body that shall bee giuen for you My flesh is truly meat and my blood is truly drinke the bread that I shall giue you is my flesh for the life of the world and other like sentences of our Savioâ—r I. D. Your second Argument is drawne from the opinion of the ancient Fathers grounded vpon the Scriptures An invincible and irrefragable Argument if you bee able to make it good For who is hee that dares withstand so great Authority as is that of the Fathers backt with Scripture But bragge is a good dogge as they say and it behooueth you to cracke and boast of much least otherwise you be thought to be destitute of all For I will be bold to affirme that neither you nor your author shall ever be able to proue any one of the ancient Fathers whether with Scripture or without to bee of your side in this present point Those that you pretend to make for you wee shall examine as they offer themselues in order And as for grounding their opinion vpon Scripture neither could they doe so seeing they never dreamed of your Reall presence neither doe the particular places by you vouched import any such thing The first place This is my body shall hereafter at large be vnfolded the rest as is already demonstrated speake not a word of the Sacrament but only of Spirituall eating If the Fathers either in their Homilies or Commentaries alledge these words discoursing of the Eucharist it maketh nothing against vs. For seeing Christ is Spiritually eaten not only out of the Sacrament but in it also and Spirituall eating cannot well be expressed but by tearmes borrowed from Bodily eating no marvell if the ancient Fathers speaking of the Sacrament accomodate these words and the rest in the sixt of Iohn thereunto N. N. The Fathers doe not only vrge all the circumstances here specified or signified to proue it to be the true naturall Body of Christ as that it was to be giuen for vs the next day after Christs words were spoken that it was to bee given for the life of the whole world and that it was truly meat and truly Christs flesh but doe adde also divers other circumstances of much efficacy to confirme the same affirming the same more in particular that it is the very Body which was borne of the blessed Virgin the very same Body that suffered on the Crosse. The selfe-same body saith St Chrysostome that was nailed beaten crucified blouded wounded with a speare is receiued by vs in a Sacrament Whereunto St Augustine addeth this particularity that it is the selfe-same that walked here among vs vpon earth As he walked here in earth saith he among vs so the very selfe-same flesh doth he giue to bee eaten and therefore no man eateth that flesh but first adoreth it And Hesychius addeth that hee gaue the selfe-same Body whereof the Angell Gabriel said to the Virgin Mary that it should be conceiued of the Holy Ghost And yet farther It is the same body saith St Chrysostom that the Major or learned men did adore in the manger but thou doest see him saith he not in the manger but on the Altar not in the armes of a woman but in the hands of a Priest The very selfe-same flesh saith St Augustine againe that â—ate at the table in the last supper washed his Disciples feete the very same I say did Christ giue with his owne hands to his Disciples when he said Take eate this is my body c. and so did he beare himselfe in his owne hands which was prophecied of David but fulfilled only by Christ in that supper These are the particularities vsed by the Fathers to declare what Body they meane and can there be any more effectuall Speeches then these I. D. Pliny in one of his Epistles adviseth him that would be a Writer oftentimes to looke backe vnto the title of his Booke and to consider what his drift and purpose is least ere he be aware he step aside and fall vpon things impertinent Which wise and prudent counsell of his had you duly regarded I perswade my selfe you would not haue spoken so little to the purpose as in this section you haue done For out of all these sayings of the Fathers you conclude no more but this that the true naturall flesh of Christ which was borne of the blessed virgin conversed among vs here on earth and suffered on the crosse c. is present in the Sacrament which who denies Certainly none of our side for wee all freely confesse the same together with you So that the difference betwixt you and vs lies not in the thing it selfe but in the Manner nor whether Christ be present but how and in what sort hee is present Two waies say wee he is present Sacramentally Spiritually as is aboue already declared And this Presence wee affirme to be so strait and neere that wee are thereby bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh But the Presence that you maintaine is a Corporalland Locall Presence of the Flesh of Christ vnder the Accidents of Bread and Wine and that by way of Transubstantiation And this is the point which you haue vndertaken to proue out of the Fathers and to which you ought to speake but in this place you performe it not For how doth this follow The Fathers say that true Christ is present Ergo they say he is present Corporally Locally and by way of Transubstantiation Certainly not at all for hee may otherwise be Present namely Sacramentally as wee hold and Spiritually Neither shall your Author with all his wit and skill ever bee able to make good this or the like consequence from the thing to the manner And thus much for answere in generall Particularly St Chrysostome saith the selfe-same Body which was crucified c. is receaued by vs. But how In a Sacrament that is Sacramentally and by Faith Even as in Baptisme we are made partakers of the Blood of Christ and the power of the Holy Ghost not by a Reall presence or Transubstantiation of Water into them but only as St Chrysostome here speaketh in a Sacrament The which comparison I vse the rather because it is the Fathers own who elsewhere saith that it is in the Lords supper as it is in Baptisme wherein by the sensible element of water the gift is bestowed and that which is intelligible to wit regeneration and renovation is performed The Reddition whereof must needs be this that in like manner by the sensible creatures of Bread and Wine the gift is giuen we are made partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ to the Spirituall nourishment of our soules By which proportion it seemeth that as the one is effected without Transubstantiation so is the other also Your next Author is Saint Augustine who saith that the same Flesh which walked here among vs doth he giue to be eaten True but to bee eaten by Faith not by the mouth For
they were only manuscript and knowne but to a few learned men Since which time they haue beene published in print and perhaps to winne more authority vnto them mis-fathered vpon Cyril of Hierusalem For if wee may beleeue Gesner or Simler or your owne Gretzer a Iesuit sundry written copies entitle them to Iohn Bishop of Hierusalem one who liued well neere eight hundred yeares after Christ even then when the quarrell about Images and relicks was on foot Whence happily proceeded that overlashing speech that the wood of the Crosse was so multiplied as the whole world was now full of it Howsoever seeing they are come to our hands from no better places then Trent the Popes Vatican and Cardinal Perrons Library you cannot blame vs if we vehemently suspect that they haue passed through Purgatory and suffered much addition and substraction For wee are not ignorant of your Pious fraudes and holy couznages in purging of bookes not permitting them to speake what their Authors wrote but what maketh most for your owne advantage But let it be supposed for the present that your author is the right Cyril of Hierusalem and free from all corruption and if you will also that he wrote his Catechismes in his elder yeares what then is the testimonie that begiueth for Transubstantiation Forsooth that which seemeth to be Bread is not Bread but Christs body though the tast iudge it Bread And againe Vnder the shew of bread and Wine the Body and Bloud of Christ is giuen Wherevnto I answer and first to the former that the common Latine Translation reads it otherwise thus This bread which wee see is not bread so denying it to be Bread that yet hee affirmeth we see Bread Which seeming contradiction is easily accorded by Cyril himselfe where hee saith it is not simple or naked or common bread as if hee should say Bread it is yet not only bread but something else besides Even as when we deny Christ to be meere man we meane not that he is no man but that he is Man and besides that God also It is not then bread that is Prophane or Vnsanctified bread but the Body of Christ that is bread sanctified to bee a Type or Sacrament of Christs Body And although our tast iudge it to bee no more then bread yet Faith teacheth vs not to stay on bread but to mount higher even vnto the Body of Christ. I beseech you when Pachymeres saith The holy oyle is no longer called oyle for the oyle is Christ doth he meane it hath lost its nature and is transubstantiated into Christ I trow no. In like manner might Cyril say The bread we see is not bread but Christs body and yet neuer dreame of your Real Presence For in his opinion there is the like reason of both Even as saith he the bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the holy Ghost is no more common bread but the body of Christ so also this holy ointment is no more bare or common ointment after it is now consecrated but a grace which worketh the Presence of Christ and the holy Ghost To the second passage I answere that your Author whosoeuer hee bee hath rendred it captiously vnder the forme or shew or shape of Bread and Wine as if hee had meant your Accidents without substance whereas indeed Cyrils owne words are in the Type or Figure of Bread and Wine And this wee acknowledge to bee most true For in the receauing of the Bread and Wine which typically are the body and bloud of Christ wee truly and really after a spirituall manner receaue his very body and bloud also In regard whereof as he calleth bread winetypes so he maketh the body bloud of Christ their Anti-types They are commanded saith he to tast not of bread and wine but of the Anti-type the body and bloud of Christ. The body therefore and the bloud is in the bread and in the wine as the Anti-type is the type or the thing figured in the figure which I hope may be done without any Transubstantiation Certainely if wheresoeuer you read of Formes shewes or shapes you by and by conceaue of nothing but Accidents without substance it cannot be avoided but you must needs fall into dangerous errours When Saint Paul saith that Christ being in the forme of God counted it no rapine to be equall with God Neverthelesse emptied himselfe taking the forme of a servant made after the similitude of men and being found in figure as a man humbled himselfe c. What will you conclude hence that Christ is onely shew without substance and neither true God nor true Man I knowe you will not And seeing you dare not doe it in this I would advise you to beware how you coÌ„clude so in the like As for the testimonie of S. Chrysostome I answere vnto it breefly We must not beleeue our senses saith he True for they discerne nothing else but bare bread and Wine and are not capable of the mystery signified and exhibited by them To apprehend that belongeth vnto Faith and not sense Yet is not sense every way to bee discredited for we beleeue it is Whitenesse which we see and sauour which we tast yea we may safely beleeue it is bread which we take and eat Wherein then may we not beleeue sense That it is meere bread For it perceaueth not that it is sanctified and sacramentall bread But of this more hereafter Againe We must saith he simply and without all ambiguity beleeue the words of Christ saying This is my body Questionlesse we must and hee that beleeueth them not is an infidell But seeing as your selues confesse bread in proper signification is not the body of Christ neither was it Christs meaning we should beleeue it to be so To beleeue Christs words then is to beleeue them in Christs meaning which because it is not literall as we haue said it must needs be Figuratiue thus This bread sacramentally is my body But of this also more hereafter Lastly saith he He giueth himselfe not only to bee seene but also to bee touched handled and eaten This is sufficiently answered already whether to avoid tautologie I referre my selfe Only I adde that if properly we see touch tast Christ theÌ„ may we beleeue our senses contrary to that which Chrysostome saith But if we may not beleeue them then neither doe we see nor touch nor tast him properly but as himselfe interpreteth himselfe after a manner that is in a sacrament spiritually and by Faith which importeth not your Real Presence N. N. Nor only doe the Fathers affirme so asseverantly that it is the true naturall Body of Christ though it appeare to bee Bread in forme and shape and that we must not beleeue our Senâ—es herein but doe deny expresly that it is Bread after the words of Consecration as appeareth out of S. Ambrose in his booke de Sacramentis Imetandis Before the words of consecration
Mutation and the like I. D. Had you attentiuely read my Answer you would never haue said I excepted to two or three Passages only For I excepted to all the passages of Ignatius Cyril of Hierusalem in his Catechismes Ambrose de Sacramentis and Mysterijs initiandis Eusebius Emissenus Cyprian de caena Domini the Canon of the Nicen counsell and Magnetes as suspected by your owne Rabbies not to be the men whose names they beare Againe of Damascen Theophylact Euthymius Nicephorus and Rupertus as being Punies and too young to be Fathers besides those many Passages which are miserably either curtald or rackt or falsely alleaged Neither are their words so plain for you as you pretend For I haue made it to appeare that some of them say nothing at all for you some speak rather against you then for you and to those that seeme to say any thing I haue opposed a whole grand Iury speaking farre more plainely on our side For what words can be more plaine then these This is my body that is the figure of my Body that Christ said This bread is my body which your owne men grant cannot bee true vnlesse figuratiuely vnderstood that Bread and Wine still are what they were that the Nature of bread continues that the nature of bread and wine cease not to be but continue in the propriety of their nature that the signes after consecration depart not from their proper nature but remaine in their former substance figure and forme and suchlike many But perhaps your Fathers speake as plainely Let vs try that They say that the Body flesh and bloud of Christ is truly in the Sacrament Ergo a Reall Presence Who denies it Transubstantiation is that which you should proue which Reall Presence inferres not This you say you vnderstand not The more is your dulnesse For Really and Corporally are not all one and that which is Spiritually present is Really present vnlesse you will say that a spirit is Nothing Is not the Bloud of Christ really present in Baptisme to the washing away of sinne Is hee not Really also present to the Faith of every true beleever even out of the Sacrament Doubtlesse he is and none will deny it but he that never felt the vertue and efficacy thereof What should let then but the Flesh of Christ may bee present in the Eucharist Really and yet not after the Corporall manner Nay what if I should yeeld you a corporall presence Would that necessarily inferre a Transubstantiation Nothing lesse For it may be by consubstantiation the flesh being there together with the Bread without turning the Bread into Flesh. Neither may you deny this to be possible vnlesse you will deny the Omnipotency of God and your Transubstantiation withall for therevpon doe you build it Transubstantiation therefore and the Reall presence are not all one Yea but the Fathers vse the tearmes of Conversion Mutation What then Ergo Transubstantiation A pittifull consequence For this is to argue from the Generall to Speciall as if you should say It is a colour therefore it is blacke there being many colours besides blacke Learne then that Change is a generall word and there are divers kindes thereof of Substance by Generation and corruption of Quality by Alteration of Quantity by Augmentation and Diminution of Place by Lation Now he that affirmeth a Change doth not presently affirme Change of Substance for it may be some other either of Quality or Quantity or Quantity or Place The Fathers therefore speaking of a Change in the Sacrament may as well meane a Change of Alteration in the Vse and Uertue of the Elements as of Substance by way of Transubstantiation And so for ought the Fathers say Transubstantiation may still be a brat of the Lateran Councells disputed of perhaps before but neuer beleeved as an Article of Faith till then N. N. I allow no authority after 600. yeares Ergo I acknowledge the next 1000. to be contrary in this and all other controversies betwixt vs. I. D. To speake plainely I allow no Authority at all as Infallible but only that of Christ and his Apostles Those that afterwards succeeded were all of them subiect vnto errour and cannot be the ground of our Faith as I haue elsewhere answerably demonstrated Howbeit those of the first 600 yeares wee reverence more and rather admit then those of the 1000 following because they were freer from errour as liuing neerer the Apostles times and before the first discouery of Antichrist which was about the yeare 607. when Boniface the third purchased of that bloudy tyrant Phocas the title of Vniversall Bishop and with it the supremacy over all Churches Whereof his predecessor Gregory the great seemed to prophecy when writing against Iohn B. of Constantinople for vsurping that title he gathereth from thence that the times of Antichrist are at hand After which discouery although errours every day crept in apace yet wee yeeld you not that all your opinions instantly and at once leapt into the Church For as Rome it selfe was not built in a day so neither was that huge heape of Romanish impieties raised in one age It was a good while after this before Transubstantiation began to appeare Damascen in the East not contenting himselfe with the old language of the Church fell a coyning of new Phrases yet reached not home to Transubstantiation A hundred yeares after Amalarius in the west maintained in plaine tearms that the simple nature of Bread and wine is turned into a reasonable nature to wit of the body and bloud of Christ. And herein was he seconded by Paschasius Radbertus and others Yet could they not carry it so clearly but that they were mightily opposed by the most famous writers in their times whose names you haue in mine Answer But specially by Bertram vnder Carolus Calvus of whom Turrian the Iesuit thus to cite Bertram what is it other then to say the heresie of Calvin is not new And a good time afterwards againe by Berengarius on whose side many disputed both by word and writing and those not of one nation only but English French and Italians as Mathew of Westminster saith But all these Antichrist who was now in his height bare downe and at length anno 1215. vnder Innocent the third in the Lateran Councel was the Idol set vpon its base and adored So lately with so much adoe was your doctrine of Transubstantiation brought in and established N. N. For 900. yeares was no outward face of a Church in England but the Catholike In which it were vncharitable to say that none knewe the meaning of Scriptures and Fathers as well as we or all liued in ignorance till the true light came in with Luther Yet in this last age England hath yeelded many learned men among others an vnkle of yours and Master of Arts who left all his hopes for his conscience and would not bee perswaded to returne to his great possibilities which
Body of Christ. This sheweth they thought the Sanctified Elements to be Christs Body no longer then they might serue for the comfortable instruction of the faithfull by partaking in them Here wee haue a plaine argument against Reservation and that the Fathers thought not the Elements properly to bee Christs body For had they so thought they would never haue burnt them He intimateth indeed that they thought the Elements to be the Body neither doth any deny it For as I haue shewed in my Answer they all vnderstood Christ as if he had said This bread is my Body But Bread in proper sense is not Christs Body nor cannot be as your owne Bellarmine confesseth How then Tropically only as Circumcision is the Covenant and Water in Baptisme Regeneration And so as St Augustine saith the Sacrament of Christs body is after a manner Christs body to wit Sacramentally the outward signe putting on the name of the thing Signified And whereas Dr Covel addeth that Gods Omnipotency maketh it his Body neither doth this import Transubstantiation For as you might haue learned out of my Answere no power is able to make a Sacrament and by earthly Creatures to convay vnto vs heavenly graces saue only that which is Omnipotent and Divine N. N. Sir Edwin Sands With Rome the Greeke Churches concurre in the opinion of Transubstantiation and generally in the Service and whole body of the Masse in offering of sacrifice and prayer for the dead their liturgies be the same that in the old time namely S. Basils S. Chrysostoms S. Gregories translated And another among all these nations Greece Asia Africa Ethiopia Armenia c. all places are full of Masses there be seaven Sacraments c. I. D. Ergo what That the Knight vnderstands the Fathers as you doe Ridiculous For the now Grecians are not the ancient Fathers Or thus therefore you are in the right Absurd for they are in your opinion but Schismaticks and Hereticks Yet saith the Knight they hold Transubstantiation He saith so indeed but by his leaue I much doubt thereof For the Patriarch Ieremy expresly saith that when our Saviour said take eat this is my body and my bloud the flesh of the Lord which he carried about him was not given to the Apostles to eat nor his bloud to drinke nor is now in the divine celebration of those mysteries What then Surely an extraordinary bread which yet is his Body but how saith hee a thousand tongues are not sufficient to vtter As farre as I can conceaue this they hold that the matter of the Bread still remaineth and the Body of Christ still continueth in Heaven but yet the forme or hidden qualities and properties of his body are after an vnspeakable manner derived to the Bread And because as the same Patriarch saith the better things haue the preeminence therefore is it not from thence Bread but Body And even as Iron vnited with fire becometh fire and yet the matter of Iron remaineth and Christs Body vnited with vs changeth vs into it not it into vs our nature still continuing so the secret properties of Christs flesh being imparted to the Bread by putting on this new forme it becometh Flesh and yet still retaineth the matter of Bread This in my shallow vnderstanding is the meaning of the Greeke Church in this point which as you see no way sutes with Transubstantiation But to put the matter out of all doubt the Councell of Florence held some two hundred yeares after that of Lateran plainely declareth that that Church flatly refused to yeeld vnto them therein And if so then neither doe they admit of your Sacrifice which hath no other ground then Transubstantiation Prayer also for the reliefe of soules tormented in Purgatory how can they hold not beleeuing that there is a Purgatory The rest that followeth is little to the purpose and your other author is so misnamed both in your text and margent that I cannot imagine whom you should meane Transeat Ergo. N. N. Midleton witnesseth that the Dead were prayed for in the publike Liturgies of Basil Chrysostome and Epiphanius that the Sacrifice of the Altar and vnbloudy Sacrifice were vsed in the Primitiue Church that to pray make doles and offer Sacrifice at the Altar for the Dead was a tradition of the Apostles and Fathers I. D. Still you wander out of the way For how doth it appeare from hence that Protestants vnderstand the Fathers in point of Transubstantiation as you doe But as you lead so must I follow There are two Liturgies that passe vnder the name of St Basil the one in Greeke the other lately translated out of Syriake by Andreas Masius Betweene which there is such difference that they seeme not both to haue had one Father Of these the Greeke is the prolixer and as the said Masius censureth neither doth Possevin the Iesuite mentioning it disproue thereof hath suffered much change by many alterations and additions and those superstitious too so that whosoeuer be the Author it is not now the same it was at first That which goes vnder the name of St Choysostome either is supposititious or in processe of time much corrupted In it Prayers are made for Pope Nicholas and the Emperour Alexius whereof the one liued almost fiue hundred the other about seaven hundred yeares after Chrysostome And that many things are added your Claudius Espencaeus freely doth confesse So that these Liturgies cannot be of any great authority For as for Epiphanius I cannot yet find that ever he composed any But what saith Midleton of them That the Dead were praied for in them What dead Patriarks Prophets Apostles Evangelists Confessors Bishops Anachorits and the blessed Virgin Mother And for what Not to releeue them but to glorifie God in his Servants and to profit the Church by commemoration of their vertues Thus hee which I trow is not according to your meaning He saith farther the sacrifice of the Altar and vnbloudy sacrifice were vsed in the Primitive Church Suppose so yet hee saith withall that the sacrifice of the Altar hurts vs no more then the Sacrifice of the Table doth you and the Vnbloudy sacrifice hurts you more then vs. For in your Sacrifice Bloud is offered and there is no more reason why you should call it Vnbloudy then Vnfleshy If you say because Bloud is not shed therein I say neither is Flesh broken therein Lastly he saith that Prayers Doles and Sacrifices at the altar for the Dead is a tradition of the Apostles and ancient Fathers But here your author overlasheth for he saith expresly from the Fathers not from the Apostles And addeth yet notwithstanding prayer was then made not after the Popish fashion to ease the dead of the paines and torments of Purgatory but to perswade the liuing that they are not vanished into nothing but liue and haue their being with the Lord which knocks out the braines of Purgatory And by and by This
the present Roman Church is still in some sort a part of the Visible Church of God but no otherwise then other Societies of Hereticks are in that it retaineth the profession of some parts of Heauenly truth and ministreth the true Sacrament of Baptisme to the salvation of the soules of many thousand infants that dye after they are baptized before shee haue poysoned them with her errours Thus he Wherevnto I adde that of St Hilary God in the Churches of the Arrians called many by the word and Sacraments to the knowledge of the truth whose eares were more pure then were the mouthes of their teachers The issue of all is this You are a Church but neither the Catholike Church nor a sound member thereof What then An Hereticaâ— and impure Church And if Salvation may be had therein it is only by those truths you haue common with vs and not the Papacie wherein notwithstanding there can bee no more security had thereof then of life in a pesthouse of which though there may be a possibility yet the danger is such that a thousand to one if a man escape the infection And what folly is it to leaue that Church wherein there is security and to cleaâ—e vnto that wherein there is no hope but only of a poore possibility Willet remaines for whom what better advocate then himselfe That many Kings and Queenes of this land are Saints in Heaven is not by any protestant denyed For they might be carried away with some errours of the time then not revealed yet holding the foundation through Gods mercy they might be saved It is a divers case when a man sinneth of infirmity or simplicity and when hee offendeth willingly and of obstinacy To stumble in the darke craueth pitty to grope at noone-daies is great folly I say therefore in this case as our Saviour to the Pharisees If yee were blind yee should not haue sin but now ye say we see therefore your sinne remaineth And as St Paul the time of ignorance God regarded not God therefore might shew mercy to them that erred of Simplicity which is no warrant for them that should now be seduced willingly And such are you Recusants to whom wee can promise nothing but fearfull things though of our fore-fathers wee hope all good That which your Author farther addes of himselfe let the same Willet answer Though divers saith hee of those ancient Kings became Monks yet neither was the Monasticall life so farre out of square as now it is they made it not a cloke of idlenesse and filthy liuing a nursery of idolatry and grosse supertitions but they desired that life as fittest for contemplation and free from the encumbrances of the world Neither doth this one opinion of the excellency of Monasticall life shew them to be resolute Papists for it followeth not because they were Monks that consequently they held Transubstantiation worship of images and the more grosse points of the Romish Catechisme Will you haue any more In few words thus Anciently Monks some of them were lay-men some were married they bound themselues with no vowes they made no distinction of meats they laboured with their hands and liued not in Citties but remote places By all which you may see Polydor Virgill had reason to say It is incredible how much nowadaies they are degenerated N. N. Your fourth and last reason the quarrells and bitter speeches of Luther Melancthon Zuniglius Beza Carolus Molniaeus Amsdorfius Hosiander Protestants of Zurich of England c. I. D. This reason differeth not in substance but only in quotations from the second Which quotations whether they be true or false neither will I spend time to search neither is it any whit materiall And therefore neither will I vouchsafe it any farther answer then that which already I haue given to the second The best Churches haue seldome beene without their quarrels and vsually are menaged with two much passion The malice of Satan is the cause of the one and humane infirmity of the other Which infirmity seeing wee cannot altogether put off while we liue here in the flesh Christian charity would rather pitie it then vpbraid it Neverthelesse that which is amisse may not be defended neither meane I to goe about it Only I perswade my selfe that if wee vnderstood one the other better our quarrells would never be so vehement For what was it that set Luther and Zuinglius so farre asunder but misprision And what caused such hard censures to passe vpon Hosiander but his owne inconvenient speeches and other mens mistakings These are the two principall quarrells here mentioned by you giue me leaue therefore to shew so much in them but briefly The quarrell betweene Luther and Zuinglius was about Christs presence in the Sacrament which as you hold to be by way of Transubstantiation so did Luther by way of Consubstantiation Which how it could be vnlesse the body of Christ were every where Zuinglius others could not conceiue and being pressed therewith he and his followers not being able to avoid it maintained that also But how by reason of the Hypostaticall vnion and coniunction thereof with the word For the Word being every where and the Humane Nature being no where feuered from it how can it be say they but every where And hence the distraction and therevpon all those passionate speeches Now saith Zanchy if they meane that the body of Christ is present according to his personall being they say true contradict not those who speake of his Naturall being or being of Essence D. Field thus expresseth it The humane Nature of Christ hath two kinds of being the one naturall the other personall the first limited finite the second infinite incoÌ„prehensible For seeing the nature of man is a created nature and essence it cannot be but finite and seeing it hath no Personall subsistence of it owne but that of the Sonne of God communicated to it which is infinite and without limitation it cannot be denied to haue an infinite Subsistence to subsist in an incomprehensible and illimited sort and consequently every where Thus then the body of Christ according to his Naturall being is contained in one place but according to his Personall being may rightly be said to be every where So Field whereby you may easily perceiue that the warres betwixt hony-bees are not such but the casting vp of a little dust will soone stint them For if this distinction had well beene conceiued this Vbiquitary strife had quickly beene ended If any notwithstanding haue beene so grosse as to maintaine an Vbiquity according to Essence or Naturall being which I can hardly beleeue I must professe I know no excuse for them The second quarrell is against Hosiander who seemeth to define Iustification by a transfusion of the Essentiall righteousnesse of Christ into vs and a confusion as it were and mixture of it together with vs. And against this divers haue written very