Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 2 · Section 60
Winchester.
In whose particular words although there may be sometime cauillations, yet I will note to the reader, foure marks and tokens imprinted rather in those olde authors deeds then wordes, which be certayne testimonies to the truth of their fayth of the reall presence of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament. The first marke is in the processe of arguing vsed by them to the conuiction of heretiques by the truth of this Sacrament, wherein I note not the particuler sentences, which sometime be daungerous speches, but their whole doinges. As Irene who was in the beginning of the church, argueth agaynst the Ualentinians that denied the resurrection of our flesh, whome Irene reproueth by the féeding of our soules and bodies with the diuine glorified fleshe of Christ in the Sacrament, which flesh and …t be there but in a figure, then it should hauehave proued the resurrection of our flesh slenderly as it were but figuratiuely. And if the Catholicke fayth had not bene then certainely taught, and constantly beleued without varience, Christes very flesh to be indeede eaten in that mistery, it would hauehave beene aunswered of the heretickes, if had bene but a figure, but that appeareth not, and the other appeareth, which is a testimony to the truth of matter indéed.
Hylary reasonyng of the naturall coniunction betwene vsus and Christ by meane of this Sacrament, expresseth the same to come to passe by the receiuyng truely the very flesh of our Lord in our Lordes meate, and thereupon argueth agaynst the Arrians, which Arrians if it had not bene so really in déede, would hauehave aunswered, but all was spiritually, so as there was no such naturall and corporall Communion in déede as Hylary supposed, but (as this author teacheth) a figure; and it had bene the Catholicke doctrine: so that argument of Hylary had bene of no force. Saint Chrisostome, Gelasius and Theodorete argue of the truth of this mystery to conuince the Appolinaristes and Eutichians, which were none argument if Christes very body were not as really present in the Sacramēt for the truth of presence, as the Godhead is in the person of Christ, beyng the effect of the argument this: that as the presence of Christes body in this mistery doth not alter the propertie of the visible natures, no more doth the Godhead in the person of Christ extinguish his humanitie, which agaynst those heretickes serued for an argument to exclude confusion of natures in Christ, and had bene a daungerous arguyng to be embraced of ye Nestorians, who would hereby hauehave furthered their heresie, to proue the distinction of natures in Christ without any vnion, for they would hauehave sayd: As the earthly and heauenly natures be so distinct in the Sacrament, as the one is not spoken of the other: so be the natures of the humanitie and Godhead not vnited in Christ, which is false, and in the comparynges we may not looke that all should aunswere in equalitie, but onelyonly for the point that it is made for, that is, as in the Sacrament the visible element is not extinguished by the presence of Christes most precious body, no more is Christes humanitie by his Godhead: and yet we may not say, that as in the Sacrament be but onelyonly accidents of the visible earthly matter, that therfore in the person of Christ be onelyonly accidentes of the humanitie. For that mistery requireth the whole truth of mās nature, and therfore Christ tooke vponupon him the whole man, body and soule. The mystery of the Sacrament requireth the truth of the accidentes onelyonly, beyng the substaunce of the visible creatures conuerted into the body and bloud of Christ. And this I write to preuent such cauillations as some would search for. But to returne to our matter, all these argumentes were vayne, if there were not in the Sacrament the true presence of Christes very body, as the celestiall part of the Sacrament, beyng the visible formes therthly thyng. Which earthly thyng remayneth in the former proprietie with the very presence of the celestiall thyng. And this suffiseth concernyng the first marke.