Common Places, Part 4 · Chapter 10 · Abridgement
A ſhort abridgement of the diſputation which D. P. Martyr made as concerning the Euchariſt againſt Gardiner, Byshop of VVincheſter.
THe matter of the Euchariſt according as the Lorde deliuered the ſame vntounto vsus, is both plaine and eaſie to be knowen: which, if it were handled according to the iudgement and ſenſe of the holy ſcriptures, and that there were a conſideration had of the humane nature of Chriſt, and of the receaued definition of the Sacrament, there ſhould be no great paynes taken either in the vnderſtanding or handling of the fame. Howbeit by reaſon of the contention and importunitie of the aduerſaries, it is become more intricate than any blinde labyrinth, and it is come in a manner to paſſe, that through contention wee hauehave welneere forgone the trueth: for they, rather thā they would giuegive place to ye right and beſt opinion: yea that they may by all maner of meanes defend their monſtrous deuiſes rather than the truth, they hauehave vſed all kinde of counterfeiting cauillations and deceiueable wayes. Whereupon when I of late daies was diligent to encounter with the huge armie of their cauils and ſophiſticall Arguments, and ſhould anſwere ye ſame with as much diligence as I could, ye volume grew in a manner to an exceeding greatneſſe. Fearing therefore leaſt godly men when they come to take my book in hand, being ouermuch tyred with long reading, ſhould returne as vncertaine as before (for ſeeing the reaſons on both ſides, and thoſe ſometimes but latelie and newlie deuiſed, it is not poſſible but thoſe which be the later ſhould obſcure the memorie of thoſe that went before, or in a manner make them to be quite forgotten) I minded ſtraightway to ſet ye matter before mens eyes in a certaine abridgement or reſolution, which the Gretians call foreign, that thoſe which ſhall reade my writings, or be minded to reade them, or hauehave alreadie read them, may hauehave preſent and at their hand certaine ſpeciall notes no leſſe plaine than briefe, whereunto they may eaſilie referre aſwel the Argumentes as the aunſweres of the diſputation. And this (if I be not deceiued) will in ſuch diſputations be no leſſe helpe vntounto the readers than an aſſured ſight of the loade ſtarre is vntounto the Mariners when they be toſſed too and from the deepe Sea. Which therefore being doone of me with a good and faithfull minde, I would hauehave all good and godlie men to take in good part, and moſt diligentlie cōſider the methode ſo deuiſed by me, and then courteouſlie to giuegive their iudgemēt according to the word of God. But I will make no longer preface, ſince an abridgement requires aſmuch ſhortneſſe as is poſſible.
That the vvordes of the Supper are to be vnderſtood figuratiuelie.
Firſt vndoubtedlie in the Sacramēt of the Euchariſt we affirme that the bread and the wine (which the holy ſcriptures, the fathers, and the ſenſe it ſelfe doe teſtifie to be there preſent) be ſignes of the bodie and bloud of the Lord: verilie not prophane or vulgar ſignes, but ſuch as were woōt to be aſſigned in other myſteries.
Contrariwiſe our aduerſaries affirme thoſe ſignes to be properlie and truly ye body & bloud of Chriſt. We demaund how they know them ſo to be. Becauſe (ſaie they) Chriſt ſaid, This is my bodie. But we interpret the ſaying of our ſauiour by that forme of ſpeach or kinde of figure, whereby chieflie in Sacramentes, ſignes are woont to be called by the names of the thinges ſignified.
This opinion of ours doe they withſtand, and ſay that the wordes of Chriſt are not figuratiue, but altogether proper and ſimple.
I.
It is obiected by vsus, that there is no certaine Argument to be gathered out of the hiſtorie of the Goſpell, to prooue that thoſe wordes muſt be abſolutelie vnderſtood. For the ſupper of the Lord is plainelie ſet downe by Matthew, Marke, Luke, and Paul. In which places are perceaued many figures. The cup is called the new Teſtament: and yet is not the cup it ſelfe nor the liquor contained therein the verie new Teſtament in deed.
II.
Thoſe which receaue vnwoorthily are affirmed to eate and drink iudgement vntounto themſelues: and yet cannot iudgement bee properlie either eaten or drunken.
III.
Farre is it from the bodie of the Lord to be truelie eaten, for it is altogether a wicked thing that he ſhould be broken, ground with the teeth, and diſſolued.
IIII.
Our Sauiour ſaid when he ſate downe at the ſame board, that he earneſtlie deſired to eate the Paſſeouer with his diſciples: but euerie man knoweth that Peſach it ſelfe, that is to ſay, the Paſſouer of the Lord, was not woont to be eaten in that ſolemnitie, but the Lambe.
V.
So often (ſaith Paul) in the 1. to the Corint. the 11. as ye ſhal drinke of this cuppe. Doe we drinke the cuppe or not rather that which is poured into the cuppe? Wherefore Paul ſpake in the moſt vſuall kinde of figure. Seeing then in declaring the Supper of the Lord, the Penmen of the holy ſpirit, hauehave vſed many figuratiue ſpeaches: what dooth now let but that the ſaying This is my bodie, which we intreat of, was ſpoken of them figuratiuely?
VI.
I omit many other ſentences of the holy ſcriptures, which euidentlie appeare to be expounded by figures of all ſuch as iudge godlie: for if I would recken them vp, I ſhould now make no abridgement, but a large booke: Therefore when we thus interprete this ſentence of ours, we bring in no new thing or that which is repugnāt to the Scriptures.
VII.
That the wordes which are written in Paul and Luke as concerning the cuppe are ſpoken figuratiuely, as we hauehave alreadie taught, what attētiue reader ſeeth not that it cannot be iuſtlie denyed? Wherefore thoſe thinges that Matthew & Marke wrote of that matter, muſt be vnderſtood figuratiuely, vnleſſe any will deny that the former ſayinges muſt be expounded by the later: but that Paul and Luke wrote after Matthew and Marke, no man doubteth.
VIII.
Howbeit neither can that which Matthew and Marke teach as concerning the bloud, be vnderſtood ſimply as it is ſpoken. Thus doe they write foreign. And now what elſe can this pronoune foreign ſignifie but the cup? For it is ſpecified that Chriſt both tooke the ſame in his handes, and deliuered it to his Apoſtles. Neither doe Luke and Paul affirme any other thing whē they write that Chriſt ſaid: This cuppe is the new Teſtament: But who dare teach yt the cup is properlie the bloud? Wherefore let the wordes of Matthew & Marke be rightly weighed on the one part, and the words of Luke and Paul on the other, and then let thē deny if they can that there is a figure.
IX.
The aduerſaries themſelues, although they be very deſirous rather to follow their owne opinion thā the trueth, cānot interpret the words of the Lorde without the helpe of a figure. And I ſhew that in the Sacrament of the Euchariſt it is not lawfull for them to pronounce of it, This is my bodie. Let them be aſhamed therefore to blame vsus for the which they themſelues may iuſtly & of due deſert be accuſed. Moreouer the very definitiō of a ſacrament, that it is the ſigne of an holy thing, & a viſible forme of inuiſible grace dooth moſt of all defend our opinion. For by that commō receaued definition it is brought to paſſe that thoſe thinges which be ſeene in the Euchariſt be ſignes of the bodie and bloud of the Lord, vnleſſe we will blot the Euchariſt it ſelfe out of the number of the Sacraments.
X.
Neither can the formes of ſpeaking which the holy ſcripture vſeth, be otherwiſe expounded, ſith by the viſible part of the ſacrament he pronounceth the thing it ſelfe which is ſignifyed. For how ſhould Circumciſion be called, The couenant of the Lord, vnleſſe wee will ſay that the ſame is a ſigne thereof? Rom. 4. 11Of this opinion is Paul the Author, who calleth Circumciſion foreign, that is a ſigne or ſeale of the righteouſnes obtained by faith. Titus. 3. 5.Baptiſme is alſo called The waſhing of the new byrth: and in the olde Teſtament, The Lambe is called the Paſſouer, as we hauehave alreadie declared.
XI.
Herewithall agree the Fathers, who in expreſſe words teach yt Chriſt gaue a ſigne of his bodie, That he gaue a figure, That hee repreſented his owne bodie, That the things which are ſeene be figures and paterns of the bodie & bloud of the Lorde. Cyprian, Cyrill, Auguſtine, Gelaſius, and Theodoretus, doe moſt manifeſtly teach, that theſe ſignes are called by the names of the thinges which they ſignifie. Since therefore in the deliuerie of this ſacrament the holy Scriptures doe admit figures, and the verie nature of a Sacrament requires the ſame, and that the Fathers doe moſt manifeſtly receyue them, ſhall we be blamed for vſing a figuratiue interpretation in expounding the wordes of the Lorde? Theſe reaſons alleaged, hauehave preuailed ſo greatly with ſome of our aduerſaries, (ſuch force hath the trueth) as they graunt that thoſe things which be offered to the ſenſes, namely the breade and wine, be ſignes of the bodie and bloud of Chriſt, but yet in ſuch ſort, as they hauehave preſent in them the things that be ſignifyed: but this is ſhewed by many reaſons to bee moſt farre from the trueth.
That the figuratiue ſpeeche of Chriſts vvords require no reall or ſubſtantiall preſence of his body and bloud.
I.
Firſt the Scriptures of God doe teach, that Chriſt as touching his humane nature is gone from hence, they declare his aſcenſion into heauen, as it is ſet foorth in the Articles of the faith. They aſſure vsus that Chriſt ſaid: that we ſhall not alwayes hauehave him with vsus, but that heauē ſhall containe him vntill the latter day: and that he ſhal from thence come at the length to iudge the quicke and the dead.
II.
Againe it is not agreeable for a humane body to bee in many places at one time. Neither yet can it be graunted that it is preſent in the worlde without place: for theſe things are altogether repugnant with the definition of an humane body, vnleſſe wee wil take away a very true body from Chriſt. We muſt beware that we affirme not the ſame to bee ſcattered or preſent in many places at once.
III.
Neither hath the eſſence (as I may ſay) of the Angels which are without bodies, ſuch a propertie as it can be in many places at one time.
IIII.
Yea and to ſay the trueth, it might not be eſchued, but that euen the very nature of GOD, if it were bodily, ſhould admit both diuiſion and limitation. Since therefore that theſe things be on this wiſe, euen as the fathers doe moſt fully teſtifie, it is altogether proued, that the body of Chriſt is ſubiect to theſe properties and qualities.
V.
Neither doeth the very nature of ſacraments require that they ſhoulde hauehave the things ſignifyed eyther to be ioined vntounto themſelues or to containe them in themſelues. But was the couenaunt of God included in the Circumciſion? Truely the couenant was paſt, and it was alreadie made with the Fathers, before that Circumciſion was commaunded to Abraham: and, if any of that couenant remained, that was wholy kept in the minde of God, and of faithfull men: but in the fleſhe was borne not the couenant it ſelfe but the ſigne thereof commanded by God. Againe ye paſcall Lambe did not verilie include in it ſelfe ye paſſouer of the Lord. Alſo what man in his right minde would ſay that the fleſhe and bloud of the Lorde were included either in the water of the deſert or in the Manna: and that in the water of ye Baptiſme the ſpirit and grace are inuiſiblie hidden? But and if in other Sacraments it be not giuen, & that of their owne nature, that they ſhould hauehave the things preſent either to be cleauing to them or to be included in them: neither are we otherwiſe to determine as concerning the Euchariſt, if ye nature or propertie therof ought to appeare vntounto vsus to be ye ſelfe ſame with other ſacraments, eſpeciallie ſince the word of God hath ſpoken nothing at all of the matter which we hauehave now in hande.
VI.
1. Cor. 10. 3Moreouer ſince that Paule in the firſt to the Corinthians writeth that the olde fathers did eate the ſame ſpirituall meate with vsus, and dranke the ſame ſpirituall drinke: and yet had they not preſent with them the fleſh and bloud of Chriſt, ſince as yet they were not extant: and ſince theſe men affirme theſe things to bee preſent in the Euchariſt, vndoubtedly it followeth that againſt the ſaying of Paul, the olde Fathers and we had not all the ſelfeſame Sacramentes. In ſignes they doe not agree: for they had Manna and water, but we breade & wine. In the things ſignifyed they bee alſo diuers: for they by faith receiued the thinges ſignifyed being abſent, as thoſe which were afterward to come: but theſe men ſay that they receiue the thinges preſent together with the ſignes. Verily there can be imagined no greater difference in theſe Sacraments, than is to diſagree aſwell in the ſignes, as in the things ſignifyed. And therefore let vsus rather ſay with Paul that the ſacraments of the olde Fathers, in the things ſignifyed are the ſelfeſame that ours bee, although that their ſignes be diuers, and that they are receiued both of vsus and them all after one manner, namely by faith. For they by faith receiued the fleſhe and bloud of Chriſt which were to be giuen for our ſaluation, and wee by faith and the ſpirit doe imbrace them as alreadie giuen.
VII.
Alſo if our aduerſaries opinion ſhould be admitted, it might not be auoided, but that aſwell the wicked as the godly ſhoulde eate and drinke the fleſh and bloud of the Lord. But this doeth Chriſt the Author of the ſacraments manifeſtly refute in the 6. of Iohn, where he ſaieth that his fleſh and bloud is eaten and drunken by faith. See then (I pray you) that when ye wicked are deſtitute of faith, and be ſtraungers from Chriſt, what communion hauehave they with the fleſh and bloud of Chriſt? Doubtleſſe they hauehave onelyonly the ſignes to be receiued, and that to their owne condemnation: for neither is Chriſt in them, neyther doe they abide in Chriſt.
VIII.
They are to bee demaunded alſo which affirme that the bloud of the Lord is preſent in this ſacrament, for what cauſe or vnderunder what colour they dare name that their ſacrifice an vnbloudie ſacrifice as they terme it. Surely if they will hauehave the bloud of the Lorde flowing from the Lordes ſide to be receiued in their Cuppe as Chryſoſtome ſaid, by an exceſſiue kind of ſpeech, let them indeuour the ſame as much as they will, as they knowe and as they can: yet ſhall they neuer bring to paſſe but that they muſt needes drinke bloudie drinke.
IX.
Truely ſuch is the nature of things repugnant as they can neuer be affirmed both at once, that is, at the ſelfe ſame time of one and the ſelfe ſame ſacrament. Wherefore the bodie of Chriſt cannot be together and at one time both aboue and beneath, viſible and inuiſible, one and many, mortall and immortall, broken and whole. This reaſon hauehave not we feined to our ſelues, but we hauehave taken it from Chriſt, from the Angels, from the Apoſtles, from the fathers, and from nature it ſelfe. For all theſe doe teſtifie that this cannot be all at once. Moreouer it were too long to rehearſe in how many places and writinges of the fathers they hauehave affirmed this abſence of the Lord according to the fleſh.
X.
As though forſooth this preſence of the fleſh and bloud of the Lord, boaſted of and defended by theſe men in the Euchariſt, can, while the ſame is performed, bring any other profit thā we hauehave by a ſpirituall receauing, which (as we hauehave ſayd) is performed by faith and by the minde.
XI.
This finally we demaund of our aduerſaries, whether they iudge that there is the bodie of the Lord in the bread without bloud, and whether there is bloud in the wine without the bodie? If they ſay, there is, they diuide the humane nature by the two partes of ye myſterie, which cannot be committed without impietie, ſince the bloud & bodie and humane nature of Chriſt are vnited by a perpetuall coniunction. But if they will ſay yt theſe thinges bee together, and will feigne thoſe ſtrāge Concomitancies of theirs, this at the leaſtwiſe they cannot eſcape but that they ſhal double ye bodie of Chriſt, to wit, wholy vnderunder the wine, and wholy vnderunder the bread, appointing the ſame (as they will hauehave it) vnderunder their Accidentes.
XII.
Laſtly there happeneth vntounto the wordes of Chriſt leſſe than is pronounced by them in the partes of the Sacrament, ſince they affirme the bread to be the bodie alone, and the wine to be the bloud alone.
Theſe be the principall and chiefe poyntes which are contained in my booke of confeſſion againſt Gardiner, as farre as concerne the Arguments and confirmations of our part. And now this remaineth, that I lay before the courteous reader ſome ſayinges, as it were certaine ſentences, out of the which not onelie all our Argumentes in a manner are drawen, but whereby alſo the reaſons of our aduerſaries may eaſilie be confuted. And ſo all this diſputation will become both plaine and eaſie.
Sayinges or ſentences out of vvhichwhich &c.
I.
Chriſt in the holy ſupper called the very bread, his bodie, and the very wine his bloud: whereupon it commeth that they cannot vnderſtād his wordes This is my bodie ſimply and without a figure, ſince neither the bread nor the wine can properly and truelie be the bodie & bloud of Chriſt.
II.
Theſe wordes This is my bodie, and This is my bloud be figuratiue formes of ſpeeche, whereby God pronounced of the outwarde ſignes the things which are ſignified.
III.
To eate the fleſh or the bodie of the Lorde, and to drinke his bloud, is to beleeue that theſe things were giuen for vsus as a price of our redemption, and that vntounto theſe are ioyned thoſe thinges which for our ſakes were taken away vppon the croſſe.
IIII.
The humane nature of Chriſt from his aſcenſion into heauen vntill his laſt comming when he ſhall iudge the world, is no where elſe but in heauen.
V.
In the faithfull receauing of the Euchariſt, we are not onelyonly in ſoule or minde through faith ioyned to the bodie and bloud of Chriſt, but we become partakers, of the ſpirit, grace, and vertue of the Lord, not in deed by the power of the woorke, but through his goodneſſe and faithfull promiſe.
VI.
Wicked men doe not eate the very fleſh and bloud of Chriſt, except ſo far foorth as they vſe ye outward ſignes, the bread I meane and the wine, which in their kinde of manner be, & are called, the bodie & bloud of Chriſt.
VII.
We are no leſſe ioyned to Chriſt in baptiſme, thā we be in the Euchariſt: Wherefore the preſence of him and the receauing of him, which is ſpirituall, is to be affirmed alike in both.
VIII.
The fathers in the olde Teſtament did eate the bodie and bloud of Chriſt as touching the matter it ſelfe no otherwiſe than we doe.
IX.
OnelyOnly the faithfull doe truely and ſpirituallie receaue the bodie & bloud of the Lord, and that by faith, inaſmuch as it is the onelyonly inſtrument of ioyning vsus vntounto Chriſt.
X.
Our bodies after a certaine manner are nouriſhed and reſtored to eternall lyfe by the bodie and bloud of Chriſt.
XI.
We our ſelues by a faithfull participation of the Lordes ſupper, are fed vp, and in a manner tranſelementated by a certaine kinde of ſpirituall change into the bodie of Chriſt.
XII.
By the incarnation of the ſonne of God, we communicate with him in fleſh and bloud, forſomuch as we beleeue he tooke our fleſh vppon him: and on the otherſide while in communicating we imbrace through faith his bodie and bloud which were giuē for vsus vntounto death, we are ſpiritually made partakers of them.
XIII.
The word of the holy ſcriptures, or the hearing, or ſenſe [of them] in aſmuch as it is receaued by faith, is the bodie of Chriſt, and the bread whereby our mindes are nouriſhed.
XIIII.
The congregation of beleeuers is the bodie of Chriſt, whereof he himſelfe is the head, and we alſo both are and are called his members.
XV.
The poore & thoſe which be oppreſſed for the name of Chriſt be his bodie: Thereupon came that voyce vntounto Paul: Why doeſt thou perſecute me?
XVI.
Miracles that hauehave otherwhile bin ſhewed about the ſignes of the Euchariſt, doe neither proue a change of the ſubſtance of the Elementes thereof, neither yet a reall and ſubſtantiall preſence of the bodie.
XVII.
A ſpirituall preſence of the bodie vntounto them which doe communicate without doubt ſignifieth not, to be inuiſiblie, but yet properlie preſent as the Papiſtes ſay: but that it be preſent to our faith and ſpirite no otherwiſe than his death which we truelie beleeue, and then the good thinges of the life to come which we expect with a moſt aſſured hope, ye preſence whereof can onelyonly be referred to our faith and ſpirite.
XVIII,
Truelie our aduerſaries ſpeake many thinges of the conſecration of the bread and wine, but whether it be performed by praiers or by words, that they cannot determine.
XIX.
In the Euchariſt we admit no other ſacrifice than ye ſacrifice of thankſgiuing, of prayers, and of offering vp of our owne ſelues: and theſe ſacrifices muſt not onelyonly be offered vp of the Miniſter, but alſo of the people that communicate.
XX.
Alſo we graunt that a ſacrifice is there, in reſpect that there is a commemoration of the true ſacrifice: and the ſacraments, that is the outwarde ſignes which are propoſed, are ſignes of the ſame true ſacrifice, and by the inſtitution of the Lorde, doe ſet foorth the ſame vntounto the Communicants.
The ſentences which I hauehave now rehearſed, the prudent and gentle reader of my Booke ſhall finde not onelyonly to be handled therein, but alſo to bee confirmed by many teſtimonies aſwell of the Scripture as of the Fathers. Wherefore, if it ſhall like him to hauehave all this whole cōtrouerſie plainlie and euidently deſcribed as it were in a certaine table, let him with an attentiue minde and often repetition make himſelfe well acquainted, fyrſt with theſe ſentences, and then with the reaſons which I hauehave brought in this Abridgement: for in ſo doing, I hope he ſhall both reape profit, and it ſhal neuer repent him of the labour he hath beſtowed. 1561.