1Answering to Chrysostom this author complaineth as he did in Cyprian, of malicious §1leaving out of that, which when it is brought in, doth nothing impair that went before. Chrysostom would we should consider the secret truth of this mystery, where Christ is the invisible Priest, and ministereth in the visible church by his visible minister the visible priest, whereof Chrysostom would by his words put us in remembrance, not denying thereby the visible ministry no more then he doth in his other words deny the visible form of bread, and yet would not that we should look only upon it but whether §2faith directeth us, that is to say, upon the very body of Christ there invisibly present, which faith knoweth, and knoweth it to be there the very body, and there therefore to §3be no bread, which bread this true confession of Christs body present by faith excludeth. But touching the priest, S. Chrysostoms words do by no mean teach us that there is no visible priest, but to think that the body of Christ is delivered of Christs hands, which excludeth not in like sort the minister visible as faith doth the substance invisible of bread in the Sacrament. The one saying in Chrysostom is a godly exhortation according to the truth, the other is a doctrine of faith in the truth, we be not taught that the priest is Christ, but we be taught that the substance of the bread is made Christs body. And then the question in the words of Chrysostom (Seest thou bread) is as much to say, as rememberest the faith: as being one of the faithful that know? which term S. Augustine used. And then Chrysostom to confirm our faith in so high a mystery, declareth how we should think Christ to deliver his body him self as a thing far exceeding mans power to do it. And with other heavenly words setteth forth the greatness ⟨p. 339⟩of that mystery, which be words of godly and good meditation convenient for so high a matter to adorn it accordingly, which because they be wholesome, and meet allegories, wherewith to draw and lift up our minds to celestial thoughts, we may not thereby esteem the substance of that mystery to be but in allegory. Here in steed of a solution the author filleth three whole leaves with proof of that is not necessary, how a denial by comparison is not utterly a denial, which is in deed true.
1Answering to Chrisostome this author complayneth as he did in Ciprian, of malicious §1leauing 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 vs 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 vpon yt but whether §2fayth directeth vs, that is to say, vpon the very body of Christ there inuisibly present, which fayth knoweth, and knoweth it to be there the very body, and there therfore to §3be 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 vs 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 ⟨p. 339⟩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.
- 1Chrisostomus.
