A15061:262
An answer to a certain book, writtenAn answere to a certeine booke, written
An answer to a certain book, written by Master William Rainolds student of divinity in the English college at Rhemes, and entitled, A refutation of sundry reprehensions, cavils, etc. by William Whitaker ...An answere to a certeine booke, written by Maister William Rainolds student of diuinitie in the English colledge at Rhemes, and entituled, A refutation of sundrie reprehensions, cauils, etc. by William Whitaker ...
Printed at London : For Thomas Chard, 1585
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
The second, Christ left his flesh with us, & yet carried the same with him into heaven: Elijah leaving his cloak lost it. And how gather you hereof an argument for real presence? Christ carried with him into heaven his flesh in the natural substance thereof: Christ left with us his flesh in a sacrament of his flesh. If you still urge, that Christs flesh is there, and Christs flesh is here, let Chrysostom declare his own meaning, whose words you seek most shamefully to abuse. For that Saint Chrysostom ⟨p. 196⟩spake thus, not of the carnal and natural substance of Christs flesh, but of the spiritual presence thereof,1 we may perceive by his words a little before of Elijah: Afterwards (saith S. Chrysostom) Elijah was double: there was an Elijah above, and there was an Elijah beneath. Elijah touching his natural substance of body and soul, was only above: though in some kind of presence true also it is, that Elijah was beneath. Even so our saviour Christ in carnal presence of his body is above: but in an other manner, namely in spiritual presence of the same he is beneath. This is Saint Chrysostoms plain meaning: which God wot maketh full meanly for proof of real presence.
The second, Christ left his flesh with vs, & yet caried the same with him into heauen: Elias leauing his cloake lost it. And how gather you hereof an argument for reall presence? Christ caried with him into heauen his flesh in the naturall substance thereof: Christ left with vs his flesh in a sacrament of his flesh. If you still vrge, that Christes flesh is there, and Christes flesh is here, let Chrysostome declare his owne meaning, whose wordes you seeke moste shamefully to abuse. For that Saint Chrysostome ⟨p. 196⟩spake thus, not of the carnall and naturall substance of Christs flesh, but of the spirituall presence thereof,1 we maie perceaue by his wordes a little before of Elias: Afterwards (saith S. Chrysostome) Elias was double: there was an Elias aboue, and there was an Elias beneath. Elias touching his naturall substance of bodie and soule, was onely aboue: though in some kinde of presence true also it is, that Elias was beneath. Euen so our sauiour Christ in carnall presence of his bodie is aboue: but in an other manner, namelie in spiritual presence of the same he is beneath. This is Saint Chrysostomes plaine meaning: which God wot maketh full meanlie for proofe of real presence.