Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 3 · Section 74
Winchester.
This author noteth in Chrisostome two places,Chrisostom. and bringeth them forth: and in handling the first place, declareth himselfe to trifle in so great a matter, euidently to his owne reprofe. For where in the second booke of his worke, entreating transubstantiation, he would the same wordes of Chrisostome by this forme of spech in the negatiue should not deny precisely. And when Chrisostome sayth, Do not think that you by man receiue the body of God, but that we should not consider man in the receiuing of it. Here this author doth alleage these wordes, and reasoneth of them as though they were termes of mere deniall. But I would aske of this author this question, If Chrysostomes fayth had bene that we receaue not the body of God in the Sacrament verily, why should he vse wordes idlely to entreate, of whom we receiued the body of God, which after this authors doctrine we receaue not at all but in figure? and no body at all which is of Christes humanity being Christ, as this author teacheth spiritually, that is, by his diuine nature in him onelyonly that worthely receaueth, and in the very Sacrament as he concludeth in this booke onelyonly fyguratiuely. Turne back reader to the 36. leafe in the authors booke and read it with this, and so consyder vponupon what principle here is made an (Ergo.) I will aunswere that place when I speake of Transubstantiation, which shall be after answered to the third and fourth booke, as the naturall order of the matter requireth.
The second place of Chrisostome that this author bringeth forth, he graunteth it soundeth much agaynst him, & fauoreth his aduersaryes, but with conferring and considering, he trusteth to alter it from the true vnderstanding. And not to expound, but confound the matter, be ioyneth in spech the sacrament of baptisme with this sacramēt (which shift this author vsed vntruely in Hylary) and would now beare in hand that the presence of Christ were none otherwise in this sacrament then in baptisme which is not so, for in this sacrament Christes humanity and godhead is really present, and in baptisme his godhead with the effectuall vertue of his bloud, in which we be washed, not requiring by scripture any reall presence therof for dispensatiō of that mistery, as I hauehave before touched discussing the aunswere to Emissen, where as Chrisostome speaking of this sacrament, whereof I hauehave before spoken, and Melancthon alleadging it to Decolampadius saith thus: The great miracle and great beneuolence of Christ is, that he sitteth aboue with his father,Chrisost. de Sacer. lib. 3. and is the same houre in our handes here to be embrased of vsus. And therfore where this author would note the wonder of Gods worke in the Sacrament to be wonerfull for the worke and effect in man, this is one peece of trueth, but in the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ, the old Fathers wonder at the worke in the Sacrament how bread is chaunged into the body of Christ, how Christ sitting in heauen God & man, is also man and God in the Sacramēt, and being worthely receiued, dwelleth in such carnally and naturally, as Hylary sayth, and corporally as Cyrill sayth. How this can be, no man can tell, no faythfull man should aske, and yet it is the true catholick fayth to be truely so wrought. For as Cinistene sayth: he that is the author of it, he is the witnes of it. And therfore I will make it an issue with this author,An issue. that the olde fathers speaking of the wonderfull operation of God in this Sacrament, referre it not onelyonly to the vertue and effect of this Sacrament, nor to the vertue specially, but chiefly to the operation of God in the substaunce of this Sacrament,In Ioan, tractae. 26. and the Sacrament selfe, for such a difference S. Augustine maketh, saying: Aliud est Sacramentum, aliud virtus sacramenti, The Sacrament is one, the vertue of the Sacramēt is an other. Finally in aunswering to Chrisostome, this author doth nothing but spend wordes in vayne, to the more playne declaration of his owne ignoraunce, or worse.