A reply unto M. Hardinges answerA replie vnto M. Hardinges ansvveare

Now, whereas M. Ivel denieth, that Christen people were of old time taught to believe, that Christs Body is Really, Substantially, Corporally, Carnally, or Naturally in the Sacrament, I do plainly affirm the contrary. Yet I acknowledge, that the learned Fathers (135)¹ which have so taught, would not thereby seem to make it here outwardly sensible, or perceptible. For they confess all with S. Chrysostom,² that the thing, which is here given us, is not sensible, but that under visible signs, invisible things be delivered unto us. But they thought good^* to use the aforesaid terms, to put away all doubt of the being of his very Body in these holy Mysteries, and to exclude the only imagination, fantasy, figure, sign, token, virtue, or signification thereof. For in such wise the Sacramentaries have uttered their Doctrine in this point, as they may seem by their manner of speaking, and writing, here to represent our Lords Body only, in deed being absent, as Kings oftentimes are represented in a Tragedy, or mean persons in a Comedy. Verily, the manner, and way, by which it is here present, and given to us, and received of us, is secrete, not human, ne natural: true for all that. And we do not attain it by sense, reason, or nature, but by faith. For which cause we do not over basely consider, and attend the visible elements, but as we are taught by the Council of Nice,⁴