Rejoinder to Bristows Reply
He saith further: Christ himself is in us by his flesh: not by the mean of bread and wine.
Who saith otherwise?
And afterward he is believed to be in us by the mystery of the sacraments, ipso in nobis naturaliter permanente, himself tarrying naturally in us.
This cannot be after the popish understanding, by which Christ tarrieth no longer in us, then y e forms of bread and wine remain uncorrupted.
Then Hilary should mean, that Christ is naturally in none, but such as receive that sacrament, and that none live naturally according to y e flesh by Christ, but they that receive the communion: which is false. Therefore he meaneth that Christ's flesh is truly united to us by virtue of his spirit, which is testified in the sacrament, and not that the sacrament received, is the only mean, but the seal of our faith, which apprehēdeath the working of God's spirit in this marvelous conjunction above the reach of man's reason.
But Hilary saith: By the Sacrament of flesh and blood, the propriety of natural communiō is granted.
We say and believe the same, but not only by the sacrament of the supper, but without it also.
And again: by the same tarrying carnally, to wit in truth of flesh, in us.
But yet after a spiritual manner, according to which 〈◊〉 , being once entered into us, he never departeth from us, as in the popish sense he doth, when the shapes of bread and wine are corrupted.
Last of all, the mystery of true and natural unity, is to be preached in eo nobis corporaliter & inseparabiliter vnitis: We being united in him corporally and inseparably.
This cannot be restrained to the supper, seeing he is corporally and inseparablie united to all his members, of which many never received the communion. And that which you teach men to receive in the communion, is not inseparably united to them, for it departeth as soon as the bread and wine by heat of the stomach, are putrefied according to all your schoolemens opinions. Wherefore there is no cause, why Master Jewel should dissemble this point, which maketh wholly against your understanding of Christ present, naturally, corpo 〈…〉 lly, really. &c.
Those words, that Christ corporally, earnally, and naturally is within us, in their own rigor seem very hard.
They must needs seem hard to him that believeth not.
Master Jewel believeth them in such sense, as they were spoken & meant by Hilary, & not as you wrest them.
Hilarius said: we are one with God the father, & the son, not only by adoption or consent of mind, but also by nature, which according to the letter, cannot be true.
It is a most impudent lie forged upon S. Hilary, that we are one with God y e father by nature, or with God the son in his divine nature.
You are mad through malice, no man chargeth S. Hilary but with the phrase of speech, by which it is manifest, he took the words nature & naturally, otherwise then you, as appeareth even by that his general rule: Qui per eandem &c. Those y t by the same thing are one, they are one by nature, and not by will only.
The fathers have been fain to expound, and to mollify such violent and excessive kinds of speech.
Now you show yourself in your colors, you think the fathers do not speak well, for violent speeches be no good speeches, & excessive speeches be not literally true.
Sometime the fathers speak neither well nor truly. But these violent and excessive speeches, are well enough and good speeches, if they be well and rightly understood.
And what if hyperbolical speeches be not literally true, are they therefore false in the right meaning of the speakers? Metaphors be not literally true, will you therefore say, that whatsoever is spoken by a Metaphor, is spoken untruly? This paltrie is but to mock, selye unlearned Papists, of whom you have exhibition, for such as know what figures of Rhetoric mean, would think you worthy to wear a cockescombe, thus to dispute of true and false, out of Rhetorical figures. 〈2 pages missing〉
more then of manna literally.
Master Jewel is mad, he is blind, full of extreme malice.
Railing, in steed of words proving, that Nyssen speaketh of the sacrament, or of Christ's natural dwelling in us.
The purpose of Gregory Nyssen, was only to speak of Christ's birth.
His purpose was to speak of manna, which did both signify the birth of Christ, and the sacrament of the altar.
What word have you to prove, that he spake of it, as it doth signify the sacrament of the altar?
In like manner of speech Saint Jerome saith: The wheat whereof the heavenly bread is made, is that of which our Lord said, my flesh is meat in deed.
The speech of S. Jerome, is of the sacrament, therefore the speech of Nyssenus, which you confess to be like.
It is not like in scope and purpose, but in the phrase speaking of wheat.
And to this purpose, saith Amphilochius: unless Christ had been borne carnally, thou haddest not been borne spiritually.
I know not to what purpose he speaketh it, but that Christ's birth is necessary to our salvation, and because, if that birth had not gone before, we could not have eaten that body in the sacrament.
You might have inferred eating spiritually, a • well as borne spiritually.
As Nyssen saith, Christ is made our bread: so he saith, he becometh strong meat unto the perfect, herbs unto the weak, &c.
He may be bread, herbs, and milk in the sacrament, and without it, but he is bread, herbs, and milk, to us in our mouths (as manna was to the Jews) only in the sacrament.
Where have you in Nyssen your, But he is &c. in our mouth? Is he any of this bodily?
Gregory Nyssen holdeth, that we receive Christ's body otherwise then in the Sacrament, for he saith: whoso hath abundantly drunk of the Apostles springs, hath already received whole Christ.
You miss of your proof, you should prove, that he receiveth Christ's body, & you prove y t he receiveth Christ. Gregory spake of his divine nature, which may be received in our heart, & yet not his body in our body.
I pray you sir, is not whole Christ, both the divinity & the humanity?
If the eating of Christ prove his birth, it will follow, that as he is borne really, so much more, he is eaten really: if he were only eaten by faith: thence we could conclude no more but a birth by faith.
You may as well conclude, if he be eaten only under the form of bread, he was borne only under the form of bread, such strength is an D. Hardings argument.
CAP. XXIIII.
That M. Jewel hath not well answered, the places of S. Cyrillus.
Cyrillus saith: when the mystical blessing is become to be in us, doth it not cause Christ to dwell in us corporally, by receiving of Christ's body in y e communion? The same thing he saith in diverse other places.
Cyrillus expoundeth himself: natural union is nothing else, but a true union. We are by nature the children of anger, that is in deed & truly.
He saith not (it is nothing else) but, ss natural̄: If we call it a natural union, we shall call it a true union.
M. Jewel saith not generally, that natural is nothing but true, but with Cyril in these speeches, it is nothing but true, as he expoundeth himself.
That which you said of Saint Augustine, Corporaliter, non vmbraliter, sed vere & solid: I could not find it upon the 67. Psalm.
Then you sought it very negligently: for there it is written, upon the 16. verse of that Psalm, in these words,
Saith not Cyril, that the mystical blessing maketh him to dwell corporally in us?
He saith, the virtue of the mystical blessing, when it is wrought in us, maketh him to dwell also corporally in us.
Saint Paul saith: The heathens are become concorporall, and partakers of the promise in Jesus Christ.
The word corporal signifieth no more, but that the Jews and Gentiles are of one fellowship, but the means of making them one, remain notwithstanding to be declared.
They are declared by S. Paul to be, In Christ, by the Gospel.
By the words corporally & naturally, a full perfect spiritual conjunction is meant, excluding all manner of fantasies.
Is not that conjunction which is by faith & sincere love (whereof Cyril saith, we are not only joined thereby, but quoque also corporally) a full perfect spiritual conjunction?
It is not full & perfect by faith and love, except we be spiritually fed w t the body & blod of Christ.
If corporally be nothing else to say, but truly & without imagination: How construe you these words of S. Paul: All the fullness of the Godhead dwelleth corporally in Christ?
I construe them, as S. Augustine doth in Psa. 67. before said, which place you list not to find. And I pray you do you cōstrue corporally so, that you understand the godhead to be a body, as in your next argument a coniugatis.
How can you avoid y e yoke, the dependence, the mutual respect that is between body & bodily? if bodily be truly, then corpus with M. Jewel, is latin for truth.
The yoke is avoided, when the aduerb signifieth only a similitude unto that which is meant by the Nowne: as spiritualiter enforceth not the presence of a spirit, but after the similitude or manner of a spirit. So angelice viuere, vento • eiactare, regaliter epulari, To live like an Angel, To boast vainly like the wind, To feast like a king. &c. As for corpus, although it be not Latin for truth, yet to signify truth, sometime it is not hard to find in the scripture. S. Paul saith, The Jewish feasts are vmbra futurorum, corpus autem Christi, the shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ: what is the sense of body here, but truth? As for Sanders fear; least Christ's natural body might so be transformed into a truth of faith or charity, or bones without flesh, or skin without flesh or bones, is vain and foolish: yea, spiteful and malicious: for, if body, and bodily, be sometimes taken for truth, and truly, according to the circumstance of the place, it will not follow, that those words should always be so taken, where the text openly reclaimeth.
Otherwise there must needs follow this great inconvenience, that our body must be in like manner cor porally, naturally, and fleshly in Christ's body. For Hilarius saith, We also are naturally in him. And Cyrillus, We are corporally in Christ.
It is most true, during the time of the conjunction.
The time of the conjunction is perpetual, for Hilary saith, We are inseparably united in him, lib. 〈◊〉 . Teach your Papists, that the body of Christ is none owise in their mouth & body, then they are in y e body of Christ, & you may whistle for your Popish real presence.
That we be thus in Christ, requireth not any corporal being.
That were a fine being, M. Jewel, that Christ's body should be in us corporally, yet the being should not be corporal.
This is a fine wit M. Sander, being demanded of an horsmill, to answer of a milhorse. M. Jewel would know, whether any corporal being is required, that we, I say we, should be in Christ corporally. You answer of Christ's being in us, because you cannot avoid the absurdity of our being in Christ corporally, after your corporal and carnal understanding.
It requireth not any local being.
It is a local being, in respect that the substance of Christ occupieth the same place, under the form of bread, which the substance of bread did occupy before.
That is a fine place for a man of perfect stature. But why answer you of Christ's being in the Sacrament, when M. Jewel speaketh of our being in Christ corporally? I perceive your infirmity: you cannot hear on that side.
Christ fitting in heaven, is here in us, not by a natural, but by a spiritual mean of being.
The being of Christ in us by his spirit, is also natural, concerning the nature of his godhead, which is everywhere.
Still you take chalk for cheese. We inquire of the being of his humanity, whether it may be naturally sitting in heaven, and here with us.
Saint Augustine saith: After that Christ is ascended, he is in us by his spirit. And S. Basil, and again S. Augustine saith the like in diverse places. And Christ spake in S. Paul, &c.
Shall one truth always displace another with you. These be sowters arguments, Christ is God, therefore he is not man: he is in heaven, ergo he is not in earth, &c.
Saint Augustine, by his ascension, and presence by his spirit, concludeth the absence of his humanity from the earth. Ascendit in Coelum, & non est hîc, he hath ascended into heaven, and he is not here, In John. Tr. 50. This is no sowters argument, except Saint Augustine be a sowter, in fine Master Sanders deintie judgment.
This conjunction is spiritual, & therefore needeth not, neither the circumstance of place, nor corporal presence.
The conjunction is spiritual, but the manner of working it, is brought to pass, by the corporal substance of Christ.
The corporal substance needeth not to come unto us, that a spiritual conjunction may be made between Christ and us: the spirit of God, is the only necessary mean to make a spiritual conjunction.
The conjunction that is between Christ & us, neither doth mingle persons, nor unite substances: but it doeth knit our affects together, and join our willes, saith S. Cyprian.
S. Cyprian meaneth, we are not made consubstantial to the Trinity.
He denieth the corporal manner of uniting of substances, namely of the substance of our bodies, with the substance of the body of Christ.
The conjunction because it is spiritual, true, full, and perfect, is expressed by this term, corporal.
As though, God, because he is spiritual, true, full and perfect, he might therefore be called corporal.
As though, that which is in some things, is necessary to be in all things, and yet the Godhead, which is spiritually, truly, fully, and perfectly in Christ, is said to be in him corporally, Col. 2.
Who ever heard of such vanity? because it is spiritual, it is termed corporal.
Who ever heard vainer sophistry, then that which divideth things to be joined together? Master Jewel addeth true, full & perfect.
Corporal conjunction removeth all mane • light and accidental joining.
If all accidental joining be removed, only substantial joining remaineth. A substantial joining requireth the substances to be present that are joined together.
The substances that are joined together after a spiritual manner, need no local presence of the substances to be joined, whom the spirit of Christ can couple, though they be in place distant, with an inseparable union.
It is utterly untrue, that we have Christ corporally within us, only by receiving the Sacrament.
Never a father by you named, saith as you do, and therefore you speak of your own head.
All the fathers that say Christ dwelleth in us corporally, speak generally of all the members of the Church, of which many have not received the Sacrament, therefore it is not by the Sacrament only.
Seeing we cannot have him corporally in us, without his body be within us, and yet none other thing is his body, beside that which is delivered at his supper, by that mean only he may be corporally in us.
Never a father by you named, either saith, or meaneth, that any of your two propositions are true, therefore your conclusion is of your own head.
By Master Hardings construction, the child is damned, who dieth without receiving the Sacrament of Christ's body.
No Catholic doeth teache so. Baptism sussiceth until a man come to years of discretion.
Ergo, Baptism maketh Christ to dwell in us corporally.
Without natural participation of Christ's flesh, there is no salvation.
If it be so, it is you that teach the damnation of all those that receive not the Eucharistie.
It is so, because Christ saith. Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, &c. and because it is so, and yet all are not damned that receive not the Eucharist. This natural participation, & eating of the flesh of Christ, is not only in the Eucharist.
S. Chrysostom saith: In the Sacrament of baptism, we are made flesh of Christ's flesh, and bone of his bones.
These words you have not in Chrysostom.
You cavil at the form of words, (whereupon M. Jewel standeth not) when you cannot avoid the matter.
He saith, they that are partakers of the mysteries, can tell how they are formed properly and lawfully out of him.
That they are alike formed out of Christ in both the Sacraments, it overthroweth your corporal presence in the one only.
Moreover, he giveth another sense, expounding ex ipso, for secundum ipsum.
That taketh not away the force of his authority in the former sense.
He showeth, that we are taken out of Christ's side, as Eve out of Adam.
If that be by baptism it proveth M. Jewels proposition, that we are flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones.
Although it were in him, yet is it to no purpose: for it is one thing to be made of the flesh of Christ, which may be meant of his mystical flesh, another thing to partake his flesh naturally. We are made of his flesh by spiritual means.
What can it be, to partake naturally his flesh, if it be not to become flesh of his flesh, & bone of his bones? you say, we may be made of his flesh, by spiritual means: what may we be made of the matter of his flesh? Chrysostom telleth you flesh and bones: yea, of his mystical flesh. What, are we made mystical flesh? then verily we must be made mystical bones also. This is a misty exposition of so clear a matter.
The reason why certain places of Scripture are interpreted, sometime of baptism, sometime of Christ's supper, is, because in the old time, in many countries, the Sacrament of Christ's body, was given straight after baptism.
A wise reason, why they should make that common to both the Sacraments, which was proper to one. They were not ministered so neete in time, but they could discern what was common, what was peculiar to either of them.
Master Harding is not yet able to find, that Christ's body is either corporally received into our bodies, or corporally present in the Sacrament.
It is you that are not able to find it: for D. Harding hath found it, and I have shown it in Chrysostom, S. Hilary, Gregory Nyssen.
Let the readers judge what you have found, but vain cavillations: for, neither the words, nor y e matters, you have shown.
So would I show it at large out of Cyrillus, but that partly the book is grown already too great: partly, a marvelous number of places do prove both Christ's body to be corporally received into our bodies, and to be corporally present in the Sacrament.
So would I answer you sufficiently, for anything you can bring out of Cyrillus, but that I have answered already in many places throughout this book to all that ever you can gather, and scrape to make a show of any such matter, which were mere tediousness here to repeat.
The Catholic fathers sithens Berengarius time have used the terms really, substantially, &c. to exclude metaphors and figures, and to confess a most supernatural union with Christ, by mean of his natural flesh, really though not locally present.
These doctors lived with in these 300. years, and are such as Master Harding thought not worth the naming.
He named none, because your impudent proclamation, bound him to the time.
He was not so bound to the time, but he might have named, if any had been of greater antiquity then 300. years.
Damascene saith the bread, wine & water is supernaturally changed into y e body, & blood of Christ. Theophilact saith, the bread is with secret words changed into our Lord's flesh, and these are above 700. years old, speaking of transubstantiation.
Neither of both useth the terms really, substantially, &c. which is the matter in question. And although they use the terms of changing and transformation, yet neither of both acknowledged transubstantiation, nor the Church of the Grecians, whereof they were members unto this day, doth acknowledge it.
Haymo, Remigius, Pascasius, Lanfrancus, Iuo, Guimundus, Anselmus, Rupertus, Algerus were all learned men, and all above 300. years old.
Yet you show not where any of them, although most of them were great enemies of Berengarius, did use the terms really, substantially, &c.
Bernard whom you have often alleged, writeth in ser. de sanct. Martyr. Even to this day, the same flesh is exhibited to us, which the Apostles had seen in his manhood, but yet spiritually forsouth, not carnally. For there is no cause why we should say, y e apparition, which was made to the fathers of the old Testament, either that presence of his flesh, which was exhibited to the Apostles, to be denied in these our days. For to them who faithfully consider the matter it shall be clear, y t neither of both lacketh. For the true substance of the flesh it self is present, now also to us no doubt verily, but that it is so in the Sacrament.
This testimony affirmeth, y e presence of Christ's flesh spiritually, which we grant, and denieth the term carn • lly, which is one of the terms in question.
Their doctrine is without comfort. They hold that the body of Christ remaineth no longer in our bodies, but only until the forms of bread and wine begin to alter.
It is not without comfort: seeing a marvelous commodity by this touching riseth to our spirit and soul: as to those whom Christ healed by touching.
They were as well healed whom he touched not, but only cured by his word. But what is become of that mingling of Christ's flesh with ours, and his inseparable dwelling corporally in us, out of Chrysostom, Hilarius and Cyrillus, Cap. 21. 22. and 23. of this book? if Christ's body tarry no longer with us, where is the hope of resurrection, if the quickening▪ flesh of Christ be not still in us?
Moreover I have often said: our conjunction with Christ in this Sacrament, is like the carnal copulation between the wife and husband, where twain are in one flesh, yet tarry not always corporally joined together.
You have often made a shameless, beastly, and filthy comparison, between so high a mystery, and so gross and carnal copulation.
Some others say, that so soon as our teeth touch the bread, streightwaies Christ's body is taken up into heaven. The words be these: Certum est quod quàm cito species dentibus teruntur, tam cito in coelum rapitur corpus Christi.
The greatest flower of your garland lieth in glosses and phrases.
The best grace you have, is in railing and sl • ndering.
You have falsely translated the gloss, you have englished teruntur touched, and species bread. In Berengarius confession, you could term it by the word, grinded.
So he could do now, if he had purposed rather to translate, then to show that writers opiniō: which according to the custom of Papists now▪ which grind not, but swallow down, there what ye call species, (for shapes I cannot name it, because other things of greater moment then shapes are in it) must be understood of touching with teeth, and not of grinding, where no grinding is: and yet if it were grinded with teeth, that grinding followeth so near the touching, that there is small difference of time between them.
Here a man may say unto M. Harding, as he did before to the Arian heretic.
He spake against the heretic by the authority of Cyrillus, which taught us to be corporally joined by natural participasion to Christ, as branches are joined to the vine, and not by faith only.
And even so may he speak against Master Harding, by the authority of Hilarius; which saith against the Arians, that we are corporally & inseparably united in Christ, which is contrary to this popish doctrine of Christ's departing from us.
Bring, if you can, M. Jewel, a saying of above a thousand years old, by which D. Hardings doctrine may be accused of heresy.
He hath brought in his two books written against D. Harding, more them five hundred such sayings.
Commeth Christ to us from heaven, & by & by forsaketh us?
His body cometh not down from heaven, but the bread is changed into his body, as at his incarnation he came not from heaven, by forsaking his glory, but by assumpting flesh of the virgin.
His godhead which filleth all places, needed no local ascending or descending. Therefore, it is ill compared with his body, which is circumscriptable, except you will become an Eutychian, and vbiquist.
As after his resurrection, he ascended into heaven, so after the communion, the forms of bread & wine, being consumed, Christ ceaseth to be corporally with us.
A wise similitude. The consuming of the forms of bread and wine is compared to the resurrection: the ceasing of his being corporally with us, to his ascension: But how cometh this ceasing? by a new transubstantiation of the body and blood of Christ into bread and wine? or Christ forsaking the forms, by a new 〈◊〉 of substance unto them? or else are the forms left empty both of their own substance and of the substance of Christ? Against this ceasing of Christ to be corporally with us: Hilary saith, in eo nobis corporali • er & inseparabiliter vnitis: We are united to him, not only corporally, but also inseparably.
Or, that we eat Christ, and yet receive him not, or have him not? or that he entereth not, &c.
Who teacheth the contrary, but that your own shadow troubleth you?
Those popish doctors, that teach that the body of Christ is ravished into heaven, as soon as the species are grinded with the teeth.
He saith this presence is known to God only, then it followeth. Master Harding knoweth it not.
He saith not this presence, but the manner of this pres 〈…〉 why do you falsify his words?
Woulde any man think, the manner of the presence should be unknown to him, which affirmeth it is really, substantially, corporally, carnally, sensibly? &c.
So this article is concluded with an ignoramus.
Not so, because the question is not of the manner of Christ's presence, but of his real presence, though the manner be unknown.
Nay, the question is not of the real presence, which we always confess, but of the manner of presence, whether it be spiritually, or corporally.
A non credimus is a worse fault, then an ignoramus.
It is no fault not to believe, that which scripture doth not teach.
The old fathers never left us in such doubts.
S. Cyrillus willeth us to give strong faith to the mysteries, but to leave the way & knowledge of his work unto God. The first part ye have broken.
The first part we have not broken, for we believe the mysteries to be the same that Christ saith they are, but you have broken the last part, because you add really, substātially, corporally, &c. which you have not learned of Christ.
Emissenus saith: Christ is present by his grace.
You have put a false nominative case, it is victima, the oblation which is present in grace.
And what is the substance of that eternal sacrifice, but Christ? for the action you confess to be utterly past.
Saint Augustine saith: Christ is present in us by his spirit.
That is true, when he is in us by his flesh.
It is his spirit that maketh his flesh present, to us after a wonderful manner.
You shall not eat this body that you see: it is a certain sacrament that I deliver you.
The words of S. Augustine are, I have commended or set forth.
To commend or set forth, is to deliver in doctrine.
That which was commended at Capernaum, was only the same flesh which died for us, therefore that flesh must be delivered, not in a visible manner, but yet in truth of giving, by body & taking by body.
That giving and taking by body, Saint Au gustine denieth, in the person of Christ: ye shall not eat this body that ye see, nor drink that blood which shall be shed: It is a sacrament or mystery which I have commended unto you, which being sp 〈…〉 itually understood, shall quicken you.
In deed M. Jewel, Christ delivered his flesh as well at Capernaum, as at his supper by your doctrine. But not so by the doctrine of the Gospel.
The Gospel saith: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , except ye do eat the flesh of the son of man, and do drink his blood, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 you have not now, life in you. Christ speaketh in the present temps. But howe could they eat his flesh and drink his blood, that they might have life, except he did then deliver his flesh, as well as at his supper? For many of thē might die before y e institution of his supper. Again he saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. he which doth eat my flesh, & which doth drink my blood, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath now life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is verily meat, & my blood is verily drink. Howe was it verily meat and drink, when he spake, if no man might eat and drink it, before his supper? Again, He which doth eat my flesh, and which doth drink my blood, doeth abide in me, and I in him. How can this be verified in the present temps, so often̄ repeated, except Christ did at that present time deliver his flesh and blood to be eaten of all that believed and offered the same to all that heard him? wherefore the doctrine of the Gospel, is agreeable to that which master Jewel teacheth, and directlye contrary to master Sanders doctrine, that Christ delivered not his flesh and blood to be eaten & drunken before his supper, but only promised them at Capernaum.
Thus the holy fathers say Christ is present, not corporally.
Both S. Cyril and S. Hilary have the word corporally concerning the sacrament.
But neither of both saith, that Christ is present in the sacrament corporally.
Not carnally.
S. Hilary hath the word carnally.
You play mockeholiday. S. Hilary saith not, That Christ is present in the sacrament carnally.
No 〈…〉 rally.
S. •• larie hath the term naturally, diverse times, and S. Cyril calleth it natural partaking, and natural union.
Neither the one, nor the other, ever said, that Christ is in the sacrament naturally. Touching the natural participation and union, it hath been shown how it may be without Christ being present, naturally, in the sacrament.
But as in a sacrament, by his spirit & by his grace.
Here appeareth what stuff you have fed the reader withal in your whole book. For partly you deny a truth, which is that Christ is not corporally present, against the express word of God, and the fathers, as I have shown.
And yet neither the express word of God, nor any of the fathers, have this sentence: Christ is corporally present in the sacrament, or anything equivalent to it.
Partly you prove, that your heresy by another truth which rather establisheth then hindereth the real presence. For Christ cannot be better present in spirit and grace, then if he be present in his flesh.
The presence of Christ by his spirit and grace, excludeth your heresy of presence corporally, and he is better present by spirit and grace, whereby he tarrieth in us forever, then by your imagined presence of his body, in which you confess him to tarie but a short time, no not in them that receive the sacrament most worthily.
Your conclusion being for y e most part, but a repetition of such cavils, slanders, and railings, as you have used throughout the book, deserveth no several answer: partly because the greatest part of them are answered already, and partly because both they and the rest, contain nothing but general accusations, without any special argument to prove them.
As for that you make bost that you have pr 〈…〉 everyone of your books: whether I have, (a 〈…〉 ough briefly, yet sufficiently confuted or no) I commit to the judgment of indifferent readers.