Ergo his ascension and abyding in heauen is no let to his reall presence in the sacrament.

Rid. Mayster Doctour, this argumente is nothynge worthe. I do not so straightlye tye Christe vp in Heauen, that he maye not come into the earth at his pleasure. For when he wyl, he maye come downe from heauen, and bee on the earth, as it liketh hymselfe. Howbeit I dooe affirme that it is not possyble for hym to be both in heauen & earth at one tyme.

Smith. Marke I pray you my maysters dyligently that bee here, what he aunswereth. Fyrste he sayeth that the sittyng of Christe at the ryghte hande of his father, is a lette to the reall presence of his bodye in the sacramente: and then afterwarde he flyeth from it againe.

Rid. I woulde not haue you thynke that I do imagine or dreame vppon anye such maner of sittyng, as these men here sitte in the schole.

Smith. Ergo it is lawful for Christ then to be here present on the earth, when he wyll hymselfe.

Ryd.. yea when he wyl, it is lawful in dede.

Smith. Ergo his ascendyng into heauen doth not restrayne his real presence in the sacramēt.

Ryd. I dooe not gaynesay, but that it is law full for him to appeare on the earth when he will. But proue you that he wyll.

Smith. Then your answer dependeth vpon the wyl of Christ I perceiue. Wherfore I will ioyne agayn with you in this short argument.

Christe, albeit he doe alwaye abide in heauen after his ascension, was sene really and corporally of them.

Ergo notwithstanding his ascension and cōtinuall sittyng at the ryght hande of the father, he maye be reallye and corporallye in the sacrament.

Ryd. If the Notaries should so recorde your argument, as you haue framed it, you peraduenture would be shamed therof hereafter.

Smith. Christe after his ascension was sene really and corporally vpon the earth.

Ergo notwithstandyng his ascension and abiding with his father, he may be corporallye in the sacrament.

Ryd. I graunt the antecedent. But I denye the consequent.

Smith. Doe you graunt the antecedent?

Ryd. yea I graunt the antecedent. I am content to let you haue so much, because I knowe that ther be certain auncient fathers of that opinion. I am wel content to lette you vse that proposition as true. And I wil frame the argument for you.

He was sene on earth after his ascension. Ergo

Smith. Nay nay, I wil frame it my self.

Christ after his ascension was sene really and corporally on earth, albeit he doe abide in heauē continually.

Ergo notwithstanding his ascension and continual abidyng at the ryght hande of the father, he may be really and corporally on the earth.

Ryd. Let vs first agree about the contynuall

sitting at the right hande of the father.

Smith. Dothe he so sit at the ryght hande of his father, that he doth neuer forsake the same?

Ryd. Nay I doe not binde Christe in heauē so straightly. I see you goe about to craft with your equiuocations. Suche equiuocations are to be distincted. If you meane by his sitting in heauen, to reigne with his father, he maye bee bothe in heauen and also in earth. But yf ye vnderstande his syttyng to be after a corporall maner of sitting, so he is alwayes permanent in heauen. For Christ to be corporally here on earth, when corporally he is resident in heauē, is cleane contrary to the holy scriptures: As Austen sayth. Corpus Christi est in cœlo, sed veritas eius vbique diffusa est. i.

The body of Christ is in heauen: but his truth is dispersed into euery place. Nowe if continually he abyde in heauen after the maner of his corporall presence, thē that his perpetuall abydyng there, stoppeth or letteth that the same corporall presence of hym cannot bee in the sacrament.

Smith. Actes 3. we read that Christe shall syt perpetually at the ryght hand of God, vnto the consummation of the world.

west. I perceiue you are com here to this issue, whether þ^e body of Christ may be together both in earth & in heauen. I will tell you, that Christ in very dede is both in earth and in heauen, together and at one time, bothe the same naturall Christ and one Christ also, after the veritie and substance of his very body. Ergo.

Rid. I deny the antecedent.

west. I proue it by. 2. witnesses. Fyrst by Chrisostom. Hom. 17. ad Hebreos. MarginaliaChris. homel. 17. ad Hebreos. Nōne per singulos dies offerimus? Offerimus quidē, sed ad recordationē faciētes mortis eius. Et vna est hæc hostia, non multæ. Et quomodo vna, et nō multæ, quœ semel oblata est in sancto sauctorū? Hoc autē sacrificium exemplar est illius: id ipsum semper offerimus, nec nunc quidē aliū agnum, crastina alium, sed semper eundum ipsū. Proinde vnum est hoc sacrificium: alioqui hac ratione, quoniam in multis locis offertur, multi Christi sunt? Nequaquā, sed vnus vbique est Christus: & hic plenus existens, & illic plenus, vnum corpus.

That is. Doe we not offer euery day? We dooe so in dede, but doyng it for the remēbrance of his death. And this offryng is one and not many. And howe is it one & not many which was once offred in the holy place? But this sacrifice is a paterne of that, the same we alwaies offer, not now as offring one Lambe to day and another to morow, but alwayes one and the same Lamb. Wherfore here is but one sacrifice: for els by this meanes, seing there be many sacrifices in many places, be ther many Christes? not so. But one Christ in all places, bothe perfect here and perfect there, one onely bodye. Nowe thus I argue.

We offer one thyng at al times. There is one Christ in al places, both here cōplete and there complete.

Ergo by Chrisostome there is one body both in heauen and earth.

Ryd. I remēber the place wel. These things make nothing agaynst me.

VVest. One Christ is in al places, here full, and there full.

Ryd. One Christ is in al places, but not one body in all places.

VVest. One body sayeth Chrisostome.