A10233:31
Two very learned sermons of M. Beza, together with a short sum of the…Two very lerned sermons of M. Beza, togither with a short sum of the…
Two very learned sermons of M. Beza, together with a short sum of the sacrament of the Lords Supper: Whereunto is added a treatise of the substance of the Lords Supper, wherein is briefly and soundly discussed the p[r]incipall points in controversy, concerning that question. By T.W.Two very lerned sermons of M. Beza, togither with a short sum of the sacrament of the Lordes Supper: Wherevnto is added a treatise of the substance of the Lords Supper, wherin is breflie and soundlie discussed the p[r]incipall points in controuersie, concerning that question. By T.W.
London: printed by Robert Walde-grave for T. Man, 1588London: printed by Robert Walde-graue for T. Man, 1588
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Him whom these men in the first part of their Nestorian opinion, had made of him that was God & man together in one person, but one that carried or bare God, these now in another part of their Eutychian opinion & conceit, transform him I say and his flesh (having in deed all the properties of the Godhead without exception poured into the same) into the Godhead it self. But now, if there nothing happen to God, or there be no accident in him, as indeed there is not, for whatsoever is in him, is substance and not accidents, as they speak in schools, How were the properties (by which he is distinguished from things created) indeed ⟨p. 26⟩poured forth into the flesh assumed and taken, but that also mans nature should be changed into a certain Godhead that is made or created?1 But if these men will deny (as sometimes I see them by the power of trueth it self constrained to deny) that the monstrous presence every where (for whose cause only (whatsoever they feign) they propound unto us that monster of ubiquity, to be esteemed and reverenced) doth not cleave unto Christs flesh as to his proper subject, or that it is not accidents, but only as accidents, then I say, who seeth not what monstrous things these are, to ascribe unto the flesh a real presence every where in it self, though not of it self, the subject whereof should yet notwithstanding, not be the flesh it self, but the Godhead, which Godhead for all that, should no otherwise be present to the flesh, than to all other things whatsoever? And whereof will these men be ashamed, who are so far off from being ashamed of these matters, that yet they dare object this against us, that we exact points of divinity and religion to be handled according to the rules of philosophy?2
Him whome these men in the first part of their Nestorian opinion, had made of him that was God & man togither in one person, but one that carried or bare God, these now in another part of their Eutychian opinion & conceit, transforme him I say and his flesh (hauing in deed all the properties of the Godhead without exception powred into the same) into the Godhead it selfe. But now, if there nothing happen to God, or there be no accident in him, as indeed there is not, for whatsoeuer is in him, is substance and not accidents, as they speake in schooles, How were the properties (by which he is distinguished from things created) indeed