Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 2 · Section 42
Winchester.
Chrisostomus.Answering to Chrisostome this author complayneth as he did in Ciprian, of malicious leauing out of that, which when it is brought in, doth nothing empayre that went before. Chrisostome would we should consider the secret truth of this mistery, where Christ is the inuisible Priest, and ministreth in the visible church by his visible minister the visible priest, wherof Chrisostome would by his wordes put vsus in remembrance, not denying therby the visible ministry no more then he doth in his other wordes deny the visible forme of bread, and yet would not that we should looke only vponupon yt but whether fayth directeth vsus, that is to say, vponupon the very body of Christ there inuisibly present, which fayth knoweth, and knoweth it to be there the very body, and there therfore to be no bread, which bread this true confession of Christes body present by fayth excludeth. But touching the priest, S. Chrisostomes wordes do by no meane teach vsus that there is no visible priest, but to thinke that the body of Christ is deliuered of Christes handes, which excludeth not in like sort the minister visible as fayth doth the substance inuisible of bread in the Sacrament. The one saying in Chrisostome is a godly exhortation according to the truth, the other is a doctrine of fayth in the truth, we be not taught that the priest is Christ, but we be taught that the substance of the bread is made Christes body. And then the question in the wordes of Chrisostome (Seest thou bread) is as much to say, as remembrest the fayth: as being one of the faythfull that know? which terme S. Augustine vsed. And then Chrisostome to confirme our fayth in so high a mistery, declareth how we should thinke Christ to deliuer his body him selfe as a thing farre exceding mans power to do it. And with other heauenly wordes setteth forth the greatnes of that mistery, which be wordes of godly and good meditation conuenient for so high a matter to adorne it accordingly, which bicause they be holsome, and meete allegories, wherwith to draw and lift vp our myndes to celestiall thoughtes, we may not therby esteeme the substance of that mistery to be but in allegory. Here in steed of a solution the author filleth three whole leaues with profe of that is not necessary, how a deniall by cōparison is not vtterly a deniall, which is in deed true. And as one was answered at Cambridge when he pressed the responsall, What say ye to myne argument, which was not in deede of his making. The responsall left his Latin, and told the opponent before all his country friendes in playne English: It is a good argument syr (quoth he,) but nothing to the purpose. And so is the intreating of this matter of deniall by comparison good, but nothing to the purpose here, and it is an obseruation that requireth good iudgement, or els may therby be induced many absurdities. Chrisostom as I sayd before speaking to the Christen man, seemeth to aske whither he vseth his fayth or no. For if he seeth bread, he seeth not with fayth, which seeth the body of Christ there present, and so no bread. If the christen man thinke of passage through him of the celestiall foode, he hath therin no spirituall thought such as fayth engendreth, and therfore sayth Chrisostome (absit.) here in these wordes of Chrisostom is no deniall with comparison, and therfore this author myght hauehave spared his treatise in these thrée leaues. For in those wordes, when Chrisostome sayth, Thinke not thou receauest the body of Christ by a man. There this author neglecteth his owne rule, as in his third booke he maketh a solemne argument that by those S. Chrisostoms wordes we receaue not the body of Christ at all, seing Chrisostome sayth, we may not thinke we receaue it by man. So little substantially is this matter handled, as a man might say here were many accidentall wordes without a substance or miracle, how strange soeuer the same seeme to this author otherwise.