sought hym at hys sepulchre, to touche his naturall bodye, because she
lacked a poynte of faythe, & ded not counte hym to be equall with hys
father. And moche more yt shall folowe that the wycked which haue no
faythe nor loue towardes hym, shall not be suffered to eate hys fleshe
with their teth, & swallowe yt in to their vncleane bodyes: for that
were moche more then to touche hym. And yet notwithstandynge they
receyue and eate the sacrament. Whervpon yt shulde folowe yf the
sacrament were hys naturall bodye, that they shulde in dede eate hys
bodye. Which thynge may be recoūted a blasphemye agaynste God. Moreouer
Christe sayeth, he that eateth my fleshe ād drynketh my blood dwelleth
in me & I in hym: Now we knowe ryght well that the wycked do eate the
sacrament, ād yet neyther dwell in Christe, nor Christ in thē. Wherfore
yt muste folowe that the sacramēt is not the very fleshe of Christe. And
surelye I can not excuse thē of blasphemye which so dyrectlye do cōtrary
Christes wordes. Howe can you avoyde these textes which Christ speaketh
vnto hys dyscyples sayēge. Yet a lytel whyle am I with you. And then I
departe to hym that sente me. [Sidenote: Ioan. 6.] And agayne it is
expedyent for you that I departe. For excepte that I departe, that
counforter shall not come vnto you. [Sidenote: Ioan. 6.] And agayne he
sayeth. I forsake the worlde [Sidenote: Ioan. 6.] and go to my Father.
And to be shorte, he sayeth, [Sidenote: Mat. 25.] poore mē ye shall euer
haue with you, [Sidenote: Mar. 14.] but me shall you not euer haue. Now
we knowe ryght well that hys Godhed is in all places, [Sidenote: Ioan.
12.] and that as towchynge hys Godhed he forsoke not the worlde, when he
ascended vnto hys Father. Wherfore it muste neades folowe that he fors
oke yt as towchynge hys fleshe and manhode. And therto agreeth the
exposycyons of Saynte Austen, and Fulgentius before alleaged, yea and
all other olde faythfull Fathers. Now yf he haue forsaken the worlde as
towchynge the presence of hys naturall fleshe and māhode (as all
doctours defyne) then mente he not that hys naturall fleshe shulde be
presente in the sacrament, to be eaten with our tethe. And therfore
though Christe so tell you, yet muste you take hym as he meaneth, or els
you be begyled. For yf ye thynke that GOD both maye and wyll fulfyll and
veryfye all thynges accordynge to the letter as he speaketh them, I maye
call you an obedyent man, as Saynte BARNARD doth hys Monke Adam. And
maye saye (as he doth) that yf that be the ryght waye, so symplye to
receyue all thynge, we maye put out the texte of scrypture which warneth
vs to be wyse as serpētes. For the texte folowynge is suffycyent, which
byddeth vs to be symple as doves.
Why doth your mastershyppe graunte a necessarye allegorye, whē Paule
sayeth, CHRISTE is a stone, or when Christ sayeth, that he is a dore?
The scrypture sayeth he is both twayne. And syth God so sayth, he is
able so to make it. And therfore by your reason we shall neade none
allegorye in all scrypture, & thē he that is moste symple ād folyshe,
may be counted moste faythfull. And so shall we neade no faythfull
Fathers to expounde the texte, but it shalbe moste meryte, to beleue the
letter. This I denye not, but that God coulde haue done yt, yf he had so
entēded, when he spake the wordes: But nowe the scrypture stondynge as
it doth, I thynke he can not do it. As by exāple. I thynke that God by
the bloode of hys sone Christe myght haue saued all men, both faythfull
and vnfaythfull, yf he had so intēded, ād that yt had so pleased hym.
But nowe the scrypture stōdynge as it doth, I saye he can not do yt, and
that it is impossyble for hym. For then he myght make hys sone a lyer
which sayeth, [Sidenote: Ioan. 3.] he that beleueth not is dampned. And
agayne, he that beleueth not shall not see lyfe, but the wrathe of God
abydeth vpon hym. And euen as it is impossyble to stonde with the
processe of scriptures (wherin God hath declared hys wyll) that the
vnfaythfull shulde be saued, although God myght haue done it at the
fyrst yf he had so wolde. Lykewyse it is impossyble the scryptures
stondynge as they do, that the naturall bodye of Christ shulde be
presente to our teth in the sacrament. And as for our faythe, yt neadeth
not to haue hym presente in the breade. For I maye as well eate hym ād
drynke hym through faythe, that is to saye: beleue in hym, as though he
were as presente in the sacramēte, as he was hangynge vpon the crosse.
And because you saye, that my naturall reasons be not worth the
reasonynge, I wyll alleage you some mo, to see what you can saye to
them. Fyrste euery sacrament is the sygne of an holye thynge: but the
sacramente of the aulter is a sacramēt (as all faythfull men confesse)
ergo it muste folowe that the sacrament of the aulter is the sygne of an
holye thynge. Nowe yf it be the sygne of an holye thynge, then it is not
the holye thynge yt selfe which yt doth sygnyfye & represent. Why shulde
we then feare, to call that breade a fygure, that is to saye: a
sacrament of that holye bodye of our Lorde and Sauyoure.
Besydes that I wolde knowe of what necessyte or profyte hys fleshe muste
be present in the sacrament. For the presence of hys fleshe can no more
profyte vs, thē doth the remembraunce of hys bodye, but this
remembraunce maye as well be done by the sacrament, as though hys bodye
were present. And therfore syth God and nature make nought in vayne, it
foloweth consequentlye, that his naturall fleshe is not there, but
onelye a memoryall therof.
Furthermore, the ende and fynall cause of a thynge is euer better then
those thynges which are prouyded for the ende (as the house is better
than the lyme, stone, & tymber, which are prouyded for the howse) but
the ende and fynall cause of the sacramente is the remembraunce of
Christes bodye: and thervpō yt muste folowe that yf the sacramente be
hys naturall bodye, that the remembraunce of Christes bodye shulde be
better then hys bodye it selfe. Whiche thynge is to be abhorred of all
faythfull men.
It were fondnes to fayne that the soule ded otherwyse eate then do the
Angelles in heauē, and their meate is onelye the Ioye and delectacyon
that they haue of God and of hys glorye; And euen so doth the soule
which is here vpon the earth eate through faythe the bodye of Christe
which is in heauen. For it delyteth & reioyseth whyles yt vnderstōdeth
through faythe, that Christ hath takē our synnes vpō hym and pacyfyed
the Fathers wrath. Neyther yt is necessarye, that for that or for thys
cause, that his fleshe shulde be present. For a man maye as well loue ād
reioyse in the thynge which is from hym and not present, as though yt
were presēt by hym of that maner.
More ouer, the breade is Christes bodye, euen as the breakynge of the
breade is the death of hys bodye. Nowe the breakynge of breade at the
maundye is not the verye death of Christes bodye, but onelye a
representacyon of the same (albeit the mynde through faythe doeth
spirytuallye beholde hys verye death) and euen lyke wyse that naturall
breade is not the verye bodye of our Lorde, but onely a sacramēt, sygne,
memoryall, or representacyō of the same, albeit through the admonycyō
therof, the mynde through fayth, doth spirytually beholde the verye
body. And surely yf a man be faythfull, the spirite of God worketh in
his harte very swetelye at his communyon.
Fynallye, it was not laufull to eate or drynke the bloode not onelye of
man, but also of a brute beaste, and the Apostles them selues moued by
the rule of charyte, ded instytute that men shulde abstayne from bloode,
somewhat fauourynge the infyrmyte of the Iewes. Now yf the Apostles had
taught (as ye do) that in the sacrament hys verye fleshe and bloode is
eaten and dronken with the teth and mouthe of faythfull and vnfaythfull,
what coulde haue bene a greater occasyō to haue excluded the Iewes frō
Christes fayth euen at ones? Thynke you that the Apostles wolde not haue
bene to srupulous to haue dronken hys very bloode, seynge it was so
playne agaynst Moses lawe, yf they had vnderstonde hym so grosselye as
ye do? [Sidenote: Act .10.] Peter had a clothe sente downe from heauen,
in whiche were all maner of beastes forbydden by the lawe, and was
commaunded to fle and eate thē. And he answered, God forbyd, for I neuer
eate any vncleane thynge, meanynge therbye that he neuer eate any thynge
forbyddē by the lawe. Wherof it muste neades folowe, that eyther he
neuer receyued the sacrament (whiche is playne false) or els that he
more spyrytuallye vnderstode the wordes of Christes maundye then ye
falselye fayne. For it was playnelye forbydden by the lawe, to eate or
drynke any maner of bloode. [Sidenote: obiectyō.] And I knowe but one
reason, that they haue which they counte as insoluble: how be it by
Goddes grace we shall soone avoyde it. Their reason is this. Paule
sayeth, he that eateth and drynketh this sacrament vnworthelye, shalbe
gyltye of the bodye and bloode of the Lorde. Now saye they, how shulde
they be gyltye of the Lordes bodye ād bloode whiche receyue it
vnworthelye, excepte it were the verye bodye and bloode of the Lorde.
[Sidenote: Solutiō.] This argument I saye, is verye weake and slender.
For I can shewe manye examples by the whiche it may be dyssolued. For he
that dyspyseth the Kynges seale or Letters offendeth agaynste hys owne
parson, and yet the Letters or Seale is not hys owne parson. He that
vyolentlye plucketh downe hys graces Armes, or breaketh hys brode Seale
wyth a furyouse mynde or wyth vyolence, commytteth treason agaynste hys
owne parson. And yet hys Armes and brode Seale are not hys owne parsō.
He that clyppyth the Kynges coyne, commytteth treason agaynste the
Kynges parson and the common wealth: and yet the money is neyther hys
graces parson nor the common wealth. And therfore your argument is but
weake and slēder. For euē as a man doth offende agaynste the Prynces
parson by dyspysinge his Armes, Seale, or Letters, so doth a mā offende
agaynste Christes bodye and bloode, by abvsynge the sacrament of hys
bodye and bloode, although he be not there present, as the Kynges parsō
is not presente in hys Armes, Seale, or Letters.
Besydes that S. Paule sayeth, that euerye man whiche prayeth or
preacheth with covered heade shameth hys heade, & hys head is Christe;
shall we therfore Imagen that Christe is naturallye in euerye mās heade,
as your argument cōcludeth? Forsoth that were a preatye fantasye.
Fynally S. Austen sayeth, that he doth no lesse synne whiche neglygētlye
heareth the wordes of God, thē doth the other which vnworthelye
receyueth the sacrament of Christes bodye and bloode. Nowe yf this be
true, then is your reason not worth a ry she, for Christes naturall
bodye is not in the worde whiche is preached, as all men knowe. And yet
he synneth no lesse that neglygentlye heareth it, then doth he that
vnworthelye receyueth the sacramēt. And thus you see their insoluble
argument easelye dyssolued.
[Sidenote: More.] ❧ But now muste thys yonge man consyder agayne that he
hym selfe confesseth, that the cause for which hym selfe sayeth, that
Christe in so sayenge ded so meane, is because that yf he shulde haue
mēt so, yt was impossyble to God to brynge hys meanynge a bought: that
is to saye, that Christes bodye myght be in two places at ones. And
therfore but yf he proue that thynge impossyble for God to do, els he
confesseth that God not onelye sayde it but also mente it in dede. And
yet ouer thys, yf Christ had neuer sayde it, yet doubt I nothynge, but
he is able to do it, or els were there somwhat that he coulde not do;
And then were God not almyghtye.
[Sidenote: Fryth.] ¶ Here Master More wolde myre me with his sophystrye,
ād wyth wyles wolde wynne hys spores. For as he before ded discant on
these wordes, can, and impossyble, and wolde haue made mē beleue that I
mente it coulde not be, because it coulde not be by reason, and that I
mente it was impossyble, because reason coulde not reache it: So now he
dysputeth with lyke maner of sophystycacyon, concludynge that I confesse
that it is impossyble and cā not be, because that yf God shulde so haue
mente, it was impossyble for God to brynge hys meanynge a bought. Deare
bretherne, thys bablynge is suffycyentlye discussed alreadye. For I
mente not that it was impossyble for God to brynge it aboute, yf he had
so mēte, but I mente that it is impossyble to stonde with the processe
of the scrypture whiche we haue receyued. And I saye more ouer, that
though it was possyble for God to haue done it (yf it had pleased hym)
yet now, the scrypture thus stondynge, it is impossyble for hym to do
it. For then he muste make hys sone a lyer. And I saye, that yf he had
so ment as the letter stondeth, that he wolde then haue geuen vs other
scrypture, and wolde not haue sayde that he muste departe to hym that
sente hym, with other textes as are before rehearsed.
And where master More sayeth, that yf there were somwhat that he coulde
not do, than were God not almyghtye. I saye it is ashame for our
Prelates that they haue gottō suche an ignoraunte proctoure to defende
them. And I am sure that they thēselues coulde haue sayde moche better.
For els how shulde they enstructe other and leade them in the ryght
waye, yf they themselues were so rude and vnlearned? Shulde they not
knowe what thys meaneth, that God is almyghtye, whych is a peace of the
fyrste artycle of our Crede? Then how shulde their shepe haue any sure
syght? More thynketh that God is called almyghtye, because he can do all
thynges. And then in dede it shulde folowe that he were not almyghtye.
For all thynges he can not do, he cā not saue the vnfaythfull, he can
not restore vyrgynyte ones vyolated, sayeth S. Thomas and also (as I
remember) S. Hierome wrytynge of vyrgynyte vnto Paula and Eustochium: he
can not synne sayeth Dunce: he can not denye hym selfe sayeth .S. Paule.
[Sidenote: 2. Tim.] Now yf thys mans learnynge were alowed, thē myght
not God be almyghtye, because there is sumwhat that he cā not do. But
they that are a customed with scrypture, do knowe that he is called
almyghtye, not because he can do all thynge: but because there is no
superyour power aboue hym, but that he maye do all that he wyll: and all
that hys pleasure is to do that maye he brynge to passe. And no power is
able to resyste hym. But he hath no pleasure nor wyll to make hys sone
alyer nor to make hys scripture false, and in dede he maye not do it.
And yet notwithstondynge he abydeth almyghtye. For he may do all thynge
that he wyll.
[Sidenote: More.] ❧ Then master More as towchynge the reason of
repungnaunce sayeth, that many thynges may seame repungnaunte both to
hym and me, which thynges God seeth how to make them stonde together
well ynough, and addeth such blynde reasons of repungnaunce as induceth
manye men in to a greate erroure: some ascrybynge all thynge vnto
destenye without any power of mans fre wyll at all. And some genynge all
to mans owne wyll. And haue no fore syght at all to the provydēce of
God, and all because the poore blynde reason of man can not see so
farre, as to perceyue how Goddes prescyence and mans fre wyll can stonde
together, but seame clerelye to be repungnaunte.
[Sidenote: Fryth.] ¶ As for hys dygressyon of mans fre wyll, I wyll not
greatlye wrestle with hym. But thys one thynge I maye saye, [Sidenote:
Ioan. 8.] that yf the sone of God delyuer vs, then are we verye free.
[Sidenote: 2. Cor. 3.] And where the spyryte of God is, there is
fredome. I meane not fredome to do what you wyll; but fredome [Sidenote:
Rom. 6.] frō synne, that we maye be the saruaūtes of ryghtuousnes. But
yf we haue not the spyryte of Christe, then wyll I saye with S. Austen,
[Sidenote: Augustinus de spiritu & litera.] that our fre wyll is
wretched, and can do nought but synne. And as towchynge suche textes of
repugnaunce, yf they be so dyffuse that mans reason (which is the lyght
of hys vnderstōdyng) can not attayne to set them together, then were you
beste to make thē none artycles of our faythe. For I thynke as manye as
are necessarye vnto our salvacyon, are conteyned in the Crede, which I
thynke euery mā beleueth: I beseche you laye no bygger burthen vpon vs
then those faythfull Fathers ded, which thought that suffycyent. And
then I am sure, we shulde haue fewer heretykes. For I neuer harde of
heretycke that euer helde agaynste any artycle of our Crede, but all
that ye dyffame by thys name, are onelye put to death, because they saye
that we are not bounde to beleue euerye poynte that the lawes and
tyrannye of the cleargye alowe and maynteyne, which thynge how true it
is (blessed be God) is meatelye well knowen alreadye. For els had I and
many mo bene deade before thys daye.
[Sidenote: More.] ❧ I wote well that many good folke haue vsed in thys
matter manye frutefull examples. As of one face beholden in dyuerse
glasses, and in euerye peace of one glasse broken in to twentye, ād of
one worde comynge whole to an hundreth eares at ones: and the syght of
one lytle eye presently beholdynge an whole greate contrye at ones, with
a thousande suche meruelles mo: suche as those that see thē daylye done
(and therfore meruell not at thē) shall yet neuer be able, no not this
yonge man hym selfe, to geue suche a reason by what meane they maye be
done, but that he maye haue suche repugnaunce layde agaynste it, that he
shalbe fayne in conclusyon (for the chefe and moste euydent reason) to
saye, that the cause of all those thynges, is because God that hath so
caused them to be done, is almyghtye of hym selfe, and maye do what hym
lyste.
[Sidenote: Fryth.] ¶ As towchynge the examples that master More doth
here alleage, I maye soone make answere vnto them. For they that are
lyke our matter, make cleane agaynste hym, and the other can not make
for hym. The glasse I graunte is a good example. For euen as the glasse
dothe represent the verye face of man, so doth this sacrament represent
the verye bodye and bloode of Christe. And lyke as euery peace of the
glasse doth represent that one face, so doth euery peace of that
sacrament represent that one bodye of Christe. But euerye mā knoweth
ryght well, that thoughe the glasse represent my face, yet the
substaunce of the glasse is not my verye face, neyther is my very face
in the glasse. And euen so though the sacrament do represent the bodye
of Christe, yet the substaunce of the sacrament is not hys verye bodye
(no more then the glasse is my face) neyther is hys verye bodye in the
sacrament, no more thē my verye face is in the glasse. And thus this
example maketh well for vs. And for that one worde commynge whole to an
hūdreth eares, I saye that worde is but a sounde ād a qualyte & not a
substaunce, and therfore yt is nothynge to our purpose, and can not be
lykened to Christes bodye which is a substaunce. And as concernynge the
syght of the lytle eye, I say that though the eye dyscrye and see an
whole contrye, yet is not that whole contrye in the eye: but as the
contrye is knowen by the syght of the eye (though the contrye be not in
it) so is the death of Christe and his bodye breakynge and bloode
sheadynge knowen by the sacrament, though hys naturall bodye be not in
it. And thus hys exāples make nothyng with hym, but rather moche
agaynste hym. And where he sayeth that the yonge mā hym selfe cā geue no
reasō, by what meane they may be done: I maye saye vnto hys
mastershyppe, that whan I was seauen yeare yonger then I am thys day, I
wolde haue bene ashamed yf I coulde not haue geuen an evydent reason at
the Austēs in Oxforde before the whole vnyuersyte. And albeit I now
wochesaue not to spende laboure and paper abought Aristotles doctryne,
yet haue I so moche towched hys examples, that he may be werye of them.
[Sidenote: More.] ❧ Also I cā not see why it shulde be more repugnaunt
that one bodye maye be by the power of God in two places at ones, then
that two bodyes maye be together in one place at ones. And that poynte I
thynke thys yonge man denyeth not.
[Sidenote: Fryth.] ¶ The beynge of our bodye in two places at ones is
agaynste nature, and scrypture cā not allow it. But that two bodyes
shulde be in one place seameth more reasonable. For I haue good
experyence that though my bodye can not be in two places at ones (both
in the tower and where I wolde haue it besyde) yet blessed be god in
this one place, I am not without cōpanye. But yf master More meane that
in one proper & severall place, maye be two bodyes at ones, that I wyll
denye, tyll he haue laysure to proue it. And yet at the length I am
sure, hys proue shall not be worth a podynge prycke. For I am sure it
muste be, _Ratione porositatis ut in igne & ferro: nam penetracionem
dimensionum nunquam probabit._ And then he is as nyghe as he was before.
[Sidenote: More.] ❧ Now hys laste reason wyth which he proueth yt
impossyble for the bodye of christe to be in two places at ones, is
this: You can (sayeth he) shewe no reason whye he shulde be in many
places at ones & not in all. But in all places he can not be: Wherfore
we muste cōclude that he can not be in many places at ones. This is a
mervelous cōcluded argumente. I am sure that euery chylde may soone see
that this consequent can neuer folowe vpō these two premysses of thys
antecedent.
[Sidenote: Fryth.] ¶ When I made thys reason & compyled my tretyse I had
no regarde to the cavyllacyons of sotle sophysters. For I thought no
sophysters shulde haue medled wyth that meate. But neuerthelesse syth
now I perceyue that they pryncipallye are porynge vpon yt, seakynge some
praye to sette their teth a warke, in this boke I haue samwhat prouyded
for thē, and haue brought suche harde bones, that yf they be to busye,
maye chaunce to choke thē. And yet is not the argumēt so feable as he
fayneth. For the fyrst part (if he lyst to cōsyder the sēce & mynde, &
be not to curyous) where I say that they cā shewe no reasō why he shulde
be in many places & not in all, is thus to be vnderstōd of wyse mē, that
the very reasō & cause that he shulde be in many places must be, because
the body is so ānexed with the godhed, that yt is in euery place as the
Godhed is. Thys I saye, muste be the cause and reason of hys beynge in
many places. And neyther you nor no man els cā iustely asygne any other.
Now of this maior or fyrste proposycyon thus vnderstonde doth the
conclusyon folowe dyrectlye. For yf this shulde be the cause (as they
muste neades graūte) and thys cause proued false by scrypture: then
muste they neades graunte that the thynge whiche so foloweth of this
cause, muste neades be false. And so is my purpose proued, and they
concluded. As by example. The Astronomers saye: that the naturall course
of the sonne is from the Weste to the Easte. Nowe yf a man shulde aske
them what ys then the cause that we see hym daylye take the contrary
course, from the East to the Weste agaynste hys nature: they answere.
Because the heyghest spere (whose course is from the Easte to the Weste)
wyth hys swyfte movynge doth vyolently drawe the inferyoure speres with
hym. This is the cause that they alleage, and no man can asygne any
other. And now syth I can proue thys sense false by scrypture (for
scrypture sayth that the spere is fastened Heb. viij and S. Austen
expoundynge that texte improueth the Astronomers which affyrme that it
moueth) they muste neades graunte that the thynge which foloweth of this
cause muste neades be false. And so we maye conclude agaynste them all,
that the naturall course of the sonne is not from the Weste to the East
(as the Astronomers saye) but contrarye from the Easte to the Weste. And
lykewyse syth the cause that Christes bodye shulde be in many places, is
asygned of learned men to be, because hys bodye is so annexed with the
Godhed (which is in euerye place) that it is also in all places with it,
and no man can asygne any other. And this cause is proued false by
scrypture. For when the women sought Christ at hys graue, an Angell gaue
the answere that he was not there. [Sidenote: Mar. 14.] But yf hys bodye
had bene in euery place, then had the Angell lyed. [Sidenote: Luc. 16.]
Also Christ sayde vnto hys dyscyples of Lazarus which dyed at Bathania.
[Sidenote: Ioan. 11.] Lazarus ys deade. And I am gladde for your sakes
(that you maye beleue) because I was not there. Now yf hys body were in
euery place as is the Godhed, then Christ sayde not trulye, when he
sayde he was not there. Therfore syth (as I sayde) this is the cause
asygned, and yet proued false by scrypture, they muste neades graunte,
that the thynge which foloweth of this cause, muste also neades be
false. And so we maye conclude agaynste them all, that Christes bodye is
in one place onely. And now you maye see how my consequent folowe the
premysses.
[Sidenote: More.] ❧ For he can no further cōclude, but that we can shewe
no reason whye he shulde be in many places at ones. What had he wone by
that: Myght he thā conclude thervpon, that he coulde not be in manye
places at ones? As though yt were not possyble for God to make hys bodye
in two places at ones, but yf we were able to tell how, and why, and
wherbye, and shewe the reason.
[Sidenote: Fryth.] ¶ How farre I cā conclude is shewed immedyatly
before. For though of the bare wordes as ye toke them, it was harde to
conclude any thynge, yet haue I nowe declared them, and so farre
concluded, that you can not avoyde them. And where he sayeth that though
they can shewe no reason, yet I had wonne nought by it, I thynke he
wolde be angrye yf I shulde so answere. But surely they are in good
case, for yt is ynough for them to saye, thus it is, and neade neuer to
shewe any cause or reason whye they so saye. For they are the churche
and can not erre: so that yf they teache contrarye thynges, yet all is
good ynough. And when they see that no man can make the scryptures to
agre wyth their doctryne, then they saye, that their doctryne is true
ynough, but no mā can vnderstōnde the scrypture. And though the
scrypture seame neuer so repugnaunte both to them ād vs, yet God seeth
well ynough (saye they) how to sette thē together, and it is possyble
for God to make it agree, though they can not tell how. But thys
doctryne hath longe ynough deceyued vs. For mē haue seane to lōge wyth
your spectacles, yet now (thankes be to God) they begynne to see with
their owne eyes. And as towchyng how thys matter was possyble to God and
how it is not possyble, is suffycyently declared before to all them that
lyste to loke.