctor's reason to be forgotten. Who said thus: If when it is said in the scripture that the Heavens were opened, the words ought strictly to be taken, and truly to be understood, that the heavens were opened: It likewise behoveth, when the scripture saith, that jesus Christ pierced the Heavens, that the word [pierced] be taken in it proper signification and strictly: which thing directly repugneth the division or opening, as things opposed one to another. To which reason, there is no answer given, more than ordinarily is to the other arguments of the said Doctors.  
Touching the difference which the Ministers put, between the sight of S. Stephen, which stretched even to the height of Heaven, and the being of two bodies in one self-same place: and that the one is a miracle in nature: and the other a wonder against nature, and the will of God. The Ministers (good Secretaries of God's Counsel and will) should do much, if they could teach the Doctors, that God hath willed the one, and that he cannot will the other: and then shall there be reason for their saying, to show the difference they have assigned between these two.  
The inconstancy of the Ministers is known in the article where the Camel is mentioned: to wit, whether God can cause him to pass through the eye of a needle. For in the Ministers first answer, made without any distinction, have they answered, that to make a Camel (or Cable) to pass through the eye of a needle, was a thing impossible with God. And in the second answer do they allege, that jesus Christ, (in saying, that what was impossible with men, was possible with God) no other thing pretended, but to answer the question which his Disciples had proposed: namely, who could be saved: answering whereunto, he said: that it was impossible with men: and that such sentence of jesus Christ, ought not to be understood, but of the salvation and conversion of rich men only: which exclusive speech (when the Ministers affirm, that our Lord saying, that what is impossible to man, is possible with God; must not be understood, but of the salvation of the rich) clearly showeth, that the Ministers intent was to say by their answer, that our Lord meant not to comprehend under this proposition; [That which is impossible with men, is possible with God]: the possibility to make a Camel pass through the eye of a needle. As if this proposition were not to be generally understood, whereof our Lord inferreth this particular. It is possible with God to save a rich man. And he himself by express words speaketh generally: Omnia apud Deum possibilia snnt. With God are all things possible. The Doctor's desire, that they which can read this present writing, would note the starting holes of the Ministers, who wontedly avouch, and deny the errors they maintain, when they are thereof by the truth convinced.  
Now the Ministers (not daring to persist in defence, that God cannot cause a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle) have invented a very foolish interpretation, in confessing that God can do it, but that the means should be in this, that God might pair off and diminish the grossness of a Camel, and all other things which might hinder it passage there. But that gloze the Text cannot brook: For our Lord speaketh of a thing wholly impossible to men: which should not be. For although to make and bring forth a Camel of so little stature and bigness, that he might pass thorough the eye of a needle, were a thing impossible with man, yet if God brought forth such a one, or if he did so much diminish the greatness and grossness of a Camel, and that man might hold the same, he might well cause it to pass. But the question is not of the production of a Camel, or of making him great or small; but of causing him to pass. The which (were he so little) should not be a miracle as touching the passage, but only touching the production of such a living Creature, or the changing of his quantity. Also in taking this name Camelus, for a Cable (as Calvin thought best) the absurdity of this new exposition shall better appear. For well may man so much lessen a Cable, by the detraction of it matter, that in the end he may make it pass through the eye of a needle. Moreover it should be easy for a man to make a needle, whose eye should be so large, that a Cable, (yea a Camel) might pass there through. But the scripture speaketh of things impossible with man, and as they are in their own nature. Therefore as the eye of a needle must be taken in it little and strait quantity: so also must a Camel or Cable, be taken in it natural grossness. And never were the Ancients so subtle, too in't vent such ingenious interpretations, as one could not read without laughter. But the Ministers cannot escape with this goodly exposition, that one seeth not clearly, they deny the power of God can stretch so far, that it can make a Camel in his crookedness and thickness, to pass through the eye of a needle: but only when he shall by the power of God, be brought into quantity proportionable to the eye of a needle, which is against the express Text of the scripture, and against the exposition of ancient interpreters: although that besides the literal sense, the Camel be sometimes allegorically expounded by them. But the allegorical exposition of that place, taketh not away the truth of the literal sense, no more than the acts of jesus Christ cease to be true acts, albeit the interpreters expound them allegorically. Wherein the Ministers are deceived, supposing, because they have read in S. Jerome some interpretation besides the literal, that 
Li. de vera Circoncisione ad finem.  the comparison which our Lord in this behalf hath used, was a parable, which is false. For a true argument it is which our Lord deduceth, to show his power to save a rich man: because this is a thing more hard, than to cause a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle.  
The Doctors to conclude upon this article, do eftsoons show unto the Ministers, that of the denial of the stretching forth of God's almightiness, many other absurdities, which cannot otherwise be termed then blasphemies, do follow. Namely, that two bodies cannot be in one place by the almightiness of God: that GOD cannot make a body without circumscription of place: that jesus Christ entered not, nor could enter through the closed doors: arose not, nor could a●●●e, without the stone were rolled from the grave: that he went not, nor could go out of the Virgin's womb, without fraction in the body of his mother: that he pierced not, nor could pierce the heavens, without opening of them: that he made not, nor could make a body (no not his own) invisible: that he could not cause a Camel (or Cable) retaining it grossness, to pass through the eye of a needle. Which things do follow the denial of his almightiness, and is an execrable blasphemy, and very Atheism. Behold the enormous absurdities which they are constrained to confess, that deny the real presence of jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar; which the Doctors pray to be well considered by the readers of this present writing.  
Concerning that which the Ministers make question of in the last article of their answer, that the Doctors do call faith a human work, seeing that it is of God: they ought no more to wonder thereat, then infinite other truths, which seemeth strange to them because their doctrine is founded on the grounds of error: among which, one of the principal is; That man hath not free will: that man to think well, will well, and do well, worketh not together with God: against many places of scripture which setteth down man coworking with God: and for his faith and works, hath of him reward and recompense. The which, without wandering from the purpose, shall more aptly be handled in an other place. The Doctors like well, that the Ministers do confess that the ancient Fathers have never said, God could not cause one body to be in divers places: which thing is true. But the reason which they yield, why they have not so said, is of the Ministers own forge and invention. It remaineth, that they show us so much by the testimony of the Scripture concerning the same: For no more is it therein found, then in the writings of the Fathers. Whereof the said Ministers have been oft admonished, who say they build all their doctrine upon the word of God.  
Had the Ministers in the beginning confessed the truth of the Omnipotency, or else had they said, that they acknowledged that jesus Christ could cause his body to be above, and here below in the Sacrament, really and truly, if he so would: than had it been needless to handle these former questions, which nevertheless, are not of small consequence, as the Ministers do esteem them. Which thing appeareth by the writings of the Fathers, who have diligently handled these places, and strengthened themselves therewith against heretics: But because the Ministers would not agree, that God can make one body to be at one self-same instant, in divers places; And that if the Doctors had begun to declare his will to have been such, that he had ordained the body of jesus Christ should be in Heaven, and in the Sacrament. The Ministers might have said (as they of their sect do say) that God hath not willed it, because he could not. The Doctors had rather first entreat of the Almightiness, then of the will. And seeing the matter of the Omnipotency hath been sufficitntly tossed, they are determined to prove, that jesus Christ hath willed and ordained, that his body should be in divers places. In the probation of which thing, when they have understood the Minister's opinion, of that they hold in their Churches touching that matter, they will enter into the former Conference, to the end that their travel be not in vain. For that they follow not (it seemeth to the Doctors) that which Calvin and Beza hold concerning the same. For which cause (say the Doctors) that the Ministers abuse the people: feigning to teach that, which in the reformed Church they have wontedly done: and yet their answer addressed to the Doctors, showeth the contrary.  
In that the Ministers repute themselves happy, to endure such reproaches, to be esteemed seducers by the Doctors, let them remember, that all sects may say as much thereof as they: whether by right or wrong, it will appear by examination of their doctrine.   

The Doctor's resolution touching the article of the Almightiness of God, in regard of four questions by them propounded to the Ministers: which serve to the understanding of the real presence of the body and blood of jesus Christ in the Sacrament.  
EVery man which can patiently consider by the scriptures, beginning at Abraham, the Father of the faithful, unto the last writing of the Apostles: shall find, that the well spring of all infidelity hath ordinarily been, to have regard to the propriety of creatures, and common order of nature, to contradict, doubt of, and distrust the word of God. For which reason, Tertullian and other former Christians said well: that Philosophers, and they that stayed upon things natural, were the Fathers of Hereticques: because the contemplation of Nature, engendered almost all heresies: On the contrary side, shall one perceive the almightiness of God, to be proposed by the scriptures, as a sharp sword, cutting in pieces all arguments which might come of natural reasons: for a certain and final resolution to believe whatsoever is couched & borne by the said word of God, albeit impossible & incomprehensible to every creature: and faith to be stayed on that same power in all doubts, which might be offered or proposed.  
All the difficulty which Abraham made upon the promises of God to him, did proceed of certain impossibilities of nature, which he saw in himself and in his wife. And it seemeth he had always regard thereunto, until God used his authority, and said unto him: I am God all sufficient. Is any thing hard to the Lord? After this rebuke and remonstrance of God, Abraham did then forget all consideration of the proprieties of his nature, and laid hold on this shield of faith: which is to know, and to be fully persuaded, that God is almighty, to whom nothing is hard or impossible. And after that, when question was of killing his only son; albeit he had great appearance of contradiction in nature, and in the word of God, which had been given him: to wit, that of the seed of that son should he proceed, which should give blessing to all Nations, and notwithstanding he must kill him before he had any lineage of his body issued. Nevertheless he made not protestation, opposing that contradiction of nature, and of the word of GOD, to maintain, that that which had been said and promised unto him was impossible: but he had recourse to the stay of faith, and of the faithful (saith Saint Paul to the Hebrews) that is to say, to the omnipotency, esteeming that God had the mean to make true both the one and the other: namely, to cause his son to die, and rise again, to draw from him afterwards lineage and posterity: although as yet 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. And God showed him his fault, in that he would deny him the power, long time with flesh to nourish his people: because the nature of the wilderness did not afford it: and did admonish him to lift up his spirit to the omnipotency against nature, and there to assure his faith. Moses said: Six hundred thousand people there are, among whom I am: and thou sayst, I will give them flesh, that they may eat thereof a month long: Shall the sheep and beeves be slain to find them? Either shall all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them to suffice them? God answered Moses, Is the hand of the Lord shortnea? thou shalt now see whether my word shall come to pass, or no. In like manner, as often as one shall read in the scriptures, that the people, or other particular persons, fell into unbelief or distrust of God's help and succour, he shall know, that the cause hath ordinarily been, for staying upon the nature and disposition of human things: without sufficient apprehension of the power of God. And chose, to confirm them, that this power was set before their eyes: divers examples thereof have heretofore been brought out of Esay and jeremy.  
In the new Testament, the Virgin having regard to the natural manner of conceiving, seemed to doubt of the mean of her conception. And she said: How shall this thing be, seeing I know not man? And the Angel answering, said unto her: Nothing shall be impossible with God. Drawing her back from the cogitations of natural proprieties, which is the root of Infidelity, and exhorting her to think upon the Almightiness of God, which is the chief stone and rock, whereupon true Religion is builded.  
Which thing considered: The Doctors for their resolution of this conference with the Ministers, do say: that with good right hath the omnipotency of God very expressly obtained the first place, among the articles of the Apostles Creed: as being that, by which all the other articles of faith, and the works of God above nature, are believed and maintained, against all contradiction and repugnancy of nature, or reason, which may be pretended or alleged: And without the which, any article of faith, or any the works of God surpassing nature, and contained in the scriptures, could not be defended and maintained, against the assaults of malice, and deprivation of human spirit: which always tendeth to infidelity, and disobedience towards his God: and from his birth is prompt and subtle to deprave and slander his word and commandment. By means whereof (say the Doctors) that so much the more ought every Christian to enforce himself, to hold and keep that article entire, without suffering any to make any exception thereof, or to restrain it at his pleasure, under any pretexts of (I know not what) repugnancies of creatures; which human spirit proposeth, for want of understanding and comprehending the greatness of God. For the scriptures do ever present unto us this omnipotency generally without any restraint, in regard of creatures, or of the works of God. And teacheth us, that the creatures is in his hands, as the clayin the hand of the Potter, to receive such change and form, as shall seem good unto him: without that 
Esay 45. jere. 18. Rom. 9  they can say, Why hast thou made or changed me thus! Such similitude and words the Prophet Esay, jeremy, and S. Paul do use.  
Moreover, the Doctors say: that men must yet less be licensed to limit and bond the foresaid power, according to the contradictions which in their writings they imagine of the nature, wisdom, or eternal will of God: Seeing that the scripture saith plainly, that God can do more than we understand, and mocketh at them which will intermeddle with the nature, wisdom, and eternal will of God: as though they had been of counsel with him to know thereby the decisions and ordinances, more than his own word pronounceth thereof. And S. Paul in the end constraineth with himself every spirit created, to cry out, confessing his ignorance of the power, wisdom, 
Rom. 11.  and works of God: Oh the deepness of the riches, wisdom, and knowledge of God, how incomprehensible are his judgements, and his ways past finding out. For who is he that hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his Counsellor? And an excellent saying of S. Augustine upon this point is to be noted, who in an Epistle Advolusianum saith: We confess, that God can do something, the which in searching, we cannot find. As if he would say: to wit, if God can do something, albeit in our natural judgement we think it impossible: we esteem it nevertheless that it is possible: but that the capacity of our spirit cannot comprehend the same.  
The Doctors say asso, that by such liberty and means that any will exempt what he liketh from the power of God, under colour of some impossibilities of nature, or of repugnancy, after his own judgement, to the nature, wisdom, and will of God: each one will study to feign the like, in all matters of faith: wherein such causes may be easily invented, and well disguised. And that it is so, from the first article of the Creed unto the last, let all the heresies which have been there contradicted, be from time to time observed, and it will appear, that all have held this way and method, to fight against every article of faith, as impossible to God: respecting the impossibility of the work according to nature, and some pretended inconveniences, against the nature, wisdom, will, and glory of God.  
The Doctors employ to this effect, the two first books of Tertullian: one whereof is, of the incarnation of jesus Christ: and the other, against the Marcionists of the resurrection of the flesh: In which the Christian reader shall perceive the like arguments of those Marcionists, endeavouring to exempt from the omnipotency of God, the incarnation of our Lord, and the resurrection of the flesh.  
Then to conclude this point, the Doctors do forewarn every Christian, that they add not aught to the scriptures, which speak always without any limitation of the power of GOD towards the creatures: and to the end, to praise the infinite power, wisdom, and eternal will of our Creator and Redeemer: and to the end to preserve the closet of God's secrets from every shameless and impudent person, which of his own folly will make a law, not only to men, of heretics. Credendo non credunt. To wit, that in believing God's omnipotency, they believe it not. For after they have said that no exception is to be put unto it, on the other side they return to declare, that it ought not be extended to every thing, which human spi● 't can conceive. And indeed, they will not apply unto it, but what seemeth good unto them: and shroud themselves with the nature, wisdom, and eternal will of God: which to them are unknown, and incomprehensible, as that of the Omnipotency. The Doctors therefore do admonish all men to beware of being abused with the words of Calvin and his Ministers: but to regard the works which they deny to be in the power of God. The Doctors have proposed to them these four questions: to wit, whether God can make one body to be in two places: and (chose) two bodies in one place: whether he can lodge one body in a less space than the greatness thereof: and whether he can make it invisible. And such questions have been specially chosen: because the principal arguments of the pretended reformed Religion against the true presence of the body and blood of jesus Christ in the holy Sacrament, are founded upon the same.  
The Doctors believe simply (as all other things) that the four questions are possible to God, and have proved the same by the infiniteness of his power, by the scriptures, which attribute unto him all power without exception, over the creatures: and by written examples and strange my racles wrought upon their bodies, against the nature of them. Tertullian in his book of the Resurrection, saith: To the end we may believe, that our God is more mighty than all law and nature of all bodies: And addeth: that they know God amiss who think that is not in his power, which they in their brain cannot comprehend. From whence it cometh (as saith S. Cyrill) that such wicked spirits do reject and condemn all things as impossible, because they themselves do not understand them.  
Moreover the Doctors suppose they have sufficiently showed, as well by express scripture, as by the expositions thereof, taken from ancient Christians, that it was not only in the power of God to make two bodies in one place, and one body without place equal to it greatness, but that already it was truly done in the birth of the body of our Lord jesus Christ: in his resurrection: in the entry through the closed doors: and in the ascension above all the heavens. And the Doctors have showed, that there was like and semblable repugnancy in these deeds, as in the other: that is, of one body in two places: which is not exempted by the scripture, from the power nor will of God, more than the others, to judge it impossible to be done: and that there was never Christian before our time, which dared to affirm that thing to be impossible, ●nd out of the power of God, although occasion was often offered to say it, had they any way thought it impossible: as the Ministers of the pretended reformed Religion do pretend. Contrariwife, the most part of the ancient authors of the Primitive Church, have held it expressly to be in God's power to place one creature in many places: as held Saint Jerome against the heretic Vigillantius, that the souls of the Saints might be present in many places, with the immaculate Lamb our Lord jesus Christ. And the question was, whether the said souls, and spirits of the Saints, were sometimes present in the Churches where their Sepulchres and monuments were. And so much thereof holdeth S. Augustine in the 16▪ Chap. of the book which he wrote of the due care of the dead: where he writeth, that souls by the power of their own nature, cannot be here below, and in heaven, or in many places: but that it may be done by the power of God: and will not resolve whether they understand our affairs by such a presence in many places, or by the revelation of Angels, or other means by the power and grace of God.  
Also it is certain, that in the matter of the holy Sacrament, the ancient Fathers of the Church have acknowledged and maintained, that the body of jesus Christ was in many places by the almighty power of God. As doth S. Ambrose upon the tenth of the Epistle to the Hebrews: and Saint Chrisostome in his 17. Homily upon the same Epistle. Where both two as it were in like words do write, that although in many places there are many actions and oblations of the body of jesus Christ: nevertheless (having regard to the thing which is offered, to wit, the true lamb and body of Christ jesus) that this sacrifice in many places offered is but one, for so much as it is but one self-same thing: to wit, the true lamb, and the true body of jesus Christ, which is but one, and abideth whole in all places where it is offered. They add also, that the oblations of him in divers places, is not an iteration of the sacrifice of the Cross: but in commemoration of him. So that in the sacrifice of the Mass, they acknowledge and distinguish two points. The one which concerneth the realty of the thing offered: and they say, that this is the true lamb, and true body of jesus Christ: which then remaining entirely one, is nevertheless in many places. And the other concerneth the action and oblation of such thing by the Priest, which is no iteration, nor like action or oblation as that of the Cross: but diverse, in remembrance notwithstanding of that was made upon the Cross. S. Chrisostome in the third book of Priesthood, crieth out saying: Oh miracle and power of God He which sitteth on high at the right hand of his Father, is held between the hands of each one in the Sacrament. S. Augustine upon the 33. Psalm showeth, that the body of jesus Christ in the Supper was in two places: that is to say, in it visible place among his Apostles; and nevertheless between his own hands. So that he himself did bear himself. And before he concludeth the same, Saint Augustine debateth how it was possible that one person should bear his body between his hands. And after he had showed that it was impossible for David, and every creature, he descended at last, to the divine power which was in jesus Christ: by the which, to him alone among all men, such miracle was possible. And to the end that men should not deprave, nor wrest the meaning of S. Augustine, (because there is something which after a sort is carried as though it diminished the truth) let them note that the purpose of S. Augustine is, to show that jesus by his almightiness did carry himself, which to any creature was impossible. Now had he only in the Supper borne between his hands the figure of the Sacrament, and sign of his body, and not his true and real body, he should have done nothing, but what the least man might do. For each man can carry betwixt his hands, the figure, Image, sign or Sacrament of his body, or stick it in his hat, without miracle or supernatural power. It be hoveth then, that the certain manner which S. Augustine useth, doth nothing diminish the truth: and this it is, that between his hands he was invisible, and in a supernatural manner of being; real nevertheless and true. S. Basil in his Liturgy with the others, avoucheth the body of jesus Christ to be in heaven, and by his almightiness notwithstanding to be present in the Sacrament: although the Ministers to prove it impossible for one body, or one other creature, to be in many places, do chiefly build upon S. Basil: but the said S. Basil, in the place by the Ministers alleged, doth expressly protest, not to speak but according to the natural propriety. And in his Liturgy he declareth, that it is not only in the power of God to cause the body of jesus Christ to be in heaven, and upon the Altar; but that it is so truly done.  
The Doctors to end this question of one body in many places, say: that such matter is not only in the power of God, but that it must so be believed to be done in the holy Sacrament, that God be not found a liar and deceiver in his word: whereby jesus affirmed to his Apostles, that that which he gave with his hands, was his true body, delivered for us. This is an argument which Tertullian in his book of the Resurrection maketh, after he had disputed against them which denied the same to be possible with God. And it seemeth they then said (as the Ministers have formerly said) that there was something by the scripture impossible with God: to wit, that he could not lie, nor deceive: and that thereof they took occasion to go further, and to dispute that the resurrection was to him also impossible. So that the Ministers, because God cannot lie, have endeavoured ●o infer, that to put one body in two places, was impossible for him, as well as to lie and deceive. Tertullian in the end acordeth with the Marcionists, and saith: Rather had I confess that God cannot deceive, and that he is only weak and impotent in deceit: to the end, that thereby he seem not to have taught and spoken one way, and to have otherwise disposed of the deed contained in his word. Then if he cannot (concludeth Tertullian) deceive and abuse, the resurrection must be believed, as it is carried in his word, and not otherwise, lest deceit be found in the word of God.  
The Doctors say also, they willingly confess, that God cannot lie, nor deceive: and that it must therefore be believed, that so he hath willed and ordained the truth of the Supper, in such sort, and not otherwise, as his word soundeth and beareth. Now so it is, that his word plainly and expressly beareth, that he affirmeth that what he gave with his hands to his Apostles to eat, was his body, delivered for us: we must therefore believe that his word saith not otherwise then his will is, lest he be esteemed a liar. And that as he saith, This is my body: This is my blood: that it is so indeed. The which the Doctors (by God's assistance) will declare in the next Conference, to show that he hath not only power to establish his body in the holy Sacrament: but also that he hath willed it, and so hath done it.   

Artictles proposed by the Doctosr for the next Conference, and others following, according to the order of the said Articles.  
ALthough, following the order of Conference touching the Apostles Creed, they ought secondly to entreat of an other article (as the Ministers themselves in the beginning of the Conference not only accorded, but demanded: offering the imprinted Articles of their confession, bearing date the 1564. year, from the first unto the last, to be examined by the Doctors.) Nevertheless, the Doctors seeing it will not be much from the purpose, after they have entreated of the omnipotency of God (which extendeth to be powerful to cause the body of jesus Christ to be in heaven, and in the Sacrament) in continuing that matter, to enter into the probation of his will: they are content to show, that he hath not power only, but that also he hath will: and are consequently determined to refute all the blasphemies and heresies contained in their Supper, which are called reform: to the end also they be not deemed to fly the list, touching the Supper and the Mass, as the Ministers have reproached them. Nevertheless they protest, that their meaning is, after the conclusion of this matter, and resolution given, to return to examine the wonderful errors of the Ministers, which in number are many against the other articles of the Creed: which thing the Ministers (unwilling that the Doctors should pursue the order begun, do greatly fear, as one may see, and judge: foreseeing, that in the next Conference, an other blasphemy would be showed them, which the Church (calling itself Reform) against the goodness of God, after Calvin's doctrine) maintaineth: to wit, that God worketh in the reprobate, the evil and sin they commit: which is an execrable Atheism, and no less than the denial of the omnipotency of God. And they that can read these Conferences (continuing to the end of the discussion of the Ministers errors, and of their religion against all the articles of the Creed) shall be likewise abashed to understand the absurdities and blasphemies issuing from the same.  
another point there is yet, which inviteth the Ministers to demand tractation of the Supper: which is, that they have the whole matter already squared, by many of their Sect, who have written of the same: And chiefly the great book of Peter Martyr will not fail them. Whereby they shallbe furnished with I know not what infamous objections, & of some passages of the Fathers, broken & depraved, or evilly applied, to impugn in show, the truth of the body in the Sacrament. But for defence of all other their errors, the Ministers are meanly armed: and their conscience doth sufficiently witness, that by the scripture, decision of general councils, and common accord of the writings of all the ancient Fathers, (no appearance to the contrary) they are convinced and condemned of their errors against the said Creed.  
Now, to enter into the examination of the Supper of the Ministers, the Doctors do maintain, that it is a profane eating and drinking, not differing from common eating and drinking, but in that it is worse: that they abuse the holy institution of the Supper of jesus, and pollute and defile such their banquet with all impiety, & blasphemy. They also maintain, that the Ministers do great injury to the Sacrament of jesus Christ, falsely to attribute to such, their profane and polluted banquet, the name of Sacrament. And to the end that the proof thereof be more clear, the Doctors demand of the Ministers, whether they receive one common doctrine, received not only in the Church Catholic, but also almost in all Sects which are separated from it: That is, that in the confection of the Sacraments, there be two essential and necessary things: the matter (or element) and the word?  
Secondly, what word, with the Element, is necessary to make a Sacrament: and namely, that which the Ministers do call the Sacrament of the Supper: and whether it behoveth to use certain words or no?  
Thirdly, whether the word have some power or effectual working in the Sacrament? & what, & whether it work upon something in the matter of the bread and wine?  
Fourthly, whether by the same word, consecration be made of the matter of the Sacrament or no?  
Fiftly, whether by the word consecration, be not made of the matter? to wit, how the same consecration is made? and by what virtue the same is made?  
Sixtly, whether besides the bread and wine, and the spiritual graces and benefits of jesus Christ, the true body and blood of jesus Christ in their proper substance, and not in spiritual effect only, be really received in the Supper? And the Doctors do demand upon this article, a plain confession of the faith of the Ministers.  
They demand further, whether in receiving the bread, before taking of the wine, they receive not by the eating of the bread, the body and blood of jesus Christ: or the body only. Briefly, whether they admit that which Divines call a Concomitance of the body and blood of jesus Christ.  
They demand also, whether the Supper (over and beside the assurance which it giveth them of the participation they have in the flesh of jesus Christ, for their redemption) doth work in them remission of sins?  
Lastly they demand, whether one receiveth any thing by the Supper, which he could not receive without the Supper? or whether without pain taking to go the Supper, or being present thereat, one may as well receive the body and graces of jesus Christ, as if he were present at the Supper?  
The Doctors will afterwards debate the other articles, contained in the Ministers last writing: for as much as the precedent demands ought to be first examined, as grounds of other articles proposed by the Ministers.  
Moreover, after the confutation of the Supper of the Ministers, and the confirmation of the real presence of the body and blood of jesus Christ in the holy Sacrament, the Doctors by order, and without confusion, will clearly teach by the pure and express word of God, that the Mass was instituted and said by jesus Christ, and that he commanded his Apostles to say it: which thing, then following the ordinance of their Master, they afterwards performed.  
That the Mass is a true sacrifice of the law Euangelique.  
That they which reject the Mass, and admit in the Church no external sacrifice, nor Priesthood, are without the true law, without true Religion, and therein worse than Idolaters themselves.  
That the Mass availeth to obtain remission of sins, favour, and grace of God: and that it availeth both for the quick and the dead.  
That it is not an abuse in the Church, if the Priest in the Mass do communicate alone, when they that are present will not communicate.  
That they commit an horrible blasphemy, which call the adoration of the body and blood of jesus Christ in the Sacrament, adoration of bread and wine, and falsely call such worship of the body of jesus Christ, Idolatry.  
To be short, that there is nothing in the Mass, at this day ordained and celebrated, which in itself is not good, and holy, and agreeable to the word of God.  
The Doctors do admonish the Ministers to answer to the demands here above written, to purpose, plainly, and by order.  
Sunday, 28. of july, in the year aforesaid.   

The Ministers answer to the writings of the Doctors, sent to them by my Lord de Nivernois, the 28. day of july, about seven of the clock in the evening, in the 1566. year.  
THe Doctor's reproach the Ministers in the beginning of their writing, that in their former complaint against them, they imitate the Donatists: wherein they verify that, which the Ministers heretofore have oftentimes showed them: to wit, that the most part of their writings are employed in repetitions, injuries, scoffs, and invectives, rather than in good arguments and reasons: And they say, that the example of the Donatists is much more proper to be applied to them, then to the Ministers: for as much as the Donatists would restrain the name of the Church, (which universally comprehendeth all the elect and faithful, that are, and ever were): and attribute the same to the sole company of them which follow their customs and errors: as the Doctors at this day approve not others for the Catholic and universal Church, than they which follow the traditions and abuses of the Roman Church. Moreover, the Donatists did persecute them which were contrary to their doctrine, and used violence and all cruelty against them, that they could devise: as Saint Augustine in many places doth recite. Now what in time past hath been the rage and fury, as well of the Doctors, as of their complices, Priests, and hypocritical Monks, against poor Christians, each one knoweth. And there is not he, which knoweth not now, both by their Sermons, writings, and conferences, what is their hate and spite against the children and servants of God: and what pleasure should they have to root them out, were their power answerable to their will: whereby one may judge, whether they or the Ministers come nearer to the likeness and example of the Donatists.  
And whereas the Doctors add, that the Ministers cease not to be blasphemers, because they reject and detest the name thereof. The Ministers answer, that the Doctors also leave not to be false accusers, because they disavow, and deny the name. And that the effects do show of the one side and the other, to whom such crimes and names may appertain, and be attributed.  
And touching that which the Doctors in the same article say, that it is blasphemy against the goodness of God, to impute unto him, that he is the author of vice, and of sin. The Ministers confess it: and do add, that it is blasphemy also against his truth, to say, that with him there is yea, and nay: as do they, which under a colour and false pretext to establish the omnipotency of GGD, do propose, that he can cause one body at one self-same instant to be in divers places: to wit, that it is, and is not.  
Touching that which the Doctors afterwards say, that the Ministers err in the grounds of God's omnipotency: for as much as they have said, that he was almighty, because he doth whatsoever he will: and that nothing can hinder, or withhold the execution of his counsels. The Ministers answer, that therein they have followed Saint Augustine's definition of the omnipotency of God, in the 96. Chapter of his Enchiridion: where word for word he thus saith: For other cause is he not truly called omnipotent: but for as much as he can do all whatsoever he will: and that the effect of the will of the Almighty, is not hindered by the will and effect of any creature.  
In that they consequently impute to the Ministers, that they have said the omnipotency of God ought not to be generally extended to all things which men may conceive and imagine in their minds. The Ministers say (under the Doctor's correction) that they said not so: but that the almightiness of God, ought not to be extended without any discretion or distinction, to all things generally, which men in their foolish fantasies might forge or imagine. Wherein to each one it may eftsoons appear, how they curtal and falsify the Ministers words and sentences, to have means and colour for their slander.  
Afterwards, where they affirm that it is blasphemy to say that God can do nothing against order: the Ministers on the contrary part maintain, that to think and say that he can do aught which is not well ordered, is to blaspheme the wisdom, and eternal providence of God.  
The Doctors pretend in the article following, that one body to be in divers places at one self-same instant, is not a thing derogatory to the truth of God. The Ministers do maintain the contrary, that it should be derogate both to his truth; for as much as there should be in him, (as is said) yea and nay: and to his wisdom, for as much as in his words there should be disorder and confusion: and by consequence to his almightiness, because in his deeds there should be imperfection.  
And they further say, that it should not be only against the disposition and ordinary course of nature, (as the Doctors feign to have thought and understood) but also against the eternal and unchangeable will of our God.  
And as touching that which the Doctors, to prove that God can do something against order, do propose that he can change and alter the order established in the world. The Ministers confess the same: but they deny that in so doing he should do any thing which were disordered. As (for example) all faithful and Christian men do believe, believe, that God will renew at the last the estate of the whole world: wherein there is nothing in the mean time which is not well ordained, perfect, and in all points accomplished.  
The Doctors in the following article, confound the distinction proposed by the Ministers, in their answer between the will of God manifested, and that he hath hidden in himself, and is equal to his power: as the Ministers before have at large declared. And the Doctors do falsely presuppose touching the revealed will of God; taking that generally, which the Ministers have granted in some particulars only: to wit, that God can do more in ceraine things, than he hath declared to will: which none doubteth. As saith S. Augustine in the book of perfect justice, that he cannot make a man to be perfect in this world, and sanctify him in such sort, that there remain no more in him any infirmity or imperfection; although he hath never declared unto us by his word, that he would do it: but chose, that the flesh in all the regenerate will always resist the spirit: so that all the time of their lives, they shall be in many points imperfect. But albeit in that, and some other like cases, God can do more than his will declareth, which he hath manifested to us in his word: yet nevertheless can it not be said but that there be other cases, wherein God hath revealed his will unto us, against which he can do or ordain nothing.  

Things impossible with God. yet in these  As (for example) he hath declared unto us, that he is one, that he is immutable, incomprehensible, wholly good, wholly just, wholly perfect, and wholly true: Against all 
impossibilities is his omnipotency established.  which things, (which to us are manifested and clearly proposed in his word) impossible it is for him, ever to think, say, do, or ordain.  
Now the thing proposed and debated by the Doctors, touching the being of one body, at one instant in divers places, is comprised in that rank, being (as is said) contrary to the truth of God. Which shall serve for answer to the Doctor's slanders, and to all that they have proposed in this article. Likewise in an other following article, where they say that God not only can, but will also cause, that one body occupy divers places at one self-same time. That shall be yet more impossible for them to prove, than the power aforesaid, for which they have hitherto so much traveled in vain.  
In their definition of one body in the Article following, they contradict themselves, when they say that the measures are essential unto it: and that it may nevertheless be incircumscript: for if it be needful that the dimensions whereof it is composed, be finite; of necessity it followeth thereupon, that then it is finite, limited, and circumscript.  
To that which they afterwards say, that the reason which the Ministers have taken of the Creed, and alleged to prove that the body of jesus Christ is in heaven in a place certain, is frivolous. The Ministers say; that the Doctors show therein what reverence they bear to the word of GOD, and his spirit, who hath revealed the same unto us, and to the Apostles, which declare them unto us.  
To justify Gracian and the Canon, which the Ministers allege of S. Augustine, by which they prove that the body of Christ must necessarily be in a place certain, the Ministers bring yet for more ample confirmation, the 4. book and 10. distinction of the Master of the Sentences: who reciting the self-same passage of S. Augustine, useth the verb [Oportet] and not [Potest].  
As touching that of justine which the Doctors allege, to prove the miracles which were then done; that jesus Christ appeared in the midst of his Disciples, the gates being shut: and that he walked upon the waters, were done in his person. The Ministers are amazed how the Doctors do yet repeat the same. For as much as the said justine (as they have before been answered) expressly saith: that when the said miracles were done, there was no change of the body of jesus Christ: which thing, had the miracles been done in his person, had been necessary. In the mean time, the Ministers confess (as they have done often) that the cause of the said miracles, and the divine power whence they proceeded, abode in jesus Christ. As when he healed the diseased which touched him: and did the other miracles recited in the evangelical Histories: the which were done by him, but not in him, but in the person of them that we●● healed. And there is great difference between such miracles, and those of his transfiguration, and resurrection, which were wrought by his only power, and in his proper person.  
Upon the importunate repetition which the Doctors make, as well of the means of the birth of our Lord jesus Christ, as of the word Aphantos: The Ministers for sparing of time, and not troubling the readers, send them back to their former answers.  
The Ministers much marvel that the Doctors to prove their pretended penetration of two bodies, and of their measures, will ground their proof and principal argument upon the proper signification of the term [Penetrer]. For be it so, that they will by this French word interpret the Greek word Dierchestas, or the Latin word Penetrare. It shall be ever impossible to prove their pretence. And as it is also in the Acts of the Apostles, Chap. 12. 10. It is said of the Angel and S. Peter that they passed the first and second watch. And in S. Luke. 4. 30. But they passed through the midst of them, and departed. And in S. Io. 4. 4. Now it behoved him to pass by Samaria.  
In all which passages the Doctors shall not find, that the word Dierchestai (in the said passages alleged) can be any way applied to the penetration of dimensions. And no more shall they prove that the word [Penetrare] which the old Translator hath used in the 2. Tymo. 3. can be reduced to their said penetration.  
The Ministers do add, that the Doctors ought not to hold it more strange, that jesus Christ ascending into heaven in his finite and limited body, an opening were made for his entrance therein: then when he descendeth between the hands of the Priests singing their Masses: For then (as saith S. Gregory) the heavens do open to give him passage. Although after their imagination, his body is then separated from it measures and dimensions.  
The Doctors should have contented themselves with the Ministers answer upon the similitude & word [Camel]. For first, they can no ways prove, that that saying of jesus Christ upon the end of that speech, ought elsewhere to be applied, then to the nearest member of the same: where speech is made of the conu●sion and saving of a rich man. For the pronoun demonstrative [Hoc] doth clearly show it: Afterwards, although that the general proposition in the end and conclusion of the said sentence (where it is said that all things are possible to God) extendeth (as the Doctors will have it) to the Camel, as well as the rich man: yet rightly to apply the two patts of the comparison, it behoveth they confess, that as the change is necessary for the rich man to be saved: so is it also for the body of the Camel, to cause it pass through the eye of a needle. Howsoever that might in some sort be done, the Doctors shall not prove, nor ever thence conclude, that two bodies can the one pierce the other. For as much as the Doctors by their thrisestrong & powerful arguments have not been able to conclude any of all their absurdities, nor by force of their reasons to constrain the Ministers to confess the same: they do nought else but exclaim, Blasphemy, Blasphemy; which is the last recourse of all persons, who despite and gnash the teeth against the truth, and them that maintain it, when they cannot overcome them. Would the Ministers subscribe to the errors end abuses of the said Doctors, they should be good and Catholic people: but because they gainsay and reprove them, they be (in their opinion) heretics, seducers, blasphemers, and Atheists: and in so great horror do the Doctors hold them, that it is marvel they pull not (like Caiphas) their horned caps and hoods in pieces, in detestation of the word of God, proposed and defended by the said Ministers, and condemned as blasphemy by the Doctors.  
The Doctors have dissembled the passage of the scripture alleged by the Ministers, to prove that faith is a work of God, which he bringeth forth in the heart of the faithful, when he will work his regeneration: and incidently speak of free will, and the merit of works. Whereunto the Ministers are well resolved to answer; and by the grace of God, to maintain the truth of these two points, against the enemies of his glory, when they shall be proposed to be debated and discussed. And for the joy which they receive (say they) that the Ministers have confessed, they have not read in any ancient Author and express terms, that God cannot cause one self-same body to be in divers places at one instant: they have no great cause thereof to rejoice: for albeit the said Fathers have not in express terms said it: yet in terms equivalent, in infinite places have they said and written the same.   

A short Resolution of all the Answers and discourse which the Ministers have made upon the matter of God's omnipotency in the Conference which they have had with the Doctors.  
THe craft and subtlety of Satan from the beginning of the world hath always been, to transform himself into an Angel of light, and to search some fair pretext, to shroud and disguise himself, and under that shadow, to insinuate himself into the Church of GOD, and there to broach his lies and trumperies.  
As we all see, that under pretence to honour God, he hath established all the Idolatry which hath ever been in the world: referring the adoration of Images, the Invocation and intercession of saints, the worshipping of Relics, and other like impieties to the honour of God, and persuading the ignorant that all that was done to advance the same. Likewise under pretext of his service, hath he brought in all the traditions and inventions of men, and changed with the time, the true and lawful service of God (which consisteth in the obedience of his holy will, declared unto us in his law and word) into the observation of their commandments, and their invented ceremonies. Under shadow and colour of the Sacraments ordained by God, for the confirmation, exercise and nourishing of the faith of the Church, there hath crept in the Mass: which is not only the ruin and total subversion of the Supper: but also an abolishment of all the benefit of jesus Christ: and consequently of the faith and all true Religion. Under colour and shadow of holiness, and of chaste, shamefast, and honest conversation, which is chiefly required in the Ministers and Pastors of the Church, he hath established single life, and taken away from them the liberty of marriage: which hath been the occasion of all filthiness, and of infamous, stinking, and execrable whoredoms and luxuritie, which is seen in the Papacy. Under the shadow of prayers, which men are commanded to make one for an other: and of Charity, whereby we are bound to succour all the needy poor: hath he brought in all the suffrages which men sing for the dead, the merits and works of supererogation, and other like abominations. Under colour of the Saboth, which God had chosen and deputed to the sanctification of his holy name, to the contemplation of his works, in the remembrance and preaching of his benefits and favours. He hath set forth an infinite number of profane Feasts, in which the name of God is blasphemed, his ordinance despised, his covenant violated. But who can recount the wickedness and abominations which are committed in these days? Under pretext of the keys and discipline of the Church, the administration and use whereof was given to the Ministers lawfully called, for a mean to conserve the doctrine in it purity, and keep and entertain good order in the Church, and to hinder the slanders which by the insolency of some might happen: hath he established a tyranny, whence is proceeded the whole dissipation of the Church of God, the corruption of all estates: and the diminishing of the lawful authority which God hath given to Kings, Princes, and Magistrates. Some whereof, have been wholly spoiled, as well of their goods, as dignities, by the Pope, and the Bishops: and others so weakened, that they are in many places constrained to bow the neck, and submit themselves to their yoke and puissance. To be short, this may be noted and observed in all the purposes and actions of the devil: that as he is a Serpent, so hath he always ramped, and secretly crept (as it were) under the leaves and appearance of some piety, into the house of God, to place therein, his pretended disorder, confusion and ruin. And we see, that now continuing and following his wont practices, he setteth forth the omnipotency of God (which to all the world is a plausible and favourable title) to the end, that under the lustre and brightness of such an occasion, he might dazzle the eyes of the ignorant, and hold them still in the opinion and persuasion of their errorus; which have no foundation in the word of God. The Ministers beseech the Readers, and all those that have the fear of God, or any zeal of his honour, to be wise, and attentive, to weigh and discover the said subtleties and practices of the Devil: and not to believe all spirits before they have well sounded and tried them: and that they also approve not all the things, which under the name of God, may be proposed unto them; and which at the first, may seem to tend and appertain to his honour and glory: but that they remember the Apostles admonition, to try the spirits: 
1. joh. 4. 1.  and that they very carefully regard the end, and scope of those, which propose unto them such doctrine. And if there be any thing wherein heed must be taken of such cosonages and frauds, which are laid to surprise the simple; it is needful, chiefly in this matter of the Omnipotency of God: whereof is the present question. For the Ministers do confess, that it ought to be known, believed, and universally adored of all creatures, in heaven and in earth. Moreover they confess, that the faithful cannot have a better foundation, nor better rampert to lean unto, and sustain themselves against all the endeavours, as well of the devil, the world, and their other enemies: as also (to be short) of all the temptations wherewith they might be assailed and besieged.  
This Omnipotency (they confess) is the hinge of the axle-tree (as it were) whereupon the world, with all it parts is turned and sustained. They confess moreover, that the same Omnipotency is not only venerable to the Angels, and blessed spirits in heaven, and to the elect and Saints upon earth: but also terrible to the reprobates and devils in hell. So that the one doth willingly embrace and submit themselves unto it: and the others are constrained to bow under it, and yield unto and obey the same.  
Lastly they confess, that it is infinite, and of incomprehensible greatness, to all creatures, as the wisdom, goodness, justice, truth, and the other virtues and proprieties of our God.  
This is that which the Ministers believe and confess of the Omnipotency of God: and that which they think, all Christians ought thereof to believe and hold. Now to make good use of this Almightiness, and to apply it as is meet: we must judge thereof, according to his will: and of his will, according to his word: So that we ought not to attribute indifferently to the power of God, all things good and evil, ordered and disordered, agreeable and contrary to his nature, false and true: But to well rule and order the thoughts and cogitations of God's Omnipotency, presenting themselves in our hearts: we must (for our part) measure the same according to his holy will: and believe that it cannot be limited, letted nor hindered by any other will or power, which will or may be opposite unto it. Which thing S. Augustine well teacheth in many places; as in the fifth book and 10. Chapter of the City of God: where speaking of God, he saith: That he is called almighty: because he doth all whatsoever he will, and suffereth nothing if he will it not. Also in the seventh Chapter of the 21. book. For no other reason but this only, is he called Almighty: that he can do all whatsoever he will do. Also in the first Chapter of the book De Symbolo ad Catec: Our God (saith he) doth all that which he will do: and that is his Almightiness. Also in the 119. Sermon De tempore; He is Almighty, to do all things that he will do, and ordaineth to be done. These sentences, and many other like, found in the writings of that good Father, and other Ancients, do clearly teach us, the manner how we may well make profit of the faith we have of the omnipotency of God: That is in bringing us back to his will, and judging of his will, by his word, and not by the false imaginations which thereof we may conceive in our minds: or that others would propose unto us: As did Satan to jesus Christ, whom he would have induced to cast down himself headlong, under a vain trust of help from the omnipotency of God. Even so also, the Monarchians, who under colour and pretext of God's omnipotency, which of some miracles they gathered, would prove and establish their heresies, and take away the personal distinction which is between the Father and the son, saying: That God being Almighty, could therefore make himself Father and son together. Of the Anabaptists in these last times, is it also found, that for a vain assurance, which they put in the omnipotency of God, hoping he could nourish them, as he did the birds, would not labour.  
Many such like more great inconveniences may happen to all those, that having such wandering and straggling thoughts of the Omnipotency of God, will not restrain nor reduce them to his will. And this we see is besalue the Doctors: who willing to apprehend and measure the omnipotency of God by their own imaginations, rather than by his will and word, are (as saith S. Paul) become vain in their imagination, and their foolish heart is filled with darkness. And willing to behold the Majesty of God out of the limits and bounds which he had showed them in his word, have been entrapped and overwhelmed of his glory. And that is befallen them, which in their resolution, they themselves have touched: to wit, that for not having taken the word of God for their guide, nor followed the steps and paths of his holy spirit, they do err from the faith: which (contrary to that which the Doctors do think) is not destroyed nor overthrown by the consideration of the creatures and works of God (which are as a mirror of his glory and divinity): but in as much as by them we were turned away from the promises of God: by the which we are assured of his will, and almightiness; which doth warrant and assure us of the effects, and accomplishment of this holy will. Which may be seen and clearly observed in them that were sent by Moses to espy out and know the Land of the Canaanites. Two of which, (namely josua and Caleb) could never be withdrawn from the trust they had in their God. For as much as turning their minds from the consideration of all things which could make them doubt thereof, (as of the Fortress and munition of Cities, the number, force, weapon's, and experience of the country Inhabitants) they stayed their minds in the sole consideration of the promises which God had made unto them. Contrariwise, the others forgetting the same promises, & nought considering, but that which they saw before their eyes, they fell, and caused all the people to fall with them, into that cursed and damnable infidelity▪ for which they were so grieveuously punished in the wilderness, and excluded from entrance thereunto, and enjoying of that thing, which God had promised to their Fathers. And in the example of Abraham, whose faith abode firm and stable, by the consideration chiefly of the promise and will of God, as S. Paul declareth. So that the consideration of God's Almightiness, came after, to maintain & second that which he had of the promise. One may see by these examples, what danger there is, to depart and draw back, although never so little, from the word of God: by which we are guided to the knowledge of his will. And by the knowledge of his will, conducted to the consideration and judgement, which we ought to make and have of his Almightiness.  
For want whereof, the Doctors are fallen into errors and railings, which they propose to the Ministers by their writing and conclusion of their resolution. That is to say: that the body of jesus Christ may be in divers places at one self-same instant: which is against the faith we ought to have, and constantly retain of the wisdom, providence, and everlasting truth of our God: and against that likewise, which we ought to have and keep of our Lords true humanity.  
And that which they first allege of S. Jerome against Vigilantius, nought serveth for the proof and confirmation of their error. Where no other thing he saith: but that the souls of the Saints are not enclosed in a certain prison (as dreamt Vigilantius) but do follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. Nor that which they allege of Saint Augustine in the book which he made of the pure care of the dead. For in that book he himself confesseth, that he is incertain of that which the Doctors do propose, and are assured. And no more do the three authorities they allege, of Saint john Chrisostome, Saint Ambrose, and Saint Augustine: whose sentences ought to be taken, and under stood of the Sacrament, and not of the thing signified by the Sacrament: As in the next conference the Ministers well hope to show.  
The Ministers do much marvel, that the Doctors so draw back, and will not (but unwillingly) enter into conference for defence of their Mass: and to gainsay the Supper celebrated in the reformed Churches. For seeing they hold it for the principal foundation of their Religion: and propose the same for a mean of salvation to the whole world: (That they be not seen seducers, nor over credulous to believe or teach an incertain and unassured thing): they should always be provided and furnished with reasons, to the end they might approve, and readily defend that which they believe and say: and might convince them also, that would deny the same: But in this, it appeareth to proceed of of an evil conscience, which being timorous and fearful, flieth always the combat, and the light. It is long time since the Ministers have importuned them to enter into the deciding and conference of these two points, and to bring them thereunto, they have proposed unto them, that it was the end for which the conference was appointed: which Madam de Buillon, (in whose favour it was made) once or twice hath publicly required: and that they also had often protested, that they were not for other end assembled with the Doctors, then to satisfy therein the said Lady of Buillon: and not to be examined by them, as they do falsely pretend. For the Ministers have no desire to be examined of such Doctors, being Priests: joined, that to be taught in the points of religion, and to know the truth, they would not choose such Masters, nor repair unto them, and frequent their schools for that purpose. And yet notwithstanding all the foresaid remonstrances often made and repeated by the Ministers, the Doctors have always until now, deferred to confer of the foresaid points: awaiting (as it is likely) that some occasion should be offered, to break off, and determine the said conference, before they had begun to speak thereof. Albeit, had they any zeal to th● honour of God, and to the edification of his Church, they should by all means have procured that the said two points should have been fully cleared and resolved: be it that they would confirm and strengthen them of their part: or withdraw (as they pretend) those of our side from their errors. For it is not much needful hereafter to dispute of the Saints, of Purgatory, Pilgrigrimages, and other like points: In regard of which, the most part of the world is at this day cleared. By means whereof, as well the Doctors, as the Ministers, ought chiefly to insist upon these two points, and to endeavour (with them) to make them clear and to be understood of each one, and not to use Sophistries and cavils to make them obscure, and retain thereby the simple in their ignorance: as the Doctor's endeavour to do. Who (having left of set purpose the Theses & Articles proposed to them by the Ministers, with order & good method in their last answers) do confusedly propose certain questions culled out of their school divinity: ever more and more to fold up this matter: And in so doing they withstand (as ever hitherto they have done) what so, and so often they have protested: to wit, that they would examine the confession of the reformed Churches: whereof notwithstanding, they have not handled one only point in all the conference. Wherein they have showed, and yet plainly do show, the distrust they have to be able to withstand so clear and apparent truth; as that which is proposed in the said confession.   

Answers to the Preface of the Doctor's Questions.  
THe Doctors, before they propose their Questions, in their Preface do call the Supper celebrated in the refor-Churches, a profane and polluted banquet. And in so saying, they neither shame, nor fear, first to blaspheme jesus Christ, who instituted the same, and is the author thereof: and then to condemn the Apostles of Impiety, which so have celebrated and taught it: together with all the ancient Churches which followed and observed (whiles it reremained in it purity) the form and manner which the Evangelists and Apostles had taught, and left by their writings. But the Ministers would willingly demand of the Lords our Masters, that they particularly note unto them, wherein they can violate the institution & ordinance of jesus Christ, and leave his example, and that of his Apostles in the celebration of the Supper? For when they will celebrate the same, they first assemble the whole Church together: as jesus Christ did his Apostles and Disciples: where after their public confession of sins, and understandingly made in the name of all, they make a Sermon to the people: wherein according to the grace and power which God hath given them, they declare the causes, and occasions, the end, the use, the points and effects of the holy Supper: to lift up the hearts of the people to the consideration of the incomprehensible love which the Father hath showed towards his Church, when in favour thereof, and for the salvation of the same, he hath not spared his own son, but exposed him to a cruel and cursed death: to the end, that each one calling to mind so great a grace and mercy, be kindled and inflamed in the love of God: and tremble at the ingratitudes and rebellious offences and sins which he hath committed against his Majesty: and that with the sorrow and displeasure he hath for the same, he cast himself between the arms of his son, stretched out upon the Cross, to have thereof a general and full abolition. And that even so, with such a faith and repentance he be prepared to present himself worthily at the table of the Lord, and to receive the good things which are there administered. The Sermon ended, the Minister reciteth with an high and audible voice, and his face turned towards the people, the words of the institution and ordinance of the Supper, together with a brief and short declaration of the same.  
That done, he denounceth to all those, not fully instructed and catechized, that they depart: and to all them which are excommunicated, or attainted with some sins or scandalous crimes (whereof they have made no satisfaction to the Church) that they abstain therefrom, and pollute not the table of the Lord. After that, the Minister goeth to the table: where having taken the bread, and given thanks to God, he breaketh it, and giveth it to the people there assembled. And also presently the Cup to all them that communicate: which being ended, he giveth thanks to God, and dismisseth the people.  
The Ministers, following in all these things the example and rule, which jesus Christ hath given them, cannot imagine whereupon the Doctors have grounded that their saying of the Supper, calling it a profane and polluted banquet. And they cannot perceive, what they could or would reprove in all their action: unless peradventure they will tax them for not having Aulbes, stoles, fanets, Crosses, holy water, banners, Chisibles, tunicles, lights, Incense, bells, singing in a strange and unknown language, Music, and Organs, holy napkins, Altars, clerk to answer: Et cum spiritu tuo, nor words addressed to the bread and wine (which have no ears) after the manner of Enchanters, nor the Cross & signs, nor any elevation of the bread and wine, to cause them to be adored: nor other like aperies of man's invention, and drawn part from judaism, and part from Paganism. The observation of which things the Ministers would make great conscience of: because they be but Idolatries and superstitions, whereby the purity & integrity of Christian Religion, is wholly wasted and corrupted.   

Answers to the questions proposed by the Doctors touching the Supper.  
FOr answer to the first question, the Ministers say; that the Sacrament in perfection considered, consisteth in three things. One whereof is the Element, which Ireneus calleth a thing earthy: the other, the thing signified; called by the same author, a thing heavenly. And the third is the word, by which the earthy thing is deputed to signify the heavenly, and assureth them of the exhibition thereof, that with faith do present themselves to receive it.  
For answer to the second question, the Ministers say; that the ordinance of God, contained in his word, and declared by his Minister, according to his commandment, is this word word necessary with the E●ment, to constitute the Sacrament: and not the only low and secret pronunciation of certain unkowne words, addressed to the elements, nor any virtue which is hidden in the same.  
For answer to the third question, the Ministers say, that by the word aforesaid the signs be changed, not as touching the nature: or as touching the substance: but as touching the use only: and that only during the action, whereunto they serve.  
For answer to the fourth question, the Ministers say, that the bread and wine which before the action of the Supper were common, are consecrated in the Supper: that is to say, deputed by the said word and ordinance of God, declared by the Ministers, to a holy and sacred use: which is, to represent and exhibit the things by them signified.  
The answer to the fourth question sufficeth for the fifth.  
For answer to the sixth question, the Ministers say, that the faithful receive not only in the Supper, the gifts and graces of jesus Christ, (as his righteousness, life, and the other fruits of his sacrifice) but that they also receive and possess himself: and are made one with him, no less truly and straightly, than the members are conjoined to the head. And they say moreover, that this conjunction is the spring and mean of all the benefits, which flow from the grace of God, by him into us: but they add, that this reception must be wholly attributed to the free operation of the holy Ghost, which maketh us fit and capable to know our Lord jesus Christ, with all his virtues and properties: and in knowing him, to trust in him: and in reposing our trust in him, to possess and wholly enjoy him.  
For answer to the seventh question, the Ministers say, that they reject and reprove the word Concomitance, and more also the thing thereby signified: for as much as that hath been the cause, for which the common people hath been deprived and excluded from one of the essential parts of the Sacrament: namely, from the participation of the Cup. And they say, that it is an attempt against the divine Majesty, to separate what the son of God hath joined together: and to deny to some of his members, that which he hath willed and commanded to be common to all. joined, that the reason of the Sacrament requireth it: which was instituted for our spiritual nourishment. The which (as doth the corporal) consisteth in drink & meat. To the end then, that there be some correspondency between them two, it behoveth, that as we are fed with the flesh of jesus Christ crucified: So be we also watered with his blood shed, for the remission of sins. To be short, seeing that the Supper was chiefly instituted to show forth the Lords death: and that in his death, his blood was separated from his body: Meet it is, that the bread and wine be there administered, to represent the one and the other, and more clearly to propose unto us, all the mystery of the death of jesus Christ.  
For answer to the eight question, the Ministers do acknowledge no other cause, nor mean of remission of sins, than the grace of God, the blood of jesus Christ, and faith; whereby the effect of God's grace, and the fruit of the death of jesus Christ are applied unto us.  
For answer to the ninth question, the Ministers do say: that the faithful coming to the Supper, do not come thither to receive there a new jesus Christ, with whom they had not been formerly conjoined: nor a new righteousness, which had not been communicated unto them. And they add, that if some one did present himself there without faith, (for want whereof he should not be united, incorporated and engrafted into jesus Christ, to be partaker of his righteousness, life, and all other his gifts and blessings): that the holy Supper in that case, should be as unprofitable to him, as is meat unptofitable to a dead man. But, if living by the means aforesaid (namely the grace of God, the blood of jesus Christ, and faith) he present himself there in such an estate: that then the graces of God be multiplied, increased, and more and more confirmed in him.  
So that Circumcision, brought not unto Abraham a new righteousness: but sealed and ratified that, which by the promise was communicated before unto him. Which the faithful, knowing in what degree of virtue they be, yet ought they not to contemn the holy Supper, nor any way to abstain from it, when occasion and means serve them to be there: Considering, that they cannot be so promoted nor advanced in the knowledge and fear of God, and in the faith of his promises, that they may not yet grow and profit (in what estate soever they be) by the means which God hath therefore left and ordained in his Church. And impossible it is, for a man having true faith in his heart, to do otherwise; seeing he hath the commodity thereof: For as much as the nature of faith is not to apprehend the promises of God only: but also to engender, and bring forth in the heart of the faithful, a will to obey him, and keep his commandments and ordinances.  
For answer to the first Article which the Doctors propose touching their Mass, the Ministers say: that the Doctors do openly blaspheme jesus Christ, to authorize with his name, and by his example, such an abomination. And that they also mock the Church & the world, in preaching and writing such Impieties.  
For answer to the second Article of the Mass, the Ministers say: that there is in the Church no other sacrifice, by which men are reconciled to God, and which maketh him merciful and favourable towards them (by appeasing his wrath) than that only and alone, which jesus Christ hath once offered upon the Cross to his Father. The virtue whereof being eternal, to sanctify all believers, and to obtain unto them for ever, remission and abolishment of sins: there is no need of any other, nor that which he hath once offered, be ever reiterate.  
For answer to the third Article, the Ministers say: that they which approve the Mass, and other Priesthood, then that of jesus Christ; and will establish for remission of sins an other sacrifice, then that he himself, with his body upon the Cross offered, are Antichrists: and abolish (as much as in them lieth) all the virtue and fruit of the death & sacrifice of the son of God.  
For answer to the fourth Article, the Ministers do allege, what S. Paul writeth, to wit: That where remission is, 
Hebr. 10.  there is no more offering for sin. Now so it is, that by the death of jesus Christ, remission hath been obtained for us: as by infinite passages of scripture appeareth. It followeth then, 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, less is there for the dead.  
For answer to the fifth, the Ministers maintain, that the Communion is of the essence of the Supper, as S. Paul showeth in the first of the Corinthians, 10. and 11. Chapters. And as it is carried by the Cannon itself, and other things about the Mass.  
For answer to the sixth, the Ministers say three things: First, that the Popish Mass is no Sacrament: then that the body of jesus Christ is not there. And thereof conclude, that then the bread and wine there remaining, ought not to be adored: which being creatures cannot be adored, but that they which adore them be idolaters.  
For answer to the seventh and last Article, the Ministers say contrary to the Doctors, that there is not any thing in the Mass, which is not either directly, or indirectly contrary to the word of God.  
The Ministers for conclusion admonish the Doctors, & entreat them, not to depart (as they have formerly done) out of the bounds of the matter, now proposed for disputation. To the end, that these two points which are now in debate between them, may be wholly and perfectly decided, to the content and edification of them that shall read the Acts of this conference.  
Tuesday the 30. of july, in the year aforesaid.   

A brief Reply of the Doctors, against the last Answer of the Ministers to them, sent by my Lord the Duke de Nivernois, the first of August, about seven or eight of the clock in the evening. 1566.  
THe Doctors, after their resolution given upon the Artice of God's Omnipotency, were not determined to return any more thereunto: as having sufficiently handled that matter. But the horror they have of the new blasphemies, contained in the last writing of the Ministers, hath incited them (contrary to their purpose) although not to reply, at the least to admonish the Ministers and the reader of this present Conference, of the said execrable blasphemies: which they are constrained to confess, that will not acknowledge the Real presence of the body of jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar: but dare thereby deny the power of God himself. The consideration whereof (as the Doctors hope) will not only confirm the Catholics in the faith of the said article: but also (by God's assistance) will bring back many which are strayed, separating themselves from the Church Catholic: when they shall understand the detestable errors & blasphemies which do follow the contradiction of the real presence of the body and blood of our Lord in the Sacrament. Which also should serve for the conversion of the Ministers themselves: would they without passion examine the reasons & acts which have been proposed unto them, touching the power of God: and sincerely judge thereof: as resisting the holy spirit, in stead of acknowledging their errors, they are turned to all manner of reproach and injury against them, which of good will would admonish them; and have taxed them, that they tended not but to root them out. Which thing the Doctors never minded: and desire not but the salvation of the Ministers, & of all those that are separated from the true Catholic Church. Of which, their preachings shall bear witness: wherein they ordinarily exhort the people to pray unto God for them. True it is, that they require the extirpation of the kingdom of Satan▪ and the rooting out of all heresies and perverse doctrine, rather by the preaching of God's word, then by all other means. And they wonder why the Ministers are so pricked against them in their two last answers: seeing they have given them no occasion thereof, but have taken it lightly, for no other reason, but because the Doctors have written, that many propositions set forth by the Ministers, contained blasphemies, which they should content themselves to deny, or to prove that there are none, and leave the judgement thereof to the readers: without entering into such hot collar, seeing they profess to be so much mortified, patient, and modest, that albeit one should reproach them, they would not reproach again. They should also well remember the fair titles with which 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, & Priests, Antichrists, & Ministers of Satan: against which reproaches, the Doctor's content themselves to show by the word of God, when occasion serveth, that such titles agree neither with the persons, nor yet the doctrine by them preached. Now although that the Ministers and their fury deserve a sharp reply, yet to mitigate their so inflamed hearts, the Doctors will not answer to the injuries which touch their persons and estates: referring the whole to the judgement of the unpassionate readers: and will only touch the points which concern the doctrine.  
First, the Ministers do great wrong to the Doctors and their like, in comparing them to Donatists, and falsely to impute unto them, that they tie the Church in a certain place, (as did the Donatists) which placed it only in Africa. For it is manifest to all, that the Doctors know not, nor confess any other Church, than the Catholic: which (as it name importeth) hath been visible since the Apostles time, and hath her spreading through the world, in what region, country, or place soever, the faithful believing in jesus Christ are. Although they reverence the Church of Rome, as chief and principal among others: as Ireneus, Tertullian, S. Cyprian, S. Augustine, and other the ancient Fathers, have given it this honour, to confess it to be principal and mother (as it were) of other Churches; with more just reason, may such objection be retorted against the Ministers: who cannot say their Church to be Catholic: having taken it beginning in our time, seen & known at Geneva, founded upon the private opinion of one man: without that in former time one could show such opinion to have been holden in any Nation whatsoever. Which thing shall be handled in it order, when they shall examine the errors by the Ministers maintained against this Article; I believe the holy Catholic Church.  
Moreover, the Ministers should not have alleged the violence, cruelty, and fury of the Donatists, against the Catholics: for such example doth condemn them, and their like. But because it doth not but bring fresh to memory the passed evils, which France hath endured by the instigation of the Ministers, for fear to incite them further to say new injuries: the Doctors will not dwell long upon this matter. Nevertheless, they show unto the Ministers, that the Donatists reproached the Catholics, that they endured persecution by them, and that to root them out, they solicited the Emperors and Magistrates even as the Ministers do blame the Doctors. Who confess: first to desire the conversion of all Sects, and in case they will not come to repentance, that the Magistrates by good and holy laws may execute such punishment therefore, as God be not so outrageously blasphemed, and the people grieved. And therein they follow the doctrine of Saint Augustine, expressed in an Epistle, sent Advincentin contra Donatistas'. Where he confesseth, that the Catholics did persecute the Donatists: and that chose the Donatists also afflicted the Catholics: but that the persecutions were different. That those of the Catholics were not executed but by the Magistrate, and came of charity, to root out the evil, which hindered the peace and tranquillity public. And chose, the persecution by the Donatists, was made without authority of the Magistrate, and proceeded of malice: which pretended but mischief and ruin: and S. Augustine declareth that the first was good, and of God: and the second wicked, and by inspiration of Satan. And to this purpose he bringeth many excellent examples of holy scripture.  
This hath been somewhat largely handled, to purge the Doctors of the slander imposed on them by the Ministers: where they reproach them, that in their preachings, writings, and conferences, they search but only to root out the Ministers: whom they have always persecuted. And they interpret the same as therefore proceeding from a particular hate of the Doctors against them: and not of charity, and zeal of truth, and of the conversion, as well of the Ministers, as of those which are seduced and abused by them. The Doctors therein call God to witness, and do protest the contrary, and pray the Ministers to believe them, attending thereupon the judgement of God, who is the only searcher of the hearts and affections of men.  
As touching the Article where the Ministers say that God is almighty, because he can do whatsoever he will, had they listed to read the writings of Saint Thomas (whose doctrine they disdain) well had they known, that this reason is no reason. Because the Angels, and they which are blessed, conforming themselves always to the will of God, can do all things that they will do: and there is no creature which can hinder the effect of their will, and yet are they not almighty. And as touching the saying of S. Augustine, in taking it so as the Ministers do take it; The reason of God's omnipotency is over-weake and false. But to have the true understanding of this sentence, it behoveth to consider, that there is a difference between the actual will of God, and the power of will.  
For God can will many things which he willeth not, nor ever will. And even so can he will more than he actually willeth: whereby they ought rather to measure his omnipotency, then to measure it according to his actual will. And thus must be interpreted the text of S. Augustine, that the almightiness extendeth to all things which he can will, and not according to that he actually willeth. And S. Augustine is cited by the Ministers, being destitute of testimony of scripture, albeit they vaunted in their former answer, to have learned this reason by the scriptures.  
In the article following, the Ministers by slander do falsely tax the Doctors, to have cut off some words of their last writing: which will not be found to be true. For the text of the Doctors beareth these words. It is not to be doubted, but that above all conceit and imagination of human spirit, the power of God is great, infinite, and incomprehensible. Where it clearly appeareth, that the Doctors speak generally of all conceit and imagination, without any exception thereof, be it of wisdom or folly. Therefore was it not needful to express the words of the Ministers, seeing that the Doctors spoke generally. And that which goeth before doth show the same: as the Ministers have cited it: where it is said, that the Doctors reproved the said Ministers, because they gave some restraint and limitation of the omnipotency of God. For as much as they would not stretch it generally to all the things which men can conceive, and in their minds imagine. Where the words generally, and all things do sufficiently declare, that the Doctors have willed to comprehend end the foolish fantasies and imaginations themselves, which men may apprehend according to human judgement, and have willed to cut off nothing from the writing of the Ministers: who peradventure have thought, the Doctors would not say, that God can do all that which a foolish brain can imagine: as fearing they would infer against them, that God then should commit some folly. Which would not follow: For albeit that some things be esteemed follies in the judgement of men, nevertheless seeing they be in themselves possible, they may be done of God; but wisely, although human sense do judge the contrary: even as in many judgements man is deceived: esteeming that folly, which (as saith Saint Paul) is wisdom to wards God. The Doctors than say, that 
1. Cor. 5.  all things imaginable to man, are without exception to be done as touching God: the things excepted, which imply contradiction to be, and not to be. Which cannot be done in regard of the repugnancy coming on their part, and not by default of the power of God. The Doctors pray them that shall be able to read these Conferences, to note, that the Ministers are always found false accusers, when they tax the Doctors with slander: as in the former writing they remain thereof convinced.  
The Ministers shall find themselves also false accusers in the article following: there where they cut off the saying of the Doctors, and falsely impute unto them, that they have written, God can do something against order. The Doctors have well said, that it is blasphemy to say, that God could do nothing against the order by him established in the world. Where appeareth the slander of the Ministers, who have clipped the sentence, and taken away these words [Established in the world]. In that they infer, it is blasphemy to say, that God can do a thing which is not well ordained. It is doubtless, but to do some matter against the order established in the world, importeth not some thing disordered: but only a mutation and change of order, without any disorder, which the Ministers confess in their article following.  
The Doctors have in great execration the blasphemies contained in the next article. Of which the first is, that one body to be in divers places, is a thing derogatory to the truth of God: for as much as in God there should be yea and nay. So that the Ministers do say, that God should not be true, if he caused one body to be in divers places. And yet teach they not, nor can teach, that God hath ever said, that one body could not be in divers places. It impugneth the wisdom of God: because that in his works ther● should be disorder and confusion. Wherein they likewise confess, that God should not be wise, if he caused one body at one instant, to be in divers places.  
The third is, that such a thing repugneth the omnipotency of God. For in such a work there should be imperfection. So that, so far off is it (after the Minister's opinion) that God in so doing should be almighty; that chose he should be imperfect and weak.  
The fourth is, that were such a thing done, it should be against the eternal and unchangeable will of God: and therefore God should be mutable: which blasphemies do necessarily disgorge a manifest Atheism: to wit, that God should not be God, if he made one body to be in divers places at one self-same instant: For God cannot be but true, wise, almighty, and unchangeable: which blasphemies the Doctors do content themselves to quote and mark only: and to admonish what simple stuff issueth from the doctrine of them, which deny the real presence of the body of jesus Christ in the holy Sacrament, without dwelling upon further confutation of them: as being too manifest, and having regard to that which Ireneus saith: that some heresies there be: which to discover, is to refute them.  
In the article following, do they gainsay that which so often they have said, that God could not cause one body to be in divers places at one instant: because it repugneth the order which he hath established in the world. As if God could not do otherwise, then according to the order already by him established. In the present article they confess, that God can change and unchange the said order. From which confession the Doctors draw such an argument: God can change and alter the order which he hath established in the world: and that without prejudice to his truth, wisdom, power, and unchangeable will. Therefore can he change the order, by which he hath established (as the Ministers will say) that one body should be but in one place; & cause chose, (the order being changed) that one body shall be in divers places: without that the same is any way derogatory to his truth, wisdom, power, and will. And that by consequence, God of his omnipotency can cause one body to be in divers places.  
As touching the article of the distinction of the will of God, the Ministers do confound the whole: understanding nothing in the said distinction, no more then in that which they say, that one body to be in two places, is in the rank of things which God hath declared by his word, against the which he can do nothing. The question is first of the omnipotency of God, which is reduced to his power, and not to his essence, and to that which he is in himself: as to be one, wise, good: which things belong not to the matter of 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 cause it to be in two or many places: with the essence of God, which is one, incomprehensible, etc. seeing that such things of number, pertain to the essence of God, and power to make one body in many places, doth nothing properly belong unto it, and is not referred unto the same. Thirdly, the Ministers say, that God by his word haih declared his will, because he was one: which nothing serveth to the present matter. But (pardoning the Ministers such follies) how dare they compare with the matter of God's essence, that which is in question of the being of one body in one, or in divers places? seeing God hath never said that he could not do it: as he hath manifestly showed all the other perfections, which pertain to the divine essence. Whereby it appeareth, that it sufficeth the Ministers to fill up paper, without founding their saying upon solid reason.  
For as much as they repute it slander, when one cutteth off some of their words, albeit the full sense abide: the Doctors do wonder, that the Ministers have not feared the like objections to them. But they are so accustomed thereunto, that they cannot beware thereof. As in the article where mention is made of the definition of a body, they pass that over in silence, which giveth solution to their difficulty. The Doctors have defined a body to be a kind of firm quantity, of three dimensions, length, breadth, and deepness: which definition comprehendeth the whole essence of one body, which is of the predicament of quantity: and no mention is any way made of the circumscription of place. The Ministers say, that the Doctors by their definition, do limit the body, and therefore it is circumscript. But they have maliciously omitted (as it is to be supposed) this little word [place]. For the question is not, whether a body be limited, or no, seeing that no man doth call it infinite. But the question is, whether it be essentially circumscript of place, so that it cannot be a body, if it be not in place: for as much as the Ministers could not answer to the argument of the Doctors, they have cut off that which annoyed them.  
The four next articles deserve no new reply: and therefore the Doctors send back the readers to that which heretofore hath been said. They only admonish, that it is a great matter which the Ministers do hold, that a miracle could not be done in the body of jesus Christ, without change of his nature: and such an opinion do they impose upon Instine, who hath said and maintained (with the other Ancients) that the body of jesus Christ passed through the doors without change of nature, albeit that the operation of the miracle, was wrought in the nature of the body, without changing the same: but in giving it a spiritual quality and perfection, to wit, subtlety, above the natural qualities of a body.  
With like boldness, call the Ministers the scripture of the Camels passage through the eye of a needle, a parable and similitude: as they do that of the Supper, and all others which withstand their errors. And the better to escape, they say that God saveth not, but changeth and converteth the rich man: and so cannot make a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle, without diminishing and changing of his grossness. But the Ministers will not consider, that when our Lord spoke of the rich man his entry into the kingdom of heaven, he put not the difficulty in the entering of the kingdom properly, but in the conversion of the rich man: by which, he should obtain the entry and possession of heaven. Therefore when our Lord saith, that it is more easy for God, to cause a Camel (or Cable) to enter through the eye of a needle, than a rich man the kingdom of heaven: he intendeth to compare the conversion of a rich man (which is unpossible with men) to the passage of a Camel abiding in his grossness: otherwise, there should be no appearance of difficulty: and our Lord would not have said, that such a thing had been impossible to men.  
The Doctors say moreover, that they have not produced this place, to prove and infer properly the penitration of dimensions: but to show, that God can make a body to occupy place, not proportionable to it greatness: which is as well contrary to the nature of a gross and thick body, as that one body be in divers places.  
Where the Ministers do boast, that they are not constrained to confess any thing of God's works, alleged by the Doctors out of the scripture: it followeth not that the Doctors out of the scripture: it followeth not that the Doctors have brought forth vain reasons to constrain and convince them. And for the same refer them to the Acts of the Conference. And as touching the knowledge, whether God could do such miracles alleged, above the nature of a body, the Ministers cannot escape whatsoever evasion they pretend, unconuinced (if not openly, yet silently at least) to have denied, as well the power as the deed: For, affirming that God cannot cause one body to be in divers places, because it repugneth the order by him established in the world, and his wisdom and will, which disposeth all by good order; and that it was against the nature of a body: albeit as much may be said thereof, as may truly be said of all the other things▪ mentioned touching one body: and that there are like reasons: in confessing the one, they must necessarily confess all the others, that there is the like reason.  
The Ministers unable to give any difference, and show why God cannot do the one, and that he can do the others, have silently consented thereunto. And although they would never confess the debt, and yeeled themselves vanquished, as they do boast, it is no marvel: for it is the nature of heretics, to be obstinate, and resist the truth, what reasons soever are proposed unto them. The Scribes and pharisees never confessed to be overcome of our Lord, albeit his arguments were unreprovable. And albeit they that withstood S. Stephen, had nothing to answer, yet left they not to resist the holy Ghost, which spoke by him: as the Ministers do resist the same spirit, which speaketh in the scripture, and by the mouth of the ancient Fathers, concerning miracles done in the body of jesus Christ above nature. Which the Ministers do repugn, by I know not what vain and frivolous starting holes. S. Jerome speaketh well to this purpose, Haeretici convinci possunt, non persuaderi. Heretics may be convinced, not persuaded. And Tertullian writeth: Duritia baeretica vincenda est, non suadenda. Heretical obduration is to be vanquished, not persuaded.  
And as touching the injuries which the Ministers in this behalf do multiply against the Doctors, in that do they imitate all the adversaries of truth, and give testimony of the disquiet which such manner of people endure in their minds, when their errors are showed them. Of whom the Doctors have pity and compassion, & pray God to restore them to their right senses. For as much as they know, that the conversion of an heretic, is one of the matters reserved to the omnipotency of God.  
In vain do the Ministers labour to produce store of Greek, to show that Penetrare Caelos, doth not signify to pass the heavens without opening: because the Verb [Dierchestai] is found, for passing where there is an opening. But the Doctors never said, that [Penetrare] or [Dierchesthai] may not be applied to open places: or that one pierceth in opening of them: for well do they know, that it is met with in all Authors.  
They have well said, that the Ministers would infer a real opening of the heaven, by the rigour and propriety of the verb Aperire: So might they also infer, that the heavens were shut in the ascension of jesus Christ, by the verbs Dierchesthai, and Penetrare, which strictly do signify, to pierce or pass through, without that of itself it importeth an opening: albeit a man may use the same where there is an open passage. But by the rigour of their signification can they not necessarily infer an opening, if the opening be not showed from some other place, by some word, or evident condition of the thing pierced: as it is in the texts by the Ministers alleged. Now in the ascension these words [Dierchesthas], and [Penetrare], are put for to pierce: and no word is there added, which importeth a division of the heavens. The condition of which, nor the state of the glorified body of jesus Christ, do not constrain that one necessarily understand an opening to have been made, to suffer the body of jesus Christ to enter. Therefore did the Doctors well reason of the rigour of [Penetrare:] as the Ministers did of the rigour of [Aperire:] which more often is found in the scripture without signification of the real opening of the heavens, then [Penetrare] is found in the scripture to signify a division and actual cutting of the heavens. For Aperire Caelos, is often found for imaginary and spiritual opening; and hardly is Penetrare Caelos ever found for actual division of the heavens. And therefore had the Doctor's better reason to conclude, by the rigour of the verb Dierchesthai, or Penetrare, (to pierce without actual division of the heavens) than the Ministers had to infer the opening of them by the verb Aperire.  
The Ministers in the last article object to the Doctors, that they have passed over some places of scripture, by which it appeareth, that faith is the work of God, whereunto (say the Doctors) that in some one of their writings they have expressly confessed, that faith, in as much as it is a gift of God, it is a work of God: but in as much as he that believeth worketh together with God, in believing (for Nemo credit, nisivolens, no man believeth unless he be willing) it is a human work. And it is not repugnant one self-same work, for divers causes to be a work of God, and a work of man. And where they say, that the ancient Fathers have said (if not in proper, yet in equivalent terms) that God could not cause one body to be in divers places: that is false. And the Ministers never have, nor can show the same: and contradict their last writing. For bringing the reason, why the Fathers have not expressly said it: It was (said they) because they never thought that such an absurdity would ever fall into the brain of man. Which reason ought to have place, for the saying in terms equivalent, as in express terms, sith one self-same thing is signified as well by the one, as by the other.  
As touching the rest, the Ministers never answer to the principal point, whereof they have been so often admonished: and they eftsoons admonish them, should they a thousand times call this saying a repetition: to wit, that they are required to bring scripture, to prove that it repugneth the order established in the world, the truth, the wisdom, omnipotency, and unchangeable will of God, that one body may be in two places: which thing they cannot do: but they will answer, as they are accustomed: that is to say, nothing. Wherein appeareth, that their doctrine is not founded upon God's word, but upon their own opinion, or particular inspiration, which cannot be but of Satan. For it cannot be of the holy Ghost which is against the common consent of the Church universal. And upon the same are also founded, the other articles of their religion: albeit they disguise them, and promise God's word to every purpose.   

A short Advertisement of the Doctors, upon the Minister's Resolution, touching the omnipotency of God.  
THe Doctors are astonished at the fashion of the Ministers, in their words and writings. For they themselves from the beginning of the Conference, have never had patience to prosecute & conclude one only point, without mingling other things therewithal, impertinent to the matter in question: as shall appear by the reading of the acts. And before their resolution made of the omnipotency of God, they have heaped up all the articles which they could remember, and thrown one upon an other without cause or reason. Although the Doctors at their request, had proposed the Articles of the Supper: And after dispute of the omnipotency of God (to make present the body and blood of jesus Christ in the holy Sacrament) to come orderly to show and prove, that the will of God hath been such, and that there it is. But the Doctors well understand the good custom of all them of the pretended reformed religion: which is, to spit in the eyes of Christians, all the articles of the Religion, and their invented filthiness, all on one thread: to the end, that nought be determined, that all abide in confusion, and that the Serpent glide away, having cast his venom.  
Moreover, by observation of the Ministers answers, it shall be seen and known, that they never stay upon any certain and the same answer, but rather of an act alleged out of the scripture: where of every question, they have given thereunto divers impertinent, and sometimes unsufferable answers. Of which the Doctors do admonish them that can read these Conferences, and pray them to have regard to the same, and thereof refer them to their judgement.  
Furthermore, the Doctors admonish the Ministers, that they may, or aught to know, that all Sects of our times do cast before the eyes of those whom they will abuse, the same beadroll of Articles, which the Ministers in their Resolution have gathered together, to get audience against the Church Catholic, and to bring in their heresies and errors, under the name of the glory of God. Whereof they boast to be defenders as well as the Ministers. And therefore are they not so acceptable in their opinions and conclusions, that the Ministers can pretend any right, to exalt the power and glory of God, by such mingling and confounding of all matters together.  
Moreover the Doctor's show, that they may with better reason retort against the Ministers, the conclusion which they pretend to infer, of the subtlety and craft of Satan: which is (as they write) that Satan under fair show of piety, glideth like a Serpent into the Church of GOD, to put therein disorder and confusion: and in the end to assail God himself. The Doctors do pray each one to consider in himself, whether the Ministers purpose be not such by their deductions, and generally by the principal points of their doctrine. For under fair pretext to root out some abuses and errors against the word of the Lord, which they falsely study to persuade the world to be in the Church Catholic: And under the shadow to preach, that they seek the advancement of the name of the same Lord, they go about to spoil God of all his proprieties and perfection, albeit they no more declare it, than Satan told his meaning to the first man.  
Furthermore, the Ministers abase the merit and efficacy of the blood of jesus Christ, and open a door by their doctrine to all vices and sins. Be it so, the Doctors will not repeat what the Ministers have held, concerning the omnipotency of God: because they shall fill their writings therewithal. But so it is, that in their goodly resolution (although they suit it with seemly words) that God cannot (after them) but so much as they please to receive of his wisdom and will: which they disguise after their own sense, when it is found declared in the scripture. Against the goodness of God they hold that he is the author and worker of evil, and of sin. Against his mercy they teach, that he never pardoneth, nor will pardon a man which shall maliciously oppose himself to the knowledge of the truth: or which shall resist the same. Against the merit of the blood of jesus Christ, and passion of the Cross, in proper terms have they written, that had jesus Christ only died by the sorrows of corporal death, and by the shedding of his whole blood, he had nought done, nor profited for our redemption: if being on the Cross he had not endured in his soul, the pains of the damned before his death: and other horrible blasphemies contained in the atticle of the descent into hell. The Ministers do also instruct their adherents, that murder, adultery, robbery, theft, and every crime whatsoever, is but a venial sin to one predestinate, who is never (say they) out of the favour of God, what thing soever he commit: and do assure their faithful, and those of their Church to believe firmly, that they are in grace, and predestinate, which is in plain terms (albeit the Ministers will otherwise excuse them) to give leave and licence to commit all wickedness, and other articles which the Doctors will verify, where the matter shall require the same.  
If the Ministers deny these points to be in their writings, and published in their Sect, the places of Calvin's books which the Doctors noted in the Margin, will testify the same. To be brief, behold the glory of God, and of his son jesus Christ, whereunto tend the Ministers, by the rooting out of the pretended impieties, mentioned in many articles of their last resolution. For brief answer whereunto, the Doctors do say, that some things by slander of the Ministers, are falsely imputed to the Catholic Church: that others are expressed in the holy scripture: and others drawn from the same, and confirmed by the traditions of the Apostles, and the universal consent of the first Christian church: the deceits excepted which the Ministers add in every article. And so shall it be showed and proved at the least in time and place, if the Ministers have patience to handle in it rank every difficultiie: but if to make their doctrine confused, they persist to mingle all together, the Doctors do protest to mock thereat without answer. Moreover, the Ministers in general, do rightly attribute to the power of God: and say well, that the certain knowledge thereof, is to be taken by the scriptures, which hath been always avouched to them by the Doctors.  
Very well say they also, that it is infinite and incomprehensible. But when they come to particularities, and to show wherein the omnipotency lieth and consisteth, then forget they holy scriptures, and without them do measure the same, according to the wisdom and eternal will of God: & according to the order established in the world: and as though they remembered no more that such power were infinite, they tie it to the condition, propriety, & natural order of creatures: As though to make something against, or above the order, condition, & natural propriety of the creatures, were a thing repugnant to the wisdom, nature, and will of God. Behold the short resolution which the Doctors can gather of the Ministers opinion, touching the omnipotency of God: which shall appear by their writings and answers given to the said Doctors. And as touching S. Augustine, which they produce for them, he hath been answered heretofore.  
The Doctors refer them to their writings, concerning that which the Ministers do falsely tax them to hold, as a sufficient argument (to infer some matter to be done of God) to show that he hath power to do it. The resolutions and objections of the Doctors do plainly contain the contrary.  
The Doctors are also falsely accused by the Ministers, as if they had affirmed the faith wholly contrary to nature. Who have only said, that the contradiction ordinarily made to faith, founded upon the word, cometh from the consideration of natural things, against the power of God.  
Concerning Abraham, the scripture in Genesis always proposeth, that he & his wife made some difficulty touching the promise of God. And considered Corpus suum emortuum, & mortuam vuluam Sarae. His own dead body, & the dead womb of Sarah: until he heard the assurance of the omnipotency. And S. Paul sufficiently declareth the speech of Abraham, from his first vocation, until after such assurance, without putting distinction in the History, of that which was before, or after such assurance: as is that which the Apostle saith, that he considered not Corpus suum emortuum, his own dead body, but rested upon the assurance of the almightiness, & of the promise made unto him.  
The Doctors say: they have better concluded according to the faith, we ought to have of the power of God (to make one body in divers places) than the Ministers have done: which have not any word of God to settle their faith upon, & to believe that God could not do it, or that it repugneth the wisdom, providence, and eternal virtue, or the humanity of jesus Christ, yea the nature of a simple body only. But concerning all that, the Ministers do trust in their own presumption, and particular revelation, without one only passage of scripture, whereupon they might stay their opinion. chose, have the Doctors founded their faith (not on the power of God only, to make one body in divers places, but to believe the deed, and that God hath so willed) on the holy scripture: as in their Resolution is contained: with the passages of ancient Fathers, which they to this end have alleged. Which are so plain, that the Ministers cannot justly but affirm the same. And their starting holes shall be convinced by the simple reading of the books.  
For all the rest of the Ministers resolution (where are mighty injuries, Impostures, and slanders against the Doctors) they answer nothing: having regard to the Ministers manner of dealing. And the Doctors also do well understand, that it should be lost labour to teach the Ministers: who more esteem their own particular revelation, for their whole instruction, than all the doctrine and remonstrance of the Church universal, and all Christians together. And freely do the Doctors pardon all the injuries they have done them, as people void of sound sense, and without judgement: which thing they declare, by their manner of dealing.   

An objection of the Supper by the Doctors, against the answer of the Ministers.  
WHy the Doctors in the beginning of the conferences have not touched the Article of the Supper, it sufficiently appeareth by the first days Acts. And a deceit it is, which the Ministers have done, in taxing them to have recoiled from entering into that matter. For it shall be proved, as well by the offers which the Doctors have often made, to confer by word for quicker dispatch of the said matter: and then at more leisure to put it in writing (which the Ministers have refused): as also by the first objections, which the Doctors proposed touching the article of God's omnipotency: whereby they touched the foundations, upon which are builded the errors of the pretended reformed religion against the real presence of the body and blood of jesus Christ in the holy Sacrament. And shall moreover be verified, in that the Doctors have objected to the Ministers some arguments against their Supper, to make them enter into the same. Unto which they have nothing answered: or so impertinently (at the least) as one may judge by the reading of their answer, that they fled the Lists: as yet also they do, by their last writing: hiding as much as they possibly can, what they think of the Supper: albeit they have been admonished to answer thereunto plainly and to purpose. Whether the Doctors or the Ministers retire, shall be seen by effect: For albeit the Ministers will not answer, the Doctors will not leave to advise them thereof, and to manifest to all the world, the intolerable errors which be in the Supper, and in all the doctrine of the Ministers: Who being demanded, dare not confess and avouch by writing, what hath been written by the inventors of their Supper.  
Now to begin to speak thereof, the Ministrrs do maintain it to be celebrated according to the ordinances of jesus Christ, and after the fashion which the Apostles used, and all the Primitive Church whiles it flourished, and abode in it purity. Whereupon the Doctor's demand, how long the Ministers esteem the doctrine of the Supper to abide in it purity? And whether the Church were not then as pure in the doctrine of all the other articles, as of this? Furthermore, whether since that time, there is not some place in the world, where the true doctrine of the Supper, and of other Articles, have been retained and conserved: and whether such doctrine hath ever continued without interruption? and in what place? and by whom hath it been preached and set forth, and from age to age? The Doctors desire the Ministers to make declaration thereof, for that it much importeth. For as much as before Calvin put forth his Catechism, there was no memory, that such doctrine as he taught, had been held in any Region; and the Supper was not celebrated after the fashion and manner as it is celebrated in the Church, called Reform.  
The Doctors would willingly cheer up the Ministers, who are much disquieted in their writing, because the Doctors have said, that their Supper differeth not from a common banquet, except in that it is worse: as being profane and polluted.  
To meet wherewithal, the Ministers have made a great narration of the whole action of their Supper: and by fair shows, which have a form of all godliness, they endeavour to make it very commendable, and to cover a new nothing between two platters. And chose, that they may tread under foot and abase the thrice▪ precious sacrifice of the body and blood of jesus Christ in the Mass, by renting in pieces some show of him: as if they were used without reason or signification, which the Ministers understand not, or make semblance not to understand. But things ought not to be prised and esteemed by their shows, but according to their value, nature, and truth.  
Moreover, the Ministers should foresee, that all the Sects which be now in the world against the Church Catholic, for the act of the holy Sacrament, do use at the least, as fair show as they. And were they thereof asked, there is not any which would not enforce himself, to prove, that it approacheth nearer to jesus Christ and his Apostles, and the Primitive Church, than the pretended reformed Religion doth. Concerning all which, the Doctors refer them to the writings of the Lutherans, Zuinglianists, Anabaptists, Trinitaries, Master Alasco, and such like.  
For unreasonable it is by such fair deceits, to prefer the Supper of the Ministers, to other Sects: & to judge it good, holy, unpolluted, and according to the word of God: but to repute it rather polluted, and defiled with impiety: for as much as it cloaketh a lie in stead of truth, and giveth the show of piety, to impiety and falsehood.  
Also the Doctors have not dispraised the Supper of the Ministers, for the praises therein given to God, or for the confession they there make of their sins: or the preaching (if it contained the truth), or for other preparation. But therefore did they say it was detestable, because, against the ordinance of jesus Christ, it contained not, but common bread and wine: and yet that they attributed unto it some spiritual effect, and other fair pretext of godliness. The which is an abominable thing, and invention of Satan, who endeavoureth by such manner of Supper, to abolish and extinguish the true Supper, according to the institution of jesus Christ, and to deprive the faithful of the fruit, and verity of the same Supper: in causing them to give common bread only, instead of the body and blood of our saviour jesus Christ. The Doctors could as well recite the evil shows, as the Ministers do recite the good, which be in their Supper: as the secrets, the new enterprises practised under colour and shadow of assemblies made in their said Supper. But to the end the Minister's reproach not the Doctors, that Priests spoke of arms, of contributions, etc. they pass it over with silence, and refer them to the thing itself: and will content themselves to declare some causes, whereby they maintain, that there is no truth in the same Supper, according to the institution of jesus Christ: which are such as follow.  
That in the Supper of the Ministers, and their like, no consecration can be made of the matter of bread & wine which are there proposed. And that for this cause, there is not in the same matter any change made, be it before, or in, or after the use. And by consequence that the bread and wine in such a Supper, cannot be but common. That no consideration is made in their Supper: hereby appeareth, first, that it belongeth not to all persons, to consecrate bread and wine in the Supper: but only to those that by imposition of the Pastors and Bishops hands, are lawfully ordained according to the succession from the Apostles time, even unto us. Now certain it is, that the most part of the Ministers of the Church, called Reform, be not ordained by the laying on of the Pastor's hands, who have the power by succession from one to an other since the Apostles. Whereof we must conclude, that such Ministers usurping the office which pertaineth not to them, cannot make any consecration, and give not by consequence but common bread and wine. Which article shall be spoken of, when we shall entreat of the sacrifice and Priesthood. Secondly, to make consecration of the bread and wine, it sufficeth not that the person be fit to consecrate the matter: but also it is necessary, that the lawful Minister by a certain mean, do make the consecration: to wit, by blessing, and pronouncing of certain words over the matter proposed; even as jesus Christ hath first observed it. And because the Ministers (albeit they were lawfully ordained, and that they had authority and power to consecrate) use not the blessing and pronunciation of certain words over the bread and wine, (withstanding that which jesus Christ first did, and then ordained to his Apostles and their successors so to do) they cannot take any consecration of the bread and wine, and that in them any change happeneth. Whereof it followeth, that they differ not from common bread and wine, and that such a feast and banquet is but common. And that it is blasphemy to attribute unto it, the name of Christ's Supper. Behold, why partly the Doctors have said, that the Supper of the Ministers is a profane and polluted banquet.  
The Doctors admonish the Ministers to answer to purpose and plainly, to the demands by them proposed, which they have not done: which is the cause that the Doctors, lest they should travel in vain, have not yet willed to impugn their answer: summoning them eftsoons to answer what is proposed to them, without drawing back from the Conference, which (they say) they affect so greatly. The first demand was general for all the Sacraments: to wit, whether the Ministers did believe, that two things were essential and necessary, to the confection of the Sacrament: namely, the matter, or element, and the word.  
The Ministers answer, that the Sacrament in it perfection considered, consisteth in three things, etc. They speak indeterminately: so that one cannot judge, whether they understand their saying of the Sacrament, which they call the Supper only: or generally of all, as they were demanded. Although because they allege Ireneus, one may conjecture, that they meant but of the Sament of the Supper.  
Moreover it behoveth to note, that which they add (in it perfection considered): to have always a starting hole, when speech shall be made of the essence of the Sacrament. The Doctors require that the Ministers answer to the question proposed generally of all the Sacraments. For there is like reason as touching the essence of the Sacraments in general. And that they openly declare what things be essential, and necessary to a Sacrament, to be made a Sacrament: without speaking for the present of the perfection of a Sacrament, containing the essence and spiritual fruits, which be not of the essence of the Sacracrament.  
To the second demand, the Ministers answer no more pertinently then to the first. And namely where the Doctors have demanded, whether it behoved to use certain words for the confection of a Sacrament: and what word was necessary for the Sacrament of the Supper. The Ministers have said, that the low and secret speaking of certain words, addressed to the elements, was not the word necessary to the confection of a Sacrament. But they demanded not, whether it behoved to pronounce that word, with a low, or high voice: but the Interrogatory was, whether there be any words necessary to make the Sacrament, that one ought to pronounce over the matter, or in administering the matter: and that they might be such words for the Supper. And it is not sufficient to say, that the word, by which the ordinance of jesus Christ is declared, is the word of the Sacrament: but it behoveth to answer, in what words consisteth that word, and when it must be pronounced.  
As touching the sixth and principal demand, the Ministers answer not clearly, and to purpose: but make a captious answer: by which one may conceive what is their opinion of the presence & participation of the body of jesus Christ in the Supper. And so temper they their saying, that there is no Zwinglian, nor Almanists, which confesseth not thereof as much, or more than they: To wit, that they are conjoined to our Lord jesus Christ, & that they possess him in the power of their faith, and by the operation of his holy spirit, to be made flesh of his flesh, and bones of his bones, etc. But this is far off from the demand: to wit, whether the faithful in the Supper receive into their souls, besides all the graces spiritual (among which is the communication with our Lord jesus Christ) his true body and blood, really, truly, and substantially? And whether the Ministers in the Supper make not distinction of the substance contained and perceived in the Sacrament, with the fruits thereof proceeding? And for more brevity, the Doctor's demand, whether the Ministers do receive, and approve, that which Calvin hath written of the Supper, and of that they receive thereof in his Catechism, Institution, and other books.  
As touching the seventh demand, the Ministers have not understood what hath been proposed to them, touching the Concomitance: For they have taken it, as if one demanded, whether it were lawful to receive the Sacrament under one only kind or no. Which was not as then put in question. But such a difficulty was proposed to them: namely, whether in their Supper, when one hath received the bread, before he receive the wine, he do participate of the true body of jesus Christ, without he be partaker of his blood, until he have taken the wine: or having eaten the bread, whether he hath received the body and blood, before he take the Cup? To which demands, to avoid vain blotting of paper, the Doctors admonish the Ministers to answer, without wandering, and to render open confession of their faith. And that the Doctors may know, what doctrine they ought to impugn or approve.  
As touching the articles of the Mass, the Doctors reserve them to their proper place: which is of the sacrifice of the body and blood of jesus Christ. After it shallbe known and proved that they be present in the Supper and holy Sacrament.  
The fourth of August, the year above said.   

The Ministers answer to the writing of the Doctors, sent unto them by my Lord the Duke de Nivernois, the morning, being 7. of August. 1566.  
THe Ministers leaving aside whatsoever is superfluous, and from the purpose in the writing of the Doctors, as be their repetitions and rehearsals: dissembling also their injuries and accustomed scoffings, (by which they much more prove the hate they bear to the truth, and the Ministers, than the questions by them propounded) will only stay on the points which seem to require some answer.  
The Ministers first say, that they taxed not the Doctors to have restrained the Church in a certain place, but to a certain company, and to the traditions given, followed, and by the same approved. And they magnify God, that the Doctors do now acknowledge the Catholic Church to stretch through the world: and that it is not enclosed in the bounds and limits of the authority, and traditions of the Roman Church: which the Ministers confess to have been then much esteemed of the ancient Fathers, when errors, abuses, and vices, did not as yet there abound, as since they do. But now that all things almost are there corrupted, as well in manners, as in doctrine: and that nothing is there more odious, than the word, the light, the truth, and the power of God. The Ministers do say: that as the state of the same Church hath been changed, so ought to be also the esteem and reputation in which it hath been: adding thereunto, that in whatsoever degree of honour she hath been formerly lifted, she hath not nevertheless been esteemed by the Fathers for the universal Church, nor her Bishop for universal Bishop: As by that which Saint Jerome wrote thereof to Euagrius: and by that which concerning the same, was determined in one of the 
Cone. 3. C. 26.  councils of Carthage, appeareth.  
And as touching the reformed Church in France, the Ministers do not say, that it is the universal and Catholic Church, but only a member of the same: And that it hath it foundation, not upon the opinion or authority of men: but upon the doctrine & writings of the Prophets & Apostles. Moreover, as touching the protestations of Charity and zeal, whereby the Doctors fear to be forced unto invectives and pursuits which they make against the Ministers, and other the faithful, by the example (as they say) of Saint Augustine, and other Bishops, which in time passed solicited the Magistrates against the Donatists: their proceedings and fashion which they have, and still do use towards the said Ministers, and faithful, do evidently declare, that with false tokens they shroud themselves by these examples. For as much as the Catholics, whom they allege, exhorted the Magistrate to use all moderation and mildness towards the Donatists and other heretics; and to assay all means to reduce them, before they came to the rigour of pains and judgement. And further, they endeavoured to contain and repress the fury of the people, and to hinder their open violence upon them. Whereas they chose, do stir up against the Ministers, the people and Magistrates, by slander and false imputations▪ and by all other fashions & means they can invent for this purpose.  
Touching the Omnipotency of God, and the definition thereof, which the Ministers have proposed, drawn and extracted out of the books of Saint Augustine: the Doctors in their last writing, produce no new thing, to cause them leave the ●ame. For that they allege of the Angels, which can do whatsoever they will, and by that means should be almighty as well as God (if the abovesaid definition of his Omnipotency had place) is an example from the purpose, and which cannot prove that there is in the Angels any such power, as in God. For certain it is, that their will and power dependeth elsewhere, and that God ruleth over them, to change, suspend and hinder them as he pleaseth, and as he can do in all other creatures. Which none can say of God, without blasphemy. Howsoever it be, If the Doctors will reprove the definition of God's Omnipotency proposed by the Ministers, they deal not with them, but with S. Augustine: For as much as the said definition was word for word copied out of his writings.  
The Ministers do marvel, that after they had so amply declared to the Doctors, what they thought of God's Omnipotency, and showed, that it stretched not indifferently to all things which men in their foolish fantasies, may conceive or imagine: the Doctors will eftsoons harp on that string, alleging that God can do wisely, what fools do foolishly imagine. For manifest it is, that fools can imagine many things which are impossible to God. As for example, that there is no God. Psal. 14. and 53. That he is corporeal, as thought the Anthropomorphites. That the world is eternal: as thought the Peripatetiques. That there was two beginnings: as taught the Manichees. All which things, can no way without blasphemy be attributed to the Omnipotency of God. But that which more contenteth the Ministers, is, that our Masters, after so long and sharp combat in this Article, and so of●en crying blasphemy, when the said Ministers proposed the truth thereof, are constrained in the end to accord with them, and follow the interpretation and restraint which the Ministers themselves had given touching the Omnipotency of God: as it appeareth by a sentence of their last writing, whereof the words are such. The Doctors say: That all things imaginable to man, are possible to be done with God, without any exception: but of those things which imply contradiction, to be, and not to be. What reason then is there, that for the things (whereof the Ministers and Doctors agree, that they ought to be excepted out of God's omnipotency) the Ministers in excepting them, be held for blasphemers, & not the Doctors, which say & confess the self-same thing? Now this proposition that a natural body (yea that of jesus Christ) is in divers places at one self-same instant, is in the rank of things which imply contradiction: as it hath been already sufficiently proved. Therefore the Ministers conclude, that the omnipotency of God cannot be referred & extended thereunto.  
The Doctors do afterwards charge the Ministers with four horrible blasphemies (as they say) grounding themselves upon that which the Ministers in defending that one body could not be divers places at one instant) have said, that it repugned the truth, wisdom, and omnipotency of God. Which thing, the said Doctors find so strange, and far from reason, that they would not vouchsafe to stay to refute it: thinking it was unworthy of answer, and that it sufficed to have recited the same. Whereunto the Ministers answer▪ that it is a very easy and ready mean, to rid them speedily of all the difficulties wherein they find themselves wrapped, to say, that it is a blasphemy, and unworthy of answer.  
The Doctors yet make instance to the Ministers, and say: that it behoveth them to show by the word of God, that one body cannot be in divers places at one instant. Whereunto the Ministers eftsoons answer; that it is for the Doctors to prove the contrary by one text of scripture: to wit, that one body may be in divers places at one self-same instant: seeing that they are proponents in this Conference, & the Ministers respondents: and that nevertheless, they have heretofore showed them by lively reasons, drawn from the scripture, and the essential proprieties of God, from. the nature of bodies, and the authorities of Fathers: that the thing in question was wholly impossible.  
And touching the argument which they thus make, God can change the order which he hath established in nature. Therefore can he also cause that one body at one instant be in many places. The Ministers deny the consequence, and yield reason thereof: for as much as such a matter should not only change the order, but should wrap up also a contradiction: the which, by the confession of the Doctors themselves, is excepted out the omnipotency of God. The Doctors in the article following, do but reproach the Ministers, for they confound and obscure what had been clearly proposed by the Ministers, in their last writing. By means whereof, let them make (if they will) more large an answer, and expound themselves better. Where the Doctors accuse the Ministers to have maliciously concealed the word [place] in the matter of circumscription of a measured body: the Ministers say, that it was not needful to add that word expressly there. For as much as there is no man so ignorant, who (having understood that a body is circumscript) but doth presently infer, that then it is comprised in a place certain.  
As touching the Camel, if they be not contented with that already said thereof, then let them read what Saint Jerome hath thereof written, in his first book against the Pelagians: who expounding the words of jesus Christ, saith as followeth. In this hath the Lord not said, that it may be done: but hath compared one impossibility with an other. For as a Camel cannot enter through the eye of a needle: so the rich shall not enter into the Kingdom of heaven. Now if thou canst show that the rich man there entereth, it will also follow, that the Camel may pass through the eye of a needle. And allege not unto me Abraham, and the others, which we read in the old Testament to have been rich, and which being such, were entered into the kingdom of heaven, because they (well using their riches, and employing them to good works) have by that mean ceased to be rich. Behold what S. Jerome writeth. Then, as it is necessary (after the saying of S. Jerome) that for the salvation of the rich man, there be a mutation and changing in his heart; yea and that he cease to be rich, to the end he may enter into the kingdom of heaven: so also it behoveth, that there be a change in the Camel, and that he cease to be such: that he may be made to pass through the eye of a needle.  
As touching the article following, the Ministers say, that by the grace of God, they may discern the light from darkness, and falsehood from truth. Which is the cause, that they cannot approve, neither the arguments, nor conclusions of the Doctors, touching the being of one body in many places at one instant: being well assured by good and certain testimonies of the scripture, that all whatsoever the Doctors will prove, not elsewhere proceedeth, then from the spirit of error and falsehood. Which will retain by that mean, the impiety and Idolatry, which he hath formerly established in the world, to the ruin almost of all Christendom.  
As touching the verb [Dierchesthai] the Doctors find themselves much hindered to save their penetration: which they can no way found upon the proper signification of that word: as hath been showed them by the passages produced unto them, not upon any authority of the scripture.  
To that which the Doctors allege (to prove that faith cometh in part of ourselves, & not wholly of God) that Nemo credit nisivolens, (to wit, that none believeth but willingly) the Ministers answer: that (under our masters correction) it is nought to the purpose: for as much as this will and consent is of God: who worketh in the faithful, both the will and the deed. Which thing S. Augustine in one of his Epistles, very well teacheth, where he saith: That when God calleth men to salvation, he findeth not in them any good will at all: but that he worketh and createth it in their hearts, if he will find it there. And that of S. Paul which the Doctors allege, that we are coworkers with God, serveth nothing for their purpose: For the Apostle speaketh not there but of the Ministry. And meant no other thing, than what he writeth thereof more clearly in the 2. to the Corinth's, in these words: 
2. Cor. 5.  We are Ambassadors for Christ: as if God exhorted by us. And touching that which they add, that none of all the ancient Doctors ever taught, that one body could not be in divers places at one self-same time: The Ministers say yea. As they have showed in their former writings, where the passages of S. Augustine, Ad Dardanum: and in the 30. tract upon S. john, and others have been alleged.  
The Ministers answer not but to two points only, of all that the Doctors have touched in their advertisement. The first is, that their Sermons, their writings, their discipline observed in their Churches, the censures which they pass for scandalous offences therein committed, the care which they, and the Superintendents have, to discover, reprove and correct them: the pain which they take to reform whatsoever is disordered, and the public prayers, which in all places they make to these ends: defend them with all good people: and justify them against the slanders of the Doctors. The second is, that the Doctors in their said advertisement are deceived, in that they have said, that Abraham doubted of the promise. Which is wholly contrary to that which the Apostle in the 4. of the Romans thereof writeth. Where, in these proper terms he saith: And he nothign doubted of the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in the faith, and gave glory unto God.  
For answer to the Doctors last Objection, made (as they say) against the answer given by the Ministers to their former Question, upon the matter of the Supper▪ Although the said Doctors, do feign not any way to affect delay in the Conference and Dispute of the Supper, and of the Mass: yet can they not persuade any person of any judgement, that they have not hitherto retired, and do yet draw back from entering thereinto. For notwithstanding some requests presented by Madame de Buillon and the Ministers, some declaration which my Lord the Duke of Nivernois hath made thereupon, of his will and desire to bring them thereunto: yet by all the means abovesaid, hath it not been possible to obtain of them, that (all other things set apart) they would in good earnest, confer with the Ministers of the two points aforesaid.  
Which thing the Ministers perceiving, and not desiring to depart from them, without conference first had thereof: have often protested to dispute no more with them, till these two Articles were first decided and resolved. And to this end proposed certain Theses by order and good method, as well of the one as of the other: to the end they should well advise what in the said Theses, they would gainsay and withstand.  
The Doctors having dissembled the same, in stead of pursuing of them, do propose other frivolous and unprofitable questions, taken and drawn from their School divinity.  
And although the Ministers had just occasion to grieve, that their Theses were omitted by the Doctors: nevertheless, to the end they should have no more shadow nor colour of delay, the Ministers have also answered to their last questions. But now in stead of following their Answers, and impugning of them, if any way they could: they propose again new questions, no less absurd and frivolous than the former. Whereby each one may evidently know their hypocrisy and dissimulation. And that pretending a willingness to confer of the two foresaid points, they do in the mean time, what in them possibly lieth, to draw them from the Conference thereof: to the end, it may break off, before that this matter be cleared. By means whereof, the Ministers for conclusion, and resolution of all the Conference, determine by God's grace, to couch briefly by writing, and in the clearest manner they can, all what God hath taught them concerning the same; and what they have learned thereof by his word: as well to satisfy the debt and bond which they have to God, and his honour, to obey my Lord of Nevers, and Madame de Buillon: as lastly, for the contentment and edification of the whole Church.   

The Conclusion and resolution of the points, as well of the Supper, as of the Mass, containing a declaration of that which the Ministers believe concerning the same: and teach thereof in their Church by the word of God.  
THe end and chief felicity of men, is to 
Psal. 37. 28.  be conjoined with God, and to abide in him: For as much as it is the only mean by which all their desires can be contented and satisfied: and by the which also, their minds and hearts can be plainly freed and delivered, from the hard and cruel bondage of sin, and of all the passions, greedy desires, fears & distrusts, which do assail 
1. Cor. 13.  them. Which was the cause, why S. Paul placeth perfect beatitude, and entire repose of the blessed in this: that God 
2. Cor. 6.  is all in all in them. But for as much as men be naturally corrupt and wicked, and chose God in all perfection, is pure and holy: the difficulty is to know and choose the mean, by which they may approach unto him. Seeing that there is no society between light and darkness, nor any communion between righteousness and unrighteousness. In them cannot this mean be found: by reason, that of themselves they are wholly unable, and uncaple to relieve themselves from the misery and curse, into which they be cast headlong.  
So that, being blind of understanding, they cannot know their own good: nor seek it, being rebels and heart-hardened: and therefore of necessity must they go out of themselves, and seek the above said mean in jesus Christ: who was given them of the Father, to be their righteousness, 
1. Cor. 1. john. 14. Ephes. 3.  wisdom, sanctification, redemption, way, life, and truth. Then resteth it now to know, how they may be united and conjoined with him. The Apostle doth teach us, that the same is done by faith, by which jesus Christ dwelleth in our hearts, and abideth in us: so 
john. 17.  that he and we are made one, and he and his Father are one.  
Now, there are two principal causes of this faith, the one outward, and the other inward. The inward is the holy Ghost, who is called the spirit of faith: for as much as he is 
2. Cor. 4. 13.  the Author thereof, and createth and bringeth it forth in the hearts of men: mollifying and disposing them to receive with all obedience, the word and promise of God, which is preached unto them by the faithful stewards, and Ministers of the same.  

Rom. 10.  Which word, is the outward cause of faith. And as the same faith groweth, and riseth by degrees, even so doth the union which we have with jesus Christ, and by his means with God: until (as saith S. Paul) we all meet together in 
Ephes. 4.  the unity of faith, and knowledge of the son of God, unto a perfect man, and unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ.  
The increase of faith is wrought by the working and power of the holy spirit, who was the first beginning and author thereof: and afterwards, by the continuance of the word purely preached and denounced: and finally by the lawful use of the Sacraments, ordained as seals for the certainty and confirmation of faith, and assurance we have of the foresaid conjunction with God through jesus Christ, and of the participation of all the good things, grants, gifts, graces, and blessings, which by his favour are purchased and gotten for us. As of the remission of sin, of our regeneration, of the mortification of the flesh, and the lusts thereof. To signify which things, and more amply assure us of the exhibition and enjoying of the same, Baptism was ordained of God: to the end, that in the water which is powered upon our bodies, and in the promise of God which is thereunto added, we may behold (as it were with our eyes) the invisible grace which God vouchsafeth us, to wash and cleanse us from our spiritual filthiness, and to fanctifie us, and make us new creatures: As also to further assure us always of life eternal, and make us grow in the hope we have thereof, by the participation of the flesh of jesus Christ, crucified for our redemption, and of his blood, shed for remission of our sins: the bread and the wine are distributed unto us in the Supper, by the ordinance of jesus Christ.  
But as the Ministers acknowledge, that there is a union, and sacramental conjunction between the outward sign, and thing thereby signified: so (say they) on the other side, that between them two, there is such a distinction, that the one ought never to be confounded with the other: nor the spiritual thing in such sort fastened to the corporal, (which representeth the same) that the one without the other, cannot be received: or that the two by necessity be always inseparably conjoined together. Whereof it followeth, that they err, which will have the bread in the Supper to be changed into the substance of the body of Christ jesus: And they likewise which will have him to be conjoined, and corporally united thereunto. So that whosoever receiveth and taketh the signs, (be he faithful, or unfaithful) taketh and receiveth forthwith the thing by them signified. Which error, with the most part of others happening in this matter, proceedeth of not well comprehending nor conceiving what it is to eat the body, and drink the blood of jesus Christ. Which thing ought not to be understood, in sort as corporal meats are taken and eaten, but after a spiritual manner only: as is declared in the sixth of Saint john: which in this consisteth; that jesus Christ dwelleth in us, and we in him: and is done by the faith we have in him: as teacheth S. Augustine in the 25. tract upon S. john, saying: Why preparest thou the belly, and the tooth? believe, and thou hast eaten. And in the third book and 16. Chapter de Doctrina Christiana: where he saith as followeth: When jesus Christ saith: except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. It seemeth that he commandeth to commit some great offence. It is therefore a figure, whereby we ought to understand no other thing, but that it behoveth to communicate with the passion of the Lord: and to retain in our memory, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us.  
The eating then of the flesh and body of jesus Christ, is no other thing, than a strait conjunction and union we have with him: which is made by the faith we add to his promises. Even as by the mutual promises made and received between man and woman, the marriage is concluded, and settled between them. And although being so conjoined, they be sometimes by some occasion separated, and removed the one from the other, as touching their bodies, yet for all that, do they not leave to be one flesh, and one body, by means of the society and matrimonial familiarity which is between them. In like case, albeit that jesus Christ (with whom we are conjoined and united by the faith and trust which we have in him, and his promises) be as touching his body, resident in heaven, we yet abiding upon the earth; and that by means thereof, there is great distance and space between him and us, as touching his body: that nevertheless hindereth us not, to be flesh of his flesh, and bones of his bones: that he is not our head, and we his members: that he is not our husband, and we his spouse: that we be not of one self same body: that we be not engrafted into him, that we be not clothed with him: that we abide not in him, as the boughs and buds in the Vine. And there is neither distance of times, nor places whatsoever it be: there is no difference of times, which can hinder such a conjunction, and that the faithful eat truly his flesh, and his blood. For as the ancient Fathers, albeit they were two or three thousand years before jesus Christ died, yet left they not to communicate in his flesh crucified, and to eat the same spiritual meat which we eat, and to drink the same spiritual drink which we drink. The faithful also which are come twelve or fifteen hundred years after, leave not, what place soever they be in, to participate (as did the Fathers) in the same meat, and in the same drink, which they have done. And no other difference there is between the eating of the Fathers which were before the coming of jesus Christ, and of them that have followed him, but the reason of more or less: that is to say, that there is in the one, more ample and express declaration of the good will of God towards us, then in the other. Whence must be concluded, that from the beginning of the world unto the end, there never was, nor shall be other conjunction between our Lord jesus Christ and his Church, then spiritual: that is to faith, wrought by the spirit of God. For even as there is but one faith in the Fathers and in us, which respecteth always on the one part and the other, our Lord jesus Christ: so are we not also otherwise conjoined with him, than they have been. As than it is so, that the Fathers have had no other society nor communion then spiritual: It followeth thereof, that we also are not, nor can be otherwise, then spiritually conjoined with him. Nevertheless it is not said, that we and the Fathers are not flesh of his flesh, and bones of his bones: and that all together, do not partake as well in his humanity, as in his divinity. But that which we say is: that all this participation which we have in him, is by the operation & virtue of the holy Ghost: which thing, Christ jesus in S. john, speaking of the mean of this conjunction, teacheth clearly, when he saith: The 
joh. 6. 1. Cor. 10.  things which I speak unto you, are spirit and life. And S. Paul also, when he saith: Our fathers did eat the same spiritual meat, and drank the same spiritual drink. Now when we speak of this spiritual eating, common to us, and to the Fathers: it must not therefore be thought, that we reject the holy Supper of the Lord, or any way think that the same use of bread and wine is superfluous: no more than the use of the water in Baptism. For our Lord knowing the blockishness of our understandings, and the infirmity and weakness of our hearts, and through the pity he hath of us, willing to help and remedy the same: hath not contented to have left us the ministery of his word, to assure us of the participation which we have in his flesh, & in his blood, and in all the good things thereon depending: but hath also willed to add thereunto, the signs of bread and wine, which he hath as seals to his word, to seal in our hearts, by the use of the same, the faith we have of the foresaid conjunction by his word. So that it sufficed him not to have contracted a covenant with Abraham, by the word and promise which he made unto him: but added moreover thereunto the sign of Circumcision, as a seal, for more ample confirmation and assurance of the said covenant.  
To the end then, that each one may understand what is the Supper of the Lord, and what the Ministers do thereof believe and teach: it is meet to consider and acknowledge in the same, three things. First the ordinance of the Lord contained in his word, and declared by his ministery, according to his commandment: by which this holy ceremony hath been ordained and established in the Church, for the edification and entertaining of the members thereof: which thing must be diligently observed, to have it in that honour and reverence as appertaineth; and not to place it in the rank of other ceremonies, which have no foundation nor reason to authorize them, but the only will and tradition of men. Nevertheless heed must be taken, that by the institution, and ordinance, whereof we make mention, we understand not, a certain pronunciation of words, or any virtue which is hidden in the same: as do the Priests of the Roman Church: who by ignorance and superstitious opinion which they have, think to have consecrated, and transubstantiated the bread and wine in the Mass, by the virtue of five words: Hoc est enim Corpus meum. For this is my body, breathed and pronounced over the Elements. Wherein they are greatly deceived and abused: for as much as the word which is the formal cause of the Sacrament, is not a word simply said and uttered, but a declaration of the institution and ordinance of God, made by the Minister, according to his commandment: and a preaching of the death of jesus Christ, and of the fruit thereof: by which, the hearts of the hearers are lifted up unto the contemplation, and meditation of his benefit, and their faith stirred up and inflamed in his love: and where the same shall not thus be done, it must not be thought, that the Elements be Sacraments. As S. Augustine in the 80. Tract upon Saint john, in these terms teacheth: Whence cometh this virtue to the water, that in touching the body, it washeth the heart, saving that it is done by the word: not because it is pronounced, but because it is believed?  
This word is the word of the faith which we preach. 
Rom. 10. 9  This (saith the Apostle) to wit: If we confess with our mouth, that jesus is the Lord, and believe in our heart, that God raised him from the dead, we shall be saved. And continuing his speech, he addeth in the end these proper words: to wit, This word of faith which we preach, is that (doubtless) by which baptism is consecrated, to the end it might wash us.  
Of this, as before, do the Ministers infer two things. The one is, that the word of consecration is not (as is said) a simple pronunciation, but a public and manifest declaration of the institution and ordinance, and of the whole mystery of the death of jesus Christ. The other, that the signs and Elements consecrated, are not changed as touching their nature and substance: but only as touching the use and signification: and that only, during the action wherein they do serve. For to consecrate the signs (as the water in Baptism, and the bread and wine in the Supper) is no other thing, then to depute and make them serve to an holy and sacred use, by the public declaration of the ordinance of God, made to this end: and not to change them as touching their nature and substance. The which (vanishing away, and being abolished) there should remain no more of the sign, nor (consequently) of the Sacrament. Even so then, as the water in baptism, after consecration, abideth water, without that the nature or substance thereof in aught changeth or altereth: So also the bread and wine in the Supper, remain as touching their substance, such after consecration, as they were before: else should there not be Analogy, nor mutual agreement between the sign, and the thing signified. For what comparison or conformity is there between the accidents of bread, and the truth of the body of jesus Christ? Seeing that the accidents of bread, as the whiteness and roundness, destitute of their substance, (as the Sophisters do falsely imagine) could not nourish, nor sustain the body: and by that mean, should not be proper to signify, that the flesh and blood of jesus Christ do nourish and sustain our souls.  
This than must be holden for a thing resolved, that the bread and the wine abide in their substance: which thing is clearly proved by that which jesus Christ (speaking of that he given his Disciples to drink in the Supper) calleth it, namely: fruit of the Vine. Which cannot 
Math. 26.  be applied to accidents, but ought necessarily to be understood of wine in it proper substance. Also 
1. Cor. 21.  by that which Saint Paul saith: calling the Elements of the Supper three several times bread and wine: yea after they have been consecrated. Also by that which he sayeth elsewhere: We which are many, are one bread 
1. Cor. 10.  and one body: for as much as we are all partakers of one self-same bread. For there he will teach us by the comparison of bread and wine, he proposeth unto us, that as it is composed of many grains, so pasted and mingled together, that one cannot distinguish nor separate one from an other: So also ought all the faithful in the Church to be so conjoined and united together in one self-same body, that it seemeth and appeareth, they are members one of an other. Now very foolish and from the purpose should this comparison be, if the bread which we eat in the Supper, and upon which this comparison is founded, were not true bread. Also by that which Gelacius Bishop of Rome, writing against Eutiches saith: The Sacraments (saith he) which we take, is a thing divine: and nevertheless doth it not cease to be substance and nature of bread and wine. Also by that which writeth Theodoret in his first Dialogue, and in these proper terms: The Lord hath honoured with the name of his body and of his blood, the visible signs which do represent them: nevertheless without changing the nature of them, but only adding grace to nature. The same Author in the second Dialogue, speaking likewise of the bread and wine, which are distributed in the Supper, saith as followeth: After sanctification these mystical signs depart not from their nature: for they abide in their proper substance, form, and figure. By means whereof, one seeth and handleth them after consecration, nor more nor less than he did before. Also by that which saith S. john Chrisostome, writing to the Monk Cesarius, whose words are such. In the Supper we call that which is presented bread, before it be sanctified: and after sanctification thereof, by the divine grace, and mean of the Minister, it hath no more the name bread, but of the body of the Lord: nevertheless, the nature of the bread is there still remaining.  
By the passages aforesaid, as well of the holy scripture, as of the ancient Doctors, and others, which might be yet alleged for this purpose, it appeareth, that the bread and wine in the Supper abide always (as hath been said) in their proper nature and substance, as well after consecration, as before. And it must not be doubted, that the faith of the ancient Church hath not ever been such: and that transubstantiation was not settled nor holden in the Roman Church for an Article of faith, until the time of Innocent the third.  
To gainsay and reject whatsoever hath been said touching the nature and substance of signs, which remain after consecration, the adversaries of this doctrine do ordinarily allege, that which jesus Christ saith, speaking of the bread in the institution of the Supper: Take eat, this is my body: And resting upon the natural, and proper signification of the words, they obstinately defend, that the substance of bread vanisheth in the consecration: and that there remaineth no other substance, but that of the body of jesus Christ. The reason thereof is, because they observe not the figures and manner of speaking; which be ordinary and usual in the holy scripture, always, and as often as the matter of the Saments is questionable. For then the name of the things signified, is ordinarily attributed to the signs, which do signify and represent them: as the name of a covenant is attributed 
Gen. 17. Exod. 12.  to Circumcision: because it was deputed to signify and confirm the same.  

Tit. 3.  The Lamb, for like reason, is called the Passeover: and Baptism, the washing of regeneration: not because they be like and semblable things, as the signs and mysteries signified by them: but for the conformity that is between them, the signs (as saith Saint Augustine) take oftentimes 
Epist. 23.  the name of the things which they represent. The error than cometh, because they take and understand the fashions and manners of figurative speeches, as if they were proper and natural.  
Now that this kind of speaking: Take ye, and eat ye, This is my body, is figurative, it appeareth by that which our Lord jesus Christ addeth after the Cup, saying: This Cup is the new Testament in my blood, which is shed for you. Where he calleth the Cup, Testament, and new Covenant in his blood. Wherein it behoveth necessarily to confess, that there is a figure, and that without the same, they cannot well understand, nor fitly interpret the said passages: For it is a thing manifest, that a covenant (which is a contract and bargain between parties, made and conceived under a certain promise and word) is not wine. And nevertheless it is so called by figure: for as much as the wine which is distributed in the Supper, and as the seal, by which the said covenant is sealed, and the faith thereof confirmed. By such, and like manner, this sentence [This is my body] which is as much to say, as this is the new Testament in my body, which is given for you, must beunderstood and expounded. For as by the effusion of his blood, the new Testament was confirmed: so was it also by the death of his body. And a better Interpreter of the words of jesus Christ, than jesus Christ himself, must not be sought for. For certain it is, that what he hath said of the Cup, is as it were a glass, & clear and familiar exposition of that he had more briefly and obscurely said of the bread. This also is proved by that which S. 
1. Cor. 10.  Paul saith: The bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the body of Christ? which is a manner of figurative speech. For as much as (to speak and understand properly) the bread, which is a corporeal and material thing, is not the Communion which we have in the body of jesus Christ, which is a spiritual and invisible thing. And nevertheless it is so called, because it is the sign thereof, to represent it unto us, and to assure us of the same. As commonly we call the signed and sealed Letter, which containeth the declaration of the last will of a man, his Testament: although it be not his Testament, but is properly the declaration, which he hath verbally made of his said will. But it is so called, because it is the instrument and testimony thereof.  
Now, as the scripture and ancient Fathers, as well to recommend and advance the dignity of the signs, and to hinder thereby the contempt of them: as for the agreement and likeness which is between the signs, & the thing signified, have sometimes attributed the name of the same things signified, to the signs which represent them: and speaking of signs, have used figurative speeches. At some other times also have they spoken of them properly, to take away all occasion of abuse thereof, and to hinder that in taking the signs without any distinction, for the things by them signified, men should attribute to them the effects, which appertain not but to the things only which they signify. Of these two divers reasons, & manners of speaking, examples there are, as well in the scriptures, as in the ancient Fathers. Of the first, we have an example in Circumcision, when it is called by figure a Covenant. Gen. 17. 13. And of the second, is there likewise an example in the 11. verse of the same Chapter: where Circumcision is properly called a sign of the Covenant. Another example there is, of the first manner of speaking which is figurative, in Exodus 12. 11. where the Lamb is called the Passeover of the Lord. And of th● second manner of speaking which is proper, the example i● in the same Chapter & 3. verse, where the blood of the lamb is named a sign. In like manner and sort, when in the scripture mention is made of the Supper, sometimes is it there spoken of bread by figure. As when it is called the body of jesus Christ: or the Communion of the body, as before hath been said: and sometimes is it also taken properly, as 
1. Cor. 11.  when it said: Whosoever shall eat of this bread. Also, Let every man then prove himself, and so eat of this bread. The like diversity in two manners of speaking, is oftentimes found among the ancient Fathers, in the matter of the Supper: For sometimes they speak of bread by figure, calling it the body of jesus Christ. As Saint Cyprian, when 

Sermon: de Caen● dom.  
Epist. ad Rustic. Hom. 6. ad pop. Antioch.  
Hom. 45. in john. Hom. 27. in 1. Cor. Hom. de Encaenijs. 5 Hom. 26.   he saith: that the body of the Lord is taken with filthy hands, and his blood drunk with a profane and polluted mouth. And when he saith elsewhere that we suck his blood, and fasten our tongues in the wounds of our Redeemer. And S. Jerome, when he saith: that Euxuperius Bishop of Tholoze, bore the body of our Lord in a little Oziar Pannyer, and his blood in a Glass. Saint Chrisostome also, when he writeth: that jesus Christ doth not only suffer himself to be seen, but also to be touched and eaten: and that the tooth be fastened in his flesh, and touched with the tongue. And Saint Augustine: With what care take we heed, when the body of jesus Christ is administered unto us, that nothing thereof fall from our hands to the earth.  
All which, with their semblable Sentences, are figurative: and there is no doubt, but to well and fitly interpret them, they that read them aught to be taught, that in the same, the name of the thing signified, is applied to the signs which do signify the same: which thing may easily be gathered out of other sentences, and passages of the said Ancients: where speaking properly of the bread and wine, distributed in the Supper: they call them signs 
Lib. 4. Cont. Martion. Lib. 2. Epist. 3.  and figures. As Tertullian: jesus Christ (saith he) took bread, gave it to his Disciples▪ and made his body: when he saith: This is my body: that is to say, a figure of my body. And Cyprian: by the wine, is showed the blood of Christ. Also in the Sermon which he made of the Supper of the Lord: As often as we do this, we whet not the teeth to bite, but we break and distribute the holy bread in true faith: By the which we distinguish the divine and human matter. Also in the Sermon he made de Chrismate; The Lord hath given with his own hands bread and wine upon the table, on which he made his last meal with his Disciples: but upon the Cross, he gave unto the soldiers, his body to be wounded, to the end he might so much the more deeply imprint the truth in his Disciples: and that they should expound to the people, how the bread and wine were his body and blood: and how the Sacrament agreeth with the thing, for the which it was instituted. And also how a Sacrament is made of two things, and therefore is named with two names, and one self-same name is given to that which signifieth, and to that which is signified. 
In liturg su● Psa. 3. & cont Adamant. ca 20.  And Saint Basile: We propose the figures and patterns of the sacred body and blood of jesus Christ. And Saint Augustine: The Lord feared not to say: This is my body: when he gave the sign of his body. Also the Lord received judas to his Supper, wherein he commended and gave to his Disciples the figure of his body. And 
Chap. 26. in Math.  Saint Jerome: After he had eaten the Paschal Lamb with his Disciples, he took bread, which strengtheneth the heart of man, and passed to the true Sacrament of the Passeover.  
To the end that as Melchisedecke had done before in his figure, he should also represent there his true body. S. Ambrose: 
Lib. 4. de sacram. Chap. 5. in Psa. 22.  This Sacrament is a figure of the true body and blood of our Lord jesus Christ. Chrisostome: He hath prepared this table, to the end he might show us daily the bread and wine in mystery and similitude of the body and blood of Christ. And sometimes it happeneth, that one Doctor in this matter expoundeth an other. As one may perceive it in the conference of two passages: the one of S. Augustine already alleged: and the other of Tertullian, in the book De Corona militis: where he saith: We very hardly suffer any thing of our bread and wine to fall upon the ground. And in stead of that which S. Augustine saith to the same purpose, he saith: (as hath before been recited) we carefully regard, that nothing of the body of our Lord, fall upon the ground.  
Now as in divers passages the ancient Fathers (as hath been declared) have used the two foresaid manners, speaking of the Supper, now by figure, now simply and properly: so it is sometimes found, that in one self-same place these two manners of speaking have been usurped in their writings. As in a Canon of the Council of Niece, where it is said: It was thus concluded of the table of the Lord, and of the mystery which is thereupon: that is to say, of the worthy body and blood of jesus Christ. At the table of the Lord, we ought not to abide tied here below to the bread and wine, which be there proposed: but to lift up our hearts on high by faith, and meditate, that on this holy table, is proposed unto us, the Lamb of God, which taketh upon him the sins of the world; which is sacrificed of the Priests, and not slain. And in communicating truly with his precious body and blood, we ought to believe that these things be signs of our resurrection. Whence we may see, how the Fathers in one self-same place, have spoken properly, calling bread and wine, the signs and Elements, which be presented in the Supper: and also by figure, naming the same signs, the Lamb of God, which taketh upon him the sins of the world.  
By that which is said, touching the said two manners of speaking, they which read the scripture, and ancient Authors, aught to be admonished, carefully to regard, that for default of well distinguishing the places, where the said speeches are usurped, they do not confound them: taking that which ought to be understood by figure, as if it were spoken properly: and that which is said properly, as if it were understood by figure. And it behoveth them always to remember in the reading, as well of the scripture, as of the ancient Fathers, what S. Augustine hath written in his book De doctrina Christiana. We must beware (saith he) that we take not a figurative speech, according to the letter: For hereunto must that be referred which the Apostle saith: The letter killeth: and the spirit giveth life. So that to understand that which is spoken by figure, as if it were spoken properly, is fleshly wisdom. And in the end of the Chapter he hath one memorable sentence: namely, that it is a miserable bondage of the soul, to take the signs, for the things signified: and not to be able to lift up the eye of the spirit above the corporal creature, to draw eternal life.  
To come to the third part of the Supper, which is the spiritual and heavenly thing, represented & proposed there unto us, as well in the Elements, as in the whole action: the Ministers say, that it is jesus Christ crucified, and offered on the Cross to God his Father, for the whole and perfect expiation, and satisfaction of all the sins of the world. And that to make us enjoy the fruit of this sacrifice, and to apply unto ourselves the righteousness, forgiveness of sins, life, the grace of God, and all other favours and blessings, which by the same sacrifice, have been purchased and obtained for us: the word and Sacraments have been left and ordained for us, chiefly that of the Supper: wherein, as in a picture, we behold jesus Christ suffering for us, the pains and sorrows of death, paying our debts, canceling and adnulling the hand-writing which was contrary to us: bearing upon him our malediction, to free us from the same: and by his obedience reconciling us to God his Father, and appeasing his wrath towards us. All which things are represented and assured unto us in the Supper: when with a true faith we present ourselves there, to celebrate the same.  
The Supper than was not ordained to be a propitiatory sacrifice (as the Doctors do teach, and as they falsely believe in the Roman Church) but to be a Sacrament, to the end to renew and always conserve the memory which we ought constantly to retain of the death and sacrifice of jesus Christ. Now, between a sacrifice, and a Sacrament, there is great difference. For as much as in a sacrifice, we present our oblations unto God: and in a Sacrament, God chose offereth and communicateth unto us, his graces and gifts. Also in a sacrifice for sin, there is the death and effusion of the blood of the Host and sacrifice, and not in a Sacrament: but the only perception and application of the fruit and effects of the sacrifice. In the Supper then, jesus Christ is not again sacrificed: but the fruits of his obedience, and merit of his sacrifice are there distributed and received by the faithful.  
Of the reasons aforesaid, do the Ministers conclude, that it is blasphemy and sacrilege, to call the bread of the Mass, of a Romish Priest, a wholesome host. And if for proof thereof, they would allege the Fathers, in whose writings is found, that they call sometimes the Supper an oblation and sacrifice: The Ministers answer, that first it nought appertaineth to the Mass of the Priests: between which & the Supper, there is no agreement. And afterwards, that what the Fathers have said, they never understood it of the propitiatory sacrifice: by which remission of sins is gotten and obtained. And they have never believed nor thought, that there was any other sacrifice to appease the wrath of God, and obtain reconciliation and agreement between him and men, than the only sacrifice of jesus Christ, made by him alone, one only time upon the Cross. Three things then in brief, do the Ministers say: first, that there neither is, nor can be other sacrificer of the new Testament, than Christ jesus.  
The reasons are, because there is none but he, of whom it hath been said: Thou art a Priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedeck. Also there is none but he, to whom may agree, and be fitly applied the conditions and essential qualities of a sacrificer, and the sacrifice: Which are, that the Priest be holy, innocent, without spot, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens: which needed not to offer daily sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. Also there is none but he, which is, nor could be Mediator between God and men: which could satisfy the divine justice: which is capable to bear and sustain the wrath of God: which could tame and conquer death: which by his death, and proper blood, could work the confirmation of the new Testament: and which (to be brief) could in favour and contemplation of his merits and dignity, obtain of God remission of sins, and the other graces needful for them which trust in him, and instantly desire him.  
Secondly the Ministers say, that there is no other sacrifice for sin, but that of jesus Christ: That he is the only Lamb which beareth the sins of the world: that there is nothing but his blood, whereby our filthiness is washed: To be short, that God taketh pleasure in no other sacrifice nor oblation: and that he requireth no other burnt sacrifice nor offering for sin. And that therefore jesus Christ (as it is written of him in the roll of the law) is come, to do and accomplish the will of God his Father.  
Thirdly, they say of the sacrifice of jesus Christ, that it was one only, and once offered by himself: without that it was ever needful afterwards to repeat and reiterate the same, considering the perfection and virtue thereof, by which sin is abolished, and absolute and eternal sanctification obtained to all the elect: as it appeareth in the 9 and 10. of the Hebrews. By means whereof, no less blasphemy it is, nor a thing less contrary to the doctrine and meaning of the Apostle, to approve the repetition and reiteration of the sacrifice of jesus Christ, than the plurality of sacrifices for sin. And if the Doctors would (as they wontedly have) to disguise and colour such an abuse, show forth their distinction between the propitiatory and applicatory sacrifice, saying▪ that the Priests pretend not in their Masses to sacrifice jesus Christ for other end, then to apply the merit of his death to those, for whom they celebrate the same. The Ministers answer, that in so doing, they should attribute unto jesus Christ, more than they do: because all the fruit of his sacrifice cometh unto us, by the application thereof. As healing cometh not so much by the confection and preparation of the medicine, as by the application of the same.  
Furthermore, the Ministers would willingly demand of our Masters, by what mean the benefit of the death of jesus Christ, was applied to the Fathers before his coming, seeing that as than they did sing no Masses? Well seeth every man of any spirit or judgement, that such distinctions are frivolous, and only invented to obscure the truth, and dazzle the eyes of the simple and ignorant. For jesus Christ who hath offered the sacrifice, is he himself, which applieth the same unto us, by his spirit, his word, and his Sacraments.  
To return then to their former speech, and declare why the Fathers have called the Supper, and all the action thereof a sacrifice. It behoveth to note, that there are many sorts of sacrifices in the Supper: As the sacrifice of a contrite 
Ps. 51.  heart, offered by public confession of sins which there is made. After the sacrifice of our body, there offered 
Rom. 12.  by public prayer, which followeth the said confession. Thirdly, the sacrifice of praise there offered, when they sing Psalms after the confession and prayer. After cometh the preaching of the Gospel, (which is called a sacrifice, Rom. 15.): then the confession and prayers ended, the Minister presenteth himself to the people, to preach unto them the word of God. The Alms (which 
Phil. 4. Heb. 13.  is an other kind of sacrifice) was heretofore brought forth in the Supper by the faithful: which would thereby testify, not only their remembrance of the graces & benefits of God: but also their love & desire they had to relieve the necessities of their poor neighbours. Besides all these Sacrifices, there are yet in the Supper two particular sacrifices, whereof mention is made in the writings of the Fathers. The bread and the wine which were chosen and taken of the Alms, brought thither for the poor, and were consecrated: that is to say, deputed and appointed to the holy and sacred use of the Supper. The other is the memory of the death and sacrifice of jesus Christ, celebrated and repeated in all the action of the Supper. The which, for this reason is called a 
Chap. 10.  Sacrifice by S. john Chrisostome, upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, when he saith: We make not every day other Sacrifice, then that of jesus Christ. But rather (saith he correcting himself) we make the memory of that Sacrifice. S. Ambrose calleth it the memory of our redemption: To the end, that we remembering our Redeemer, may obtain of him increase of his graces in us. S. Augustine yet proposeth it more clearly, under a comparison which he bringeth of the days of the passion, and resurrection of jesus Christ: which he thus 
Epist 23.  applieth: when the Feast of Easter approacheth, we use oft times this manner of speech: To morrow, or within two days, we have the passion or resurrection of jesus Christ. That cannot properly be understood of the day wherein jesus Christ suffered death (which is long since passed): but only of the memory of his death, which is solemnized and celebrated, as this day, every year. A little after, to appropriate his comparison, he addeth: jesus Christ, hath not he been one only time offered in himself? And nevertheless in the Sacrament of the Supper, not only on Easter day, but every day also, is he offered to the people. Also elsewhere: 
Contra Faust lib. 20. cap. 21.  The flesh and blood of this Sacrifice, were before the coming of jesus Christ, promised by the figures of Sacrifices. In the passion of jesus Christ, they were given and offered in truth: And after the Ascension of jesus Christ into Heaven, they are celebrated by the Sacrament of remembrance. Of these and many other like passages, one may deduct, that the Fathers have often called the Supper a Sacrifice: by reason that in the same, the memory of the Sacrifice of jesus Christ is renewed and celebrated.  
The name of Sacrifice, is by the Ancients often also applied to the Alms, which the faithful brought forth in the Supper. As by justin Martyr in the second Apology: by S. Augustin in the 20. chap. of the 20. book Cotra Faust: by S. Cyprian in the book de Elimosina: by S. john Chrysostome, Hom. 46. upon S. Matthew. Which thing may also be verified by the Canon of the Mass itself, where it is said: We offer to thy majesty part of thy gifts & benefits: which ought to be referred to the Alms of the faithful, which the Minister in the name of the whole Church offered to God. They have sometimes also called the prayers there made, Sacrifices. As S. Cyprian upon the Lord's Prayer. And Eusebius in the 7. of the Ecclesiastical History. Tertullian in the 3. book against Martion: where, alleging that written in Malachy, [of the clean offering], which ought to be made unto God, from the rising of the Sun, to the going down of the same, saith: that aught to be understood of the Hymns and praises of God. Which S. Jerome (expounding the passage aforesaid) doth also confirm.  
For conclusion of this matter, the Ministers say: that all the passages of the books of the Fathers: wherein mention is made of Sacrifice, in the speech of the Supper, aught to be referred to one of these kinds aforesaid. And that it shall never be found, that they have said or written, or yet ever have thought, that there was any other sacrifice 
* 
jesus Christ the only sacrifice propitiatory of the new Testament.  
The Sacrament improperly termed a Sacrifice; ●y reason of the concurrence of these 5. Christian Sacrifices therein: namely: Contrition, Mortification, Praises, Alms & celebration of the memory of Christ. Every member of Christ's Church a Priest.   propitiatory, then that alone, which jesus Christ in his own body once offered upon the Cross for our redemption. And that by means thereof, it is certain, that in the Christian church, he ought to be acknowledged, the priest of the new Testament. And as touching the other sacrifices, namely: of a Contrite heart: of the Mortification of the flesh: of Praises and Alms: and of the showing forth, and memory of the death of jesus Christ: they say, that it generally belongeth to all the Church to offer them: And that there is no faithful, nor any member in the whole body of the Church, which in this respect, is not a Priest. As saith S. Peter in the 2. Chapter of his first Epistle. And S. john in the first Chapter of the apocalypse. And that we ought for this cause, to offer in the Supper such Sacrifices unto God: As appeareth by the same Cannon of their Mass, by them evilly understood, and applied to the Sacrifice, which they pretend to make of the body & blood of jesus Christ; where it is said: For the which, we offer unto thee: or who offer unto thee, etc.  
Our saying of the Sacrifice, that it is common to all the Church, to offer unto God, Sacrifice of praise: ought not to be slanderously interpreted: as if we would confound the Ecclesiastical Ministry, with the said Priesthood; and by that means, overthrow and disturb the order of the Church: attributing to each one, authority and power to govern the same. For we know well, that the callings be different among the people of God: And that it is needful, there be in the Church, Pastors, and Doctors, and other Ministers (as Deacons and Elders) to well guide and edify the same: as well by the daily preaching of the word, as by the careful and diligent execution of other things which concern their charges. But it behoveth notwithstanding, to distinguish such callings which be particular, from the Priesthood aforesaid: which ought to be general, and common (as is said) to the whole Church.  
It shall now be easy for all them, which will diligently observe the things here before discovered, and showed 
The Mass is a corruption and ruin of Christ's institution in his Supper.  forth by the word of God, to understand and judge, that the Mass, such as is now celebrated in the Roman Church, is a whole corruption and overthrowing of the institution of the Supper, which jesus Christ made, and left in his Church. So that it should be now impossible to acknowledge therein, one only trace or mark of it first ordinance. For of a Sacrament which jesus Christ left in his 
The end of Christ's institution in the Sacrament, abolished by the Mass.  Church, to edify and entertain the same in a present memory of his death, have they made a sacrifice; whereby the remembrance of that of jesus Christ, hath been wholly buried and interred. And herein is there a marvelous thing, and worthy to be well marked. That is to say, that that which appertaineth not but to the son of God 
The Priest in the Mass most impiously usurpeth the proper offices of Christ himself.  only, and was impossible for any other but him to do: as to sacrifice for sin, to reconcile men unto God, to appease his wrath towards them, and to make intercession, to obtain for them his favour and aid; the Priests do attribute to themselves. And that which to them was lawful, and commanded, and also possible and easy to do: that is to say, to solemnize the memory of jesus Christ, & in taking and breaking, distributing and eating of the bread, and drinking the wine, to show forth his death: they have wholly cast aside. So that one may say, that the Priests do 
What Christ in celebration of his Supper hath commanded, that the Popish Priests in their Mass neglect: and what Christ hath not commanded, and is impossible for any but himself to do, dare they attempt to do.  nothing of all that which jesus Christ did, and commanded to be done in the Supper. And that which he did upon the Cross, and that he never commanded man to do, the Priests dare enterprise, and will do the same.  
The errors and abuse, as well of Transubstantiation, as of the Priesthood, and expiatory sacrifice, and of the repetition, of the same, which be the principal parts, and as it were the foundations of the Mass, have been heretofore confuted, and sufficiently convinced by the word of God: and by the reasons which have been alleged in the declaration of the parts of the Supper. And nothing more remaineth to cast down this Idol, but to show, that that which is in the Mass, (besides the abuses aforesaid) is not better, nor better founded upon the word of God. For the adoration which there is made of the bread and wine, is an Idolatry, condemned and accursed of God. And it is not like, that jesus Christ (instituting the Supper) would not have ordained it, that S. Paul (reciting this institution, as he had received it of the Lord) would not have taught it: and that the ancient Church would have omitted the same, had it been a thing wherein God had been any way honoured.  
Afterward, the separation of the Priest from the people, is directly contrary to the Article of the faith, of the Communion of the Church: and to the end, for which the Supper was ordained, which is to confirm and entertain due society among the faithful, and to bind them always more straightly one to an other. And none can say, but that it is an intolerable presumption, and a manifest contempt and disdain of the residue of God's people. And a plain mockery is that which the Doctos allege to excuse and cover such a sacrilege: to wit, that the Mass of the Priests ceaseth not to be good, when those that are there present will not communicate. For first it is forbidden them to eat alone in the Supper. And a Supper it is not, where there is not a Communion: as Saint Paul teacheth, reproving the Corinthians, because they departed one from an other in 
1. Cor. 11. 20. 21.  the celebration of their Supper. When (saith he) ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Supper of the Lord: For every man, when they should eat, taketh his own supper afore. And teaching in the end of the Chapter, the form which they ought to hold, he saith unto them: Wherefore my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. Furthermore, oft times it happeneth, that there are not in their Mass, but the Priest and the little Clerk, which answereth him: whom they will not receive to communicate with them. Also, how can they excuse the Masses which are sung in Monasteries: where the people are forbidden to communicate with the Monks, which celebrate the same▪ Moreover, it is ordinarily seen in great Parishes of this City of Paris, and elsewhere, even upon the days that the people Communicate; that they are separated from the Priests, who do their business apart, and will not vouchsafe to feed & communicate with them upon one table. Also, what communion is there between the Priests and the people, seeing that in stead of breaking in the assembly, one self-same bread, (to the end that all the partakers thereof, should be by that mean conjoined and more straightly closed in one body) each one hath his own particular: the Priest, one more great, and the people, one less? Seeing also that the Cup is not any way distributed to them? Furthermore, what duty do the Priests, to invite and exhort the people, to communicate with them? yea the Bishops themselves? who would at this day repute it great shame to communicate with craftsmen, and other inferior people.  
To conclude, had the Doctors well noted the custom of the Fathers, which caused the Cathecumenians, & others there (not prepared to communicate) to depart the place where the Communion was celebrated: and that likewise which S. john Chrisostome saith thereof: they would shame to defend such an abuse & impiety, as is that of their Mass. And that the people may not be ignorant of that, which these 
In Epist. ad Ephes. Serm. 3.  holy Doctors thereof saith, we will translate the same, word for word. It is in vain that the daily sacrifice is made: It is in vain that we abide at the Altar; there is no person which there communicateth. I say not this to the end that ye communicate in any sort soever; but that ye yield yourselves worthy thereof: Art thou not worthy to communicate? so art thou not worthy to pray. Also a little after: If some one were called to a banquet, should wash his hands, and sitting at the table, should not eat, nor taste aught of the meats which should there be served: should he not dishonour and wrong him that invited him? had it not been better he had not come there? Even so it is with thee. Thou art come, thou hast sung the Psalm with the rest of the people: thou hast confessed that thou wast of the number of the worthy, in not departing with them which are unworthy. How then abidest thou, and dost not participate of the table of the Lord? Thou sayest I am unworthy. I answer thee, that thou art so: whereby also unworthy of the Communion of prayers.  
Thirdly the gobbets and offals of Gospels and Epistles, the Symbol, prayer, & other pieces of the scripture, brought all confused, and not hanging together, said and proposed to the people in an unknown language (against the express commandment of God, and without any edification of the congregation) is no other thing, than a vain usurpation of the name of God, against the express prohibition which he hath made thereof. And such robes are too strait and short, to cover the shame and filthiness of the Mass.  
Fourthly, what an execrable abuse is it to say, that the Mass serveth to obtain remission of sins; not only for the quick, but also for the dead? And that the Priests (passing yet further, not to forget, or leave any blasphemy behind) do divide their host into three parts: feigning one part to be for them in heaven: an other for them which are on earth: and the third for them in Purgatory. For the Sacrament which is not ordained but for confirmation of the faith of the word: extendeth not further than the ministery, nor the ministery further than this life. As than it is so, that they which are in heaven, and they likewise whom they feign to be in Purgatory, are dead and departed from 
An excellent note to prove the Mass a shifting forgery  this world: we must necessarily conclude, that as the word cannot be preached to them, so also the Sacraments cannot be administered to them. And if they be not administered to them, that they can profit them nothing.  
The end of the Resolution.   

Answers to the last objections proposed by the Doctors, touching the Supper.  
THe Ministers say, that many things there are in the said objections, impertinent to the matter in question: as that they demand, how long the doctrine abode in it purity, touching the Supper, and the other articles of Religion. Whereunto they answer, that from the time of the Apostles themselves, there were heretics and Antichrists: as Ebion, Cerinthus, Simon Magus, the Samaritans, and others: who by their errors▪ and heresies, went then about to pervert the Aposto lique Churches, and corrupt the pure doctrine which was therein. Whereuntothe Apostles, by all possible ways, did manfully oppose themselves: revoking and ever reducing all things to their first institution, and foundation of the pure word of God: as we see, did S. Paul towards the Corinthians, and Galathians: whose Churches, although he had well planted and watered, were nevertheless corrupted in his life time, as well in manners, as in doctrine. And to that which the Doctor's demand, how long after the decease of the Apostles, continued the purity of the doctrine and Religion in the Church of God, as well in the Article of the Supper, as in others: the Ministers answer, that so long time it there continued, as the word of God was followed and preached.  
To that which the Doctors say afterwards, (traducing the Supper celebrated in the reformed Church) that the Ministers abuse those that are there present, nought else giving them, but nothing between two dishes: the Ministers answer: that this blazon much better fitteth the Doctors, then them, because they present not to them whom they have summoned to their Masses, but accidents of indivisible waves, and the sight only of the forms of bread and wine to feed them withal.  
A little after do they call their sacrifice of the Mass most precious: whereupon the Ministers grant that they have reason so to exalt it: & to attribute thereunto, so precious and magnifical a title, for the great revenues and riches, which this precious sacrifice hath brought unto them: whereof may well be said, that it hath been unto them a fleece, and golden Mine, more abundant than ever was that of jason; or all the Ours of the East. In as much as they have made the world believe (and chiefly the founders of abbeys, Priories, and other benefices) that their sacrifices, were vaileable to them for the redemption, remedy, and health of their souls. Afterwards, without all shame do the Doctors call the Supper of the Lord detestable, because there is nought therein offered (say they) but common bread & wine. Whereunto the Ministers answer, that in their Supper is truly presented bread and wine to the people; which after consecration, abide in their substance, as before: but they deny that therefore the said bread and wine be common: by reason (as heretofore hath been amply declared to the Doctors) that by the preaching of the Gospel, and recytall of the ordinance of God, both the one and the other is changed (as is said) touching the use, but not touching the nature.  
To that wherein the Doctors do charge the Ministers, to make insurrections, conventicles, conjurations, conspiracies, and secret practices against the state of their Prince, under colour & pretext of their Supper; the Ministers answer, that the same was not to impugn their doctrine, but rather shamelessly to despite and slander them. And that the fidelity of those of the reformed religion, hath been known and proved, to the expense of their blood, and loss of their lives. So that the King and his Council, by his Edict, hath declared them to have been very faithful and well affected subjects to his Majesty. And we must not marvel if the Doctors thus slander the reformed Churches; for as much as the Christians in all times have been accused of like crimes, by the enemies of the truth. As it appeareth by the Apology of Tertullian, & the book of S. Augustine, de Ci●itate Dei: by the Tract of Saint Cyprian against Demetrius: and by the book of Arnobius, which he wrote against the Gentiles.  
But the Ministers much marvel, how the Doctors are so ill advised, to allege the suppers celebrated in the reformed Churches, to verify their accusations; seeing that the same at this day, being throughout publicly done, in the eyes and presence of them that will behold them: there is nothing therein hidden, and whereof each one (if he will) may not easily be informed. But this is the zeal and great charity of my Lords our masters (whereof they have heretofore protested, & that by invocation of God's name) which so transporteth them to slander, without shame or show, those whose justice in that matter, shall answer for them before God and men.  
Touching that which the Doctors ●●erwards say, that in the Supper of the Ministers, no consecration is made, of the matter of bread & wine, which be there proposed. The Ministers do confess, that the bread and wine which be truly in their Supper, are not consecrated in sort as the Doctors pretend to consecrate them in their Mass: For so they approve not such a consecration. But yet do they maintain, that there is in their Supper, consecration of the matters aforesaid, in sort, as they in their articles, and resolution have heretofore very largely declared.  
The Doctors for proof and confirmation of that aforesaid, do add, that it belongeth not to all persons indifferently to consecrate the matter of the Sacraments; but to them only, which are ordained by the laying on of hands of the Roman Bishops: whereunto the Ministers for answer, say, that the first point, they confess: and also (as elsewhere they have said) that calling is necessary to such a purpose. But they deny unto the Doctors notwithstanding, that this calling is the imposition which they pretend: and the Ministers assure themselves, that their calling is more lawful, and better founded, then is that of the Doctors.  
Whereas the Doctors propose in the article following▪ that the Ministers have not answered them clearly enough to their liking, touching the parts of the Sacrament, and of the word required for the consecration of the matter, which therein is. The Ministers answer, that there is no doubtfulness, obscurity, nor any involution in their writings, saving that which the Doctors will find therein: the judgement whereof, the Ministers refer to the upright readers. And yet they hold it not more strange that the Doctors find their writings obscure, than did Saint Paul, that his Gospel was hidden and covert, to them which perished. And in whom the God of this world had blinded the minds.  
To that of the presence of the body of jesus Christ in the Supper, for which the Doctors require of the Ministers, a more large declaration, then that they have given in their former answer.  
The Ministers say, that they have thereunto clearly answered, albeit the Doctor● be not satisfied with their 〈◊〉 whereat they nothing wonder, knowing well it is not their custom to be contented if one yield not to them what they demand, and desire. Which the Ministers have not determined to do, much less to exceed in their answer the limits and bounds of the scripture▪ be it in this article of the Supper, or in others: but rather to follow, as near as possibly they can, the phrase and manner of speaking of the same. By means whereof, for full answer, the Ministers acknowledge no other eating of the flesh and blood of jesus Christ, be it in the Supper, or out of the Supper, saving that which jesus Christ himself declareth in the sixth Chapter of Saint john. Whosoever eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life. Also, He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwells in me, and I in him. Also: As the living Father hath sent me so live I by the Father▪ And he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.  
To the last Article, which is of Concomitance, the Ministers answer, that the demand of the Doctors was not so hard but that they had well conceived it. But they dissembled the same, because they would not lose time to speak and write of such dreams. And they well thought that the Doctors were subtle enough, to understand that in their denying Transubstantiation, it was not to pro●e their Concomitance. Now for their satisfaction, they add, that they will know no more than that which jesus Christ himself hath taught in his word. That is to say, that in the Supper to participate in his flesh crucified, and blood shed for the remission of sins, it behoveth to take and eat the bread, & drink the wine which be administered, without any way dividing or separating the same. Which thing is also forbidden by the Canons, De Consecr. Dist. 2. C. Cum omne Crimen.  
Finished on Wednesday the 14. of August, in the year aforesaid.   

This writing being sent, the Ministers went shortly after towards my Lord of Nevers, to show unto him, that they for their part, had largely treated of this matter: but they well perceived, that the Doctors by their frivolous and impertinent questions, hitherto sought not, but to pass away the time, without aught doing in the deciding of the Supper, and of the Mass. And albeit they feigned▪ that such demands did serve for a preparative to this dispute: yet was it to no other end, but not to enter thereinto at all: and to hold things in suspense, until length of time should begin to be troublesome: and by that mean, all should break off. That his liking might be to make the Doctors understand, that without turning this or that way, they should come to end the difference: refuting that which the Ministers had maintained of the Supper, and supporting that which they had condemned in their Mass. Which thing he promised them to do. Of which promise, began the Ministers to hope thence forward for some profitable matter, and serving to the edification of the Readers, and rooting out of the greatest abuse and error that is in the Roman Church. Nevertheless, shortly after was it bruited through the City, that Doctor Vigour was fallen into a very dangerous disease, and whereof was no hope he should hast●ly recover: which made the Ministers fear, that they were frustrate of their hope. And yet more did they fear, when they understood, that the Doctor de Saints, was the same time departed from Paris, and gone towards Monsieur the Cardinal of Lorraine. For they could not otherwise presume, but that they should make a long and unprofitable abode at Paris: not having wherewithal to employ their time. Considering▪ they were not there but by accident: to wit, that de Spina was come thither, to pass further, and make a voyage into Anjou and the other, who was Minister of the Church of Orleans, was lately come forth of prison, where he had been brought, in the month of june next precedent, upon a false accusation, suborned against him by the enemies of God's Church, which charged him to be author of a pernicious and wicked book, written against the obedience, due to Kings and Princes. Therefore was it very hurtful for him to sojourns so long a time, in a City, whither he came against his liking.  
For these causes, they purposed to return towards my Lord of Nevers, to show unto him, the things aforesaid: and tell him, that De Saints (who might have stayed and joined some other with him in the stead of Vigour) was departed thence, without making it known when his return would be: that it was not reason, they should stay there, being incertain of that which they had to do: and considering that their Churches had need of them, to execute therein their charges: and that they desired the same. Notwithstanding, in the end they found it better to suffer an inconvenience, and to abide there, until my Lord of Nevers departed from Paris: as in the end of the month of August he should go to his own land called Co●lomiers. For seeing the Doctors were then absent, (the Lord of Nevers being departed) the Ministers could do nothing: not having whom to write unto, nor with whom to confer.  
These remonstances being liked by the said Lord, he gave them leave to depart by writing, signed, Lodovico de Gonzague: and below, Varin: Secretary. Dated 26. of August: wherein were declared the occasions, here before touched, and remonstrance of the Ministers▪ with promise made by the said Lord, to cause the answers which the Doctors would make, to be brought unto them. And that by the mean of Monsieur de Buci, S. George, who was charged with this business. Also, the Ministers promised to be ready, were it to return to Paris: or else to answer from the place where they should be, as often as the Doctors should write.  
These things thus done and passed, the Ministers returned presently after; supposing to have some speedy news from the Doctors. But they have attended, and yet do attend, without that there hath been any appearance thereof. And they understood nothing of that matter, saving that many several writings were afterwards cried and sold through the City of Paris. In the titles whereof, some found mean to interlace the word [Conference], to make show unto the world, that it was something, touching the former disputations. And such a subtlety indeed was not without great profit to the Printers. So great desire had men to know the truth of the thing. For contentation of whom, we have thought meet, to bring to light what was done concerning the same: reserving to another time, to publish what the Doctors (when they shall do it) shall write against it: and what the Ministers also will there unto answer, if they can recover the same.  
In the mean time shall each one be admonished to make profit of that which is here contained. And to pray the Father of lights, to shed more & more the brightness of his spirit upon his Church, to the true understanding of his holy word: for the restoration, and advancement of the spiritual kingdom of jesus Christ his son, our Lord. So be it, the 8. of November, 1566.  
FINIS.    

A brief Table of the titles of the Acts of the Disputation.  
THe Preface containing the occasions of the Dispute following.  
The first day of the Disputation, which was Tuesday the 9 of july, 1566. touching the assurance one ought to have of the word of God: and of the mean to know what is the word of God: and to discern between the books of the Bible: to call the one Canonical, and the other apocrypha.  
The second day, being Wednesday, the 10. of july, touching the same matter: with the resolution of the Doctors, concluding, that it is by the authority of the Church, that the holy scripture is known to be the word of God: And the resolution of the Ministers to the contrary: That it is the spirit of God which sealeth and imprinteth the assurance thereof in the hearts of the elect.  
The third day, being Thursday, the 11. of july, containing the demands and answers upon the Creed of the Apostles: and why it is so called.  
The fourth day, being Friday, the 12. of july: comprehending the resolution of the Doctors: concluding, that it is by the tradition of the Church▪ that one is assured of the Creed of the Apostles: And that of the Ministers, tending to this: that it is known by the conformity which it hath with the holy scriptures.  
The fifth day, being M●nday, the 15. of july: where is the beginning of the disputation of God's Omnipotency: under the covert whereof the Doctors do ground four points, contained in the 63. Page. On this Omnipotency, and the points above said, the disputes following: as well by word as by writing, were continued.  
The sixth day of the Dispute, Tuesday the 16. of july.  
The Ministers answer to the objections of the Doctors, 〈◊〉 Tuesday the 16. of july.  
The reply or objection of the Doctors, against the answer of the Ministers, touching the article of God's omnipotency, on Saturday the 20. of july.  
The answer of the Ministers to the writing of the Doctors, sent to them, by my Lord the Duke of Nevers, the 22. of july, about five of the clock in the evening▪ the year, 1566.  
The reply of the Doctors to the writing of the Ministers, sent to them by my Lord the Duke of Nevers, the 25. day of july, about 8 of the clock in the evening, the year, 1566.  
The Resolution of the Doctors, touching the article of the Almightiness of God: in respect of the four questions proposed by them to the Ministers. Which serve to the understanding of the real presence of the body and blood of jesus Christ in the holy Sacrament.  
The articles proposed by the Doctors for the next, and other conferences following, according to the order of the said articles.  
The answer of the Ministers, to the writing of the Doctors, sent to them by my Lord the Duke of Nevers, the 28. of july, about seven of the clock in the evening, the year, 1566.  
A brief resolution of all the answers and discourses which the Ministers have made upon the matter of God's omnipotency, in the conference which they have had with the Doctors.  
The answers to the preface of the Doctor's questions.  
The answers to the questions proposed by the Doctors, touching the Supper.  
A brief reply of the Doctors against the last answer of the Ministers, sent to them by my Lord the Duke of Nivernois, the first of August, at 7. of the clock in the evening. Anno. 1566.  
A brief advertisement of the Doctors, upon the resolution of the Ministers, touching the omnipotency of God.  
The objection of the Supper by the Doctors, against the answers of the Ministers.  
The answer of the Ministers, to the writing of the Doctors, and to them sent by my Lord of Nivernois, Wednesday morning, the 7. of August. Anno. 1566.  
The conclusion and resolution of the points, as well of the Supper, as of the Mass, containing the declaration of that which the Ministers believe, and teach in their Churches, by the word of God, concerning the same.  
Answers to the last objections, proposed by the Doctors, touching the Supper.  
FINIS.   

Errata.  
Page a▪ line 20. For some others, read any other▪ Pa. 6. li● 1. next after prayers, read thereof. Pa. 26. lin. 7. for therefore, there. Pa. 35. li. ult. for a it appeareth, as it appeareth Page 39 li. 20▪ for O●d, God. Pa. 48. lin. 31. Or whether there any, Or whether there be any. Pa. 70. li. 13. After it may be, put in [only] Pa. 71 li. 11. but those, than those. P. 73. li. 2. put out not. Pa. 74 li. 3. Angelius, Angelus, Pa. 74 li 29 Hypostali, Hypostasy, pa. 78. li. 33. antecent, antecedent, pa. 80 li 37 without place, with place. pa. 83. li. 29. divers virtues, a divers virtue. pa. 84. l. 30▪ within, [with him] p. 85. li. 36. Pamachiuns, Pamachius. p. 86. li. 27. Cirell, Cyril. pa. 87. in margin, Sect 39 Sect. 29. pa. 88 li 17. read in the margin. Hebr. 4. 14. pa. 89. li 22. put out is. pa. 91. li. 29. spirituality, spirituality▪ pa. 92. li. 16. Theodoret, Theodor. pa. 92. li. 21. things better cleared, and things better cleared. pa. 94. li. 2. summoning, ●ytation, li. 5. these words [they said to be done] should be in the margin, and not in the text. pa. 103. Lin. 25. the term piercing, the term of piercing, pa. 105. Li. 16. these, those, pa. 110. Li. 11. that God made one, that if God made one, pa. 111. Li. 15. Aerilem, sterilem. pa 114. Lin. 33. speaketh, speak. Ead. Lin. 36. p●ace, place. pa. 115. Lin. 33, dimensions and of bodies, dimensions of bodies pa. 116 Lin. 12. Cod, God, pa. 119 Lin 28, the contradiction, the like contradiction, pa. 120 Lin 10 clausa, clausae. pa. 121 Lin 24. Imagined, Imagine, pa. 122. Li. 10. octijs, ostijs, pa. 126 Li. 22. into, in, pa. 127 Lin, 11, Fantasmatiques▪ Fantastics, Lin 1● wicith, with, pa. 129, Lin 7, that heavens, that the heavens, pa. 136 L. 34, inequity, iniquity. pa. 139. L. 1, of, for, pa. 140. Lin 33. number & different, number & fashion different, pa 151. Line 7 withstansteth, withstandeth, pa. 155. lin 7. placle, place, pa. 156. Line 24, Cod, God, pa. 16●. Line 4, deprivation, depravation, pa. 173, Line 34, scripture, scripture, pa. 180, Lin 34, words, works, pa. 183, Lin 34, but they, but he, pa. 191, Lin 23, pure care, due care, pa. 195, Lin 7, fanets, fanels, Lin 2●, imperfection, in it perfection, pa. 196, Lin 25, reception, receiving, pa, 200, Line 6, Artice, Article, pa, 202, Line 34, vincentin, vincentium, pa. 207, Line 31, upon solid reason, upon any solid reason, pa. 209, Line 33, Albeit, if, pa, 219, Line 22. they, read it, pa, 220, Line 26, spoke, speak, pa, 2●2, Marg: Psal, 37, ●3, Marg. 1 Cor: 13, 1 Cor: 15, pa. 233 Line 10, and he, as he, pa.▪ 237 Line 12, hath as seals, hath put as seals, pa. 240 Line 24 for the name bread, read the name of bread. Pa. 250. Margin, right under Cap. 10. read Hom. 17.