A Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament

If the word and the flesh were both of one nature, seeing that the word is every where, why is not the flesh than every where? For when it was in earth, than verily it was not in heaven: and now when it is in heaven, it is not surely in earth. And it is so sure, that it is not in earth, that as concerning it, we look for him to come from heaven, whom as concerning his eternal word, we believe to be with us in earth: Therefore by your doctrine (saith Uigilius unto Eutyches, who defended, that the divinity and humanity in Christ was but one nature) either the word is contained in a place with his flesh, or else the flesh is every where with the word. For one nature can not receive in it self two divers and contrary things. But these two things be divers and far unlike, that is to say, to be contained in a place, and to be every where. Therefore in as much as the word is every where, and the flesh is ⟨p. 55⟩not every where, it appeareth plainly, that one Christ him self hath in him two natures, & that by his divine nature, he is every where, and by his human nature, he is contained in a place, that he is created, & hath no beginning, that he is subject to death, & can not die. Whereof one he hath by the nature of his word (whereby he is God) & the other he hath by y• nature of his flesh, where by the same God is man also. Therefore one son of God, the self same was made the son of man, and he hath a beginning by the nature of his flesh, and no beginning by the nature of his Godhead. He is created by the nature of his flesh, and not created by the nature of his Godhead. He is comprehended in a place, by the nature of his flesh, and not comprehended in a place by the nature of his Godhead. He is inferior to angels in the nature of his flesh, and is equal to his father in the nature of his Godhead. He dyed by the nature of his flesh, and died not by the nature of his Godhead. This is the faith and catholic confession, which the Apostles taught, the martyrs did corroborate, and faithful people keep unto this day.

If the worde and the fleshe were bothe of one nature, seyng that the word is euery where, why is not the fleshe than euery where? For whan yt was in earthe, than verily it was not in heauen: and nowe whan it is in heauen, it is not surely in yearth. And it is so sure, that it is not in earth, that as concernyng it, we looke for hym to come from heauen, whom as concernyng his eternall woorde, we beleue to bee with vs in earthe: Therfore by your doctrine (saith Uigilius vnto Eutyches, who defended, that the diuinitee and humanite in Christe was but one nature) either the word is conteyned in a place with his fleshe, or els the fleshe is euery where with the worde. For one nature can not receaue in it selfe two diuers and contrary thinges. But these two thinges be dyuers and farre vnlyke, that is to say, to be conteyned in a place, and to be euery where. Therfore in as muche as the word is euery where, and the fleshe is