Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 2 · Section 32
Winchester.
Theodorete.And if that I hauehave here sayd be well considered, there may appeare the great ignoraunce of this author in the alleadging of Theodoret, the applying of him and the speaking of Nestorius in the end. For as the Eutichians reasoning (as S. Augustin sayth) to confound the Nestorians, fell into an absurdity in the confusion of their two natures in Christ: so Theodoretus reasoning agaynst the Eutichians, fell in a vehement suspition to be a Nestorian, like as S. Augustine reasoning agaynst the Maniches for defence of free will, seemed to speake that the Pelagians would alow, and reasoning agaynst Pelagians, seemed to say that the Manichees would alow, such a daunger it is to reduce extremities to the meane, wherein S. Augustine was better purged then Theodoret was, although Theodoret was recōciled. But for example of yt I hauehave sayd, this argumēt of Theodoretus agaynst ye Eutichiās to auoyd cōfusiō of natures in Christ sheweth how in the Sacramēt where the truth of ye mistery of ye two natures in Christ may be as it were in similitude learned, the presence of the body of Christ there in the Sacrament doth not alter the nature, that is to say, the property of the visible creatures. This saying was that the Nestorians would draw for there purpose to proue distinct persons, agaynst whome Cirill trauayled to shew that in the Sacrament the flesh of Christ that was geuen to be eaten was geuen, not as the flesh of a common man, but as the flesh of God, wherby appeared the vnity of the godhead to the manhod in Christ in one person, and yet no confusion, as Theodoretus doth by his argument declare. But whether the Printers negligence, or this authors ouersight hath confounded, or confused this matter in the vttering of it, I can not tell. For the author of this booke concludeth solemnly thus by induction of the premises, that euen so the body of Christ was after the ascention changed into the godly substance. I wene the Printer left out a (not) and should hauehave sayd not changed, into the godly substance, for so the sence should be as Peter Martyr reporteth Theodorete. And yet the triumphe this author maketh agaynst them, he calleth for his pleasure Papistes, with his forked dilemma maketh me doubt, whether he wist what he sayd, or no: bicause he bringeth in Nestorius so out of purpose, saying the Papistes must eyther graunt the substance of bread and wine to remayne, or els to be of Nestorius heresie, that the nature of Godhed remayned not.
This author of the booke for the name of Nestorius, should hauehave put Eutiches, and then sayd for conclusion. The nature of manhod remayned not in Christ. And although in Theodoret the substance of bread is spoken of to remayne, yet bicause he doth after expound himselfe to speake of that is seene and felt, he seemeth to speake of Substance after the common capacity, and not as it is truely in learning vnderstanded, an inward inuisible and not palpable nature, but onelyonly perceaued by vnderstanding, so as this outward nature that Theodorete speaketh of, may according to his wordes truly remayne, notwithstanding Transubstantiation. This author declareth playnly his ignoraunce, not to perceaue whither the argument of Theodoret and Gelasius tendeth, which is properly agaynst the Eutichians rather then the Nestorians. For and no propriety of bread remayne, it proueth not the Godhead in Christ not to remayne, but the humanity onelyonly to be as it were swallowed vp of the diuinity, which the Eutichians entended and specially after Christes resurrection, agaynst whome the argumēt by Theodorete is specially brought, how so euer this author confoundeth the Nestorians and Eutiches names and taketh one for an other, which in so high a matter is no small fault, and yet no great fault among so many other houger and greater as be in this booke committed.