Common Places, Disputation · Day 3
The third act was betweene M. Morgan, and D. Treſham, on the one part: and Doctor Martyr, on the other part.
Bicauſe D. Treshams books, by his ſeruants default, were not brought; therefore he earneſtlie deſired, that the time might a while be prolonged. But the Commiſſioners, leaſt the time ſhould paſſe awaie in vaine, commanded M. Morgan a Maiſter of Arts to oppoſe, which otherwiſe was appointed to the ſame purpoſe for that daie.
M. Morgan.
WHat maner of beginning ſhall I vſe with you moſt learned Sir, in ſetting downe of your opinion? Will you ſtand onlie vponupon the ſcriptures? Or will you commit the matter vntounto the fathers?
D. Martyr.
I was minded to ſaie ſomewhat before the diſputation, vntounto the queſtions which I propoſed, and in them would hauehave ſpoken ſomewhat for the ſatiſfieng of mine aduerſarie, which ſhould this daie diſpute with me: howbeit, ſince the caſe ſo happeneth, that you are appointed to be his ſubſtitute for a time, euen at the verie ſame time, wherein I was minded now to oppoſe, I will deferre it vntill an other time. But before I anſwer vntounto thoſe things which you demanded of me, I will make mine accuſtomed praiers.
The Praier.
O Almightie God, for ſomuch as we ſhall diſpute of the principall myſteries of our religion, we approch vntounto thy goodneſſe and merciemercy, whereby all deſire of contention being laid awaie, and all diſquietnes of mind remooued, we may ſincerelie ſeeke out the truth; hauing found it, we may imbraſe it; and haueing obteined the ſame, we may purelie teach it. Wherefore guide vsus in diſputing by the direction of thy holie ſpirit; whereby in the diſcuſſing of thy word, in the examination of reaſons, and in thoſe things which ſhould be perſuaded or diſuaded; we doo beſeech thée, that we may not depart one iot from the ſumme of godlineſſe. But whatſoeuer we ſhall inuent, thinke, and ſaie, the ſame being directed by thy helpe and power, may further, as much as is poſſible, to the honour of thy name, through Chriſt our Lord; Amen.
What the cheefe thing is whereby we iudge of the holie ſcriptures.NOw I anſwer. The power of iudging matters of Diuinitie, or the chéefe thing whereby we iudge of the holie ſcriptures, in teaching elſe where, I prooued to be two waies; that is to wit, by the holie Ghoſt, & by the holie ſcriptures; the one of which is inward, & the other outward. But now, bicauſe we deale as touching the outward, I ſaie that there muſt be no other thing appointed than the holie ſcripturs. There I laie the foundation, and therto I chéefelie cleaue. Trulie I will not contemne the fathers, naie rather I will attribute much to them, when they ſpeake according to the ſcriptures: I hauehave cited them as ye hauehave heard. And perhaps I ſtaid my ſelfe ouer-much in that courſe, not that I depend of them, but bicauſe I ſée that manie are addicted vntounto them ſuperſtitiouſlie, which perpetuallie crie out; The fathers, the fathers, and doo thinke them to be euermore againſt vsus. I thought it good to ſhew ſuch men, that they make moſt of all for vsus. And what I hauehave ſaid as touching the fathers, thinke you that I hauehave anſwered as touching the Councels. Bréefelie, we ſtand vntounto the holie ſcriptures, and we yéeld vntounto all thoſe, which ſpeake and will ſpeake according to the ſame.
M. Morgan.
Now then, let vsus diſpute out of the ſcriptures. For this propoſition, which we hauehave in hand, is doubtfull, wherein it is ſaid; This is my bodie. For hereof ſome do gather tranſubſtantiation; others, a bodilie preſence with the bread; others impanation, whereby the bodie of Chriſt and the bread doo ioind into one perſon; others appoint a bare ſigne, and others an effectuall ſigne. And there want not thoſe, which care no more for the preſence of Chriſt, but that they may hereby driue awaie all worſhipping; as I knowe a yoong man of England did. Forſomuch therfore as we ſée diuers men diuerſlie affirme; teach me what ſenſe of this place of ſcripture muſt be reteined.
D. Martyr.
The ſenſe of this propoſition is gathered out of the ſcriptures.The proper meaning of theſe words may eaſilie be gathered out of the ſcriptures, if they be well examined. In the ſixt of Iohn, Chriſt moſt plainlie ſheweth, that the eating of his bodie muſt be vnderſtood ſpirituallie: for he ſaid, that his words are ſpirit and life. And againe, that the ſpirit quickeneth, but the fleſh profiteth nothing; and ſtraitwaie he made mention of his aſcenſion. And of this matter he delt ſo plentifullie in that chapter, that afterward in his laſt ſupper he ſpake nothing thereof, as Auguſtine teſtifieth in his booke De conſenſu Euangeliſtarum. Conſider afterward in the ſame chapter, that Chriſt denied the carnall eating, which the Capernaites ſurmiſed: whereby you may gather, that the eating of Chriſts bodie is not carnall, but ſpirituall. And ſo as touching this ſaieng, you hauehave an eaſie and cléere ſenſe. Beſides this, the ſcripture dooth euidentlie call it bread. Matt. 26. verſe. 26. 1. Cor. 10, 16. 1. Cor. 11, 25.The Lord tooke bread, bleſſed it, brake it, and gaue it. The bread which we breake (ſaith Paule) is it not the communion of the bodie of Chriſt? Againe; So often as yee ſhall eate this bread. Wherefore in like maner appeareth by theſe ſaiengs, that bread remaineth: neither is there anie cauſe whie you ſhould complaine of the obſcureneſſe of the place, as touching this matter. And that there is a figuratiue kind of ſpéech in theſe words, manie things declare. For it is not properlie agréeable to the bodie of Chriſt to be eaten: ſéeing thoſe things which we eate, we craſh & grind with our téeth, and being paſſed downe into the bellie, we digeſt them, and conuert them into our owne ſubſtance: which to ſpeake properlie of the bodie of Chriſt, is great wickedneſſe. And at the cup, there is vſed a moſt manifeſt figure, 1. Cor. 11, 25.when it is ſaid; This cup is the new teſtament, &c. Herewithall in the ſcriptures, there be moſt manifeſt and euident ſpéeches of the ſacraments, from the which may be had the interpretation of this place. For circumciſion is called the couenant; & the lambe or ſacrifice is called the Paſſeouer. Paule ſaid of baptiſme, that therein we be buried with Chriſt: neither dooth he ſaie there, that a ſepulchre is ſignified. Againe, we know that Chriſt had a true humane bodie, and that he was taken vp into heauen, and from thence ſhall come to iudge the world. All theſe places, if a man doo well compare togither, will iudge no otherwiſe of the meaning of this ſcripture than we doo.
M. Morgan.
Luther had the ſcriptures, and diſagréed from Zuinglius. The Catholikes ſée them and read them, and diſagrée from them both. And the ſcriptures ſéeme to be ſo ambiguous, that vnleſſe they be cléered by an other light; that is to wit, by the fathers, they are not ſufficient for our inſtruction.
D. Martyr.
Yes indéed, they plentifullie ſuffice, as you heard me euen now declare.
M. Morgan.
Since I ſée that you ſtand to the ſcriptures, which neuertheleſſe are wreſted of diuers men diuerſlie; now will I deale with you by a bréefe reaſon drawne from that place wherein the ſacrament was inſtituted. Chriſt tooke bread. What bread tooke he?
D. Martyr.
Since you ſaie, that the ſcriptures are diuerſlie wreſted by diuers men, according as they be affected: I anſwer, that this is doone by the fault either of euill or ignorant men, yet muſt not the ſcriptures be accuſed as darke in thoſe things which be neceſſarie to ſaluation. When they be brought foorth & read with a ſincere mind, they doo their part excellentlie well. And the holie Ghoſt teſtifieth, that they be profitable to teach, to reprooue, and to inſtruct a man, that he may be perfect and well ordered to euerie good worke. But if that anie hauehave doubted, it was their owne fault, not the ſcriptures fault: and the ſcripture muſt not be accuſed bicauſe of their contentions, as though it cannot teach vsus. We ſée that there were oftentimes demonſtrations made againſt the Arrians, and that out of the ſcriptures; That Chriſt is GOD. Yet would they contend, neither changed they their opinion: neither was this anie derogation to the light and worthineſſe of the ſcriptures. There is no cauſe therefore that you ſhould obiect vntounto me, men either yet liuing, or but latelie dead, which diſagréed one from an other, and yet had the ſcriptures; ſith there may be other cauſes aſſigned of their diſagréement, beſides the ambiguitie of the ſcriptures. And how I ſhould iudge now of thoſe men, the place ſerueth not to declare: it ſufficeth for me, that I hauehave defended the right of the ſcriptures. But as to that which you demanded; namelie, what bread Chriſt tooke: I anſwer, that it was common and vſuall bread; to wit, ſwéetbread, bicauſe the feaſt of Eaſter was celebrated.
M. Morgan.
When did he conſecrate the ſame? Whether when he tooke it into his hands? Or when he bleſſed it? Or elſe when he gaue it? How ſhall I know when the bread was conſecrated.
D. Martyr.
When and how conſecration was made.By giuing of thanks, by ſaieng as he ſaid, and dooing as he did. Wherefore we alſo muſt ſaie and doo euen the verie ſame that he ſaid and did. And bicauſe we hauehave not elſe-where by demonſtration of the ſcriptures anie certeine place, that is, foure or fiue words, whereby the bread & wine is conſecrated, therefore muſt we recite all that which is written in the hiſtorie of the ſupper.
M. Morgan.
The miniſters doo conſecrate after the ſelfe-ſame maner that Chriſt did; dooth therefore the miniſter conſecrate by receiuing bread into his hands?
D. Martyr.
What is conſecration.No: but by performing the inſtitution of the Lord it is conſecrated; that is to ſaie, it is appointed to a holie vſe; and through the words and commandement of the Lord, it is made an inſtrument, to ſignifie effectuallie the bodie of Chriſt. So as I ſaie, that it is then conſecrated, when all the words be ſpoken, and diſtribution made to the faithfull.
M. Morgan.
If the words of conſecration be not written, certeinelie then is not the ſcripture ſufficient of it ſelfe as touching conſecration. Againe, I demand of you, whether the bread was a ſacrament or ſigne, before the finiſhing of the words; that is, when it is ſaid, that he tooke bread? Was the bread as yet made a ſigne of the bodie of Chriſt?
D. Martyr.
No ſacramentall ſigne, according as we ſpeake. And to that which you inferred, by reaſon of that which I ſaid, that there be no determined words of conſecration in the ſcripture; that then it followeth, that the ſcripture is not ſufficient: I anſwer, that it followeth not. For though it doo appoint foure or fiue words onelie, whereby conſecration ſhould preciſelie be made: yet dooth it faithfullie deſcribe the whole diſcourſe of this myſterie; the which is ſufficient. Wherefore, we ought to repeate the ſame in the ſupper of the Lord, that both we may doo and ſaie that, which Chriſt did and ſaid. And this was commanded vsus, when the Lord ſaid; This doo in remembrance of me. Luk. 22, 19. 1. Co. 11, 24The which muſt be referred as well vntounto the words, as vntounto the déeds. For the Lord ment not, that when the fiue words are pronounced, we ſhould thinke that we hauehave performed ſo great a myſterie.
M. Morgan.
He bleſſed the bread not yet conſecrated, he brake the bread not yet conſecrated, he gaue the bread not yet conſecrated; therefore he gaue the bread before it was yet a ſigne or ſacrament.
D. Martyr.
This ſacrament conſiſteth of all thoſe things, which the Lord Ieſus did and ſaid. And when he ſaid; Doo theſe things, he ment as touching all thoſe things, and not of one or two alone: and he made it a ſigne by bleſſing, by breaking, by giuing, and by adding ſuch things as followe.
M. Morgan.
It followeth, that ſith Chriſt gaue bread before he had finiſhed all the words, he gaue bread which was not conſecrate; ſéeing vntounto conſecration all the words are required. Wherefore, I being a miniſter, and repeating the words of Chriſt, when doo I make the ſacrament?
D. Martyr.
Euen by ſaieng and dooing thoſe things, which Chriſt ſaid and did; that is to wit, when that action is performed in ſuch ſort as it is deſcribed. But whether you tend, or what your meaning is, I perceiue not, but that manie words be waſted in vaine.
M. Morgan.
I will ſpeake more plainelie. The miniſters doo all the things that Chriſt did, otherwiſe they ſhould faile in the right vſe: but the miniſters doo not conſecrate it for a ſacrament, before all the words be vttered; and therefore Chriſt alſo did it not. But if ſo be he gaue the bread before the finiſhing of the words, he gaue common bread, but not a ſigne of his bodie.
D. Martyr.
Here hauehave I anſwered alreadie, that Chriſt gaue no ſigne before he had finiſhed the action, nor before he had ſaid and doone thoſe things, which were to be doone and ſaid: and when thoſe things were performed, he gaue not an onelie ſubſtance of bread, but he gaue the ſame with a condition adioined, the which was ſymbolicall or ſignifieng. Firſt therfore he tooke bread; but and if afterward, by reaſon of thoſe things, which he ſaid and did, there be added a ſacramentall or ſymbolicall condition, it is not therefore diſprooued, but that he gaue bread: for he gaue both; to wit, bread & a ſacrament. Neither is it requiſite, that you ſhould ſo cauill, that Chriſt gaue bread firſt before he vttered the words: for this may appeare, if onelie a reſpect be had vntounto the order of the words in the narration. But let vsus ſet the action before our eies, & we ſhall ſée, that Chriſt in giuing, finiſhed the words which were neceſſarie. So as this, which you vrge ſo ſore, is but a ſophiſticall cauill: for while he hauing giuen thanks, did breake and giuegive, he ſaid withall; This is my bodie, and ſo vntounto the ſacrament there was nothing wanting.
M. Morgan.
What did he giuegive, common bread, or ſacramentall bread?
D. Martyr.
He gaue ſacramentall bread.
M. Morgan.
But yet he gaue it before he had pronounced; This is my bodie: ſo then he gaue no ſacramentall bread. And for this cauſe ſaid I theſe things, to the intent I might ſhew that we cannot be blamed, when we ſaie that Chriſt gaue his bodie after the words were finiſhed: and we affirme that the accuſatiue caſe, Bread, muſt not be ioined with the verbe Gaue, as it was with the verbes that went before.
D. Martyr.
No man blameth you in this, that you ſaie; the bodie of Chriſt is giuen after the ceremonie is perfourmed, but in this reſpect, that ye exclude the bread: for we muſt determine, that as well the one as the other is giuen, and that one and the ſelfe-ſame accuſatiue caſe is gouerned of all thoſe verbes, according as order and grammaticall conſtruction requireth. Neither is that true which you ſtill indeuour to prooue, that Chriſt had firſt giuen it, before he pronounced all the words, ſith in giuing and diſtributing, or breaking, he finiſhed the words which ſerued to the purpoſe. Here is no kind of inchantment to be imagined, although all were doone by the finiſhing of one letter, ſyllable, or one ſillie word.
M. Morgan.
He gaue to his diſciples. What gaue he? He gaue his bodie rather than bread: for bodie, is a nigher word vntounto thoſe verbes than is this word, bread.
D. Martyr.
Grammaticall ſenſe requireth that bread ſhould remaine: for all theſe verbes doo gouerne an accuſatiue caſe. Neither is the néereneſſe of place to be reſpected in this ſentence. For albeit that this particle, My bodie, ſéeme to be the néerer ſpéech, yet is it not gouerned of thoſe words, He brake, he gaue, take ye, and eate ye: but of the verbe ſubſtantiue est, Is. But wheras it is written, that Chriſt firſt gaue, before he ſaid, This is my bodie, it is the vſuall figure called foreign; that is to wit, when a thing is ſet foorth by a contrarie order, but yet not properlie: for it is admitted for a neceſſitie of ſetting foorth the matter, ſith theſe two things were doone both togither; to wit, that he gaue, and that he ſpake: neither was there anie ſtrife to be made for this matter.
M. Morgan.
If it be the figure Hyſteron proteron, then is the word, bodie, néerer vntounto the verbe, gaue, than is the accuſatiue caſe, bread; and then this word bodie is as well conſtrued with the verbe, gaue, as is that word bread. And this maketh as well for vsus as for you, & the caſe is equall on both parts: and ſo it appeareth, that the anſwer this other daie was good; to wit, that Chriſt rather gaue his bodie, than the bread.
D. Martyr.
Saie what you liſt, that this phraſe maketh for your part, the phraſe it ſelfe dooth plainlie denie it, and ſheweth euidentlie, that bread muſt be reteined: wherfore my argument remaineth inuincible. That the bodie of Chriſt is ſome waie giuen, I denie not: that which is giuen, is both; namelie, bread, and the bodie of Chriſt: but whie you exclude bread, you hauehave no reaſon for it, and the forme of ſpeaking dooth manifeſtlie make againſt you. Wherefore there is no equalitie of the caſe betwéene vsus. Neither as I hauehave ſaid, in a grammaticall conſtruction, muſt the néerer placing of the words, but the gouerning of the verbes be regarded. And therefore this other daie it was not well anſwered, when the bodie of Chriſt was ſo affirmed to be giuen, as the bread ſhould be taken awaie, which by a neceſſitie of grammaticall conſtruction was prooued to remaine.
M. Morgan.
Theophylactus ſaith vponupon Marke the 14, chapter, This is my bodie, this I ſaie which ye receiue; for the bread is not a figure, and a kind of an example of the Lords bodie, but it is changed euen into the verie ſelfe bodie of Chriſt. The Latine copies are falſe, where you ſhall read; the bodie of Chriſt is changed into it. The Gréeke text hath foreign. Thus you plainlie ſée, that this father ſaith, that this bread is not a figure, but is changed into the bodie of Chriſt.
D. Martyr.
Firſt of all vnderſtand as touching Theophylactus, that he is not of anie ſuch authoritie, that if he did make directlie againſt vsus, we ſhould make anie great account of him. For he vponupon the third chapter of Iohn, ſaid, that The Latine church did plainlie erre, as touching the procéeding of the holie Ghoſt, and liued as it ſhould ſéeme in a corrupted time. In the Latine bookes, which I hauehave ſéene (for the Gréeke copies I hauehave not met withall) The bodie of Chriſt is changed into it: howbeit, whether the Gréeke copies hauehave it ſo or not, I paſſe but litle, ſith I doo admit ſome kind of change into the bodie of Chriſt. And whereas you ſaie, that the bread is not a figure or example; in Theophylactus the words be thus: For it is not onelie a figure and patterne; which we grant to be true, ſéeing the bread is not ſet downe of vsus to be a bare ſigne and a naked figure. And without doubt, vnleſſe that ſame particle, onelie, were had; Theophylactus alone might not ſtand againſt all the other fathers, who acknowledge both a figure and an example: as doo Tertullian, Baſil, Auguſtine, Theodoretus, and in a maner all the reſt. Furthermore, I vnderſtand the change into the bodie of Chriſt to be ſacramentall, ſith it is made a ſacrament of the bodie of Chriſt, which before it was not. For (as Auguſtine vntounto Boniface teſtified, and as we hauehave oftentimes cited,) ſacraments hauehave their names of the things, whereof they be ſacraments. Wherefore the ſacrament (ſaith he) of the bodie of Chriſt, is after a ſort the bodie of Chriſt: neither is the change ſuch, as it can caſt awaie the former ſubſtance. And we may gather out of Theophylactus himſelfe, that he ſo vnderſtood it: for vponupon Iohn the ſixt chapter he ſaith; He that eateth me ſhal liue for me, while after a ſort he is mingled with me, and tranſelementated into me. You heare him ſaie, that we be tranſelementated into Chriſt, and yet you ſée we reteine the ſubſtance which we had before. Why will you not vnderſtand the ſelfe-ſame thing to be doone as touching bread?
M. Morgan.
To the firſt, when you ſaie that Theophylactus one while erred, I anſwer; If for that cauſe he ſhould not be receiued, by the like reaſon you might refuſe Auguſtine, which alloweth the inuocation of ſaints, images and praiers for the dead: which be errours, if we ſhall follow your opinion.
D. Martyr.
I did not ſaie, that he was therefore to be vtterlie reiected; but I ment to ſhew, that there be degrées of the fathers; to let you vnderſtand, that the authoritie of them all is not alike: which muſt chéeflie be conſidered, according to the time and age wherein they liued. And in that he diſagréed from the Latine church ſo expreſlie, in the controuerſie touching the holy Ghoſt, it is an argument that he happened into, in thoſe latter times, when vehement diſſention was betwéene the Gréekes and the Latines: in the verie which time began now the doctrine of tranſubſtantiation to bud forth. But of Auguſtine, and ſuch as he was, the caſe is far otherwiſe: for they liued in the purer times. And as for the inuocation of ſaints, or praiers for the dead, or how much, or how he diſſented from vsus, an other place ſhall ſerue to declare it. But as touching that he allowed the worſhipping of images, I know nothing thereof.
M. Morgan.
Theophylactus is altogither on my ſide, while he ſaith vponupon the ſixt chapter of Iohn; The bread which I will giuegive, is not a figure of my fleſh, but it is my fleſh; for by the myſticall words the bread is tranſformed, & albeit it ſéeme bread vntounto vsus, yet is it fleſh, &c. You ſée that he ſaith; There is a change of the bread into the fleſh of Chriſt. And vponupon Matthew, he hath in a maner the very ſame words, & he addeth; Wherfore there appeareth bread, that there may be a condeſcending to our infirmitie. And let vsus put the caſe that he would hauehave taught tranſubſtantiation; what elſe could he hauehave ſaid? Or with what more manifeſt words could hée hauehave vttered it? For againe, vponupon the 14. of Marke, he ſaith; It kéepeth in verie déed the ſhew of bread and wine, but it is tranſelementated into the power of fleſh and bloud.
D. Martyr.
As touching this change, wherof Theophylactus maketh mention in the 14. chapter, we dout not; for it is ſacramentall. And as you cited but euen now, he ſaith; that bread and wine is changed into the power of fleſh and bloud; but he ſaith not, into fleſh and bloud. The which we alſo will grant; forſomuch as ſacraments are named by the things which they ſignifie, and by them God giueth his grace and ſpirit, which is the power & ſtrength of thoſe things that they ſignifie. And when he ſaid, they are tranſelementated or changed into the power of fleſh & bloud, he ſheweth, how we muſt vnderſtand bread to be changed into the body of Chriſt namelie, that by theſe ſignes and ſacraments, How we muſt vnderſtand bread to be changed into the bodie of Chriſt.the holie Ghoſt may worke in vsus, the merits, fruit, and grace of the bodie of Chriſt crucified for vsus. And we grant vntounto Theophylactus, as we hauehave ſaid, a ſacramentall change. And whereas he ſaith, that the Lord ſaid not; that the bread and wine is a figure: this if he vnderſtand abſolutelie without exception, he hath all the fathers againſt him. For Baſil ſaith; that It is foreign, that is, an example, a paterne: and Auguſtine, a figure and ſigne. And whereas he nameth it the ſhew of bread, it nothing hindereth the true nature and ſubſtance thereof: for this word Species, forme, among the fathers, as I hauehave aboue ſhewed, ſignifieth a true nature of things.
M. Morgan.
So may we likewiſe well ſaie; that the vertue may ſignifie the bodie. And the ſame Theophylactus vponupon Matthew, the 26. chapter ſaith; This ſentence, This is my bodie, ſheweth that the bread which is ſanctified vponupon the altar is the verie bodie of the Lord, and no figure correſpondent: for he ſaid not; This is a figure, but, This is my bodie. Againe, this verbe Tranſformatur, is tranſformed, belongeth vntounto ſubſtance, not vntounto qualitie. And he ſaith moreouer, that it is ſo giuen vntounto vsus, that the bread may be ſéene, bicauſe we be weake, and leaſt we ſhould loath to eate raw fleſh. But if we ſhould follow your opinion, there were no néed of a ſacramentall change, and ſuch as is not reall; for there would be no danger of loathing or abhorring the thing.
D. Martyr.
As touching the ſigne, I hauehave anſwered ſufficientlie, how it muſt be vnderſtood. Neuertheleſſe, ſith you vrge ſo earneſtlie, that Chriſt ſaid not, that it was a figure: no more alſo did he ſaie, that the accidents are ſeparated from the ſubiect, or that the bread is excluded, as your ſelues affirme. And Theophylactus words of changing, tranſforming, and tranſelementating we admit, bicauſe of the ſacramentall change. And where he affirmeth, that the bread ſanctified vponupon the altar is the bodie of Chriſt, we allow thereof. For it is prooued by Auguſtine vntounto Boniface, that the ſacrament of the bodie of Chriſt, after a certeine maner is and is called the bodie of Chriſt. And further, that which is added; to wit, that it is tranſformed by an vnſpeakable worke maketh nothing againſt vsus: for we confeſſe this to be no worke of nature, as that a prophane & common thing ſhould be made a ſacrament. Doubtleſſe it is ſuch a worke, as the holie Ghoſt dooth vnſpeakablie worke it. But as touching the forme, whether it perpetuallie belong vntounto the ſubſtance, looke you to that; certeine it is, that it is placed euen in the predicament of qualitie, ſo as there is no cauſe for you to obiect, that to be tranſformed hath reſpect vntounto ſubſtance. And that ſame lothſomeneſſe of ſhunning rawe fleſh is taken awaie, by affirming a ſubſtance of bread, and a ſacramentall ſignification. Why the ſcriptures admit no tranſubſtantiation.And nothing elſe meneth Theophylactus than to ſhew by his maner of ſpeach, that a carnall eating ſhould not hauehave béene conuenient; bicauſe we would hauehave miſliked of rawe fleſh; and therefore a ſpirituall eating was appointed, wherein the forme, that is to wit, the nature of bread ſhould be kept; and yet notwithſtanding we hauehave trulie the bodie and fleſh of Chriſt, that is to wit; in receiuing of the ſame by faith. And whereas you ſo greatlie vrge the efficacie of Theophylactus words, it mooueth me but little. For I knowe that he, and the reſt of the fathers were vehement, and full of exceſſiue ſpéeches, and therefore muſt be conuenientlie interpreted.
M. Morgan.
I demanded before, and now againe I demand; If the holie Ghoſt were minded to decrée tranſubſtantiation by the ſcriptures, by what words would he hauehave doone it?
D. Martyr.
The ſcriptures would not hauehave teſtified that bread is preſent, as we hauehave ſhewed, that they doo plainelie declare; neither would they hauehave ſet downe vntounto vsus an eating or a breaking: which matters cannot agrée to the bodie of Chriſt; namelie, that it ſhould in verie déed be broken, cruſhed, and groond with the téeth. And therefore when the ſcripture attributeth theſe things vntounto bread, as when it ſaith; The bread, 1. Co. 10, 16 1. Co. 11, 29which we breake: and againe; He that ſhall eate this bread vnwoorthilie, it ſheweth euidentlie, that it ſpeaketh of true bread, and dooth not appoint anie tranſubſtantiation.
M. Morgan.
But the bodie of Chriſt, ſith in the ſixt chapter of Iohn, it is figuratiuelie called bread, therefore in the reſtitution of the ſupper, there is mention made of bread by Paule, euen that it may reteine the phraſe of Chriſt, which he vſed in the ſixt chapter of Iohn.
D. Martyr.
It is a ſure argument, that Chriſt in the ſupper ſpeaketh of the true natures of the elements of bread and wine, inſomuch as he ſaid; Matt. 26, 29.I will not hereafter drinke of this fruit of the vine. And the vine trée dooth not bring foorth accidents for hir fruit. Moreouer, Paule plainlie ſaith; The bread, which we breake, 1. Co. 10, 16is it not a communion of the bodie of Chriſt? And further, Chriſt commanded vsus that we ſhould eate; the which (as I hauehave ſaid) cannot properlie agrée with the bodie of Chriſt, ſéeing that is not eaten, which is not groond with the téeth. Indéed I acknowledge a metaphor in the ſixt of Iohn, where Chriſt calleth himſelfe bread, bicauſe he féedeth vsus, as naturall bread booth, and as the old fathers in the wilderneſſe did féed of Manna. But in this place it cannot be, that he ſhould ſpeake metaphoricallie; ſéeing that bread, whereof he ſpeaketh, is both broken and groond by eating: and moreouer, bicauſe the fathers doo expound it, that this ſacramentall bread, whereof we ſpeake, is made of manie graines.
M. Morgan.
And why may it not here alſo be vnderſtood metaphoricallie?
D. Martyr.
Bicauſe, as I hauehave twiſe ſaid, there be properties here ſpoken of; namelie, breaking and eating, which doo not agrée with bread vnderſtood metaphorcallie, that is, vntounto the bodie of Chriſt.
M. Morgan.
Thoſe things, which be attributed vntounto the ſacraments, be ſome maner of waie attributed euen vntounto the things, whereof they be ſacraments: as ſaith Auguſtine vntounto Boniface; Sacraments hauehave their names of the things. But the bread, which is a ſacrament, is trulie and properlie broken; therefore the bodie of Chriſt, which is the matter of the ſacrament, by a figure is ſaid to be broken. Beſides, when it is ſaid; Take ye, eate ye: is the bread, which is taken and eaten, metaphoricall bread? Alſo; Take ye, and Eate ye, be they metaphors belonging to the bodie of Chriſt, or no?
D. Martyr.
I anſwer: Two kinds of eating, and two kinds of bread in the ſacrament.when we receiue the ſacrament faithfullie, two kinds of eatings are there, and alſo two ſorts of bread. For the receiuing of the bodie of Chriſt, which we hauehave by faith, is called a metaphoricall eating: euen as the bodie of Chriſt, which we receiue, is a metaphoricall bread. There alſo hauehave we an eating of the ſacramentall ſignes; the which is a proper eating, euen as alſo bread is both true and naturall. In the ſixt of Iohn, there is mention onlie of metaphoricall eating, and of metaphoricall bread: but in the ſupper of the Lord, wherein he communicated with his apoſtles, there was had a proper eating; and true bread was giuen for a ſigne: and ſo in the ſupper was giuen both ſorts of bread, euen naturall and metaphoricall: and both ſorts of eating is performed; to wit, both a naturall eating in ſignes, and alſo a metaphorical, as touching the bodie of Chriſt, which we receiue by faith. But I maruell that you vnderſtand it ſo, as you will hauehave that to be attributed vntounto the things, which is properlie agréeable to the ſacrament: in ſuch wiſe as you will hauehave it ſaid, that the bodie of Chriſt is broken figuratiuelie, bicauſe that the bread is broken. For if you grant, that the bread is here broken indéed, why doo you contend anie longer? Now you grant bread, tranſubſtantiation ſhall be no longer. Ouer this, when the ſcripture ſaith, that bread is broken, and our ſenſe perceiueth the breaking of the bread: let this firſt be determined. Afterward, when the ſcripture ſaith, that the bodie of Chriſt is broken; if you will vnderſtand by a metaphor & figure; namelie, that it is broken, bicauſe the ſacrament thereof is broken, we agrée. But firſt of all muſt the ground of this figure be granted; euen that it is bread, which in very déed is broken: & this dooth the ſenſe it ſelfe knowe to be doone. But as for the words; Take ye, and eate ye, I ſaie, that they muſt be thus vnderſtood: As ye receiue this bread, and eate it with your bodie; ſo receiue ye my bodie by faith, and with the mind, that ye may be ſtrengthened thereby in ſtead of meate.
M. Morgan.
This in my iudgement is but a wandering diſputation: wherfore I come néerer to the matter. Take ye, and eate ye, are metaphoricall ſpeaches, and after this maner they agrée verie well with the bodie of Chriſt, and therefore the breaking may be attributed vntounto the metaphoricall bread, that is, vntounto the bodie of Chriſt: for in the like ſenſe is breaking taken.
D. Martyr.
If it be a wandering diſputation, the fault is yours, bicauſe you frame no argument or reaſon. And whereas you obiect: that euen as eating may agrée metaphoricallie with the bodie of Chriſt, ſo may breaking agrée with the ſame; I affirme that a far other reaſon both of eating & breaking is had in theſe words & forme of ſpeaking of the ſcripture, which we hauehave in hand: to wit, Is not the bread which we breake? For I ſuppoſe you would vnderſtand this word, To breake, in ſuch ſort as it ſhould be referred metaphoricallie to the crucifieng vponupon the croſſe. Howbeit, you muſt conſider, that Paule ſaith; 2. Co. 10, 16The bread which we breake: where it is not lawfull to vnderſtand, that we our ſelues doo crucifie Chriſt. Well may we ſaie, that we doo eate him metaphoricallie, bicauſe we doo féed vponupon him; but that we doo crucifie him, that is a verie hard and abſurd ſpeach.
M. Morgan.
If we eate him metaphoricallie, that is, by the ſpirit and by faith, why doo we not alſo breake him metaphoricallie; eſpeciallie ſith all eating hath in it a breaking?
D. Martyr.
Paule ſaith; The bread which we breake. And if you will vnderſtand, To breake, for To crucifie, we by a metaphor ſhall be ſaid to crucifie Chriſt. Howbeit, I grant that all naturall eating hath in it ſelfe, as you ſaie, a breaking: but yet all ſpirituall eating hath not ſo; bicauſe that eating hath this reſpect, that we ſhould inioie the thing receiued, as meate: but it is not extended vntounto this point, that we ſhould breake and grind with the téeth, that which cannot be grinded or broken.
M. Morgan.
When we behold particularlie the gréefs which Chriſt indured vponupon the croſſe, we are ſaid metaphoricallie to be broken. For the ſame agréeableneſſe that is betwéene, To eate, and To receiue by faith; the ſelfe-ſame is betwéene To breake, and To behold, or To knowe the gréefs of Chriſt vponupon the croſſe.
D. Martyr.
I woonder that you ſay there is an agréeableneſſe betwéene To breake, that is, To crucifie Chriſt; and To behold or knowe his gréefs vponupon the croſſe: for we behold or ſée with the eies, and we breake with ſtrength, and with the hands. Verelie I thinke you knowe, that metaphors ought not to be ſo wide aſunder. Againe, you double the metaphor; ſéeing (if we followe your mind) one is, in reſpect that To breake ſignifieth To crucifie; and another, that you refer this vntounto knowledge. And you that cannot abide, that we in the words of the Lord, This is my bodie, ſhould affirme anie figure, doo frequent manie figures, and thoſe hard & vnuſuall. And to the end you will not grant in the ſupper of the Lord, the breaking of verie true bread, you run headlong into what elſe ſoeuer.
M. Morgan.
To breake, is a metaphor apt enough, for that which is To behold, and with the mind to remember the paſſion of Chriſt. For Paule ſaith; This is my bodie, 1. Co. 11, 24which is broken for you. And Bucer, Contra Abrincenſem epiſcopum, alloweth, that breaking may metaphoricallie be ſpoken of Chriſts bodie. And this ſame conueniencie, that To breake, ſhould be tranſferred vntounto our knowledge, is vſed in the Engliſh toong, for we are ſaid to breake doubts to our ſcholers.
D. Martyr.
And if anie where elſe this metaphor perhaps might be apt, yet taketh it no place where Paule ſaith; 1. Co. 10, 16The bread which wee breake, is it not the participation of the bodie of Chriſt? Where without doubt he reſpecteth the outward breaking and diſtribution of the Euchariſt. Trulie I confeſſe with Bucer, that the bodie of Chriſt may be ſaid to be broken; that is to ſaie, to hauehave ſuffered: but I doo not allow that we can breake him, that is to ſaie, crucifie him. Furthermore, as touching your toong, ſéeing I vnderſtand it not, I cannot ſhew the reaſon of ſuch an engliſh metaphor, vnleſſe perhaps you meane, that To breake difficulties, is as much to ſaie, as to aſſoile them. But thoſe things which I hauehave ſaid, I hauehave ſpoken according as the Gréeke and Latine toong, wherein we hauehave the ſcriptures of the new teſtament, hauehave béene accuſtomed to ſpeake.
The Viſitors tranſferred the diſputation to Doctor Treſham.
D. Tresham.
I Am conſtrained to omit thoſe things which I purpoſed to ſpeake, ſéeing both the diſputation is gon a good waie forward, and the time is ſpent. Therefore I humblie deſire you his Maieſties Commiſſioners, that you will as fauourablie heare this daies diſputations, as you did the other, which were made the daies before, which vndoubtedlie ye did moſt fauourablie. Now our praiers premiſed, let vsus come to the matter.
The praier of Doctor Tresham.
O Moſt benigne Lord Ieſus Chriſt, the bread of eternall life, who of thy vnſpeakeable grace, in thy merciemercy deſcendedſt from heauen into mankind, to take fleſh of the virgins fleſh; and hauing taken vponupon thee the ſame, diddeſt vouchſafe to giuegive it a meate vntounto vsus, euen that we ſhould diligentlie eate the ſame in remembrance of thee, and by the participation thereof to be made all one bodie: grant vntounto thy humble ſuppliants, to feed and nouriſh vsus perpetuallie with that moſt deintie food, which we beleeue to be thy liuelie fleſh; and with that moſt pleaſant drinke, which we confeſſe to be thy verie bloud: that thy light and truth being ſpread ouer all men, we may be of one mind in thy houſe, ſpeaking and iudging all one thing, and that there may be in vsus no ſchiſmes: but being perfect in the ſelfe-ſame mind, and the ſelfe-ſame vnderſtanding, we may walke valiantlie in the ſtrength of this meat, euen vntounto thy holie hill, and by thy grace may be lead vntounto thy tabernacles: who with the Father and the holie Ghoſt, liueſt and reigneſt one and the ſame GOD, world without end; Amen.
I Remember, Maiſter Doctor Peter, that you promiſed, when you diſputed with me the firſt daie, and that I in anſwering to your arguments obiected certeine places out of the fathers, you would ſatiſfie me, when you ſhould come to anſwering. Now the time is come for you to performe the ſame. Wherefore to oppoſe a martyr againſt Martyr, I will begin with Cyprian: and thus will I argue. Cyprian the martyr doth ſet downe tranſubſtantiation, Therefore Peter Martyr ſhould not denie the ſame.
D. Martyr.
So ſtrong is this argument, as if we ſhould argue from a thing to the name. For Cyprian was in verie déed a martyr, and I onelie am called Martyr. But let ſports go, I anſwer that Cyprian dooth not put tranſubſtantiation.
D. Tresham.
In his ſermon De coena Domini, he ſaith; Whether Cyprian dooth mean that there is a tranſubſtantiation.This bread which the Lord gaue to his diſciples, being changed, not in forme, but in nature, by the omnipotent power of GOD is made fleſh.
D. Martyr.
I denie that this place maketh for tranſubſtantiation.
D. Tresham.
Eraſmus noted vponupon the margent, that ſo this place muſt be vnderſtood.
D. Martyr.
Eraſmus did therefore note it vponupon the margent, bicauſe he knew that manie did gather this matter from hence. But how far Eraſmus was perſuaded in tranſubſtantiation, you may find out by his writings. Howbeit you ſéeme now to magnifie him, whom elſe-where ye handle moſt vniuſtlie. Sometime ye allow him not, and ye accuſe him euerie where of error: but now ye can eaſilie vrge his authoritie.
D. Tresham.
You are woont to alledge Eraſmus in theſe annotations of the margent, when he ſerueth your purpoſe; and now when he diſagréeth from you, you reiect him. He vndoubtedlie ſaith, that this common bread is changed.
D. Martyr.
That the bread is changed in the ſacrament I neuer denied. But I maruell that you, which brought foorth Cyprian at the beginning, doo now turne your ſelfe to Eraſmus. I grant indéed, that I once cited Eraſmus, according as he had noted in the margent of Auguſtine; but yet I did not attribute ſo much vntounto him, as I did not alſo confirme by other reaſons, that which I thought good to be prooued: bring you alſo other reaſons, and I will anſwer them.
D. Tresham.
When Eraſmus ſerueth for your purpoſe, you take him; but when he is againſt you, you repell him. Yea, but I prooue tranſubſtantiation out of Cyprians words: for he ſaith in the ſame place; This common bread is changed into fleſh and bloud, it procureth life and increaſe vntounto bodies; but a change of bread into fleſh is a tranſubſtantiation.
D. Martyr.
This is your propertie, that you will contemne and commend Eraſmus at your owne pleaſure. Howbeit, bicauſe the time ſhall not waſte, I will diſcuſſe the place of Cyprian, which you hauehave alledged; The bread, which the Lord offered to his diſciples being changed, not in forme, but in nature, was by the omnipotencie of the word made fleſh. Theſe be his whole words, I wreſt them not. And I anſwer, that he here appointeth a ſacramentall change of the bread, the which we doo affirme. And here hauehave we ſome things common with the tranſubſtantiators, and ſome things diuers from them. Herein hold I with you, that the forme of the bread remaineth, and is not changed as Cyprian ſaid, but it is the nature of bread that is changed. And as touching this change we diſagrée: for we ſaie, that the nature of bread is changed, bicauſe it is made a ſacrament of the bodie of Chriſt, and no leſſe a ſacrament of the myſticall bodie, That which is changed in the Euchariſt remaineth as touching the ſubiect.which before it was not: and therefore this change is attributed vntounto the nature, not vntounto the accidents of bread; ſith it is the nature of bread, whereby we be nouriſhed, and which conſiſteth of manie grains. And theſe be the reaſons, wherevpon the conſideration of this ſacrament is founded. So now, when Cyprian ſaith, that the nature of bread is changed, it followeth not, that the ſame remaineth not; for in naturall changes, that which is changed; to wit, the ſubiect, is reteined. Yea moreouer, if you ſhould take awaie the ſame ſubiect, the change ſhall not hauehave wherevnto to cleaue. In generation, the matter remaineth; in the alteration, the thing compounded; in the increaſe, that which is nouriſhed and increaſed; and in the locall motion, that which is mooued. Euen ſo, when Cyprian ſaith, that the nature of bread is changed, two things we hauehave, both that it remaineth, and that it is made a ſacrament, which before it was not.
D. Tresham.
Now is Cyprian no Cyprian, but a Petrian: there is no néed of omnipotencie, that we ſhould bring into the bread ſome thing intentionall, and which happeneth from without. The image of Chriſt hanging vponupon the croſſe, is of as much account as it.
D. Martyr.
I anſwer, that the ſacramentall change is a great matter, neither can it be wrought without the power of God: for it is a thing ſupernaturall, & it is onelie Gods worke to make ſacraments. And in baptiſme, where you iudge not anie tranſubſtantiation to be, a ſacrament, whereby we are graffed into Chriſt, is not made of water, without the omnipotent power of God. And that vntounto this matter is required the power of the holie Ghoſt, we learne it ſufficientlie of Auguſtine, in his third booke De trinitate, where he ſaith; Which, when it is brought by the hands of men vntounto that viſible ſhew, it is not ſanctified, to become ſo great a ſacrament, without the inuiſible operation of the holie Ghoſt. Wherefore, the image of Chriſt may perhaps be the ſigne of him, but no ſacramentall ſigne.
D. Tresham.
If the bread were made fleſh, as Cyprian ſaid it was, then was it fleſh; the argument is moſt euident. But this can neuer be granted to be true, that bread is fleſh: it is all one, as if one ſhould ſaie, that man is a ſtone.
D. Martyr.
We grant that bread is fleſh after ſuch a maner as it is made fleſh; How the bread is ſaid to be made fleſh.but it is not made fleſh by tranſubſtantiation, but by a ſacramentall conuerſion, and ſo euen according to this maner, we grant bread to be fleſh. Wherfore the antecedent, if it be rightlie vnderſtood, inferreth no more, but that bread is fleſh ſacramentallie. But if you will vnderſtand the antecedent, that bread is reallie or ſubſtantiallie made fleſh, we denie it. Wheras you adde afterward, that the propoſition muſt néeds be true; to wit, that bread is fleſh: and that this is verie abſurd. I ſaie that you hauehave not prooued, nor yet are able to prooue, that all propoſitions, which conſiſt of the verbe ſubſtantiue Est, Is, muſt be counted identicall, that is, when the ſame is ſaid to be the ſame; bicauſe ſome attributes may be affirmed of ſubiects, euen by a certeine proportion or agréeableneſſe: as the circumciſion is the couenant; where it is not required, that the couenant & circumciſion ſhould be one and the ſame. Againe, you ſée in the ſame propoſition, wherein it is ſaid; The word was made fleſh, both doo remaine, as well the word as the fleſh. Why then in the ſacrament, wherein you take vponupon you to prooue, that bread is made fleſh, may not bread in like maner remaine?
D. Tresham.
With Cyprian dooth Chryſoſtome conſent: both of them were of one ſpirit. Wherefore we hauehave found another witneſſe of the truth. Chryſoſtome moſt euidentlie ſetteth downe tranſubſtantiation: for in Encoenijs he hath an homilie, wherein he thus ſpeaketh; Dooſt thou ſée bread? Dooſt thou ſée wine? Doth it like other meate paſſe into the draught? God forbid. Doo not ſo thinke. For euen as war, if it be applied to the fire, is made like vntounto it, nothing of the ſubſtance remaineth, nothing runneth ouer; ſo thinke thou, that here likewiſe the myſteries are conſumed in the ſubſtance of the bodie, &c. Here you ſée, that Chryſoſtome dooth exclude the bread and the wine, and denieth that they paſſe awaie into the draught.
D. Martyr.
Chryſoſtom and other of the fathers vſed exceſſiue ſpeeches.I ſaie, that Chryſoſtome, as did the reſt of the fathers, to the intent he might ſpeake the more gloriouſlie of this ſacrament, vſed manie and great exceſſiue ſpéeches, whereby he might drawe the minds of his hearers to imbrace the matter of the ſacrament. Otherwiſe, theſe exceſſiue ſpéeches, if they ſhould be examined in all points, might not in anie wiſe ſtand; ſo as they hauehave néed of a conuenient interpretation. You may ſée, that oftentimes he, and other of the fathers, denie that abſolutelie, which was onelie to be denied in ſome reſpect. Yea and ſuch kind of ſpéeches you may ſée in the holie ſcriptures. Ephe. 6, 12.Paule ſaith; Our wreſtling is not againſt fleſh and bloud: which is againſt that, Gal. 5, 17.which is written to the Galathians; The fleſh luſteth againſt the ſpirit, and the ſpirit againſt the fleſh. Howbeit, he denied our ſtriuing to be againſt fleſh and bloud, in compariſon onelie; as if it ſhould be compared with that, which we hauehave with the ſpirituall craftineſſes in heauenlie things; to wit, with the diuell and his angels. Gal. 3, 28.And In Chriſt (ſaith the ſame apoſtle) there is neither male nor female, whereas yet chriſtianitie taketh not awaie the properties from humane nature. Naie rather, the apoſtle himſelfe gaue particular commandements in Chriſt, both to maſters and to ſeruants, to huſbands and to wiues. But he ment, that male and female are not in Chriſt, ſo far as belongeth to the receiuing of redemption, grace, and ſaluation. The ſame apoſtle wrote, that he was not ſent to baptiſe, but to preach the Goſpell. And yet Chriſt ſaid as well to one, as to another of his apoſtles, Matt. 28, 19not onelie that they ſhould preach, but that they ſhould alſo baptiſe. Wherefore he denied, that he was ſent to baptiſe, not abſolutelie, but in ſome reſpect, meaning to ſignifie, by comparing of the two offices togither, that preaching was principallie committed vntounto him; and that the ſame did ſo much excell the office of baptiſing, that after a certeine ſort it might be ſaid, that he was not ſent to that purpoſe: otherwiſe he baptiſed Criſpus, Gaius, 1. Cor. 1, 14 and 16.and the houſhold of Stephana. And after this maner muſt the fathers be vnderſtood, that ſometime here they denie bread and wine, not in verie déed flatlie or abſolutelie; but in reſpect of compariſon with the matter of the ſacraments. Bicauſe for our part, we muſt make ſo great an account of the matter of the ſacraments, as we ſhould hauehave no more regard vntounto the ſignes, than if they were not at all. And to the end they may ſhew, what we ought to ſéeke for in the communion, not in verie déed bread and wine by it ſelfe; for theſe things we hauehave at home: but the bodie and bloud of Chriſt; as though by a compariſon of the thing vntounto theſe, the bread and wine may after a ſort be ſaid, not to be extant. For we ought to drawe awaie our mind from earthlie elements, vntounto the bodie and bloud of Chriſt in heauen: and ſo come we to the words of Chryſoſtome, when he ſaith; Dooſt thou ſée bread? Dooſt thou ſée wine? He ſtraitwaie addeth; Doo not ſo thinke. And after the ſimilitude of wax he writeth; (So thinke thou here alſo.) And in the words which followe he ſheweth ſufficientlie that he ſpeaketh hyperbolicallie, when he ſaith; Doo not thinke, that you receiue of a man the diuine bodie, but fire with the toongs of Seraphim himſelfe. Theſe things cannot be vnderſtood according as the words be, vnleſſe ye will either take awaie, or tranſubſtantiate the miniſter himſelfe. And he addeth; Account ye, that the bloud of ſaluation floweth as it were out of the diuine and immaculate ſide: the which thing yée your ſelues will not grant, neither can it be, that bloud ſhould now flowe foorth of the impaſſible bodie of Chriſt.
D. Tresham.
You hauehave ſpoken much: and the ſcriptures which you hauehave cited do admit another interpretation: and thoſe things which you applie vntounto Chryſoſtome, be not agréeable vntounto him. For Chryſoſtome himſelfe, did firſt in theſe words eſtabliſh the truth of doctrine and of faith; and then turned himſelfe vntounto maners, that he might drawe vsus vntounto higher matters. And firſt, he onelie inſtructeth and teacheth, before he commeth vntounto figures; and when he ſetteth downe doctrine & teacheth, he bringeth an example of wax: afterward I grant (as you ſaie) that he vſeth hyperbolicall or exceſſiue ſpeaches. Now I demand; Did Chryſoſtome ſpeake the truth, or did he not? If the truth, I hauehave what I ſought: if not, he is found to be a falſe witnes of God; according to that which Paule hath in the firſt epiſtle to the Corinthians the 15. chapter, while he confirmeth the reſurrection. For hée writeth; If it be not true that Chriſt roſe againe, we are found falſe witneſſes.
D. Martyr.
You ſaie that Chryſoſtome firſt teachech doctrine, & then when he commeth to the framing of maners, you grant that he vſeth exceſſiue and figuratiue ſpéeches. And you will hauehave it that the example of wax belongeth to the former part. I anſwer, that now we agrée togither; that Chryſoſtome in this place, as in others alſo, is full of hyperbolical ſpeeches; to the intent we ſhould be admoniſhed, not to hauehave our eies faſtened vponupon the figures, but that we raiſe vp our ſelues towards heauen vntounto Chriſt himſelfe, and conſider of his death in our mind. Theſe figures hauehave I plainlie enough prooued by two or thrée places; & yet for all that muſt it not be ſaid, that Chryſoſtome ſpake falſlie. For the verie true bodie of Chriſt is giuen vsus to be eaten, and his bloud to be droonken; but yet are theſe things receiued with the mind and with faith; and by them is not onelie the mind renewed, but alſo the bodie. And bicauſe we ſhould not be deceiued in his figuratiue ſpéeches, he vſed the verbes (eſtéeme you, thinke you, and conſider you.) But whereas you diſtinguiſh theſe things into doctrine, and into maners, that ſame doth not appéere by the order of Chryſoſtoms words. And much leſſe dooth that ſtand, that you will hauehave the ſimilitude of wax to be vnderſtood properlie, as though it belonged vntounto doctrine. For in the fourth booke of Cyrill vponupon Iohn, the 17. chapter, we hauehave the ſelfe-ſame ſimilitude, as touching our change into Chriſt. The words of Cyrill be theſe; Euen as if a man among molten wax powre in other wax, he muſt of neceſſitie mingle the one with the other throughout; ſo if anie man receiue the fleſh and bloud of the Lord, he is ſo ioined with him, that Chriſt is found in him, and he in Chriſt. The ſimilitude of wax in Cyrill.And the ſame ſaieng in a maner hath he in the tenth booke and 13. chapter, where he writeth; For euen as if a man doo mingle togither wax molten in the fire, with other wax likewiſe molten, in ſuch wiſe that he ſéeth one certeine thing to be made of both; ſo by the communion of the bodie and bloud of Chriſt, he is in vsus, and we are in him. And thus much out of Cyrill. Where you ſée that both Chriſt and we are compared vntounto molten wax, and yet will you not ſaie that Chriſt and we be tranſubſtantiated. How then will you ſaie this to be doone as concerning bread, bicauſe of that ſimilitude ſet downe by Chryſoſtome? Nay rather if the matter be diligentlie examined, Chriſt is more ioined vntounto vsus, than vntounto the bread.we our ſelues are more ioined vntounto Chriſt than bread. For Chriſt is ioined after ſuch a maner as he is vntounto bread, to this end, that we ſhould trulie be vnited vntounto him. And the words whereby the bread is called the bodie of Chriſt, doo more belong vntounto vsus, than vntounto it, which by nature vnderſtandeth or beléeueth nothing.
D. Tresham.
Chryſoſtome is the beſt interpretour of himſelfe, who vponupon the 26. chapter of Matthew, homilie the 83. ſheweth, that hée dooth not ſpeake hyberbolicallie, and writeth: Wherefore let vsus beléeue God euerie where, and let vsus not withſtand him, euen although vntounto our ſenſe and cogitation it may ſéeme abſurd which he ſpeaketh. And a litle after; For we cannot be deceiued by his words, but our owne ſenſe is verie eaſilie deceiued. Theſe words, This is my bodie, cannot be falſe: let vsus be lead with no ambiguitie, but let vsus beléeue, &c. And anon after: What ſunnie beames ſhall not that hand excéed, which handleth this crowne? Héere beginneth he to intermingle figures, neither muſt you alledge figures out of their owne places.
D. Martyr.
Now as I ſaid, do you concur with me, that Chryſoſtome otherwhile ſpeaketh tropicallie in this matter, bicauſe you cannot denie it: but onelie you contend with me, that before thoſe words; What ſunnie beames ought not that hand to excéed? there is no figure. The thing it ſelfe ſheweth that it is otherwiſe. For you hauehave it at the beginning. No ſenſible thing is deliuered vntounto vsus by Chriſt; and denie you if you can, that ſenſible ſignes are inſtituted by him and deliuered vntounto vsus. And moreouer he added; Oh how manie ſaie at this daie! I would I had the forme and ſhape of him! I would I had his verie garments! I would I might ſée his ſhooes! You ſée himſelfe, and you touch himſelfe. And will you not acknowledge a figure to be in this place? Which of vsus in the Euchariſt dooth ſée and touch Chriſt? And a little after; He dooth reduce vsus (as I maie ſaie) into one maſſe and ſubſtance with him: neither maketh he vsus his bodie by faith onelie, but in verie déed. Here dooth he make mention of our change into Chriſt, which you cannot ſaie is a tranſubſtantiation. And againe, in the verie ſame former places, he compareth baptiſme with the Euchariſt; to the intent we may vnderſtand that the like conſideration muſt be had of the one, that is of the other. And bicauſe you take hold for your ſelfe of that, which Chryſoſtome ſaid; Neither dooth he onelie by faith, but in verie déed make [vsus] his bodie: you are neuer a whit furthered thereby, ſéeing he ſpeaketh not there of bread, but of the coniunction of Chriſt with vsus: which I grant ſtandeth not of faith onlie. For albeit that we imbrace Chriſt in the ſacrament by faith, After what maner we be trulie changed into Chriſt.yet dooth there a verie true change of Chriſt into vsus followe vponupon the ſame. For our mind is made chéerefull and readie to doo honour vntounto God; and our bodie is become more ſubdued: and ſo there is made a verie change indéed, as well of the mind as of the bodie. And after this maner it is vnderſtood, that we are gathered into one maſſe or ſubſtance with Chriſt, bicauſe we are made verie conformable vntounto him. And ſo you ſée that by theſe words, bread is not taken awaie; nor dooth it followe, that Chriſt is either reallie or ſubſtantiallie conteined therein: but rather you hauehave it here out of Chryſoſtome, that they be ſenſible things which are deliuered vntounto vsus. And after the words which you noted, before which you would not hauehave a figure to be, figures are there ſo manifeſtlie, that you cannot denie them; as when he ſaith: The toong is made bloudie or red. Wherefore it followeth that all this ſpeach is hyperbolicall or figuratiue.
D. Tresham.
I would to God that you could rightlie vnderſtand! The maner of the apoſtles and fathers is, firſt to teach faith, and the doctrine of truth, and afterward to take order for maners.
D. Martyr.
But yet in theſe places of Chryſoſtome, you cannot diſtinguiſh to me doctrine and maners: figuratiue ſpéeches be ſpread euerie where.
D. Tresham.
I hauehave alreadie ſhewed you how the caſe ſtandeth. But I will bring an other Doctor againſt you, Of Cardinall Caietan.and I deale courteouſlie with you. For I will put one to you that (as I take it) was your countriman, Thomas De vio, Caietanus.
D. Martyr.
I allow him not, he is a ſchoole-man, he was a cardinall, and liued in my time: neither yet would you in all matters admit him.
D. Tresham.
Verie well, I yéeld to you; if you will not allow of him, I will not alledge him.
Heere did the reuerend father, the biſhop of Lincolne, giuegive leaue vntounto M. Morgan to oppoſe againe, if he would.
M. Morgan.
ALl the Doctors and fathers, to the laſt man, confute all the principles whereby tranſubſtantiation is taken awaie, and therefore it muſt be eſtabliſhed.
D. Martyr.
I denie the antecedent: for if the fathers be rightlie vnderſtood, they doo not take awaie our principles.
M. Morgan.
This principle they quite take awaie; that an humane bodie cannot be in manie places at once: and that a bodie conſiſting of quantitie, cannot be without a meaſurable quantitie.
D. Martyr.
I denie your argument, that the fathers doo ſo aboliſh theſe things, as they be taken vtterlie awaie. Nether be theſe full principles, for the which tranſubſtantiation is refuſed. For euen Luther, and they which hold with him, doo grant the bodie to be in manie places at once; and that a bodie of quantitie may be without a quantitatiue meaſure; & yet notwithſtanding they denie tranſubſtantiation. The cheefe principle for which tranſubſtantiation is denied.Wherefore thoſe things which you recite be no full and perfect principles, for the which tranſubſtantiation is refuſed of vsus. For our firſt and chéefe principle is, the holie ſcripture, which dooth acknowledge bread to be in that place.
M. Morgan.
That a bodie maie be without quantitatiue meaſure, it ſhall be prooued out of Chryſoſtome vponupon the ſecond chapter of Iohn the 86. homilie, where it is written; It may verie well be doubted, how an incorruptible bodie tooke the print of the nailes, and could be touched with a mortall hand. But let not this trouble you, ſéeing this came by ſpeciall permiſſion. For the bodie being ſo thin and light, as it could enter in the doores, when they were faſt ſhut, wanted all maner of groſeneſſe: but euen ſuch did he ſhew himſelfe to be, that the reſurrection might be beléeued. And that you might vnderſtand that he himſelfe was crucified, and that no other man did riſe for him, therfore did he riſe with the ſignes of the croſſe, and did eate. Of which ſigne of the reſurrection, the apoſtles made a great account, ſaieng; Acts. 10, 41.We which did eate and drinke togither with him. Wherefore, euen as when before his paſſion he walked vponupon the waters, we ſaie not that that bodie was anie other than a bodie of our nature; ſo after the reſurrection, perceiuing it to hauehave the prints of the nails, we muſt not ſaie that the ſame was corruptible: theſe things were ſhewed for the diſciples ſake. You heare that it was by diuine permiſſion, that the wounds were ſhewed, to the intent the diſciples might beléeue; and that the bodie of Chriſt was without all thickneſſe, and that it was ſo ſubtill and light, as it could enter in, the doores being faſt ſhut. What ſaie you to Chryſoſtome?
D. Martyr.
Firſt I anſwer, that I heare not by theſe words, that the bodie of Chriſt was in diuers places at one time, for then it had béene no humane bodie. And as touching thickneſſe, I anſwer, that the bodie being glorified, is not altogither without it, otherwiſe it ſhould be no humane bodie; yet ſuch a ſubſtance as is nimble and light, and obeieth the ſpirit. Neither dooth it therefore followe, that Chriſt was without circumſcription, the which belongeth to the meaſure of quantitie; notwithſtanding the which, he might neuertheleſſe by his Godhead and glorie, penetrate vntounto his diſciples. And bréeflie I diſtinguiſh of groſſeneſſe, either that you will vnderſtand Chryſoſtome, that indéed Chriſt had the ſame, but yet not ſuch as ſhould hinder him from entering in vntounto his diſciples. Wherein I agrée with him: or elſe you thinke, that he muſt be ſo vnderſtood, as he wanted all kind of thickneſſe; That the bodie of Chriſt after his reſurrection had a quantitie.and this doo I denie. Neither doo the words of Chryſoſtome make for ſuch an opinion: for he is plainlie of the euangeliſts mind, that the prints of the nailes and of the croſſe were kept ſtill in him. For how can it be, that figures can hauehave place, where, in the ſubſtance there is no quantitie? I grant indéed that it was of permiſſion, that he ſuffered the ſcars vponupon his bodie, that he would be felt, and that he did eate and drinke with his apoſtles: for it was not of neceſſitie that theſe things ſhould be doone; but ſo far foorth as himſelfe would. Yet in the meane time I heare not, that it was of permiſſion that he had a quantitie, or that he was in ſome one place: which I affirmed to be neceſſarie vntounto a bodie. Againe, he affirmeth that the ſame bodie was not of anie other nature than ours be. But that ours hauehave a quantitie, and meaſure of a quantitie, it is moſt certeine: onlie he excepteth poſſiblilitie to be corrupted. And he aſcribeth vntounto him ſo great a lightneſſe and ſubtilitie of bodie, as he could enter in when the doores were ſhut. And onlie he taketh awaie ſuch thickneſſe, as might hinder that entering in, but yet not all thickeneſſe.
M. Morgan.
The bodie of Chriſt (by your ſaieng) ſtucke in the middeſt of the doores, his thickneſſe not hindering him, and therefore there were two bodies in one place.
D. Martyr.
Hervnto I anſwer two maner of waies. Firſt, that the holie ſcriptures doo declare this miracle; and therefore we eaſilie giuegive credit vntounto them: but that the bodie of Chriſt is ſubſtantiallie preſent in manie places at once, they neuer teach. Naie rather, they aſcribe vntounto the bodie of Chriſt a certeine place: heauen I meane, at the right hand of the father, not in one place. Further, it is repugnant with the nature of a true humane bodie, and therefore muſt not be admitted. Secondlie, I ſaie, that in the ſame entrance of the bodie of Chriſt vntounto his diſciples, the quantitie of the wall might by the power of his diuinitie ſo yéeld, as two bodies were not at one time in one place. And I remember, that Tertullian (bicauſe ye be woont alſo to allege that the bodie of Chriſt came foorth of the virgins wombe being ſhut) in his booke De reſurrectione carnis, writeth; that Chriſt in his birth opened the wombe of his mother. And this dooth Cyprian alſo in his expoſition of the Créed affirme. Whether Chriſt opened the wombe of his mother.And Ierom vntounto Luſtathius writeth; that Chriſt came foorth bloudie out of his mothers wombe. Some there be, that thinke Chriſt came foorth of the virgins wombe, the ſame altogither cloſed and ſhut. Wherefore, as all men are not of one mind in this matter, ſo hauehave I giuen you a double anſwer. One, wherein I grant, that this pearſing through was doone by miracle; yet not ſo, that the bodie of Chriſt in pearſing through loſt all his quantitie, but by an argument drawne from a ſimilitude, I doo not grant, that the bodie of Chriſt is in manie places at once, bicauſe this the ſcripture teacheth not, but ſheweth the contrarie. The other anſwer is, that by the power of the Godhead, the doores gaue place; euen as ſome ſaie, that the virgins wombe was opened.
M. Morgan.
VntoUnto that which you anſwer, that the thickneſſe or quantitie of the wall or doore gaue place by miracle vntounto Chriſt that pearſed it: I demand of you, whether the apoſtles ſawe the doores giuegive place?
D. Martyr.
What if they ſawe it not? It maketh no matter whether they ſawe it, or ſawe it not: the holie ſcripture dooth neither affirme it, nor denie it; but bicauſe it declareth it to be doone, it muſt be beléeued. But that the bodie of Chriſt may carnallie or ſubſtantiallie be in manie places togither, or lieth hid vnderunder the accidents of bread and wine, it teacheth no where.
M. Morgan.
I therefore demanded this queſtion, bicauſe if the doores gaue place, and the apoſtles ſawe it not, Chriſt did plainlie deceiue the ſenſes; and ſo he had béene a iugler, the which you doo oppugne, when you denie that the bodie of Chriſt lieth hid vnderunder the forme of bread, leaſt forſooth he ſhould be accounted a iugler or deceiuer of the ſenſes, when as neuertheleſſe Eraſmus vponupon the 24. chapter of Luke, ſaith; that The bodie of Chriſt when he will is inuiſible, and when he will, it may be ſéene. But ſetting this aſide: Auguſtine, in his ſermon, which in number is 159. and the title hereof is Dominica in octaua paſchae, in the third ſermon Ad competentes; It is a miracle, that our Lord Ieſus Chriſt in verie fleſh entered in vntounto his diſciples, through the doores being ſhut. Perhaps ye require of me a reaſon, and ye require an argument. If it were verie fleſh (ſaie you) which roſe againe, how did it enter in vntounto the diſciples, the doores being faſt ſhut? Render me a reaſon (ſaith hée.) O man, if thou require a reaſon of me, it is not woonderfull; if there be ſought an example, it ſhall not be ſingular. Dooſt thou beléeue that the Lord Chriſt walked with ſure footing vponupon the water? I knowe thou beléeueſt it. And wilt thou then aſke me; If Chriſt entered in by the dooers being ſhut, where is the weight of his bodie? Let the meaſure and weight depart for a time. He hath doone this, to whome nothing is vnpoſſible. Could not Chriſt, which brought foorth his fleſh out of the ſepulchre, enter in vntounto his diſciples the doores being ſhut? And the ſelfeſame Auguſtine in the ſame title, ſermon. 4. A great miracle! The bodie of Chriſt which aroſe was of true fleſh, and therefore of quantitie.but yet ceaſe thou to maruell, if thou thinke him to be GOD. For it were a maruell, if he that were onelie man had doone this: referre it vntounto the omnipotencie, not vntounto a phantaſie. He entered in when the doores were ſhut. I anſwer thée, that thou mighteſt knowe that he was true fleſh, he ſhewed his ſcarres by touching. But euen as it is not (ſaiſt thou) the propertie of a bodilie nature, to enter in through the doores being ſhut, ſo commeth it not of a bodily power, to walke vponupon the waues of the ſea: he entered in by the doores when they were ſhut. Anſwer me. Grant me that he had verie fleſh; he walked vponupon the waters of the ſea. Grant thou me alſo a weight of the fleſh. Wilt thou knowe that this likewiſe came of the omnipotencie? He gaue it alſo vntounto Peter, who gaue that which he would; and that which was proper to himſelfe, he reſerued: for he being aliue, entered in at the doores being ſhut, and in his birth opened not the cloſenes of his mothers wombe. Lo, you hauehave heard that the weight and quantitatiue meaſure departed from Chriſts bodie.
D. Martyr.
Before you recited the places of Auguſtine, you obiected; But if the wall or doore gaue place vntounto Chriſt, when he entered in, and the apoſtles ſawe it not; then did Chriſt plainlie delude the ſenſes. I anſwer, that this matter is not of neceſſitie: the apoſtles might ſée him ſtanding by them in their ſight, and yet not know the maner how he entred in to them. And whereas you ſaie, We denie …t but that the fleſh of Chriſt is viſible and inuiſible, at his owne pleaſure.that I am againſt it, that the bodie of Chriſt is viſible and inuiſible at his owne pleaſure, leaſt he ſhould ſéeme to be a iugler or mocker, I ſaie you are deceiued: I ſpake not this of the bodie of Chriſt, but of bread: bicauſe it might ſéeme to be the part of a iugler, to ſhew the properties, forme, taſte, colour, and qualitie of bread, and yet to take awaie the ſubſtance thereof. Neither dooth Eraſmus, whome you alledge, make againſt me. But I anſwer vntounto Auguſtine, and ſtanding to my former diſtinction, I ſaie; that he meaneth not, that from the bodie of Chriſt departed all the meaſure of quantitie, for then ſhould it hauehave béene no bodie; but he onelie vnderſtandeth, that thoſe things were reiected, which might hauehave béene a let to his entrance and pearſing through to his diſciples.
M. Morgan.
If there were permitted a quantitie and meaſure thereof in the bodie of Chriſt, in ſuch ſort as it ſhould not hinder the perſing of the doore, it followeth that there were two bodies in one place.
D. Martyr.
I denie the concluſion, bicauſe it might be (as I hauehave ſaid) that the quantitie and thickneſſe of the doore gaue place.
M. Morgan.
If the quantitie of the doore had giuen place, it had béene no néed for Auguſtine to ſaie; that the meaſure and weight of Chriſts bodie gaue place for a time: for he might hauehave entered in with his whole meaſure and weight, when the quantitie of the doore or wall gaue place. And ſo might I alſo anſwer to that which you obiect out of Auguſtine vntounto Dardanus. Againe you ſaie, that the meaſure & weight of the bodie, which hindered the entering in, were caſt awaie Howbeit, all quantitatiue meaſure hindereth the bodie of Chriſt from entering in through the doores being ſhut, and therefore all the quantitatiue meaſure was caſt awaie from the bodie of Chriſt.
D. Martyr.
Whereas you take vponupon you to prooue, That all quantitie and meaſure thereof letteth not Chriſts bodie from entering in, the doores being ſhut.that all quantitie and meaſure therof letteth the bodie of Chriſt from paſſing through, that is not true: for he might by a miracle and by the power of his Godhead, enter in vntounto the apoſtles, euen when the doores were ſhut; as it hath alreadie béene ſaid, either bicauſe he opened the doores themſelues when they were ſhut, or elſe bicauſe they gaue place vntounto him for a time, and afterward did returne to their former ſtate, or elſe by ſome other meanes not knowne vntounto vsus by the ſcripture. Of the like thing doone, read the fift chapter of the Acts of the apoſtles. But this is a verie plaine matter, that all quantitie being remooued, a humane bodie cannot reteine his owne nature. Howbeit, the bodie of Chriſt, and the glorified bodies of ſaints, hauehave not ſuch a quantitie of groſſeneſſe; but their bodies be light and nimble, in ſuch ſort as they obeie the ſpirit, and are mooued whither it will. And wheras you ſaie, you can after the ſame maner anſwer vntounto thoſe things which are obiected out of the epiſtle vntounto Dardanus: if you frame an anſwer and declare the ſame, I will ſaie what I thinke therof; but when you ſpeake generallie, it appeareth not what you would. And as to that which you ſaie, that the quantitie of the wall giuing place, there was no néed for the meaſure and weight of Chriſts bodie to be left for a time, you weigh not the matter aright: for the quantitie of the wall might in ſuch ſort giuegive place, as yet there ſhould be néed of ſome ſlenderneſſe and lightneſſe, or agilitie to the bodie of Chriſt, when it paſſed through: as when he walked vponupon the waters, the waters ſuſteined his bodie as it walked, but yet ſo, as ſome weight went awaie from the bodie when it walked. Beſides, as I ſaid before, the ſcripture ſheweth of this miracle, but ſo dooth it not ſhew to be doon in the Euchariſt. And this was my chéefeſt principle againſt tranſubſtantiation.
M. Morgan.
Alſo Auguſtine in the third tome, Such a bodie had Chriſt as was put into the ſepulchre, and therefore was of quantitie. Luk. 24. 39.in his booke De agone christiano, chap. 24. Neither let vsus giuegive eare vntounto them which denie, that ſuch a bodie of the Lord roſe againe, as was put in the ſepulchre. For if it had not béene ſuch a bodie, he him ſelfe would not hauehave ſaid to his diſciples after his reſurrection; Handle and ſee, for a ſpirit hath no fleſh and bones as ye ſee mee hauehave. And it is ſacriledge to beléeue, that our Lord, he himſelfe being the truth, did make a lie in anie thing. Nor let it mooue vsus, that bicauſe it is written, that he appéered ſuddenlie to his diſciples, the doores being ſhut, we ſhould therefore denie that the ſame was an humane bodie; ſéeing againſt the nature of this bodie we ſée, that he entered in by the doores when they were ſhut: for all things are poſſible vntounto God. And it is manifeſt, that to walke vponupon the waters, is againſt the nature of this bodie, and yet not onelie the Lord himſelfe, before his paſſion, walked after ſuch a maner, but he alſo made Peter ſo to walke. And ſo likewiſe after his reſurrection he did with his bodie what he would. If doubtleſſe he were able before his paſſion, to glorifie that bodie, that it might appéere as bright as the ſunne; why could he not alſo after his paſſion reduce the ſame in a moment, to what thinneſſe he would, that he might enter in at the doores faſt ſhut? You heare out of Auguſtine, that the bodie of Chriſt became verie ſlender or ſubtill, for his entering in at the doores being ſhut: whereby it followeth, that two bodies were togither in one place, which is no leſſe abſurd vntounto nature, than one verie bodie to be in manie places at once.
D. Martyr.
This place conteineth in it thrée chéefe points. Firſt, that the bodie of Chriſt aroſe ſuch a one, as it was in the ſepulchre; that is to wit, a verie humane bodie: which being true, it could not be without a quantitie, and the meaſure thereof. The ſecond point is, that Chriſt, after his reſurrection, did with his bodie what he would; the which I eaſilie hold with: but yet he ſaith not, that he would hauehave his bodie to be without a quantitie, or to be found in manie places at once. The third is, that he could reduce the ſame in a moment of time, to becom as ſlender as he would, that he might enter in at the doores being ſhut: by which maner of ſpeach, quantitie is not taken awaie, but prooued. For thinneſſe is a qualitie of a ſubſtance that hath bodie and quantitie: wherefore it requireth a quantitie and ſome meaſure of the ſame. It is alſo remembred that Chriſt ſaid; Handle and ſee, &c. But who is ignorant, that thoſe things which are handled, hauehave both quantitie & meaſure of quantitie? Wherfore by ſlenderneſſe he vnderſtandeth agilitie, yet not that which taketh awaie the bodie. But as for that which followeth; to wit, that two bodies were togither, I hauehave alreadie denied it: bicauſe in ſome part the quantitie of the wall might giuegive place; and yet neuertheleſſe the thinneſſe of Chriſts bodie to be added. Againe, the fathers, which on this wiſe affirme this perſing through, perhaps accounted it not for ſo great an abſurditie in nature, to hauehave two bodies to be in one place, as to hauehave one bodie to be togither in manie places. Laſtlie I hauehave alreadie ſaid, that of this acceſſe of Chriſt vntounto his apoſtles, when the doores were ſhut, the ſcripture ſpeaketh; but it dooth not teach as touching the bodie of Chriſt, that it is in manie places togither, or without quantitie: and by this miracle there is nothing diminiſhed as touching the veritie of Chriſts bodie, neither is his proper quantitie taken awaie.
M. Morgan.
I allow not that which you laſt ſpake; to wit, that Auguſtine by ſubtilitie vnderſtandeth agilitie, bicauſe that belongeth to the ſwiftneſſe of motion: but the qualitie, whereof Auguſtine ſpeaketh, dooth ſerue to the perſing through of thicke matters. But now I will ſhew that it is the gift of a glorified bodie to penetrate, when it will, through moſt thicke bodies. For Ambroſe vponupon the 24. chapter of Luke ſaith; But Thomas had cauſe to woonder, when he ſawe a bodie come in among them, all places béeing faſt ſhut, by waies vnpoſſible to be entered, being compaſſed about with bodies, & the place remaining ſound: & therefore a maruell, how a bodilie nature conueied it ſelfe in by a bodie that could not be paſſed through by an inuiſible entrance, but by viſible apparance, eaſilie to be touched, and hard to be conceiued. Finallie, the diſciples being troubled, they thought they ſawe a ſpirit: and therefore the Lord, to make a ſhew of his reſurrection, ſaid; Feele ye and ſee, Lk 21. 14., 39for a ſpirit hath not fleſh and bones, as ye ſee me hauehave. Wherefore he paſſed not through that waie, ſhut vp and vnvſed, by nature without a bodie, 1. Co. 15, 44but by the qualitie of a bodilie reſurrection. Sith that which is touched, is a bodie; that which is handled, is a bodie; and in a bodie ſhall we riſe. For it is ſowen a naturall bodie, it ſhall ariſe a ſpirituall bodie. But that ſhall be more ſubtill; this is more groſſe, as that which yet was compact with the qualitie of earthlie corruption. For how could that not be a bodie, wherein remained the marks of the wounds, and prints of the ſcars, which the Lord offered to be felt; wherein he not onelie confirmeth faith, but alſo whetteth deuotion? Bicauſe it pleaſed him to carrie into heauen the wounds which he had receiued for our ſakes; but aboliſh them he would not, that he might ſhew vntounto God the father, the price of our redemption. Héere dooth Ambroſe affirme, that all glorified bodies hauehave power to carrie themſelues through the thickeſt bodies. For he ſaith, that by reaſon of the qualitie of his bodilie reſurrection, he paſſed thorough places, which vſuallie were vnpoſſible to be paſſed. And ſo we conclude here, that it muſt be attributed vntounto glorified bodies, that when they will, they can penetrate through the thickeſt bodies. And you ſhall note that he ſaith; The bodie came in when the doores were ſhut, without breach of anie thing that was ioined togither.
D. Martyr.
It ſerueth not for my matter to diſpute now of agilitie. Wherefore as concerning this, I grant that Auguſtine by this Latin word Subtilitas vnderſtood Tenuitas, that is, ſlenderneſſe or thinneſſe: we will not ſtriue for this matter. But I will referre you to that which I ſaid a little before; to wit, that ſubtilitie is a qualitie of quantitie, and dooth neceſſarilie ſuppoſe a meaſure of quantitie. Then doo I anſwer, that this place of Ambroſe maketh nothing againſt me: for the ſubſtance of Chriſt, which did penetrate vntounto his diſciples, he plainelie calleth corporall, and onelie attributed the miracle to the qualitie of his reſurrection; and that which is handled and touched, he expreſlie ſaith is a bodie. And betwéene this bodie of ours, which we now hauehave, and that which ſhall hereafter be, he putteth this difference; that that ſhall be more ſubtill, and this is more groſſe. And he would hauehave Chriſt to hauehave a true bodie, bicauſe of the marks of his wounds: wherefore he taketh not awaie the quantitie or meaſure thereof, but onlie ſheweth what the qualitie of the reſurrection is able to doo. And in this argument of yours, two things ſhould hauehave béene declared, which you did not ſhew. The one is, that the thickneſſe or maſſineſſe of the doore gaue not place by miracle. Secondlie, that an humane bodie can be at one time in manie places. Theſe things you tooke vponupon you to be declared, and yet hauehave not prooued.
M. Morgan.
Yes indéed, I declared it at the firſt; to wit, that quantitie gaue not place: bicauſe Ambroſe ſaith, that the bodie of Chriſt entered without breach of anie thing that was cloſe.
D. Martyr.
Here, ſaith Ambroſe, the bodie of Chriſt had an entrance and waie, by places impenetrable and vnpaſſable: which I alſo doo grant, bicauſe they might not be penetrated without a miracle, the which might be, that the maſſe of the wall gaue place to the bodie glorified, and that without offenſe to the whole frame either of the bodie of Chriſt, or of the doore, which was not broken or opened by violence, but eaſilie, and of it owne accord made roome, and was reſtored againe into his owne place, in ſuch ſort as there appeared neither violence nor harme doone. And moreouer, that which is chéeflie required, you prooue not anie ſuch thing to be doone. The fathers I hauehave expounded, who although they may be drawne vntounto your opinion, yet hauehave I plainlie taught before, out of the ſcriptures, what anſwer muſt be made.
Here was D. Treſham commanded to diſpute againe.
D. Tresham.
YOu verie well knowe, that ſubſtance dooth in nature go before quantitie; and therefore it is no hard matter vntounto the diuine power to be ſeparated and found without quantitie.
D. Martyr.
I know that in a ſupernaturall conſideration, ſubſtance is ſet apart from quantitie, bicauſe there is an other reaſon and definition to be had of the one than is of the other. But as touching that a corporall ſubſtance ſhould be extant, and eſpeciallie the true bodie of a man, it cannot be, if quantitie be taken awaie. And who knoweth not, that although ſubſtance doo in nature go before quantitie, yet is it ſtraitwaie diuided into bodilie and vnbodilie: and bodilie is diuided into that that hath life, and that which is without life. And a bodie hauing life, is ſaid to be inſtrumentall, and alſo furniſhed with members, which to be without quantitie is vnpoſſible: otherwiſe it would be granted, that an humane bodie is without féet, without hands, and without eies, &c.
D. Tresham.
It is no hard matter vntounto God, that that which in nature is the former, ſhould be extant without the latter.
D. Martyr.
You ſhould in the antecedent hauehave vnderſtood a bodie naturall, and inſtrumentall, made perfect with all the members; ſuch as is the bodie of Chriſt; & after this maner it is not ſo firſt in quantitie, as it can be extant without it.
D. Tresham.
That which includeth not contradiction in the termes thereof, God is able to bring to paſſe. He would prooue Chriſt to be a ſigne of himſelfe. verſe. 10.Againe, you affirmed in your former diſputation, that one and the ſame thing is not a ſigne of it ſelfe in the ſelfe-ſame perſon. That doo I denie out of the ſecond chapter of Luke; I bring you glad tidings of great ioie, and this ſhall be a ſigne vntounto you: ye ſhall find the babe ſwadled, and laid in a manger.
D. Martyr.
Firſt of all I anſwer, that it includeth contradiction, that there ſhould be an inſtrumentall bodie furniſhed perfectlie with members, and yet to be without quantitie. Againe, that which you bring out of Luke prooueth not; for the infant ſwadled in clothes was no ſigne of himſelfe; but that the angell ſpake a truth: but the true words of the angell and Chriſt hauehave not one and the ſelfe-ſame perſon. And I before, when I ſpake theſe things, ſaid; that the ſonne in the epiſtle to the Hebrues, is not called the image of his fathers ſubſtance, vnleſſe it be as touching his manhood. For by the figure Antonomaſia, this name is fit for him aboue other men. For when it is ſaid; Manie and ſundrie waies ſpake God to the fathers in old time in the prophets, but laſt of all in his ſonne, the ſpéech concerneth him now incarnate. Albeit that all men are the images of God, yet much more is this attributed vntounto the man Chriſt. After what maner alſo that place may be vnderſtood, as touching the Godhead, I hauehave declared; and thoſe things were handled by the waie.
D. Tresham.
I demand of you, whether the bodie of Chriſt be paſſible and impaſſible both togither?
D. Martyr.
I anſwer as before, according to the opinion of Vigilius, that one and the ſame nature dooth not receiue ſuch contraries both togither.
D. Tresham.
I prooue that the verie ſame bodie was both paſſible and impaſſible at one time: bicauſe the bodie of Chriſt, and the ſcripture teach, that it was paſſible, not of neceſſitie, but willinglie: ſith in Iohn it is ſaid; I laie downe my life, and no man taketh it from me: and I adde, that no man could take it awaie. And in Eſaie the prophet, Eſaie. 53, 7.it is ſaid; He is offered vp, bicauſe he himſelfe would: and therefore in will he was paſſible. Alſo he was impaſſible, bicauſe if Chriſt would not, he ſhould not hauehave ſuffered; ſo as the bodie of Chriſt was paſſible and impaſſible both togither, as he would himſelfe. Wherfore, let this be the forme of the argument; That bodie is impaſſible, Whether the bodie of Chriſt were paſſible and impaſſible both at once.whoſe life cannot be taken awaie, vnleſſe he will himſelfe; But the bodie of Chriſt was in ſuch ſort before his death, as no man could take awaie his life from him, except he would himſelfe; Therefore it was impaſſible.
D. Martyr.
I diſtinguiſh the power of dieng, or of not dieng. For if you refer the ſame to the will of Chriſt, there was both. For Chriſt could be willing that he ſhould ſuffer, and he could be willing that he ſhould not ſuffer: and euen as he would himſelfe, ſo ſhould his bodie hauehave béene either paſſible or impaſſible, but he himſelfe would neuer togither, and at the ſame time hauehave but the one part: and ſo that bodie was euermore either paſſible or impaſſible, and neuer both at one time togither, no not as touching this outward beginning of Chriſts will. Moreouer, if you hauehave reſpect to the qualities and conditions of his bodie, ſo as you ſpeake of that which was in act; I ſaie that of neceſſitie, when the bodie of Chriſt was indued with paſſible qualities and conditions, it could not be vnderunder impaſſible qualities: it might be changed from the one ſort to the other; but to reteine both at once it was vnpoſſible.
Of the ſecond queſtion: VVhether the bodie of Chriſt be reallie preſent in the Euchariſt.
D. Tresham.
THe ancient authour Irenaeus, in his fourth booke, and 24. chapter againſt the Valentinians, who ſaid there was no reſurrection of the fleſh, and denied Chriſt to bée the ſonne of God, who created all things; How (ſaith he) ſhall it appeare vntounto them, that the bread, wherein thanks are giuen, is the bodie of his Lord, if they denie the verie ſonne of that creator? And a little after; But how againe doo they ſaie, that the fleſh turneth into corruption, and receiueth not life, the ſame being nouriſhed with the bodie and bloud of the Lord? Whereby it may be perceiued, what maner of faith and doctrine of the church there was at that time, touching the ſacrament of the Euchariſt. Thus I diſpute; Euerie thing, whereby another thing is prooued, ought to be more certeine than that which is prooued: but the reſurrection of our fleſh is prooued by the true preſence of the bodie of Chriſt in the Euchariſt; and Chriſt is prooued to be the verie true ſonne of the creator of this world, therfore the bodie of Chriſt is there reallie preſent; & that ought to be more certeine to vsus, than thoſe things which are prooued by theſe.
D. Martyr.
Irenaeus argument is true, neither doo I denie the ſame: but it maketh nothing againſt me. For that bread is a bread of the Lords ſupper, & it is alſo the bodie of Chriſt: but how? Sacramentallie. And that Iraeneus may conclude againſt the heretikes, which denied Chriſt to hauehave béene the ſonne of God, the maker of this world, he argueth, that Chriſt tooke bread, the which, ſith it is from God the creator of this world, Chriſt would hauehave vſed an other creature. Wherefore, for Irenaeus purpoſe it is ſufficient, to prooue that this kind of bread being a creature, hath place in verie déed in the ſacrament; leaſt Chriſt might ſéeme to be an vſurper of a ſtrange creature, if he ſhould be called the ſonne of an other God than of him that made the world. Two ſorts of nouriſhment in the Euchariſt.But that we may knowe what Irenaeus iudged as touching the Euchariſt, let vsus conſider that he wrote that our bodies are fed, nouriſhed, conſiſt and increaſe by the Euchariſt. And this ſaieng is ſo true, as we may vnderſtand, that by this ſacrament there commeth vntounto vsus two kinds of nouriſhment. One is naturall, to wit, by the ſignes, bread and wine, by the which commonlie an humane bodie is ſuſteined. VntoUnto which kind of nurtriment, although it be not to be contemned, yet Irenaeus and other of the fathers doo not attribute much therevnto. The other nouriſhment is, that while we receiue the ſacrament, we imbraſe the bodie and bloud of Chriſt, by the mind and faith: and there firſt of all is our mind filled with the ſpirit and with grace; ſecondlie, our bodie is renewed, that it may from daie to daie become a fit inſtrument for the ſpirit, and ſo made more capable of the bleſſed reſurrection. And this did Irenaeus plainlie expreſſe, when he ſaith; Bread receiuing from the earth the calling of God, is no more common bread, but is made the Euchariſt, which conſiſteth of two things; earthlie, and heauenlie: euen as our bodies receiuing the Euchariſt, be no longer corruptible bodies. And after this maner he bringeth out of the Euchariſt, a reaſon of our true reſurrection to come.
D. Tresham.
Whereas you ſaie, that Irenaeus dooth name bread in this place, and that therefore his meaning is, that in the Euchariſt there are both; to wit, as well bread as the bodie of Chriſt, & that theſe things are of great force to confirme his argument againſt the Valentinians: you hauehave not ſatiſfied me. For looke in what ſenſe the holie ſcriptures doo name bread in this ſacrament, euen in the ſame ſenſe dooth Irenaeus ſpeake in this place. And he moſt euidentlie ſaith, that the verie bodie of Chriſt is in the Euchariſt: and he calleth it bread, either for that it was bread, or elſe for that it reteineth the ſhewes of bread.
D. Martyr.
Indéed I grant, that Irenaeus ſpeaketh of bread in the verie ſame ſenſe that the ſcriptures doo: and therefore is it in ſuch wiſe granted by him, as it is by them, that bread doth here remaine. But that he ſaith, that the bodie of Chriſt is in the bread, after ſuch a maner as you will hauehave it, you ſhall neuer be able to ſhew out of his woords. And that by the ſcripture it is named bread, in ſuch a ſenſe as you appoint, I hauehave often times diſprooued it.
D. Tresham.
Chryſoſtome in his 61. homilie, vntounto the people of Antioch, and vponupon Iohn the 45. homilie writeth; Your brother was I minded to be, and I hauehave partaked fleſh and bloud for you; and thoſe things whereby I am ioined vntounto you, I hauehave againe giuen to you. Wherevpon it appeareth againe, that the fleſh and bloud, whereby he was made of our conſanguinitie, are giuen in the Euchariſt.
D. Martyr.
That the fleſh of Chriſt is giuen to the communicants in the Euchariſt, I grant it: wée diſpute as touching the maner how; which I prooue to be ſpirituall. And yet doo I not therefore vnderſtand, that we receiue a feined fleſh, or a feined bodie; but in a ſacrament & by faith, we truelie receiue thoſe things, and are vnited vntounto them.
D. Tresham.
Whereas you ſaie, ſpirituallie, that is not in the words of Chryſoſtome: and by faith we may receiue euen without this ſacrament.
D. Martyr.
Albeit that Chryſoſtome, in this place, dooth not write expreſlie this word, Spirituallie, yet dooth he ſufficientlie expreſſe it elſe-where, when he ſaith; Thoſe things which be giuen vntounto vsus, be ſuch, as are to be vnderſtood. And whereas you obiect, that the receiuing of the bodie of Chriſt by faith, may be alſo had without the ſacrament, I grant it: For we may both with the figures and without the figures, be partakers of the bodie of Chriſt.for both with the ſignes & without the ſigns, while we conſider in our minds Chriſt crucified for vsus, & his bloud ſhed for vsus, and doo ſo beléeue, we are truelie made partakers of him: but yet the ſignes being ioined therewithall, which the holie Ghoſt vſeth as inſtruments, for the better printing of faith in our minds, we are verie much holpen. For we be verie ſlacke vntounto diuine things, and therefore we hauehave néed of outward ſacraments.