An answer to a certain book, writtenAn answere to a certeine booke, written

Your other example of Christs entering in, the doors being shut, what show of contradiction hath it? Can you prove he entered through the doors? and if he did, then was there an alteration of qualities, & that by miracle, either in Christs body, or in the doors, but no contradiction in nature: unless you know not what is a contradiction. Your third and last example of the fire ⟨p. 181⟩in Nebuchadnezzar's oven, which consumed the Ministers, but hurt not those that were in the middest of it, appeareth to be of no weight, by that hath already been answered. You imagine belike that in every miracle a contradiction is implied: which is absurd. If you can prove that this fire was both hot and cold, then you say something to the purpose: but that it burnt up some, and hurt not others, is no contradiction, because by miracle the force thereof was repressed. Thus are you truly and fully answered to your simple sophisms: and your Real presence is disproved by the eternal law of God in nature, whereunto he hath even bound himself, never to do any thing, wherein there is a contradiction to be found, as your own Divines have well and truly taught. Then may you see that my argument was not taken out of Aristotle and Euclid, as you say, but is grounded upon the eternal decree, and most unchangeable trueth of God: to which your Real presence must give place, being nothing else, but an irreligious and contradictorius devise of your own brain.¹

Your other example of Christs entring in, the dores being shut, what shewe of contradiction hath it? Can you prooue he entred through the dores? and if he did, then was there an alteration of qualities, & that by miracle, either in Christs bodie, or in the dores, but no contradictiō in nature: vnles you know not what is a contradiction. Your third and last example of the fire ⟨p. 181⟩in Nabucadnezars ouen, which consumed the Ministers, but hurt not those that were in the middest of it, appeereth to be of no waight, by that hath alreadie bene answered. You imagine belike that in euerie miracle a contradiction is implied: which is absurde. If you can prooue that this fire was both hot and colde, then you saie something to the purpose: but that it burnt vp some, and hurt not others, is no cōtradiction, because by miracle the force thereof was repressed. Thus are you truly and fullie answered to your simple sophismes: and your Real presence is disprooued by the eternall lawe of God in nature, wherevnto he hath euen bound himselfe, neuer to doe anie thing, wherein there is a contradiction to be found, as your owne Diuines haue wel and truelie taught. Then may you see that my argument was not taken out of Aristotle and Euclide, as you saie, but is grounded vpon the eternall decree, and moste vnchangeable trueth of God: to which your Real presence must giue place, being nothing els, but an irreligious and cōtradictorius deuise of your owne braine.