Can you deny, M. Rainolds, but that Christs body is altogether of the same substance with our bodies, and hath the properties of a true and natural body? speak plainly, and tell us your mind, lest you give us cause to doubt of your soundness in this article, as you have here given very great. For if you confess this to be true doctrine, as you must, unless you be indeed one of those heretics that held the contrary, why bid you me look how I free my self from the filthy and wicked heresies of the Ebionites and Nestorians. Mark I beseech you (good reader) how this prating patron of Real presence,1 would have it seem to savour of wicked heresy, to affirm that Christs body is a true body, consubstantial to ours: and all this, because the same wicked heresy of real presence can never be defended, unless this be denied. Yea Master Rainolds saith, those heretics not only may, but must thereof infer, that Christ was begotten between ⟨p. 185⟩our Lady, and Joseph. Wherein as he hath avouched a plain heresy, which he cannot clear him self from, unless he will openly recant his own words: so is it most false, that he saith it must be inferred hereof, that Christ was begotten as other men. No such necessity, Master Rainolds. That he was miraculously borne of a virgin, is no reason but that his body may be of the same substance with ours, a true and natural body, endued with the same qualities and properties, that ours are, save sin, from his conception, and glory from his ascension: whereof in saying it must follow, that Christ was not borne of a virgin, you have uttered in plain terms an heretical assertion: defend it, or retract, whether you will. For if this follow thereof indeed, which is heretical, then that must of consequence be heretical, which yet is a most true and Catholic doctrine.
Can you denie, M. Rainolds, but that Christes bodie is altogether of the same substance with our bodies, and hath the properties of a true and naturall bodie? speake plainlie, and tell vs your minde, lest you giue vs cause to doubt of your soundnes in this article, as you haue here giuen verie great. For if you confesse this to be true doctrine, as you must, vnlesse you be indeed one of those heretikes that held the contrarie, why bid you me looke how I free my selfe from the filthie and wicked heresies of the Ebionites and Nestorians. Marke I beseech you (good reader) how this prating patrone of Reall presence,1 would haue it seme to sauour of wicked heresy, to affirme that Christs bodie is a true bodie, consubstantiall to ours: and all this, because the same wicked heresie of reall presence can neuer be defended, vnlesse this be denied. Yea Master Rainolds saith, those heretikes not onelie maie, but must thereof infer, that Christ was begotten betwene ⟨p. 185⟩our Ladie, and Ioseph. Wherein as he hath auouched a plaine heresie, which he cannot cleare him selfe from, vnlesse he will openlie recant his owne wordes: so is it most false, that he saith it must be inferred hereof, that Christ was begotten as other men. No such necessitie, Master Rainolds. That he was miraculouslie borne of a virgine, is no reason but that his bodie may be of the same substance with ours, a true and naturall bodie, indued with the same qualities and properties, that ours are, saue sinne, from his conception, and glory from his ascension: whereof in saying it must follow, that Christ was not borne of a virgine, you haue vttered in plaine tearmes an hereticall assertion: defend it, or retract, whether you will. For if this follow thereof indeed, which is hereticall, then that must of consequence be hereticall, which yet is a most true and Catholike doctrine.
- 1M.R. sayeth it is heretical to affirm, that Christs body is consubstantial to ours.M.R. saieth it is hereticall to affirme, that Christs body is consubstantiall to ours.
