What shall I say to this so manifest untruth, but that it confirmeth that I have in other observed, how there was never one of them that I have read writing against the sacrament, but hath in his writings said somewhat so evidently in the matter, or out of the matter, diserepant from truth, as might be a certain mark to judge the quality of his spirit?
Canterbury
Here you confess that you cited Hilary untruly, but you impute the fault to your copy. What copy you had I know not, but as well the citation of Melancthon, as all the printed books that ever I saw, have otherwise than you have written; and. therefore it seemeth that you never read any printed book of Hilarius. Marry it might be that you had from Smith a false copy written, who informed me that you had of him all the authorities that be in your book: and having all the authorities that he had with great travail gathered, by and by you made your book, and stole from him all his thank and glory, like unto Esop’s chough, which plumed himself with other birds feathers. But wheresoever you had your copy, all the books set forth by public faith have otherwise than you have cited. And although the false allegation of Hilary toucheth you somewhat, yet chiefly it toucheth Smith, who hath erred much worse in his translation than you have done, albeit neither of you both “handle the matter sincerely and faithfully, nor agree the one with the other.
But I trow it be your chance to light upon false books. For whereas in this sentence, Quisquis ergo naturaliter Patrem. in Christo negabit, neget prius naturaliter vel se in Christo, vel Christum sibi inesse, one false print for naturaliter hath non maturaliter; it seemeth that you chanced upon that false print. For if you have found Hilary truly corrected, as you say you have, your fault is the more, that out of a true copy would pick out an untrue translation. And if you have so done, then by putting in a little pretty “not,” where none ought to be, with that little pretty trip you have clean overthrown yourself. For if it be an error to deny that Christ is not naturally in us, (as it is rehearsed” for an error,) then must it be an error to affirm “that Christ is naturally in us.” For it is all one thing to deny? that he is not, and to affirm that “he is naturally in us.” And so by your own translation you overthrow yourself quite and clean, in that you say in many places of your book, that Christ ἴδ naturally in us,” and ground your saying upon Hilary: whereas now, by your own translation, Hilary rejecteth that clearly as an heinous error. 1 And as concerning this word “truly,” it setteth not lively forth a real and substantial presence, as you say it doth; for Christ is truly in all his faithful people, and they” truly eat his flesh and drink his blood, and yet not by a real and corporal, but by a spiritual and effectual presence. And as concerning the word perfecta or perfecta”, in the print which I have of your
[Mutual, Orig. ed. Winch.] [7 As it is here rehearsed, 1551.] [ Trust him, 1551.] [ To deny, omitted in ed. 1580.]]
[T [5 I would say, (if he were another,) an answer [? There, 1580.]]
[imn French, Orig. ed. Winch.) [9 Perfecta or perfect, ed. 1551.]]
[3 [ Join the issue, 1551.].]
[E 11—2]
book, is neither of both, but be left quite out. Nevertheless that fault I impute to no untruth in you, but rather to the negligence either of your pen or of the printer. But for the perfectness of the unity between Christ and us, you declare here the perfect unity to be that which is but the one half of it. For the perfect unity of us with Christ is, not only to have Christ corporally and naturally dwelling in us, but likewise we to dwell corporally and naturally in him. And Hilary declareth the second part to pertain to our unity with Christ, as well as the first; which of sleight and policy you leave out purposely, because it declareth the meaning of the first part, which is not that Christ is in them that receive the sacrament, and when they receive the sacrament only, but that he naturally tarrieth and dwelleth in all them that pertain to him, whether they receive the sacrament or no. And as he dwelleth naturally in them, so do they in him.
And although you have excused your perversity by your false copy, yet here I will join an issue with you, that you did neither allege Hilary’s words before truly, nor yet now do truly declare them. As for the first part, you have confessed yourself that you were deceived by a false copy: and therefore, in this part, I plead that you be guilty by your own confession, And as concerning the second part, Hilary speaketh not of the unity of Christ with the sacrament, nor of the unity of Christ with us only when we receive the sacrament, nor of the unity of us with Christ only, but also with his Father; by which unity we dwell in Christ and Christ in us, and also we dwell in the Father and the Father in us. For as Christ being in his Father, and his Father in him, hath life of his Father, so he being in us, and we in him, giveth unto us the nature of his eternity, which he received of his Father; that is to say, immortality and life everlasting, which is the nature of his Godhead. And so have we the Father and the Son dwelling in us naturally, and we in them, forasmuch as he giveth to us the nature of his eternity which he had of his Father, and honoureth us with that honour which he had of his Father. But Christ giveth not this nature of eternity to the sacrament, except you will say that the sacrament shall have everlasting life; as you must needs say, if Christ dwell naturally in it, after Hilary’s manner of reasoning. For by the saying of Hilary, where Christ dwelleth, there dwelleth his Father, and giveth eternal life by his Son.