manner of Christs being there from that in heauen and as yt signifieth his being there vnder a Sacrament or signe but yet really we graunt also that he is there spiritually that is to say after a spirituall and not corporall circumscriptiue manner yet truly and really We graunt further that he is in the Sacrament by faith for that we do not see him but apprehend him present by faith but yet truly and really and not in faith and beleefe only And by this yow may perceaue our Sacramentaryes manner of disputinge iust like the Arrians of old tyme and of our dayes who seeke to enacuate all places alleaged for the vnity and equality of Christ with his Father by one only distinction of will and nature So as when Christ said for example Ioan. 6. my Father and I are one yt is true said they they are one in will loue but not in nature thus they deluded all that could be brought for naturall vnity except only the authority and contrary beleefe of the vniuersall Church wherby at last they were ouerborne 46. And the very same course held the Sacramentaryes of our dayes for whatsoeuer plaine and perspicuous places you bring them out of antiquity affirminge the true naturall substantiall body of our Sauiour to be in the Sacrament they will shift of all presently by one of these three words yt is true sacramentally yt is true spiritually and yt is true by faith only as though these could not stand with really or truly and heere of shall yow haue store of examples afterward in the aunswerings of Doctor Perne Cranmer Ridley and Latymer for the Sacramentary party to our arguments taken out of the ancient Fathers For when the said Fathers do auouch that Christ our Sauiours true naturall body is in the Sacrament they answere yt is true sacramentally and thinke they haue defended themselues manfully therby and when in other places the same Fathers do professe that the very same flesh that was borne of the virgin Mary and cruicified for vs is there they aunswere yt is true spiritually and by faith but not really And thus they do euacuate and delude all that can be alleaged But yf they cannot shew as they cannot any one Father that tooke or vsed the words sacramentally spiritually or by faith in this sense as opposite to really and truly in this mystery then is it euident this to be but a shift of their owne inuention to escape therby And so much of this obseruation The nynth Obseruation How Christ is receaued of euill men in the Sacrament and of good men both in and out of the same §. 9. 47. It followeth vpon the former declaration of the words sacrament signe and the rest that we explane in this place a certayne distinction insinuated by the ancient Fathers and touched in the Councell of Trent of three sorts of receauinge and eatinge Christ by this Sacrament First sacramentally alone the second spiritually only the third both sacramentally and spiritually togeather An example of the first is when euill men do receaue the Sacrament vnworthily for that these men thought they receaue the very Sacrament to witt the true body of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wyne yet do they not receaue the true spirituall effect therof which is grace and nourishment of their soule and of these doth S. Paul speake expressely to the Corinthians when he saith He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily videlicet the Sacrament doth eat and drinke iudgement to himselfe not discerninge the body of our Lord. And in this sense do the auncient Fathers vpon this place expound the Apostle as yow may see in the commentaryes of Saint Chrysostome S. Ambrose S. Anselme and other expositors both Greeke and Latyn and S. Austen in many places of his works doth expressely shew the same alleaginge this text of the Apostle for proofe therof Corpus Domini saith he sanguis Domini nihilominus erat illus quibus dicebat Apostolus c. It was notwithstanding the body bloud of our Lord which they tooke to whome the Apostle said he that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh his owne damnation And to the same effect he saith in diuers other places that Iudas receaued the very selfe-same body of Christ that the other Apostles did and the same affirmeth S. Chrysostome in his homily intituled of the Treason of Iudas generally it is the vniforme opinion of all the auncient Fathers whensoeuer any occasion is giuen to speake or treat therof 48. The second manner of receauing Christ by this Sacrament is tearmed spiritually only for that without sacramentall receauinge of Christs body and bloud a man may in some case receaue the spirituall fruite or effect therof as yf he had receaued the same really and this eyther with relation to the Sacrament videlicet when a man hath a desire to receaue yt actually but cannot or without reference thervnto when by faith and grace good men do communicate with Christ and participate the fruite of his passion In which sense of spirituall communion or eating Christ S. Austen wryteth vpon S. Iohns ghospell Crede manducasti beleeue and thou hast eaten And to the same effect do our Fathers often speake when they treat of this spirituall metaphoricall eating only without relation to the Sacramet which manner of speaches the Sacramentaryes of our dayes do seeke to abuse as though there were no other eatinge of Christ in the Sacrament but by faith alone which is furthest of from the said Fathers meaninge though sometymes they had occasion to speake in that manner 49. The third member of our former diuision is to eat Christ both sacramentally and spiritually as all good Christians do when with due preparation disposition they receaue both the outward Sacrament and inward grace and fruite therof by obseruation of which threefold manner of receauing many obiections and hereticall cauillations will easily afterward be discerned And so much for this The tenth Obseruation Touchinge indignityes and inconueniences obiected by Sacramentaryes against vs in holdinge the Reall presence §. 10. 50. As by the former obiections of naturall impossibilityes yow haue heard this soueraigne mystery impugned both by the learneder sort of old and new heretiks so do the more simple ignorant insist insult most vpon certayne inconueniences indignityes and absurdityes as to them do appeare As for example that Christ in the Sacrament should be eaten with mens teeth go into the belly not only of men weomen but also of beasts yf they should deuoure yt that yt may putrifie be burned cast and fall into base and vnworthy places be troden vnder mens feet with the like which is a kind of argument plausible at the first sight vnto vulgar apprehensions and such as seemed to moue principally the most part of Iohn Fox his artificers and spinster-martyrs as may appeare by their rude clamours and grosse obiections
do beare Nay himselfe doth add a new consirmation when he saith that he which doth eate and drinke vnworthily this Sacrament reus erit â—orporis sanguinis Domini shal be guilty of the body and bloud of our Lord. And againe Iuâ—cium sibi manducat bibit non dijudicans corpus Domini he doth eat drinke his owne iudgement not discerninge the body of our Lord Which inferreth the reall presence of Christes body which those whome the Apostle reprehendeth by the fact of their vnworthy receauing doe so behaue themselues as yf they did not discerne it to be present All which laid togeather the vniforme consent of expositors throughout the whole Christian world concurringe in the selfe-same sense and meaninge of all these scriptures about the reall presence of Christs true body in the Sacrament yow may imagine what a motiue yt is and ought to be to a Catholike man who desireth to beleeue and not to striue and contend And thus much for scriptures 17. There followeth the consideration of Fathers Doctors and Councells wherein as the Sacramentaryes of our tyme that pleased first to deny the reall presence had not one authority nor can produce any one at this day that expressely saith that Christs reall body is not in the Sacrament or that yt is only a figure signe or token therof though diuers impertinent peeces of some Fathers speaches they will now and then pretend to alleage so on the coÌ„trary side the Catholiks do behould for their comfort the whole ranks of ancient Fathers through euery age standinge with them in this vndoubted truth Yea not only affirming the same reall presence in most cleere and perspicuous words wherof yow may see whole books in Catholike wryters replenished with Fathers authorityes laid togeather out of euery age from Christ downe wards but that which is much more yeldinge reasons endeauoring to proue the same by manifest arguments theologicall demonstrations vsing therin such manner of speach and words as cannot possibly agree vnto the Protestants communion of bare bread and wyne with their symbolicall signification or representation only As for example where the Fathers do shew how Christs true flesh commeth to be in this SacrameÌ„t videlicet by the true conuersion of bread into his body and by that this body is made of bread and by that the substances of breat and vvyne be changed and other like speaches as may be seene in S. Ambrose 4. de Sacram. cap. 5. lib. 6. cap. 1. lib. de myst init cap. 9. Cypr. Serm. de Coena Chrysost. hom 83. in Matth. de proditione Iudae Cyrill Catec 4. Mystag Nissenus orat Catech. 37. and others 18. Secondly yt is an ordinary speach of the Fathers to cry out admyre the miracle that happeneth by the conuersion in this Sacrament ascribinge the same to the supreme omnipotencv of almighty God as yow may see in S. Chrysostome l. 3. de sacerdotio O miraculum c. S. Ambrose lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 4. Iustinus Martyr Apolog. 2. sayinge that by the same omnipotency of God vvherby the vvord vvas made flesh the flesh of the vvord vvas made to be in the Eucharist which agreeth not to a Caluinian communion 19. Thirdly some of them do extoll and magnifie the exceeding loue charity of Christ towards vs aboue all other humane loue in that he feedeth vs with his owne flesh which no shephards did euer their sheepe or mothers their children which is the frequent speach of S. Chrysostome hom 83. in Matth. 45. in Ioan. hom 24. in ep 1. ad Cor. 2. homil 60. 61. ad Pop. Antioch And to the same effect S. Augustine ep 120. cap. 27. in Psal. 33. which speaches can no wayes agree to the Protestants supper 20. Fourthly diuers of the said Fathers do expressely teach that we do receaue Christ in the Sacrament not only by faith but truly really and corporally semetipsum nobis commiscet saith S. Chrysostome non side tantum sed reipsa Christ doth ioyne himselfe with vs in the Sacrament not only by faith but really And â—n another place he putteth this antithesis or opposition betwixt vs and the Magi that saw and beleeued in Christ lyinge in the manger that they could not carry him with them as we do now by receauinge him in the Sacrament and yet no doubt they beleeued in him and carryed him in faith as we do now to which effect S. Cyrill Alexand. saith Corporaliter nobis filius vnitur vt homo spiritualiter vt Deus Christ as a man is vnited vnto vs corporally by the Sacrament and spiritually as he is God Whervnto yow may add S. Hilary lib. 8. de Trinitate and Theodorus in the Councell of Ephesutom 6. Appendic 5. cap. 2. and others 21. Fiftly the Fathers do many tymes and in diuers places and vpon sundry occasions go about to proue the truth of other mysteryes and articles of our faith by this miracle of the being of Christs flesh and body in the Sacrament as S. Irenaeus for example doth proue Christs Father to be the God of the old sestament for that in his creatures he hath left vs his body bloud and in the same place he vseth the same argument for establishinge the article of the resurrection of out bodyes to witt that he that vouch safeth to nowrish vs with his owne body and bloud will not lett our bodyes remayne for euer in death corruption S. Chrysostome in like manner by the truth of his reall presence in the Sacrament doth confute them that denyed Christ to haue taken true flesh of the Virgin Mary which hardly would be proued by the Sacramentary supper of bread and wyne as euery man by himselfe will consider 22. Sixtly to pretermitt all other points handled to this effect by the said Fathers as that diuers of them do exclude expressely the name of figure or similitude from this Sacrament as S. Ambrose lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 1. Damasc lib. 4. cap. 4. 14. Theophilact in Matth. 26. Others yeld reasons why Christ in the Sacrament would be really vnder the formes or accidents of bread and wyne to witt that our faith might be proued and exercised therby the horror of eating flesh bloud in their owne forme shape taken away and so the same S. Ambrose Ibid. l. 4. de Sacram. c. 4. Cyrill in cap. 22. Luc. apud D. Thom. in catena Others do persuade vs not to beleeue our senses that see only bread and wyne wherof we shall speake more in the obseruations following so S. Augustine serm de verbis Apost l. 3. de Trinit cap. 10. Others do proue this reall presence by the sacrifice affirminge the selfe same Christ to be offered now in our dayly sacrifice vpon the Altars of Christians after an vnbloudy manner which was offered once bloudely vpon the
yow see he compareth this mystery and myracle of Christs being in the Sacrament with the myracle of his incarnation myraculous byrth of the blessed Virgin The very same iudgement held S. Ephrem equall in antiquity to S. Ambrose Quid scrutaris inscrutabilia c. What dost thou search after thinges vnsearcheable Yf thou examine these thinges curiously thou wilt seeme not to be faithfull but curious be faithfull and simple and so participate the immaculate body of thy Lord beleeuinge most certaynely that thou dost eat the very whole lambe yt selfe c. So he 9. Saint Augustine also in many places doth beat earnestly against this standing vpon reason in matters of faith but especially in his epistle to Volutianus sayinge Quae sibi quisque fatilia c. The thinges which each man esteemeth easy for him to conceaue though he cannot make them he is content to beleeue them but all that is aboue his capacity he holdeth for false and feigned And againe Si ratio quaeritur non erit mirabile yf yow seeke reason for euery thinge yt will not be maruelous Demus Deum aliquid posse quod nos fateamur inuestigare non posse Lett vs graunt that God can do somewhat wherof we cannot seeke out the reason in talibus rebus tota ratio facti est potentia facientis in such matters all the reason that can be alleaged for the fact or for that which is done is the power of the doer And in another place the same Father hauinge spoken of the blessed Sacrament and how Christ our Sauiour is therein sub aliena specie vnder another forme of bread and wyne as the Angells also appeare vnto vs vnder assumpted bodyes he concludeth thus Mihi autem omnino vtile est c. It is very profitable for me to remember my owne feeble forces to warne my brethren that they also be myndfull of theirs to the end that our humayne infirmity do not passe further in search of these mysteryes then is safe for vs to do So blessed S. Augustine 10. And finally S. Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria handlinge those words of the faithlesse Capharnaites Ioan. 6. How can he giue his flesh to be eaten c. reprehendeth greatly such curious inquisition sayinge Numquam in tam sublimibus rebus illud quomodo aut cogitemus aut proferamus In so high matters as these of the Sacrament let vs neuer thinke or alleage this word quomodo that is how yt can be And in this manner did the ancient Fathers proceed about this mystery by way of faith and humble submission of their iudgements and vnderstandings and not by feeding their imagination with probability of humayne reason against faith as the sectaryes of our tyme do yea and placinge so much confidence therin as they were content to dy for the same as after yow will see by experience when we come to handle their arguments in particular wherof the greater part yea almost all relyed eyther vpon common sense or some little shew of humayne reason And thus much for the second obseruation Third Obseruation That reason is not contrary to faith but inferior vnto it §. 3. 11. The third obseruation may be that though yt is iustly accoumpted a fault of folly pride heresie or infidelity by the foresaid Fathers to stand too much vpon sense reason in these mysteryes which do surpasse them both yet are they not contrary to reason for that one truth cannot be contrary to another and God is the author of both lightes the one as a lower the other as a more high and eminent light so as though this lower cannot reach to discouer that which the higher doth disclose comprehend yet is not this extinguished or violated by the other but rather perfected and strengthened Reason reacheth only to thinges that are probable in nature faith ascendeth to all that is possible and not only possible to man but euen to God himselfe which so farre exceedeth both the power and vnderstanding of man as S. Paul speaking but of one point only of our faith which is the ioyes of heauen saith that the hart of man could not comprize the same 12. And yet yf we would enter into the search of what is possible to Gods power and omnipotency the scripture in few words setteth yt downe Non est impossibile apud Deum omne verbum there is nothinge impossible to God which is as much to say that all thinges are possible And againe our Sauiour speaking to his Father said Omnia tibi possibilia sunt All things are to thee possible And yf we would require examples the creation of the heauens and of all things both in vnder them will minister thousands whervnto humayne reason cannot reach And S. Iohn Baptist gaue an example to the Iewes that God of stones is able to raise vp children to Abraham but this also is nothing in respect of Gods infinite and incomprehensible omnipotency which is aboue the reach of our vnderstandinge 13. No limitation then at all is to be layd to Gods almighty power but that he may do whatsoeuer he please except only one accordinge to diuines which is that the thinge do not imply contradiction in yt selfe as that yt should be and not be at once which is impossible or that yt should import any imperfection or impotency in God as to synne or dye which are effects rather of want of power then of omnipotency And in this do the more learned Protestants also agree in word with vs sayinge that yf yt were cleere that God would haue yt so or had said yt that of bread should be made his flesh and that one substance should be turned into the other they would graunt that he could do yt by his omnipotency Thus they say in words to auoid the odious note of infidelity or limiting Gods power but when they come to the point indeed they found all their greatest arguments vpon the impossibility thereof as though God could not do yt And so shall yow see afterwards when we come to discusse their strongest arguments And their great Grand-father Iohn VVikliffe or rather VVicked-beleefe as VValsingham calleth him did absolutely deny that God was able to do yt as Thomas VValden testifieth out of his owne wrytings And Iohn Caluyn his scholler in this point calleth vs madd-men for that we beleeue that God was able to make bread his flesh in the Sacrament and yet not to haue the externall forme nature and propriety of flesh Insane saith he quid à Dei potentia postulas vt carnem faciat simul esse non esse carnem Thou madd-man how dost thou demaund of the power of God that he should make flesh to be flesh and not flesh at one tyme But how doth Caluyn proue thinke yow that our beleefe of the Sacrament implyeth this contradiction of flesh and no flesh Forsooth to vse his words for that we graunt that God
which was good they being euill-men perished accordingely 22. The other places cyted in the margent I pretermitt for breuity sake to sett downe at large this being knowne to be the generall Catholike sentence of all auncient holy Fathers concerninge Iudas and other euill-men that they receaue Christ but to their owne damnation and the sentence of S. Paul before cyted is so cleere and euident as no reasonable doubt can be made therof And when Fox doth heere alleage certayne places of S. Cyprian and S. Augustine affirminge that the eatinge of Christ is dwellinge in him and he in vs and that those that dwell not in him do not eat him yt is to be vnderstood of spirituall and fruitfull eatinge of Christs body which agreeth only to good men and not to euill which euill do only receaue sacramentally the body and bloud of Christ as before we haue said and more at large is doclared in our ninth obseruation yea the very words alleaged heere of S. Augustine by simple Iohn Fox that discerneth not what maketh for him what against him do plainly teach vs this distinction For that S. Augustine vpon those words of Christ in S. Iohns ghospell he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him inferreth presently these words Christ sieweth what yt is not sacramentally but indeed to eat his body and drinke his bloud vvhich is when a man so dwelleth in Christ that Christ dwelleth in him 23. So he Which words are euidently meant by S. Augustine of the fruitfull eating of Christs body to our Saluation which may be said in effect the only true eatinge therof as he may be said truly to eat and feed of his meate that profiteth and nourisheth therby but he that taketh no good but rather hurt by that he eateth may be said truly and in effect not to feed in comparison of the other that profiteth by eatinge though he deuoure the meate sett before him and so yt is in the blessed Sacrament where the euill doe eat Sacramento tenus as S. Augustine saith that is sacramentally only and without fruite not that they receaue not Christs body but that they receaue yt without fruite to their damnation which distinction is founded in the scriptures not only out of the place of S. Paul before alleaged to the Corinthians but out of Christs owne words in sundry places of the ghospell as that of S. Mathew Venit filius hominis dare animam suam redemptionem pro multis The sonne of man came to giue his life for the redemption of many wheras indeed he gaue yt for all but for that not all but many should receaue fruite therby yt is said to haue byn giuen fruitfully only for many and not all And againe in the same Euangelist This is my bloud of the new Testament that shal be shedd for many that is to say fruitfully and to their saluation but sufficiently for all and so in like manner all men good and badd do eate Christ in the Sacrament but euill-men sacramentally only without the spirituall effect therof but good men both spiritually and sacramentally togeather 24. And to this end appertayne also those words of S. Augustine alleaged by Bradford Ridley and others that wicked-men edunt panem Domini non panem Domini they eat the Lords bread but not the bread that is the Lords that is to say they eat not the bread that bringeth vnto them the true effect and fruite of the Lords body which is grace spirit and life euerlasting though they eat the body it selfe which is called the bread of our Lord only in this sense that it hath no fruite nor vitall operation but rather the contrary 3. Argument Yf the wicked and infidells do receaue the body of Christ they receaue him by sense reason or faith But they receaue him neyther with sense reason or faith for that the body of Christ is not sensible nor the mystery is accordinge to reason nor do infidells beleeue Ergo. Wicked-men receaue in no wise the body of Christ. Aunswere 25. This argument is as wise as the maker for first we do not alwayes ioyne wicked-men and infidels togeather as he seemeth to suppose for that an infidell their case in receauinge being different when he receaueth the Sacrament not knowinge or beleeuinge yt to be the body of Christ he receaueth yt only materially no otherwise then doth a beast or senselesse-man without incurringe new sinne therby wicked-men receaue yt to their damnation for that knowinge and beleeuinge yt to be the body of Christ or at leastwise ought to do they do not discerne or receaue yt with the worthynesse of preparation which they should do and as for sense reason though Christs body be not sensible yet are the formes of bread vnder which yt is present and receaued sensible for that they haue their sensible tast coulour smell and other like accidents and though the mystery yt selfe stand not vpon humayne reason yet are there many reasons both humayne and diuyne which may induce Christians to beleeue the truth therof euen accordinge to the rule of reason yt selfe which reasons we call arguments of credibility So as in this Sacrament though yt stand not vpon sense or reason yet in receauinge therof is there fraude both in sense and reason which is sufficient to shew the vanity of him that vrgeth it now shall we passe to the last argument of Peter Marty◠though drawen from another ground 4. Argument The holy Ghost could not come yf the body of Christ were really present for that he saith Ioan. 16. vnlesse I go from yow the holy ghost shall not come But that the holy-ghost is come yt is most certayne Ergo yt cannot be that Christ himselfe should be heere really present Aunswere 26. First neyther Fox nor his Martyr can deny but that the holy-ghost was also in the world whilst Christ was bodyly present for that yt descended visibly vpon him in the forme of a doue and after he gaue the same to his disciples sayinge accipite spiritum sanctum receaue ye the holy-ghost wherby is manifest that there is no repugnance why Christs bodyly presence may not stand togeather with the presence of the holy-ghost Wherfore the meaninge of those other words Ioan. 16. that except Christ departed the holy-ghost should not come must needs be that so long as Christ remayned vpon earth visibly as a Doctor teacher externall guide of his disciples Church so longe the holy-ghost should not come in such aboundance of grace to direct the Church eyther visibly as he did at pentecost or inuisibly as after he did But this impugneth nothing the presence of Christ in the Sacramēt where he is inuisibly to feed our soules not as a Doctor to teach preach as in his bodily conuersation vpon earth he was for this he asscribeth to the holy-ghost
againe vpon the 50. Psalme Pro â—bo carne propria nos pascit pro potu sanguinem suum nobis propinat In steed of meat he feedeth vs with his owne flesh and in steed of drinke he giueth vnto vs to drinke his owne bloud And againe homil 83. in Matth. Non side tantum sed reipsa nos corpus suum effecit c. Not only by faith but in deed he hath made vs his body And finally for that yt was denyed expressely Saint Chrysostome to meane that we receaued Christs body with our corporall mouth Doctor VVeston vrged these words of Saint Chrysostome Non vulgarem honorem consecutum est os nostrum excipiens corpus dominicum Our month hath gotten no small honour in that yt receaueth the body of our Lord. 24. But all this will not serue for still Cranmer aunswered by his former sleight thus VVith our mouth vve receaue the body of Christ and teare it vvith our teeth that is to say the Sacrament of the body of Christ. Do yow see the euasion And what may not be shifted of in this order doth any minister in England vse to speake thus oâ— his communion-bread as S. Chrysostome in the place alleaged of the Sacrament after the words of consecration or do any of the auncient Fathers wryte so reuerently of the water of baptisme which they would haue done and ought to haue done yf Christs body be no otherwise present in this Sacrament then the holy-Ghost is in that water as Cranmer oftentymes affirmeth and namely some few lynes after the foresaid places alleaged But Doctor VVeston seing him to decline all the forsaid authorityes by this ordinary shift of the words spiritually and sacramentally vrged him by another way out of the same Chrysostome concerninge the honour due to Christs body vpon earth quod summo honore dignum est id tibi in terra ostendo c. I do shew thee vpon earth that which is worthy of highest honour not Angells not Archangells nor the highest heauens but I shew vnto thee the Lord of all these things himselfe Consider how thou dost not only behould heere on earth that which is the greatest and highest of all things but dost touch the same also not only touchest him but dost eat the same and hauinge receaued him returnest home 25. Thus S. Chrysostome Out of which place Doctor VVeston vrged him eagerly excludinge all figures and eatinge of Christs body absent by faith for that S. Chrysostome saith not only Ostendo tibi I do shew vnto thee that which is worthy of highest honour aboue Angells and Archangells but ostendo tibi in terra I shew yt to thee heere vpon earth which signifieth the presence of a substance wherto this highest honour is to be done and that this thinge is seene touched eaten in the Church which cannot be a figure nor the sacramentall bread for that highest honour is not due to them nor can vt be Christ absent only in heauen for S. Chrysostome saith I snew it thee heere on earth c. To all which pressinges when Doctor Cranmer had no other thing in effect to aunswere but these phrases often repeated that it is to be vnderstood sacramentally and I aunswere that it is true sacramentally c. The hearers fell to cry out and hisse at him clappinge their hands saith Fox and callinge him indoctum imperitum impudentem vnlearned vnskillfull impudent And Fox to help out Cranmer in this matter besides all other excuses maketh this learned glosse in the margent vpon S. Chrysostomes words Ostendo tibi in terra c. I do shew vnto thee vpon earth what is worthiest of highest honour to witt Christs body The body of Christ saith Fox is shewed forth vnto vs heere on earth diuers vvayes as in readinge scriptures hearinge sermons and Sacraments and yet neyther scriptures nor sermons nor Sacraments are to be worshipped c. So he which is as iust as Germans lippes And I would askeâ— this poore glossist what maketh this note to the purpose of S. Chrysostome for neyther doth he speake of the different wayes wherby Christs body may be shewed forth vpon earth but saith that himselfe did shew yt in the Sacrament vpon the Altar to all that would see it Nor doth he say that the meanes or wayes wherby Christs body is shewed are worthy greatest honour or worshipp but that the thinge that is shewed forth is worthy of highest honour And how then standeth Fox his glosse with this sense or whervnto serueth it but only to shew these wreched-mens obstinacy that one way or other will breake through when they are hedged in by the Fathers authorityes most plaine and manifest 26. After this assault giuen by Doctor VVeston the first opponent Doctor Chadsey returned to deale with Cranmer againe by issue of talke came to vrge these words of Tertullian Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur vt animade deo saginetur Our flesh is fedd with the body and bloud of Christ to the end that our soule may be fatted with God which is as much to say that our mouth doth eate the body of Christ and our mynd therby receaueth the spirituall fruite therof Out of which words D. VVeston â—vrged that seing our flesh eateth the body of Christ which cannot eat but by the mouth Christs body is really eaten and receaued by our mouth which so often by Cranmer hath byn denyed but now his words are Vnto Tertullian I aunswere that he calleth that the flesh vvhich is the Sacrament Of which aunswere I cannot vnderstand what meaninge yt hath except Fox do erâ—e in settinge yt downe for yf the flesh be the Sacrament then must the Sacrament feed on the body and bloud of Christ accordinge to Tertullian which is absurd But â— suspect that Cranmers meaninge was that the body of Christ was called the Sacrament for so he expoundeth himselfe afterward when he saith The flesh liueth by the bread but the soule is inwardly fedd br Christ so as when Tertullian saith our flesh is fedd by Christs body and bloud he would haue him to meane that our flesh eateth the Sacramentall bread and wyne that signifieth or figureth Christs body and bloud our soule feedeth on the true body of Christ by faith but both Doctor Chadsey Doctor VVeston refuted this shift presently by the words immediatly ensuinge in Tertullian Non possunt ergo separari in mercede quas opera coniungit Our body and soule cannot be separated in the reward whome the same worke doth conioyne togeather and he meaneth euidently by the same worke or operation the same eatinge of Christs body Wherfore yf the one that is the soule doth eat Christs true body as Cranmer confesseth then the other which is our flesh eateth also the same body as Tertullian saith and for that Doctor VVeston liked well this argument out of Tertullian and said