MarginaliaAn 1554. Aprill.MarginaliaAprill. 19.I Am not ignoraunt what a weyghty matter it is, to entreate of the whole order and trade of the Scriptures: and most hard it is to, in the great cōtention of Religiō, to shew the ready way, whereby the Scriptures may be best vnderstanded. For the often readyng of them doth not bryng the true vnderstandyng of them. What other thyng is there then? Verely this is the ready way, not to folow our own heades and senses, MarginaliaThe iudgement of M. Harpsfield, for the best way to vnderstand the scripture.MarginaliaIf Maister Harpsfield had willed vs to submit our senses to the holy ghost, he had said much better.but to geue ouer our iudgement vnto the holy Catholicke Church, who hath had of old yeares the truth, & alwayes deliuered the same to their posteritie: but if the often readyng of Scriptures and neuer so paynfull comparyng of places should bring the true vnderstandyng, then diuers heretickes myght preuaile euen agaynst whole generall Councels. The * Marginalia* No, but those Iewes sticking so much to the old custome & face of their Church, and not sekyng for knowledge, by ignoraunce of the Scriptures were deceaued: and so be you. Iewes did greatly bragge of the knowledge of the law, & of the Sauiour, that they wayted for. But what auayled it them? Notwithstandyng I know right well, that diuers places of the Scripture do much warne vs of the often readyng of the same, and what fruite doth thereby folow: as scrutamini. &c. Search the Scriptures: for they doe beare witnes of me. &c. Lex domini. &c. The law of the Lord is pure, able to turne soules. And that saying of S. Paul: Omnis Scriptura. &c. All Scripture inspired from aboue, doth make that a man may be instructed to all good workes: howbeit doth the law of the Iewes conuert their soules? are they by readyng instructed to euery good worke? The Letter of the old Testament is the same that we haue.

The heretickes also haue euer had the same Scriptures which we haue that be Catholickes. But they are serued as Tantalus that the Poetes do speake of, who in the plenty of thinges to eate and drinke, is sayd to be oppressed with hunger, and thyrst. The swifter that men do seke the Scriptures without the Catholicke Church, the deper they fall, and find hell for the labour. S. Cyprian, neuer swaruyng from the Catholicke Church, sayth: He that doth not acknowledge the Church to bee his mother, shall not haue God to be hys father. Therfore it is true Diuinitie, to be wise with the Church, where Christ saith: Nisi manducaueritis. &c. Vnlesse ye eate my flesh, and drinke my bloud: ye haue no lyfe in you.

If he had ment of onely eatyng bread, and drynkyng wyne, nothyng had bene more pleasaunt to the Capernaites, neither would they haue forsaken hym. The flesh profiteth nothyng, to them that do so take it. For the Capernaites dyd imagine Christ to be geuen in such sort, as he lyued. But Christ spake hygh thynges: not that they should haue hym as flesh in the market, but to consider his presence with the spirite, *Marginalia* Vnder the formes, that is, vnder the properties of bread & wine: and so all thys is true. vnder the formes whereby it is geuen. As there is an alteration of bodyes by courses and tymes of ages, so there is no lesse *Marginalia* In the materiall eating of mans body there is no varietie: for to eate mans flesh eyther vnder accidences or not accidences, both is agaynst the Scripture and against nature. varietie in eatyng of bodyes.

These thinges which I haue recited briefly, Maister Harpsfield did with many more wordes set out: and hereupon D. Weston disputed agaynst hym.

West. Christes reall body is not in the Sacrament.

Ergo you are deceyued.

Harps. I deny the antecedent.

West. Iohn the vj. Dico veritatem vobis. &c. I speake the truth vnto you: It behoueth me that I go away from you. For vnlesse I do depart, that comforter can not come. &c.

Vpon this, I will make this Argument.

MarginaliaArgument.Christ is so gone away as he dyd sēd the holy ghost.

But the holy Ghost dyd verely come into þ^e world:

Ergo Christ is verely gone.

Harps. MarginaliaThys answere doth not satisfy the Argument, for the conclusion speaketh of a bodily absence, the aunswere speaketh of a spirituall remayning.He is verely gone, and yet remaineth here.

West. S. Augustine saith, that these wordes: Ego ero. &c. I will be with you, euen to the end of the world, are accomplished secundum maiestatem, accordyng to hys maiesty: But secundum præsentiam carnis, non est hic, by the presence of hys flesh he is not here. The Church hath him not in flesh, but by belief.

Harps. We must diligently weygh that there are two natures in Christ: the Diuine nature, and humane nature. The Diuine nature is of such sort, that it can not choose, but be in all places. The humane nature is not such, that of force it must be in all places, although it be in diuers, after a diuers maner. So where that þ^e Doctours do entreate of his presence by Maiestie, they doe commend the Maiesty of the Diuine nature, not to hynder vs of the *Marginalia* If the naturall presence be here, then is it false that S. Austen sayth, secundū præsentiam carnis, non est hic. naturall presence here in the Sa-

crament.

West. He sayth farther: Me autem non semper habebitis: ye shall not haue me alwayes with you, is to be vnderstanded in the flesh.

Harps. The presence of the flesh is to be considered, that he is not here as he was wont to lyue in conuersation with thē, to be seene, talked withall, or in such sorte as a mā may geue hym *Marginalia* And how can we thē geue honor to hym, to whom we can shew no charitie, nor geue any thyng els vnto? any thyng: after that sort he is not present.

West. But what say you to this of S. Augustine: Nō est hic: He is not here?

Harps. I do aunswere out of S. Augustine vpō Iohn, Tractatu. 25. vpon these wordes. Non videbitis me. Vado ad patrem. &c. I go to the father: ye shal not see me: that is, such as J now am. Therfore I do deny the *Marginalia* What maner so euer ye giue to the body, if the substantial body be here in deede, it can not be auoyded, but eyther it must needes be false that S. Austen sayth: Nō est hic. Or ells Christ must haue two bodyes in ij. places together present, here after one maner, and in heauen after another maner. maner of his presence.

West. I will ouerthrow S. Augustine with S. Augustine: who sayth this also: Quomodo quis possit tenere Christum? fidem mitte & tenuisti. That is, How may a mā hold Christ? send thy fayth, and thou holdest him.

So he sheweth, that by sendyng our fayth, we doe holde Christ.

Harps. In deede no man holdeth Christ, vnles he beleue in him: but it is an other thing to haue Christ mercifull and fauourable vnto vs, and to haue hym present in the Sacrament.

There S. Augustine speaketh of holdyng hym by fayth, as he is fauorable vnto vs.

West. Nay, he speaketh there how the Fathers had hym in the flesh, and teacheth that we haue him not so in flesh, as they had hym long tyme, saying: Your fathers did holde Christ present in the flesh, do you holde him in your hart? What wordes can be more playne? Farther he sayth: He is gone, and is not here: he hath left vs, and yet hath not forsaken vs. Hic est maiestate, abijt carne: He is here in maiesty, and gone touching the flesh.

Harps. MarginaliaNote what Harpsfield here holdeth, that the body of Christ is not present in the Sacramēt, but onely to them that receiue him worthely.I doe vnderstand Austine thus: that Christ is here in hys flesh to them that receyue him worthely: to such as doe not worthely receyue him, to them hee is not present in the flesh. I iudge S. Augustine meaneth so. We haue him, and haue him not: we haue hym in receyuing of hym worthely, otherwyse not.

West. Nay: Tenere carnem est tenere corticem literæ: I wyll prosecute an other argument. Cyrillus doth say: By the maiesty of his diuinitie he is euer here, but the presence of his flesh he hath taken away.

Harps. This sense of Cyrill is thus to be vnderstanded: The most true flesh of Christ is at the right hand of the father. Thus the Fathers taught, and so they beleued. Thus sayd Cyrill: thus sayd Austine, and because this is the foundation of our fayth, they did oftentimes teach it. Therefore, when they proue this, [the body to be in heauen] they doe not make agaynst the *Marginalia* If the presence of hys flesh be takē away, as Cyrill sayth, how then cā the presence of hys flesh be in the Sacrament? presence in the sacramēt. So vnles ye can plainly shew, that the Fathers do directly say, he is not in the sacrament, you make nothing agaynst me: for I haue shewed why the fathers so spake. They did teach the great difference betwene the diuine nature, and the humaine nature, as I haue before sayd.

West. I wyll then proue that he is not in the Sacrament. Vigilius against the Hereticke Eutiches, vpon these wordes: Me autē non semper habebitis, sayth: The sonne of God, as touching his humanity is gone from vs, by his diuinity he remayneth with vs: And that same Vigilius in hys fourth booke sayth: He that is in the heauen, is not in the earth, speaking of Christ.

Harps. I wyll shew you the reason of these wordes. The hereticke Eutiches did beleue that the diuine nature of Christ was fastned on the crosse, and beleued that Christ had no natural body. To this Vigilius said, that the humaine nature was taken vp and ascended, whych could not so haue done, vnlesse he had had a body. This he said not, to take away the *Marginalia* Vigilius sayth, hys body is taken vp, how then doth the same body remayne still, vnlesse eyther ye make hym to haue ij. bodyes: or els make two cōtradictoryes true in one propositiō. presence in the sacrament. For what had he to referre this sentence to the sacrament? He neuer dyd so much as dreame of