Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 3 · Section 76
Winchester.
Now followeth (as it is intitled) Theophilact being the wordes in deed not of Theophilact as he writeth vponupon Marke,Theophilact. and therfore they were not alleaged as his wordes, but as the wordes of Theophilus Alexandrinus, wherin this author trauerseth a falshod on thallegers parte to wrong name the author. In which allegacion I say if therbe a fault as I know none, it is no lye but a probable errour, for a man to beleue an other better learned then him selfe, and as I found it alleaged. I reported it agayne, so as hauing mine author learned whome I folowed, I am discharged of malice being the author such, whome I followed as might possibly hauehave had such a worke of Theophilus contayning those wordes as they be alleaged, the negatiue wherof how this author should proue I can not tell, because of the common saying (Bernardus non vidit omnia) and therfore there may be a theophilus Alexandrinus, hauing these words alleadged in theyr forme, for any demonstratiou this author can make to the contrary. Whither therbe or no any such to be shewed, it is not materiall, being so many testimonies besides.In issue. As for Theophilacts wordes, I graunt they be not, for he wrote his mynde more playnly in an other place of his workes, as I shall hereafter shew, and by the way make an issue with this author, that no catholike writer among the greekes hath more playnly set forth the truth of the presence of Christes body in the sacrament, then Theophilact hath, as shall apeare by and by after I hauehave noted to the reader this, how of Germany, about a two yeare before he impugned the truth of Christes presence in the sacrament,Theophilact translated by Oecomlampadius. he translated out of Greeke into Latine, ye workes of the sayd Theophilact, and gaue the Latine church therby some weapon wherwith to destroy his wicked folly afterwarde not vnlike the chance in this author, translating into inglish, two yeares bye past, the Cathechisme of Germany, And as Oecolampadius hath since his folly or madnes agaynst the sacrament confessed (as appeareth) that he did translate Theophilacte, so as we neede not doubt of it. So this author hath now in this worke confessed the translation of the catechisme, which one in communication woulde needes hauehave made me beleue had beene his mannes doinge and not his. Heare now reader, how playnly Theophilact speaketh vponupon the Gospell of Saynt Iohn, expounding the vi. Chapter.
Theophilactes wordes.Take hede that the bread which is eaten of vsus in the misteries, is not onelyonly a certayne figuration of the flesh of our Lord, but the flesh it selfe of our Lord, for he sayd not, The bread which I shall geue is the figure of my flesh, but it is my flesh. For that bread by the mysticall benedictiō, is transformed by the misticall wordes and presence of the holy ghost into the flesh of our lord. And it should trouble no man, that the bread is to be beleued flesh, for whilest our lord walked in flesh and recaued nourishment of bread, that bread he did eat was changed into his body, and was made like to his holy flesh, and as it is costomably in mans feeding serued to the sustentation and increase of it, therfore the bread now also is changed into the flesh of our Lord. And how is it then that it appeareth not flesh but bread? that we should not lothe the eating of it, for if flesh did appeare, we should be vnpleasantly disposed to the communion of it. Now our lord condescending to our infirmitie, the misticall meat appeareth such to vsus, as those we hauehave ben accustomed vntounto. Hitherto I hauehave faythfully expressed Theophilactes wordes out of latine of Oecolampadius translation, without terming the substantiall poyntes of her wise thē the words purport in latine, By which may appeare what was Theophilactes meaning what doctrine he geueth of the sacrament, and how his owne wordes vponupon saynt Marke be to be vnderstanded, when he sayth: Speciem quide panis & vim seruat, in vertutem autem carnis & sanguinis transelementat (incorupting of which wordes this author maketh a great matter, when they were not alleaged for his, but as they be his (seruare speciem) may be well translate (forme and aparance) bycause vponupon S. Iohn before alleadged, he sayth of the bread (it appeareth.) And as for these wordes (the vertue of Christes flesh and bloud) must be vnderstanded to agree with the playne place of Theophilact vponupon S. Iohn, and vponupon S. Marke also, to signifie not onelyonly vertue, but veritie of the flesh and bloud of Christ. For if Theophilact by that spech ment the vertue of the body of Christ, and not the verytie of the very body (as thor sayth he did) why should Theophilact, both vppon S. Marke, and also vponupon S. Iohn, aske this question, why doth not the flesh appeare? if him selfe by, those wordes should teach there were onelyonly present the vertue of his flesh, who, and he had ment so, would not hauehave asked the question, or if he had, would hauehave answered it th…s accordingly (there is no flesh in dede) but the vertue of the flesh, and that had bene a playne answer and such as he would hauehave made. This author will aske then, why doth Theophilact vse this phrase to say, changed into the vertue of the body of Christ? Hereunto I answer, that this word vertue, in phrase of speach many tymes; o…ly filleth the speach, and is comprehended in the signification of his genetiue following and therfore as Luke in the xxii. chap. sayth: (à dextris vertutis Dei) so in the Actes in the same sentence is spoken (à dextris Dei) both out of one pen: and (à dextris virtutis Dei) is no more to say, then (à dextris Dei) and so is (virtutem carnis & sanguinis) no more to say, but (in carnem & sanguinem) which sentence (the same Theophilact with vponupon S. Iohn before alleaged, in this saying: The bread is changed into flesh, an… Marke in this phrase, into the vertue of flesh, being like these speaches, (à dextris Dei) and (à dextris virtutis Dei.) Which and if had liked this author to hauehave considered, he should hauehave taken Theophilactes speach as Theophilact vnderstandeth himselfe, and sayd the wordes alleaged in the name of Theophilus Alexandrinus, were not Theophilactes wordes, and then he had sayd for so much true (which would do well among) and the wordes be not indede Theophilactes wordes, nor were not alleaged for his. Now when this author sayth: they were not Theophilus Alexandrinus wordes, that is a large negatiue, and will be hardly proued otherwise then by addition of the authors knowledge, for any thing that he can finde, and so there shalbe no absurditie to graunt it. And thus I returne to myne issue with this author, that Theophilact himselfe hath no such meaning expressed in wordes as this author attributed vntounto him, but an euident contrary meaning, sauing herein I will agree with this author, that Theophilact ment not grossely, sensibly, & carnally, as these wordes sound in carnall mennes iudgementes. For we may not so think… of Gods misteries, the worke wherof is not carnall nor corporall, for the maner of it. But the maner spirituall, and yet in the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ, bicause Christ is in his very true flesh present he may be sayd so carnally present, and naturally, after Hilary, and corporally after, Cyrill,Carnally: Naturally corporally, vnderunder standing the wordes of the truth of that is present Christes very bydy and flesh, and not of the maner of the presence, which is onelyonly spirituall, supernaturall, and aboue mannes capacitie. And therfore a high mistery a, great miracle,Manner, onelyonly Spiritually. a wonderfull woorke, which it is holsome to beleue simply with a sincere fayth, and daungerous to serch and examine with a curious imagination, such as idlenes and arogancy would tempt a man vntounto and by diuising of a figure or metaphore, bring it within the compas…e of our busy reason.