Common Places, Disputation · Day 1
The diſputation of the firſt daie, which was the xxviij. of Maie, Anno Domini. 1549. betweene D. Peter Martyr, and D. VVilliam Tresham, before the kings viſitors, among whom the worthie man D. Cox, Chancellor of the Vniuerſitie of Oxford, before the diſputation ſhould begin, ſpake on this wiſe.
YE that be learned men, although that of verie dutie I ought to moderate diſputations, but eſpeciallie diuinitie; yet doo I thinke that this muſt now chéefelie be doone, as moſt apperteining vntounto me; bicauſe it ſo pleaſeth the kings maieſtie, and for that the authoritie is committed vntounto vsus by letters patents, as well in other things, as alſo in the ordeining of publike readings & diſputations. So we hauehave determined not onelie to be preſent thereat, but alſo to ouerſée, gouerne, and moderate them. But I would hauehave you, which hauehave taken vponupon you this labour of diſputing, to conſider how hard a matter that is which ye ſhall doo. Remember with your ſelues how greatlie all mens eies are bent vponupon you. Reſpect ye diligentlie, and regard ye the glorie of God, laieng aſide contentions, and wranglings. I knowe that ye be graue and learned men; yet in reſpect of mine office, I though it good to admoniſh you. And I aduiſe other beholders and hearers, that factions laid aſide (if anie ſuch be) they will ſo quietlie and peaceablie giuegive eare, as there may ſéeme to be no partaking. Phil. 2, 2.Doo ye according to Pauls precept, that In the name of our Lord Ieſu Chriſt ye will vnderſtand all one thing, & iudge all one thing, that in you there be no ſchimes, but an entire bodie, hauing one mind and one iudgement. Set aſide ill affections, let there be no noiſe, debates, ſcornefull laughters and outcries. And ye yong men ſpeciallie, I would hauehave you to be forewarned, which hauehave a greater feruencie of mind, than ye hauehave of iudgement. In the greateſt controuerſies there are woont to be diſcords, hatreds, and enuiengs: as it came to paſſe in the diſputations of Steeuen and Paule. But I would in no wiſe hauehave this to happen among you; but I wiſh rather that ye will learne to know the truth, and when ye hauehave knowne it, to imbraſe the ſame: ſo ſhall ye doo your dutie, and alſo that which ſhall be verie acceptable vntounto vsus, and God will giuegive good ſucceſſe to that we hauehave in hand.
The preface of Peter Martyr.
RIght Honourable, & yée that be the Kings Maieſties Commiſſioners, if I had thought that diſpleaſures, hatreds, or enimities had béen the perpetuall companions of publike diſputations, I doubtles had neuer béene brought vntounto this place. But now that I ſée thoſe things doo not alwaies inſue, but are ioined vntounto them caſuallie, or (as they ſpeake) accidentallie, I am come to diſpute. And certeinlie, the deſire which I hauehave to ſearch out and open the truth, hath mooued me aboue all things. But they, which for the deſire of contention, or for the vaine glorie of this world, or for gaine ſake doo take this matter in hand, muſt not be accounted Diuines, but light and vaine Sophiſters, carnall men, giuen both to their bellie, & to ambition. But we ought to be of that mind, that we willinglie, and of our owne accord yeeld vntounto the knowne truth, manifeſting it ſelfe in diſputation. Which truelie is no ſmall or ſlender part of diuine worſhip. And therefore let the troubleſome motions of minds ceaſe on all ſides: and let all factions be far awaie. Which if it happen, there will ariſe ſingular profit of this exerciſe. For iron of it ſelfe is but cold, and a ſtone is altogither ſenſeleſſe; but if they be knockt one againſt another, they cauſe fire to come foorth. Euen as clouds, otherwiſe of a darke and groſſe nature, if they méet togither, and be one daſhed againſt another, doo cauſe a bright lightening in the aire: ſo likewiſe the wits and ſtudies of learned men are ſlowe of themſelues, but in the conflict of diſputation they be ſtirred vp, and made ſomwhat liuelie.
Neither muſt excellent and honeſt things, as are diſputations, be refuſed, nor yet counted vnprofitable and hurtfull, ſith we doubt not but they be the gifts of God. We are beholding vntounto diſputations for that excellent doctrine of Ieſus Chriſt our ſauiour, which he had with the Scribes, Phariſies, Saduces, and Herodians, of the louelove of our neighbour, the reſurrection, the paieng of tribute vntounto Caeſar, the ſigne of Ionas the prophet, and ſuch other like things. And I thinke it is not vnknowne to you, how greatlie the diſputations of Paule, and the reſt of the apoſtles and fathers did profit the church. No doubt but they may be doone of vsus without bitterneſſe, hatred, and enuie, ſo that the ſpirit of Chriſt be preſent. Trulie there is a great difference betwéene diſagréement and bearing of hatred. For the firſt belongeth to iudgement, the which is exerciſed in the vnderſtanding part of the mind: but the other, which is hatred, is a flame of the will. Paule diſſented from Peter, and reprooued him; and yet did he not hate him. Thus much I thought good to ſpeake of open diſputations in generall. But comming now néerer vntounto theſe diſputations of ours: I confeſſe, that I was to ſtaie a while before I ſhould come to this conflict, bicauſe I ſawe that I was to deale in that matter, for which the church at this daie is excéedinglie diſquieted. And they, which challenge to themſelues the order of the prieſthood, thinke that (tranſubſtantiation, and a carnall and corporall preſence of Chriſt his bodie in the Euchariſt, he being taken awaie) all the honour they hauehave would come to naught, as though they had no other office, but to change the ſubſtance of the bread, or to cloſe vp the verie bodie of Chriſt in the bread. And ſo béeſotted and doting is the common people, as if a man teach anie otherwiſe concerning this ſacrament than hitherto hath béene receiued, they thinke that Chriſt is taken awaie from them: and when we teach otherwiſe of the Euchariſt than is beléeued in the Papaſie, they run togither in heapes, and crie with the ſiluer-ſmith; Great is Diana of the Epheſians.
Howbeit, they ſhould hauehave conſidered, that they are no leſſe to be accuſed, which attribute ouer-much vntounto ſacraments, and doo make an idoll of them, than thoſe which neglect the ſame: both which extremities we hauehave alwaies to our power auoided. But now, when I ſée that thorough your authoritie all things are at quiet, I am become of better courage, and I gladlie take vponupon me this labour of diſputation. Neither will I repeate the particular cauſes, why I would not diſpute, when I was chalenged vponupon the ſudden, leaſt I might ſéeme to vtter my ſtomach. And therefore I come to the queſtions, wherein ſome doo ſlander me, that I hauehave not obſerued an order of Logike: and ſpoken that, which ſhould firſt hauehave béene in queſtion; to wit, Whether the bodie of Chriſt be in the ſacrament; and that afterward, the maner how, ſhould be ſought out. But I affirme the contrarie; to wit, euen that the beſt method is here obſerued, yea and that dialecticall. And I am not ignorant of Ariſtotles doctrine in his Analytiks, wherein he teacheth, that firſt we muſt ſéeke whether a thing be or no, and afterward we muſt ſée why, what, and for what it is. But forſomuch as neither of vsus doubteth, but that there is a bodie of Chriſt, and that I am aſked whether it be in the Euchariſt, I anſwer them fitlie by my thrée queſtions: firſt, that he is not there by tranſubſtantiation; ſecondlie, that he is not ioined to the bread and wine, or to the ſhewes of them corporallie and carnallie, or (as theſe men will) reallie and ſubſtantiallie; but that he is there onelie by a ſacramentall coniunction, which is a moſt effectuall ſignification. You hauehave therfore a verie perfect method; which yet, that it may the plainlier appéere ſhalbe declared after this maner. Some coniunctiō there is of the bodie & bloud of Chriſt with the ſignes; and this on both ſides is agréed vponupon, but what maner of coniunction it is, therin ſtandeth the controuerſie.
Wherefore this I doo open in my thrée queſtions; and I begin at the groſer, and that is at tranſubſtantiation, the which I doo refell: afterward I procéed to the other kind; to wit, the corporall and carnall preſence, or the reall or ſubſtantiall (as they ſpeake) which I account all alike, and aſſent not therevnto, ſince I prooue a third kind of preſence, namelie by a ſacramentall ſignification. But as to the words, corporallie & carnallie, which ſéeme to be ambiguous, I ſaie that I vnderſtand them, as if it ſhould be ſaid, reallie and ſubſtantiallie: neither in diſputing will I trouble them about this difference. But why I deriued aduerbes from the nounes fleſh and bodie, rather than from thing and ſubſtance, is, to the intent I might accommodate my ſelfe vntounto the holie ſcriptures, the which, in making mention of a ſacrament, hauehave not the names of thing and ſubſtance, but onelie of bodie, fleſh, and bloud; and therefore hauehave I written, corporallie and carnallie. And this alſo my aduerſaries contend, that the latter queſtion is ſuperfluous: for they ſaie; If you ſhall remooue tranſubſtantiation and reall preſence; it followeth of neceſſitie, that in the ſacrament, there is left nothing but a ſignification. Whom I anſwer, that they are Anabaptiſts, which would hauehave this ſacrament to be nothing elſe but a badge and profeſſion of our ſocietie, which we hauehave among vsus through charitie: they make no reckoning of the efficacie of the holie Ghoſt, which we teſtifie to be in this ſacrament. Moreouer, the Marcionites, Valentinians, Manicheis, and ſuch kind of heretiks, ſince they denied Chriſt to hauehave had a true bodie, could not abide this ſignification, which we here confirme. Wherefore the third queſtion is not vnprofitable againſt this kind of peſtilent men. Laſtlie, beſides all theſe things, [I hauehave taken this courſe] bicauſe I would hauehave theſe queſtions to be correſpondent with thoſe things which I hauehave taught in the Schooles, where I hauehave obſerued the verie ſame method. Now remaineth that we enter into the matter. But firſt of all, according to the accuſtomed maner, let vsus call for the help of God by praier.
The Praier.
SInce thou (O almightie God) haſt for thy merciemercy ſake, promiſed to gouerne vsus by thy holy ſpirit, and to lead vsus into all truth: firſt of all, we giuegive thee infinit thanks for ſo gratious and bountifull a promiſe: which I doubt not, but thou wilt effectuallie fulfill. And further, bicauſe we are gathered togither in thy name, and that thoſe things, which muſt be diſputed of, are of verie great importance, therefore with all our hart we praie and beſeech thee, that thou wilt giuegive vntounto vsus thy promiſed grace: and that thou wilt ſo vouchſafe to moderate and direct that which we hauehave taken vponupon vsus to handle, that thereby may be giuen glorie vntounto thy name, the truth to this ſchoole, and edification vntounto the holie church. We humblie beſeech thee, that thou wilt remooue all euill affections, that thou wilt illuminate both our harts, & the harts of the hearers, with the light of the holie ſcriptures; and thoſe things which therin ſhall ſeeme to be obſcure, make thou them to be plaine, and ſuffer vsus not to erre in them: and whatſoeuer matters perhaps of manie hauehave not hitherto beene rightly vnderſtood, grant, that they may now be more ſincerelie and faithfullie perceiued, through Ieſus Chriſt our Lord,
Amen.
The Oration of D. VVilliam Tresham.
I Am come (right honourable) to bring the truth vntounto light. A hard matter to him that ſhall conſider of it. I laie vponupon my ſelfe a weightie burthen. For I hauehave taken vponupon me to incounter and diſpute with one that both is learned, ſharpe of wit, and exerciſed in all kind of learning, both humane and diuine, and that in a moſt weightie matter, & in an aſſemblie of moſt learned men. Wherefore, ſince I vndertake a hard matter, which vndoubtedly manie other ſtudents of this Vniuerſitie are able if they will much better, more exactlie and happilie to performe & bring to paſſe than I, which am but a weake diſputer. It ſhall be in your courteſie (Right honourable Commiſſioners) who hauehave vouchſafed by your honorable preſence to adorne and ſet foorth theſe diſputations, to take in good part whatſoeuer this daie ſhall be vttered of me in diſputing, and to interpret to the beſt, all thoſe things which vnfeinedlie ſhall for no other cauſe be declared, but for godlineſſe ſake. Aſſuredlie it was not my meaning, of anie malice, ſpight, or hatred, to be an aduerſarie to this learned man; but bicauſe he himſelfe after a ſort prouoked me, and my conſcience mooued me, and finallie bicauſe your authoritie allowed me, I am come to contend in this field of learning. To contend (I ſaie) as with a fréend and familiar: but yet I prefer a truth before a fréend, for the defenſe whereof I will indeuour to my power to reſiſt this Doctour, being a man moſt throughlie exerciſed in theſe matters: but yet aboue all things putting my truſt in him, which promiſeth to the profeſſours of his name, Luk. 21, 14.ſaieng; Laie it vp in your hearts, that ye caſt not before hand what ye ſhall anſwer, for I will giuegive you a mouth and wiſdome, which all your aduerſaries ſhall not be able to wreſt and gaineſaie.
Now then (moſt learned Peter). I arme my ſelfe to examine your concluſions. The firſt whereof is this: In the ſacrament of the Euchariſt, there is no tranſubſtantiation of the bread and wine into the bodie and bloud of Chriſt. The ſecond is, that the bodie and bloud of Chriſt is not ſubſtantiallie and naturallie in the Euchariſt, vnderunder the formes of bread and wine. VntoUnto which concluſions, as I giuegive no credit at all; euen ſo, I certeinlie perſuade my ſelfe, as I will alwaies ſaie, that they be falſe & moſt ſtrange from chriſtian religion.
And that thus it is as I hauehave ſaid, I will not refuſe in due time to declare and ſhew moſt euidentlie by the holie ſcriptures; and by manie teſtimonies of the fathers. So likewiſe hauehave I this day taken vponupon me to defend and confirme the truth hitherto receiued by the church, plaine contrarie, and as they ſpeake by a right diameter line, repugnant to your concluſions. This diſputation hauehave I taken in hand, not to the intent I would ſupplie the roome of D. Smith being abſent, of whoſe purpoſe without doubt I was not priuie: but I hauehave doone it onelie to extoll the glorie of Chriſt, & the veritie of the faith. And let not anie man thinke, that I am led to like of this my opinion, of a certeine light credulitie, but through great and moſt vrgent cauſes. Whereof the firſt is, the agréement and vniforme conſent of the holy Euangeliſts, and of Saint Paule the apoſtle, which make for our aſſertion: from whence a conſent of the whole world, and perpetuall vſe of the thing hath flowed euen to vsus. The ſecond cauſe is, the great authoritie of our holie mother the church; the which euen by publike edicts decréed, as touching the certeine truth of this ſacrament againſt Beringarius, Wickliffe, and ſuch as were of their opinion. Thirdlie, there be moſt euident teſtimonies of the right catholike fathers; which vnleſſe they be otherwiſe expounded, than thoſe fathers ment, they make moſt chéerlie for our aſſertion. The fourth and laſt cauſe is; for that the edict of our moſt noble prince king Edward the ſixt, and the act of his maieſties Councell dooth not a litle warrant me: the verie which cauſes ſéeme vntounto me ſufficient for to beléeue as I doo. Wherefore moſt learned Peter, whatſoeuer force of arguments you hauehave to vtter and alledge againſt me, ſpeake and declare them all at your owne pleaſure: it is lawfull for you, I hauehave ſaid, and you ſée how I anſwer your concluſions.
D. Peter Martyr.
THe praiſes which you attribute to me, I acknowledge not, your good wil towards me I imbraſe. And whereas you ſaie, that you were chalenged of me, that is nothing ſo: for I rather am drawne foorth by others to diſpute: as it is knowne vntounto all men. And as for the cauſes which you ſaie moued you to diſpute againſt me, I doo not much paſſe: for of what importance they be, I will then acknowledge, when it ſhall be your part to oppoſe. Onelie of the laſt, namelie, as touching the kings edict, ſince I vnderſtand no Engliſh, this I ſaie; that I know nothing at all thereof, but I hope that in proceeding of the diſputation, if it ſhall make anie thing againſt mee, I ſhall vnderſtand the ſame. Wherfore omitting theſe things, I come vntounto the arguments.
Heere beginneth the diſputation.
D. Peter Martyr.
FOr the firſt queſtion, the Scriptures are on my ſide, which doo very plainlie acknowledge bread and wine in this ſacrament. Mat. 26. Mark. 14. Luke. 22.It is ſaid in the Euangeliſts, that the Lord tooke bread, bleſſed it, Bicauſe the ſcriptures acknowlege bread in the Euchariſt, therefore it muſt be receiued.brake it, and gaue it vntounto his diſciples. And Paule hath the verie ſame in the firſt epiſtle to the Corinthians, the tenth and eleuenth chapters, where if you will diligentlie conſider it, he maketh often mention of bread. Wherefore, we alſo muſt togither with the ſcripture, reteine the natures of the ſymbols or ſignes.
D. Tresham.
It is alſo found in the holie ſcriptures, that man is called earth or aſhes; Eue, a bone; a rod, a ſerpent; and water, wine: where yet they were not theſe things, but were ſo called. Moreouer, the argument is reciprocall, and may be returned vponupon your ſelfe: for euen in the ſcriptures it is oftentimes called the bodie of the Lord: and that therefore by the verie ſelfe-ſame reaſon, the bodie of Chriſt is trulie preſent in this ſacrament, which you denie in the ſecond queſtion; and therefore your argument is returned vponupon your owne head.
D. Martyr.
As for the former part of your anſwer, you affirme that the ſaieng of the holie ſcripture, when it nameth bread, is figuratiue, bicauſe the things reteine the names of their natures from whence they were turned. Wherein I maruell verie much, that you ſo readilie flie vntounto figures, the which ye ſo greatlie abhor, when we are in hand with this ſacrament. But this I let paſſe; and I anſwer, that in the places alledged, the holie ſcripture dooth expreſſelie put vsus in mind of the conuerſions of thoſe things: for it plainelie ſheweth, that mans bodie was faſhioned out of the earth, that Eue was made of Adams rib, that the r…d was turned into a ſerpent, & that the water was made wine. Wherefore we are forced to admit theſe figures. Now then prooue ye vntounto vsus out of the holie ſcriptures, that the bread is turned, as touching ſubſtance, into the bodie of Chriſt, and ſo we will grant your figure, that is to wit, to call bread, not that which is now bread, but that which was ſo before. And moreouer thoſe things, which ye bring in, hauehave ſo caſt awaie their old ſubſtance, as they reteine not the accidents of them. And that which you hauehave added in the other part of the anſwer, that it maketh againſt me, that the bodie of Chriſt is reallie preſent; ſith the holie ſcripture calleth it the bodie, as alſo bread: how much it maketh againſt me, I will anſwer when my turne of anſwering commeth, if you ſhall obiect the ſame vntounto me.
D. Tresham.
I was determined that we ſhould vſe ſhort arguments; but you interlace manie things. Howbeit, as touching conuerſion, which you denie to be had in the holie ſcripture, that doo I prooue out of Matthew, where Chriſt ſaith; Matt. 26, 26.This is my bodie. It is no indicatiue or ſignificatiue ſaieng of God, but an effectuall, actiue, and working ſpéech. For Auguſtine ſaith vponupon the 73. pſalme; The ſacraments of the old lawe promiſe a ſauiour, but the new giuegive ſaluation; and therefore I prooue the bread to be turned into the bodie of the Lord.
D. Martyr.
I vſe both now and hereafter will vſe bréefe arguments, ſo far as the matter will permit. But as touching your proofe of tranſubſtantiation, which you now bring, I anſwer nothing; for it is my part now to oppoſe. Wherefore, ſince you admit not the proofe, which I hauehave brought foorth of the holie ſcriptures, that the bread remaineth, and that you auoid it by a figure, I will ſhew you that the fathers did not ſo iudge of it, but that they according to the holie ſcripture affirme bread to remaine, and doo interpret and vnderſtand it in ſuch ſort as I hauehave alledged. Cyprian, a moſt ancient author, in his ſermon De coena Domini, ſaith; Euen as in the perſon of Chriſt his humanitie was ſéene, and his diuinitie laie hid; ſo in the viſible ſacrament, the eſſence of God dooth vnſpeakablie infuſe it ſelfe, that in religion there might be a true deuotion about the ſacraments. A compariſon betweene this ſacrament and the perſon of Chriſt.Here you ſée a compariſon to be made betwéene the perſon of Chriſt and this ſacrament: both which as they comprehend two natures, ſo it behooueth to preſerue them both intire, which ye in tranſubſtantiating doo not.
D. Tresham.
Againſt Cyprian, I will oppoſe Cyprian, and him I will interpret by himſelfe, which ſaith in the ſame ſermon; This bread, which the Lord deliuered to his diſciples, not changed in forme, but in nature, is by the omnipotent word of God made fleſh. You heare a changing of the nature of the bread. Wherfore, we muſt not beléeue that ſo notable a martyr is againſt his owne ſelfe, and that he hath forgotten himſelfe in thoſe things that doo followe.
D. Martyr.
This is not to anſwer to the place propounded, but to ſhift off the argument; when I ſhall occupie the turne of an anſwerer, I will cléere the place, which you alledge againſt me. Wherefore, it is your part to anſwer vntounto that which is obiected, that is to wit, how this compariſon, which Cyprian maketh betwéene Chriſt and this ſacrament, taketh place with you.
D. Tresham.
Cyprian is the beſt interpretour of himſelfe.
D. Martyr.
Since you bring nothing elſe, I will alledge Gelaſius, of whom the ſelfe-ſame is affirmed as touching this compariſon. He againſt Eutyches ſaith; Vndoubtedlie the ſacrament of the bodie and bloud of Chriſt, which we receiue, is a diuine thing; for the which, and through the ſelfe-ſame things, we are made partakers of the diuine nature, and yet dooth not the ſubſtance of bread and wine ceaſe to be, and for a truth, the image and ſimilitude of the bodie and bloud of Chriſt is celebrated in the action of the myſteries. And therefore it is euidentlie enough ſhewed vsus, that we muſt iudge the ſelfe-ſame to be in Chriſt himſelfe our Lord, which in his image we profeſſe, celebrate, and receiue, that euen as theſe things, by the working of the holie Ghoſt doo paſſe into the diuine ſubſtance, and yet remaine in the propertie of their owne nature; ſo that principall myſterie it ſelfe, whoſe efficacie and truth thoſe ſignes doo trulie repreſent, dooth ſhew one Chriſt euen whole and perfect properlie to conſiſt of God and man, thoſe natures ſtill remaining.
D. Tresham.
That booke is not receiued among the allowed works of Gelaſius. Moreouer, Gelaſius was a biſhop of Rome, and I maruell that you will auouch him alone, ſince there be twentie biſhops that doo make expreſſelie againſt you.
D. Martyr.
This anſwer ſtandeth of two parts; firſt, that the booke is not allowed, and ſecondlie, that it is ſet foorth by a biſhop of Rome. As touching the firſt, there is no cauſe ſhewed, why the booke ſhould be ſuſpected, eſpecallie ſince he writeth againſt Eutydies, which was an heretike. That the books of the fathers muſt not lightlie be refuſed.And if ye will deale after this maner, and ſhift off an argument, by ſaieng that any booke is ſuſpected, then I may reiect all bookes which I perceiue doo make againſt me. Secondlie, the ſea of Rome was not in thoſe daies ſo defiled & corrupted, nor yet come to ſuth a tyrannie, as afterward it fell out, that thereby the authoritie of Gelaſius ſhould be diminiſhed. And beſides, I auouch not him, bicauſe he was a biſhop of Rome, but for that he agréeth with the word of God; in which reſpect, we muſt make more account of him alone, than of twentie or a hundred others, if they be repugnant to the word of God. But go to, let vsus cite Auguſtine, which to the ſelfe-ſame effect ſpeaketh euen of that compariſon, according as he is cited in the title De conſecratione, diſtinction the ſecond, out of the ſentences of Proſper, whoſe words be theſe; Euen as the perſon of Chriſt conſiſteth of God, & man, ſith the ſame Chriſt is very God, and very man, bicauſe euerie thing conteineth in it ſelfe the nature and truth of thoſe things wherof it is made: but the ſacrifice of the church ſtandeth of two things, that is to wit, of the ſacrament, and of the matter of the ſacrament. Héere you ſée the ſelfe-ſame compariſon betwéene the Euchariſt and Chriſt: whereof it followeth, that euen as in Chriſt, the two natures remaine whole, ſo the ſubſtance of the bread muſt not be taken from the Euchariſt.
D. Tresham.
Auguſtine in this place, which you hauehave cited, maketh moſt of all for me; for I ſo vnderſtand him, that in the ſacrament, he would hauehave the verie fleſh of Chriſt to be couered vnderunder the ſhewes of bread and wine, which he calleth the matter of the ſacrament: alſo he would hauehave the accidents, vnderunder which the bodie of Chriſt is hidden, to be a ſigne of the fleſh ſo hidden. Moreouer and beſides this he ſaith, that the fleſh of Chriſt ſo hidden is a ſigne of the very bodie of Chriſt hanging vponupon the croſſe, and that ſo it is a ſigne of it ſelfe.
D. Martyr.
We doo not now contend about the ſigne and thing ſignified, whether they be all one, but about the compariſon betwéene Chriſt and the Euchariſt, and about the two natures in them both, the which yée doo not reteine whole in the ſacrament, while in ſtead of the ſubſtances ye place accidents. For Auguſtine affirmeth, that euerie thing conteineth in it ſelfe the nature and truth of thoſe things, whereof it is made. And there is no man doubteth, but that the ſacrament is made of bread. And whereas you adde, that the bodie of Chriſt, according to Auguſtines iudgement, is conteined vnderunder the accidents of bread and wine, in ſuch wiſe that the ſubſtance of thoſe ſignes is excluded from them; that you hauehave not out of his words.
D. Tresham.
I ſaie that Auguſtine teacheth by thoſe words, that the ſacrament is made of the bodie of Chriſt, and of the accidents; the which accidents be the outward ſacrament.
D. Martyr.
You ſaie that the ſacrament conſiſteth of accidents, and of the bodie of Chriſt; but I inforce the compariſon betwéene Chriſt himſelfe and the Euchariſt; for the ſacrament muſt be correſpondent with him: and therefore as in Chriſt neither of both the natures periſhed, ſo in the Euchariſt it behooueth that both of them ſhould remaine. Otherwiſe the heretiks will alwaies ſaie, that indéed the diuine nature is granted to be in Chriſt, but that he had onelie but a ſhew and accidents of an humane bodie.
D. Tresham.
If the Euchariſt be verelie anſwerable to Chriſt, as you affirme it to be, it followeth, that euen as true bread is ſaid to be there, ſo muſt likewiſe the true bodie of Chriſt be ſaid to be there, the which maketh moſt of all againſt your ſecond queſtion. Wherefore the argument is of no force, bicauſe the ſimilitude is of no force; for the ſimilitude is not currant.
D. Martyr.
You anſwer indéed, that this maketh againſt me, bicauſe I doo not affirme the bodie of Chriſt to be conteined in the ſacrament: but yet ſo farre as I ſée, you anſwer nothing hitherto to the compariſon of theſe fathers, except it be in denieng of the ſame, and therefore the argument remaineth vnaſſoiled. For the fathers brought the ſame chéeflie to this purpoſe, to ſhew that on both ſides, as well in Chriſt as in the ſacrament, both the natures remaine whole and perfect. But after what manner I appoint the true bodie of Chriſt to be in the ſacrament, ſhall be declared afterward, when I come to the ſecond queſtion. Now by the teſtimonies alledged, we hauehave concluded effectuallie, that bread remaineth: for the confirmation whereof we hauehave Theodoretus, who againſt Eutyches wrote excellent dialogs. In the firſt of which, Theodoretus bringeth the ſame compariſon, and plainlie denieth tranſubſtantiation.he thus ſaith; Thoſe things, which appeare to be ſignes, he honoured with the name of his bodie and bloud, vndoubtedlie not changing the nature it ſelfe, but ioining grace vntounto nature. And in the ſecond dialog, he bringeth in the heretike oppoſing after this maner; Wherefore euen as the ſignes of the bodie and bloud of the Lord, be after one ſort before the inuocation of the prieſt, but after the ſame inuocation, they be changed and made other things; ſo likewiſe the Lords bodie, after the aſſumption, was changed into a diuine ſubſtance. The Catholike anſwereth; Thou art caught euen in the ſame net, which thou thy ſelfe didſt laie: for neither doo thoſe myſticall ſignes depart from their owne nature, ſith they remaine in their former ſubſtance, figure, and ſhape: and ſo he concludeth againſt Eutyches, that the bodie of Chriſt was not changed into the diuine nature, as he affirmed. And thus you ſée that theſe Doctors, Cyprian, Auguſtine, Gelaſius, and Theodoretus doo verie well agrée betwéene themſelues, that the ſubſtance of bread in the ſacrament is not changed, bicauſe of the agréeableneſſe which it hath with Chriſt, in whom as well the humanitie as diuinitie remaine entire.
D. Tresham.
Reduce your argument into a forme, and then I will ſhape you an anſwer.
D. Martyr.
This is Theodoretus reaſon: As bread remaineth entire in the ſacrament, & departeth not from his owne nature; ſo Chriſts bodie remained in him, and was not changed into the diuine, as the heretiks affirme it to be.
D. Tresham.
This maketh ſtill with me, and concludeth, that therein is the true bodie of Chriſt, which you in your ſecond queſtion denie. Againe, this Theodoretus, whom you cite, was a Neſtorian heretike, and that appéereth manifeſtlie enough, by the hiſtorie of Nicephorus, and the Councell of Chalcedon, in the eight action. And the teſtimonie of an heretike deſerueth no authoritie in ſo great a matter.
D. Martyr.
That Theodoretus, was no Neſtorian, no man can prooue better than himſelfe; who writing againſt all the heretiks which went before him, left not Neſtorius vntouched; yea rather, he wrote a whole particular chapter againſt him, and called him a verie fit inſtrument of the diuell. But as touching that which you alledge of Nicephorus, and the ſynod of Chalcedon, it happened for this cauſe. In the ſynod of Epheſus, there fell out verie gréeuous offenſes betwéene Cyrill, which was preſident of the Councell, and Iohn patriarch of Antioch, bicauſe Cyrill with his fellowes had procéeded to the condemnation & depriuation of Neſtorius, without expecting of him and other biſhops; and ſo both of them, going beyond the bounds of humanitie, exerciſed among themſelues hatreds, not beſéeming for chriſtians. And the matter came to ſuch a paſſe, as they did excommunicate one an other, and depoſed one another: but afterward they returned into friendſhip againe. And during the time of this diſſention, Theodoretus, which fauoured Iohn, wrote againſt the excommunications which Cyrill made, wherein he charged him gréeuouſlie. And, if a man will diligentlie read the matter, he ſhall hardlie find by that writing, that Theodoretus either was an heretike, or elſe fauoured anie ill opinion of Neſtorius, notwithſtanding that his aduerſaries, and ſuch as fauoured Cyrill, did ſo ſlander him. Howbeit, euen as we hauehave ſaid, they were all at the length reconciled among themſelues. And in this eight action of the ſynod of Chalcedon it appéereth manifeſtlie, that Theodoretus was falſelie ſlandered; and there it appeareth how excellent a teſtimonie he had of the fathers of the Councell, by whom he was reſtored vntounto his ſeat, and he openlie accurſed Neſtorius, with whom he ſheweth that he neuer concurred in opinions. Of the verie which Theodoretus there is read ſomwhat in Beſſarion cardinall of Nice, in the Florentine Councell. Since therefore the ſynod of Chalcedon did not refuſe but allow of his confeſſion, whie doo not ye admit of his purgation? And ſince he wrote theſe things againſt Eutyches, after the ſynod of Chalcedon, in the which ſynod he was allowed as a right beléeuer of the faith, they muſt not eaſilie be denied, as ye would they ſhould: and we muſt giuegive more credit vntounto the Councell, vntounto Leo the moſt holie biſhop of Rome, and vntounto manie biſhops more, than vntounto that ſame one Monke Nicephorus.
D. Tresham.
That purgation is not equall or to be admitted, wherwith a man purgeth himſelfe. Let an other man praiſe thée (ſaith Salomon) and not thine owne mouth. Certeine it is, that Cyrill wrote manie things againſt him. Againe, he is but an obſcure authour, and no man hath him but you; wherefore he muſt not be cited for defining of ſo great a matter.
D. Martyr.
An excellent waie for euerie one to purge himſelfe of hereſie.Yes verelie, when anie mans faith is brought into queſtion; euerie man is a competent witneſſe to himſelfe: as if ſo be one ſhould be accuſed of Arainiſme, he might no better waie purge himſelfe, than by deteſting of Arrius, and by writing againſt him. But if you thinke that Theodoret muſt be reiected, bicauſe he contended againſt Cyrill, and for that Cyrill wrote againſt him, by the ſame reaſon you will reiect Cyprian, bicauſe he once in the matter of baptiſme, not onelie diſſented from Steuen Biſhop of Rome, but alſo from other Doctours of ſound iudgement. And you may as iuſtlie refuſe the writing of Epiphanius, Chryſoſtome, and Theophilact, who ſo earneſtlie ſtroue and contended among themſelues, that Iohn Chryſoſtome was diſplaced and caſt out of his biſhopricke. And whereas you obiect that he is an obſcure writer, and whome none but my ſelfe hath, be it knowne to you, that the booke is printed, and vendible at Rome.
D. Tresham.
I anſwer, that it would be a long and tedious thing to go to Rome for ſuch a booke.
D. Martyr.
Now then if you will not allow of him, I will ſet him aſide, and bring foorth Origin, Origin holdeth, that the materiall ſubſtance of the Euchariſt is caſt into the draught.who maketh for me. He writing vponupon the fiftéenth chapter of Matthew, ſaith; If that whatſoeuer entereth into the mouth, goeth into the bellie, and is caſt out into the draught: and that that meate, which is ſanctified by the word of God and by praier, as touching that which is materiall, paſſeth into the bellie, and is caſt into the draught; but in reſpect of the praier which commeth therevnto, it is made profitable and effectuall, according to the proportion of faith, that the mind may throughlie diſcerne and hauehave regard vntounto that which is profitable. Neither is it the materiall bread, but the word ſpoken ouer the ſame, that profiteth him which dooth not vnworthilie eate it; and thus much of the figuratiue and ſacramentall bodie. So far he.
D. Tresham.
Origins teſtimonie is ſuſpected in this matter. The place is found in the fragments which were latelie added by Eraſmus. And you remember what a common ſaieng there is of Origin; Where he hath ſaid well, no man hath ſaid better; where euill, no man worſe. And againſt Origin alone ſuſpected, I oppoſe Chryſoſtome a verie faithfull writer: Dooſt thou ſée (ſaith he) the bread? Dooſt thou ſée the wine? Dooth it paſſe into the draught as other meates doo? Far be it that thou ſhouldeſt thinke anie ſuch thing.
D. Martyr.
Doubtleſſe I am ſorie, that ſo notable a man (as Origin I meane) fell into ſo gréeuous errours. Howbéeit, his hereſies are recited by Hierom, Epiphanius, and other notable fathers, who throughlie ſearched him, and openlie reprooued his errours, leaſt they ſhould infect the ſimpler ſort, and yet did they neuer reprooue him in this matter.
D. Tresham.
An argument negatiue, fetcht from an authoritie, is weake and of no force: they wrote not, that he erred as touching the Euchariſt, therefore he erred not. Againe, this place is of the fragments latelie interpreted by Eraſmus, which place perhaps the authors which you hauehave named neuer ſawe.
D. Martyr.
But neuertheleſſe it is verie likelie, & moſt probable to all that iudge rightlie, that ſince they forbeare not to ſpeake of all his other errours, which in your iudgement are not more gréeuous than be theſe, they would not hauehave diſſembled this which ye account to be ſo gréeuous. And whereas you cauill, that theſe fragments be added by Eraſmus, that is a vaine ſhift: for he deuiſed them not of himſelfe. And ſince that all bookes hauehave béene after the ſelfeſame maner found out; to wit, by ſtudious men in the old libraries, by the like argument all bookes might be refuſed at ſuch time as they are cited. But let vsus heare Irenaeus, in his fourth booke againſt hereſies: Hée taking bread the which was of the ſame condition that ours is, did confeſſe it to be his bodie: and moreouer, he taking the cup likewiſe, which is of the ſame creature that is amongſt vsus, confeſſed the ſame to be his bloud. But accidents that hang without a ſubiect, be no creatures amongſt vsus, naie rather they be excéeding great miracles. Therfore Irenaeus did not thinke of thoſe things, ſince hée calleth the matter of this ſacrament a creature, ſuch as is amongſt vsus, that is to wit, vſuall.
D. Tresham.
It behooueth to ioine the head with the taile, to wit, that Irenaeus ſhould ſaie; Chriſt tooke bread and made the ſame his bodie. And he confeſſeth that the bodie of Chriſt is in the Euchariſt, and is made of bread: for he ſaith; that the bread which is from the earth, is no more common bread, but is made the Euchariſt.
D. Martyr.
Whereas he called bread, which is from the earth, his bodie; or ſaid, that it is made the Euchariſt, it ſerueth nothing to this purpoſe, that the ſubſtance of bread ſhould be excluded.
D. Tresham.
It would without doubt be a verie abſurd propoſition, if it ſhould be ſaid; This bread is the bodie of Chriſt.
D. Martyr.
That we may the more throughlie vnderſtand Irenaeus mind, we muſt heare himſelfe ſpeake in the ſelfe-ſame fourth booke, A compariſon of our change with the change of bread.where he ſaith; For euen as the bread, which is from the earth, when it receiueth inuocation of God, is now no common bread; but the Euchariſt, conſiſting of two things, to wit, earthlie and heauenlie: ſo our bodies likewiſe receiuing the Euchariſt, are not now corrupt, ſince they hauehave the hope of the reſurrection. Herby you may gather, that ſo the bodie is changed into the Euchariſt, or into the bodie of Chriſt, as our bodies be changed, and made incorruptible. But yet in this change, the ſubſtance of our bodies is not caſt awaie; and therefore neither dooth the ſubſtance of the bread depart, nor is there anie néed of your tranſubſtantiation.
D. Tresham.
This argument is not firme, bicauſe it is deriued from a ſimilitude; and verie learned men doo bring this ſelfe-ſame text againſt you: For bread (ſaith Irenaeus) receiuing the inuocation of GOD, is now no more common bread, but the Euchariſt; and euen ſo our bodies are made incorruptible. This change of bodies is not naturall, but ſpirituall: inſomuch that Cyprian ſaith; Doubtleſſe the coniunction of our bodies with his bodie, dooth not mingle the perſons, nor yet vnite the ſubſtances; but aſſociate the affections, and confederate the wils. 2. Cor. 3, 18.And as Paule ſaith, when he deſcribeth this ſpirituall change; we are tranſformed ſpirituallie into Chriſt, procéeding from glorie to glorie, from daie to daie. There is a verie great difference betwéene the change of our bodie, and the change of the Euchariſt. For we be not by nature incorruptible, but it is by a ſpirituall change and incorruption, which is doone by grace, faith, charitie, godlineſſe, and ſuch like.
D. Martyr.
There was no néed why you ſhould take all this pains in declaring how our bodies be incorruptible, inſomuch as I doo vrge and gather the ſimilitude out of Irenaeus, that the like change is as well of the one as of the other; and I infer, that the ſubſtance of bread doth not periſh, no more than our bodies in their change doo caſt awaie their firſt ſubſtance.
D. Tresham.
I anſwer, that the change of our bodies into Chriſt muſt be vnderſtood in reſpect of the holie vertues of Chriſt abiding in vsus, wherby we are made aſſured that our bodies ſhall hereafter be incorruptible: and herewithall I ſaie, that this argument is drawne from a ſimilitude, and therefore not ſtrong.
D. Martyr.
Our bodie cannot be ſaid to be changed into the vertues of Chriſt, for thoſe perteine not to the bodie: and againe, my reaſon is from the authoritie of Irenaeus. He bringeth in the ſimilitude, ſo as the argument is not anſwered. Moreouer, you ought to weigh, that it is here ſaid, that the Euchariſt dooth conſiſt of two things; to wit, earthlie and heauenlie. Wherevpon it followeth, that the bread dooth remaine, the which is called an earthlie thing.
D. Tresham.
This ſacrament conſiſteth of two things; Therefore two things remaine in the ſame. I denie this argument. It is made indéed of an earthlie matter, not that it ſo remaineth, but bicauſe it was ſo before it was bleſſed; but after conſecration, there remaine no longer two things, but one.
D. Martyr.
That which you prooue to your ſelfe is verie abſurd; namelie, The ſacrament conſiſteth not of two things before bleſſing, for then it is not a ſacrament.that the ſacrament ſtandeth of two natures before it is bleſſed; for then before the bleſſing, it is neither a ſacrament, nor yet the bodie of Chriſt. Wherefore Irenaeus ſpeaketh of the Euchariſt, which now is the Euchariſt: neither will I admit that anie thing dooth conſiſt of thoſe things that hauehave no being. And to your ſimilitude, touching the nouriſhment of our bodie: I ſaie that the meate is digeſted in the ſtomach, and that a part thereof is caſt foorth by the draught and other excrements, I denie not; but yet, vnleſſe that the ſubſtance thereof ſhould remaine, and be reteined in the bodie, we could not be nouriſhed: howbeit, all theſe things perteine ſmallie to the matter. For I ſtill affirme, that Irenaeus dooth appoint ſuch a change to be of the bread into the Euchariſt, as the change of our bodies is into an incorruptible ſtate, vntounto which obiection you hauehave not yet anſwered.
D. Tresham.
To the firſt point I anſwer, In what ſort elements be in compounded bodies.that a bodie mixt dooth conſiſt of elements; and yet the elements in the mixed bodie are not extant. To the other point I ſaie, that an argument taken from a ſimilitude is of no force.
D. Martyr.
You anſwer likewiſe abſurdlie, when you affirme anie thing to conſiſt of that which is not. And that, which you produce as touching a bodie, which you call mixed, you muſt vnderſtand that elements are ſo extant therein, as it conſiſteth of them. For if it conſiſt of them in act, as they ſpeake, they be there extant in act: if it conſiſt of them in power, or in ſtrength, ſo they are extant in them. And whereas you make much a doo, that an argument from a ſimilitude is of no force, I ſhewed you before, that I neither feigne here anie ſimilitude; I onelie inforce that which Irenaeus ſaid.
D. Tresham.
I anſwer againe, that an argument taken from a ſimilitude is nothing woorth.
D. Martyr.
What? Is this to anſwer an argument? I my ſelfe brought not the reaſon from a ſimilitude, but I vrge the ſimilitude of Irenaeus. If I my ſelfe had brought the ſimilitude, you might iuſtlie hauehave refuſed it.
D. Tresham.
I ſaie that thoſe ſimilitudes alſo, which we find written elſe-where, and our ſelues hauehave not deuiſed them, are likewiſe of no force in arguments: and this will I ſhew out of the holie ſcriptures. The Lord ſaid; Father, cauſe that they may be all one, euen as thou Father art in me, and I in thee. Now is it nothing worth, if a man ſhould argue: The father and the ſonne be of one ſubſtance, Therefore Chriſt and we be of one ſubſtance.
D. Martyr.
That your anſwer is no anſwer Hilarie teſtifieth, who in his eight booke De trinitate teacheth, that it dooth very fitlie agrée, and that it is a very firme argument which you doo bring of the ſimilitude taken out of the ſcriptures. You thinke that the argument is of no force, but he ſaith that it dooth altogither conclude; and he confeſſeth, by the power of that argument, that we be of one ſubſtance, and naturallie ioined with Chriſt by his humanitie, wherewith our humane nature (as Cyrill ſpeaketh) is conſubſtantiall; In his book De rectafide ad reginas.that is, togither of one ſubſtance. And ſo you ſée that the ſimilitude which you hauehave drawne out of the holie ſcriptures, dooth make the argument to be true.
D. Tresham.
I maruell that you flie to Hilarie: for he maketh againſt you; and hereof Bucer ſhall be a witneſſe, who ſaith, that we are ioined with Chriſt, in the holie communion, not onelie by will, but alſo by a naturall participation, as Hilarie writeth.
D. Martyr.
Firſt, I cited not Hilarie for the queſtion of the Euchariſt, but to ſhew; that an argument deriued from a ſimilitude taken out of the holie ſcriptures (which you denied) ſtandeth firme. And now you ſhew that Hilarie by Bucers iudgement ſaith, that we are ioined to Chriſt not onelie by will, but alſo by a naturall participation; which as you thought, is not trulie concluded. Trulie I denie not, that that ſame participation of Chriſt with vsus, is alſo naturall, which Hilarie putteth. But here we diſpute not of the coniunction of Chriſt with vsus, but with the bread. And you ſhall perciue that the ſame Hilarie a little before maketh the very ſame coniunction to be with vsus in baptiſme, that is to wit, a naturall coniunction; and not by the will. And ſo there would followe a tranſubſtantiation in baptiſme; which if you grant not to be there, I ſée no cauſe whie it ſhould be vrged here of you. But if you will obiect the place vntounto me, when you oppoſe me, you ſhall plainelie perceiue that it maketh nothing at all againſt me. The ſtate of the queſtion is not of the coniunction of Chriſt with vsus but with the bread. The coniunction is declared that we hauehave with Chriſt.For here we diſpute (as I hauehave ſaid) againſt tranſubſtantiation, and reall coniunction of Chriſt with the bread, but not of the true coniunction of Chriſt with vsus, which I doo not denie. And as concerning Bucer, what he iudgeth, or how he agréeth with me, I will ſhew elſe-where. Bréeflie we hauehave a coniunction with Chriſt, and that without doubt naturall: for he trulie tooke vponupon him our nature of the virgine. Furthermore, by faith, our fleſh and nature is the more conformed to the immortalitie of Chriſtes nature, and is dailie increaſed, while we vſe the ſacraments; but this coniunction and participation, which I confes we hauehave with Chriſt is naturall. But theſe things ſhall be declared more at large, when we come to the place of Hilarie. Wherefore leauing this argument out of Irenaeus, which hath not béene ſufficientlie anſwered, I will obiect vntounto you Gregorie the biſhop of Rome, who ſaith in Regiſtro thus: But yet while we receiue as well the vnleuened as the leuened bread, we are made one bread of the Lord our ſauiour: but vnleuened and leuened bread doo manifeſtlie ſhew that bread dooth ſtill remaine, for thoſe be properties of bread, which hauehave no place, if you take awaie bread.
D. Tresham.
Gregorie conuerteth all into allegories, and hath reſpect vntounto manners; warning vsus to be vnleuened and ſincere, as Paule ſaid; 1. Cor, 5, 8.In the vnleuened bread of ſinceritie and truth. And ſo the argument is to no purpoſe being taken from a wrong ſenſe; as Auguſtine teſtified to Vincentius the Donatiſt. An argument deriued otherwiſe than from the literall ſenſe, is of ſmall force to perſuade anie thing by an effectuall inference. Or elſe it may be otherwiſe anſwered; to wit, that he ſpeaketh of the ſubſtance of bread, which before conſecration was either vnleuened or leuened.
D. Martyr.
It is plainelie declared, that Gregorie ſpake nothing allegoricallie in this place. For it was then called into doubt; and the controuerſie was, whether the bread of the Euchariſt ſhould be vſed either vnleuened or leuened. Gregorie being conſulted herevpon in Regiſtro, ſetteth downe his opinion vponupon this matter.
D. Tresham.
Now doo I better vnderſtand it than before. For I remember the controuerſie; and the Gréeks erre euen vntill this daie, reteining ſtill leuened bread: but yet the place conteineth nothing againſt me, for Gregorie would not hauehave it to make anie matter, whether the bread wherof the ſacrament is made be vnleuened or leuened; and it is called vnleuened or leuened, of that which it was before.
D. Martyr.
I maruell that you in your anſwer doo ſaie, that the Gréeks doo erre vntill this daie, ſince Gregorie ſheweth that it maketh no matter, whether it be vnderſtood of vnleuened or of leuened bread. And whereas you ſaie that he meaneth that which he ſpake, to be before conſecration, that agréeth not with his words. For he ſaith; While we doo receiue, neither is the ſacrament receiued before conſecration.
D. Tresham.
After that the bread is tranſubſtantiated, it is named according to that thing whereof it is deriued.
D. Martyr.
That the holie ſcriptures acknowledge no tranſubſtantiation.Alwaies when ſimilitudes be brought in, which doo prooue bread to be in the ſacrament, you ſhift off thoſe matters by a figure taken from their former nature; and therefore I am minded to diſpute with you after this maner: Tranſubſtantiation is not declared nor prooued by the holie ſcriptures, Therfore it muſt not be receiued.
D. Tresham.
By the power of the holie ſcripture, which ſaith, This is my bodie, the church was compelled to decrée tranſubſtantiation. For it is not poſſible that this propoſition ſhuld properlie be true, vnleſſe that this change be determined.
D. Martyr.
If the accidents remaine, whie dooth not the ſubſtance?Whie ſo? My thinks I héere news now. If the accidents doo remaine with the bodie of Chriſt, whie not the ſubſtance? What hath the ſubſtance more offended than the accidents, that it may not abide with the bodie of Chriſt? And eſpeciallie ſince a great part of the contention ſéemeth to be about meaſure and quantitie, which notwithſtanding ye reteine; for the quantitie and maſſe of bread is not aboliſhed.
D. Tresham.
Therefore dooth not the ſubſtance remaine, bicauſe it did not ſo pleaſe Chriſt the inſtitutor of this ſacrament. Chriſt might hauehave brought to paſſe, that the bread ſhould remaine, but now bicauſe of his word, the ſame hauing his accuſtomed power, it cannot remaine.
D. Martyr.
Since that you anſwered me not ſufficientlie, I demanded, whie the bread might not remaine: By no other meanes (ſaie you) but by the word of God and will of Chriſt. But I do not as yet vnderſtand, what the words of Chriſt ſhould let. Neither doo I ſée from whence you hauehave this teſtimonie of the will of GOD, whereby he will not hauehave bread to remaine.
D. Tresham.
Euen bicauſe it is vnpoſſible, that the word of God ſhould be falſe. Alſo it is vnpoſſible out of the proprietie of words to prooue the truth of the Lords words, wherein he ſaid, This is my bodie, without tranſubſtantiation.Whether that propoſition, This is my bodie, may be done without tranſubſtantiation.
D. Martyr.
I could now ſpeake of the figuratiue ſpéech of that propoſitiō, wherby I might ſhew it to be a true propoſition, as manie ſuch like are true, the things remaining ſtill as they were before: but I let this paſſe, and I procéed in the queſtion alreadie made; to wit, whie the ſubſtance dooth here periſh, rather than the accidents. Neither doo I heare anie reaſon, whie you ſhould rather plucke awaie one of theſe, than an other.
D. Tresham.
I hauehave alreadie ſaid, that the words of the propoſition, This is my bodie, cannot be true, vnleſſe that a tranſubſtantiation followe, bicauſe the bread is not the bodie of Chriſt, nor the accidents the bodie of Chriſt. Moreouer the word of God ſhould not be working and effectuall, vnleſſe there were a tranſubſtantiation therewithall, and that the accident did euidentlie appeare to remaine. And therfore the propertie of the ſaieng being kept, and putting no figure in the words, it is vnpoſſible that the propoſition ſhould be true, vnleſſe that there be a tranſubſtantiation admitted.
D. Martyr.
I doo note in your anſwer that the bodie of Chriſt cannot trulie be ſpoken, either of the bread, or of the accidents, where neuertheleſſe Epiphanius ſaith in Anchorato; True he is, who togither with grace, hath giuen vntounto man that which is according to the image. And how manie things are there, which be of like ſimilitude? For we ſée what our ſauiour tooke into his hands, according as we hauehave it in the Goſpell, that he roſe in the ſupper, and when he had giuen thanks, he ſaid, This is mine, and this, and this; and we ſée that it is not equall nor alike, neither to the image in the fleſh, nor to the inuiſible deitie, nor yet to the lineaments of the members. For this is of a round forme, and inſenſible as touching the power: & thorough grace he would ſaie, This is mine, and this; and this; The bodie of the Lord is ſaid of that, which as touching power is inſenſible.and yet there is no man but beléeueth his ſaieng: for he that beléeueth not that the ſame is true, according as he ſpake it, ſuch a one falleth awaie from grace and from ſaluation. But what we hauehave heard, that we beléeue, bicauſe it is his word. Verelie we knowe out owne Lord, who is altogither ſenſe, altogither ſenſible, altogither God, altogither the moouer, altogither the worker, altogither the light, and altogither incomprehenſible, but yet ſuch a one, as is the ſame to vsus, which he giueth by his grace. By which words you heare as concerning a thing of round ſhape, and inſenſible in reſpect of the power thereof, the Lord of his grace ſaid, This is my bodie. Neither can you auoid it, but that that which is round, whether it be ſubſtance or accident, is that wherof Epiphanius ſaith, that it is called the bodie of the Lord: for he will hauehave the bodie of Chriſt to be ſpoken of that which is inſenſible according to power. But it agréeth not with the bodie of Chriſt, that it ſhould be without ſenſe; euen as you hauehave it expreſlie ſhewed in the ſentence alledged.
D. Tresham.
It behooueth to read the ancient fathers fauourablie, as Eraſmus ſaith. And let the notaries write, that neither I name the accidents, nor yet the bread, the bodie of Chriſt. And further, it may be otherwiſe anſwered, that he on this wiſe ſpake therof, before he had made an end of vttering his words.
D. Martyr.
Séeing you will not hauehave it that this round thing (whereof this Epiphanius ſaith, that it is called the bodie of Chriſt) is bread, nor yet an accident, what then did he meane by this pronowne demonſtratiue, Hoc, This?
D. Tresham.
That can I not tell, but that was ſhewed which Chriſt himſelfe ment; let him be aſked, who did inſtitute it. But if it be ſpoken concerning bread, it is ment, before conſecration. The fathers (as I hauehave ſaid) muſt be read with fauour.
D. Martyr.
In that you ſaie that the fathers muſt be fauourablie read, I like it well: and I know that ſometimes they muſt be interpreted conuenientlie. Howbeit, when they ſpeake the truth, there is no néed of pardon: neither doo I thinke that Epiphanius in this place hath anie néed thereof: he dooth ſufficientlie mainteine the word of God, and ſpeaketh verie well of the ſame.
D. Tresham.
Hilarie, in his fourth booke De Trinitate, as I remember, ſaith, that the vnderſtanding of ſaiengs muſt be gathered by the cauſes of the ſaiengs, bicauſe the matter is not ſubiect to the ſpéech, but the ſpéech to the matter. And therefore to anſwer according to the condition and truth of the matter, I affirme, that Epiphanius ſaid; that as touching that which is of a round figure, the Lord would pronounce; This is my bodie, not that there is true bread vnderunder the round figure, but bicauſe it ſo ſéemeth and appeareth vntounto our ſenſe; and therefore I ſaid, that he muſt be read fauourablie, bicauſe his words pretend bread to remaine, which neuertheleſſe dooth not remaine.
D. Martyr.
That which you alledge out of Hilarie, helpeth you but little, ſéeing Epiphanius cannot otherwiſe be vnderſtood, but as I hauehave declared. For it is manifeſtlie ſaid; that the Lord of his grace ſaid, concerning that which is of a round figure, that it was his bodie. Therfore, whether you will ſaie, that that round thing is bread, or an accident, he ſpeaketh vtterlie againſt you, for by the ſame he nameth his bodie. But that you may vnderſtand verie true bread to be preſent, I will ſhew it moſt euidentlie out of the words of the Euangeliſt; Chriſt tooke bread, Mat. 26, 26.he bleſſed, brake, and gaue to his apoſtles, ſaieng, &c. Thoſe foure verbes, To take, to bleſſe, to breake, and to giuegive, gouerne no more but one accuſatiue caſe, that is to wit, Bread. And therefore euen as it is true bread, while it is receiued and bleſſed, no leſſe true ſhall it be, when it is broken and giuen: whereof it foloweth, that Chriſt gaue bread, not accidents alone. Otherwiſe the Euangeliſt would hauehave ſaid; that Chriſt brake his bodie, and giuegive his bodie; but as you hauehave heard, he referreth all vntounto bread: neither doo I thinke that the Euangeliſt hath anie néed of fauour.
D. Tresham.
I ſaie with Saint Peter, Pet. 1, 20.that the ſcripture is not of a priuate interpretation. The fathers of the church doo cléerlie enough expound according to my aſſertion, that Chriſt gaue his bodie, and that in putting this verbe Gaue before, he vſed a figure.
D. Martyr.
Yet doo not you ſatiſfie me; How that place; The ſcripture is not of priuate interpretation, muſt be vnderſtood.for that which Peter ſaith, to wit, that the ſcripture is not of a priuate interpretation, that is; it ought not to be expounded acording to our own priuate affections, I admitt: but you are neuer a whit the more furthered. And as for that which ye auouch of the fathers, I hauehave taken teſtimonie of them, and hauehave ſhewed that they are of my ſide. And therefore I repeat theſe words; Chriſt tooke bread, bleſſed bread, brake bread, & gaue bread: ſo ſpeake the fathers, & ſo ſpeake the ſcriptures. You run vntounto figures, and you ſéeme to ſaie, that we muſt vſe the ſpirit. That both the bread is giuen and the bodie: but the bread vntounto the mouth, and the bodie vntounto the ſoule and vntounto faith.But I ſee not where we ſhould ſéeke the ſpirit, except in the holie ſcriptures; which affirme the one and the other to be giuen, bread I meane and the bodie: the which I alſo confeſſe; but you in reiecting the bread, doo not conſent with the ſcriptures.
D. Tresham.
The holie ſcriptures muſt be expounded with the ſelfe-ſame ſpirit whereby they were indited. And the holie Ghoſt hath taught the good fathers, that immediatelie, ſo ſoone as the words of conſecration are vttered, the ſubſtance of bread and wine ceaſeth; of which mind are all the catholike Doctors. And I hauehave not the fathers alone, but Chriſt himſelfe alſo, which promiſed in the ſixt of Iohn, that he would giuegive vntounto vsus his fleſh: he is faithfull, and his truth hangeth not of the fathers, but of himſelfe. verſe. 51.The bread (ſaith he) which I ſhall giuegive is my fleſh, which I ſhall giuegive for the life of the world. And ſo I confeſſe that it is bread, bread, bread, bread, and bread, euen vntill the laſt pronuntiation of the words, afterward it is no bread, but fleſh.
D. Martyr.
The words of the ſcripture ſaie both the one and the other; to wit, that bread is giuen, and that fleſh is giuen: whie doo you not then confeſſe bread to be giuen alſo, as the Euangeliſts hauehave euidentlie written? For whereas you ſaie, that the fathers make on your ſide, I hauehave now ſhewed by manie of their teſtimonies, that it is not true, and I allow that the ſcriptures ſhould be expounded with the ſelfe-ſame ſpirit whereby they were indited. But when they are otherwiſe expounded of you than they meane, that expoſition dooth not procéed of that ſpirit, whereby they were written; for that ſpirit diſſenteth not from them.
D. Tresham.
I ſaie both: but yet I vnderſtand the ſcriptures not as you doo, ſith about the vnderſtanding of the ſcriptures, all controuerſie hath euermore ariſen. For by the ſcriptures Arrius went about to take awaie the diuinitie of Chriſt; The hereſie of Neſtor and Eutyches.by the ſcriptures Neſtor and Eutyches endeuoured to take awaie his humanitie; by the ſcriptures Manes baniſhed frée will; by the ſcriptures Pelagius extolled frée will aboue meaſure; by the ſcriptures Luther defended the truth of the bodie of Chriſt in the Euchariſt; and contrariewiſe by the ſcriptures Zuinglius ſéemed to himſelfe to take awaie the preſence of the bodie of Chriſt from the Euchariſt: and finallie all heretiks, and the diuell hath alwaies ſaid; It is written, and yet they erred. Wherefore it appeareth, that we muſt flie vntounto that ſpirit, whereby the ſcriptures are publiſhed. Euen as Peter the apoſtle ſaith; 1. Pet 1, 20.that The ſcripture is not of priuate interpretation, and that ſpirit is promiſed vntounto the church.
D. Martyr.
Heretikes perhaps hauehave the ſcriptures, but yet they hauehave them not as it becommeth; they followe the ſhew, but not the ſound ſenſe. But what church you tell me ſhould be followed, To the ſcriptures is knowne the church and the ſpirit.I perceiue not; howbeit, this I knowe, that the Euangeliſts, Paule, and the holie fathers, whom I hauehave named, doo teſtifie that here is bread, and the holie ſcriptures doo moſt manifeſtlie ſpeake the ſame. And without theſe things, which I hauehave reherſed, there is no church: neither dooth there anie good ſpirit make againſt theſe.
D. Tresham.
Theſe words of Chriſt; Doo ye this in remembrance of me, be words of commandement, and command vsus to doo that which Chriſt did. And he gaue his owne bodie, which ſaid that it was his bodie: and looke what Chriſt the ſpouſe of the church hath doone, that by his commandement the church dooeth through the ſcriptures.
D. Martyr.
Of theſe words, which you recite, wrote Chryſoſtome vponupon the firſt epiſtle to the Corinthians, the eleuenth chapter, the 27. homilie; For Chriſt in the bread and in the cup ſaid; 1. Co. 11, 24 and 25.Doo this in remembrance of me. Alſo Cyrill vponupon Iohn, the 14. booke, and 14. chapter; He gaue them péeces of bread.
D. Tresham.
The fathers name it bread, of the terme from whence it came; to wit, bicauſe of the former name it had.
D Martyr.
You doo but haſte, and ſtand vponupon the terme, from whence; you forbid a figure, and yet you alwaies defend your ſelfe by a figure.
D. Tresham.
I hauehave manie places of Chryſoſtome that make for me; and I laie Chryſoſtome to Chryſoſtome: and the doctors, when they ſpeake obſcurelie, muſt be interpreted by places more plaine. But Chryſoſtome in the ſermon of the treaſon of Iudas, confeſſeth that the bread is changed.
D. Martyr.
It is not now my turne to anſwer. When you oppoſe me, I will anſwer to that which you obiect out of Chryſoſtome. Howbeit, in the meane time, bicauſe I will not ſéeme to be too preciſe, I hold with Chryſoſtome, that the bread is changed, but yet into a ſacrament; but that the ſubſtance of bread is doone awaie, that doo I denie, neither ſhall you euer prooue it out of Chryſoſtome. Yea and Cyrill ſaith; Euen in the bread we receiue his pretious bodie; and in the wine, his bloud.
D. Tresham.
We receiue it in the bread and wine; that is to wit, in the ſhewes of bread and wine.
D. Martyr.
What doo you call the ſhewes of bread and wine?
D. Tresham.
The accidentall formes of bread and wine.
D. Martyr.
Aſſuredlie you hauehave not this ſignification from the fathers; for they by Species, that is, forme or kind, vnderſtood the verie natures of the things, not the accidents. Ambroſe, in his booke Eorum, qui in tiantur mysterijs, the laſt chapter; But and if the ſpéech of Elias were of ſo great force, as it could fetch downe fire from heauen; ſhall not the ſaieng of Chriſt be forcible, touching the kinds of the elements? He treateth of a ſacramentall change. Wherefore, if he ſhould meane the kinds to be the accidents, it would followe that the accidents ſhuld be changed in the Euchariſt; but that dooth the ſenſe denie. Againe, this father in the ſame chapter; Before the bleſſing of the heauenlie words, another kind is named; after conſecration the bodie of Chriſt is ſignified. And Auguſtine vponupon Iohn, the 26. treatiſe; One thing did they, and another thing we; but yet in a viſible kind, which neuertheles ſignified all one thing. And he ſpeaketh there concerning the difference of the ſacraments of the old and new lawe. And euen the verie ſame in a maner is ſaid by Auguſtine, in his treatiſe De catechizandis rudibus, the firſt booke, and 16. chapter.
D. Tresham.
The fathers call the forme or kind, ſometimes the ſubſtance, and ſometime the accident; for it is an ambiguous word: and that which the ſcriptures call bread, and the fathers alſo name bread, we call the kinds or forms.
Here it ſeemed good vntounto the Viſitors, that wee should diſpute in the ſecond queſtion.
D. Martyr.
We denie the bodie and bloud of Chriſt to be in the bread and wine carnallie and corporallie, or ſubſtantiallie and reallie, as ye ſaie it is; or vnderunder the ſhewes of bread and wine. And this will I prooue out of the ſcriptures. Mark. 16, 19In the laſt of Marke; The Lord Ieſus after he had ſpoken vntounto them was taken vp into heauen, & ſitteth at the right hand of God. In the 26. The ſcriptures teſtifie that Chriſt departed from vsus in bodie. Matt. 24, 23of Matthew? The poore ſhall ye alwaies hauehave with you, but me ſhall ye not hauehave. In the ſixt of Iohn; I leaue the world and I go vntounto my father. Manie ſhall ſaie in thoſe daies; Behold here is Chriſt, or there is Chriſt, beleeue them not. In the third of the Acts; Whome it behooueth the heauens to hold, vntill the time of the reſtitution of all things. And vntounto the Coloſſians the third chapter; Seeke ye thoſe things that be aboue, where Chriſt is ſitting at the right hand of God. Since therefore it appéereth by theſe ſaiengs, that Chriſt, being taken vp from hence, liueth in the heauens; and that it is not agréeable, to the nature of a true humane bodie, to be in manie places at once: it followeth, that the bodie of Chriſt is not reallie in the bread or wine.
D. Tresham.
I denie that it cannot agrée to an humane bodie, to be in diuers places at once: for the holie ſcriptures teach the contrarie, that Chriſt after the aſcenſion, was with his apoſtles euen according to his humanitie. In the firſt epiſtle to the Corinthians the 9 chapter, Paule ſaith; Did not I ſee the Lord? And in the 15. chapter of the ſame epiſtle, And laſt of all he was ſeen of me, as of one borne out of time. And in the ninth of the Acts; Saule, Saule, why dooſt thou perſecute me? And againe; I am Ieſus whom thou perſecuteſt. And a little after, Ananias ſaid; Brother Saule, the Lord hath ſent me, euen Ieſus which appeered to thee in the waie. And Barnabas ſaid afterward vntounto the apoſtles concerning Saule, how he in the waie had ſéene the Lord, and that he had ſpoken vntounto him. During the which time it behooueth to beléeue, that Chriſt was in heauen at the right hand of his father, bicauſe it is an article of the faith: and yet neuertheleſſe he was then vponupon the earth in viſible forme. Wherefore you hauehave concluded nothing; and verie well may the bodie of Chriſt be in the ſacrament vnderunder an inuiſible forme, when he was otherwhile in the earth in a viſible forme, as we hauehave prooued. Wherefore your reaſons doo not conclude.
D. Martyr.
The anſwer dooth not ſuffice: When Chriſt appeered vntounto Paule he was in heauen.for how knowe you that Chriſt appéered not vntounto Paule, abiding in heauen, according as he was ſéene of Steeuen, ſitting at the right hand of God? Yea and Auguſtine vponupon the 54 pſalme ſaith, that the head, which was in heauen, cried for the bodie which was vponupon the earth, and ſaid; Saule, Saule, whie dooſt thou perſecute me? Acts. 9, 4.Moreouer, was not Paule rapted into the third heauen, when he had power to ſée Chriſt? The which he teſtifieth vntounto the Corinthians. For there he onelie ſaith, that he ſawe Chriſt, but ſpeaketh nothing of the place or time. Indéed, he appeared vntounto Paule as he was in the waie, and while he was in the waie did ſpeake vntounto him: neuertheleſſe (as I hauehave ſaid) he might doo this remaining in heauen, and frame a voice from thence which ſhuld be heard vponupon the earth. Furthermore, put the caſe that the Lord exhibited himſelfe to be ſéene of Paule, vponupon the earth, you ſhall not be able to ſhew that he was in heauen at the ſelfe-ſame time. We beléeue the article of our faith; to wit, that he was aſſumpted into heauen, and ſitteth at the right hand of the father, but that he cannot ſometime tranſferre himſelfe from thence, and appéere to whome he will, that are not we bound to beléeue. It is inough to confeſſe, that he hath his proper manſion in heauen.
D. Tresham.
Wheras Auguſtine ſaith, vponupon the pſalme, that Chriſt was in heauen, when he cried, Saule, why perſecuteſt thou mee, it is agréeable to my opinion. For it ſignifieth that he was at one time, both in heauen and in the earth; or elſe: I anſwer, that the heauen is ment by him to be th'aire, where perhaps Chriſt was when he cried, Saule, Saule, why perſecuteſt thou me? And that the aire is called heauen, the ſcripture teſtifieth; when it ſaith, The ſoules of heauen.
D. Martyr.
Whereas you doo ſaie that Chriſt according to Auguſtines iudgement is in both places; to wit, in heauen and in earth, Gen. 1, 30. Iob. 28, 21. Pſal. 8, 9.you learne not that of him; naie rather he ſheweth himſelfe elſe-where to be of an other mind. And to appoint Chriſt to hang in the aire is an abſurditie, and you ſéeme thereby to make him a foule of the aire.
D. Tresham.
I make not Chriſt a foule of the aire, for then ſhould he be ſuch a one when he hoong vponupon the croſſe.
D. Martyr.
No verelie: for he was then faſtened to the croſſe. But let theſe toies paſſe. If we will ſee what Auguſtines iudgement was as touching this matter; let vsus conſider his epiſtle vntounto Dardanus, where he wrote as concerning the glorified bodie of Chriſt, that it is in ſome certeine place, bicauſe of the meaſure of a true bodie. The queſtion was propounded vntounto him, how the théefe was with Chriſt in paradiſe that ſame daie wherein he died, as he promiſed he ſhould be? And he anſwereth, that if for paradiſe, we vnderſtand heauen, it was not ſo as touching his humanitie; bicauſe his bodie was in the ſepulchre, and his ſoule in the nethermoſt places: wherevpon he decréed, that this ſhould be vnderſtood as touching his diuinitie. And thereby I gather this argument: If Auguſtine durſt not admit vntounto the ſoule of Chriſt to be at one time both in hell and in heauen, much leſſe muſt it be granted vntounto his bodie.
D. Tresham.
I ſaie with Auguſtine; Diſtribute the times, and the ſcripture agréeth. Thrée errors did Auguſtine impugne at that time: one is of thoſe men, which did take the word, that is to ſaie, the Godhead in place of the ſoule of Chriſt; another tooke the word for the mind of the ſoule of Chriſt; the third was of them which made the bodie of Chriſt to be ſpread euerie where. Auguſtine therefore in that place, ſpeaketh of the bodie of Chriſt, ſo far foorth as it hath a viſible forme: and after that maner he ſaith, that it is onelie in heauen; vnleſſe that at anie time it doo miraculouſlie happen otherwiſe. Howbeit, he is in the ſacrament, according to an inuiſible forme: according wherevnto Auguſtine beléeued, that it is in diuers places at once; for euen in the ſelfe-ſame epiſtle, he maketh mention of our ſacrifice. Neither is it to be doubted, but that Chriſt dooth offer himſelfe viſible, and againe inuiſible, euen as pleaſed him. As in the fourth of Luke; When he withdrew himſelfe from the multitude, & went through the middeſt of them, & on the mount Thabor he ſhewed his glorified bodie. And therfore vntounto Auguſtine I anſwer, that much rather now, he dooth theſe works at his owne pleaſure.
D. Martyr.
You hauehave gathered manie things togither, but yet can it not be gathered of all theſe, that Auguſtine would hauehave the bodie of Chriſt to be in manie places at once. Albeit he made mention of our ſacrifice; that was for an other cauſe, neither dooth it belong vntounto this article, as may appeare vntounto them which read it. Yea rather, he referreth our ſacrifice to the vnitie of the myſticall bodie, and maketh no mention at all of the fleſh or bloud of Chriſt himſelfe. Neither taketh he in hand to confute the error touching the ſoule or mind of Chriſt. Naie rather he ſuppoſeth that Dardanus was not intangled with them. And it appeareth how greatlie he writeth there againſt you, ſith he will hauehave no accidents, if the ſubiect be wanting; nor bodies, if you take place awaie from them. And vndoubtedlie, if he did make for your part when he wrote theſe things, If Chriſt might be in manie places at once, he may alſo be euerie where,it behooued to except the Euchariſt. Beſides all this, if we ſhould grant that anie bodie may be in manie places at one time, it muſt be granted, that it can alſo be in all places: and that likewiſe did Scotus ſée. Howbeit, as I hauehave alreadie affirmed, it ſtandeth as yet firme by the ſaieng of Auguſtine, that bicauſe of the meaſure of a true bodie, the bodie of Chriſt requireth a place certeine.
D. Tresham.
And yet if God will, it may be in manie places, yea euen in ſo manie as he himſelfe will. Neither muſt it be aſcribed to anie want of diuine power in him, which includeth not anie contradiction in the termes.
D. Martyr.
There is no part of the diuine power diminiſhed by me, although I hauehave ſpoken after this maner. And I ſpeake of the power of God with all modeſtie: but yet there be manie things which therefore cannot be doone, bicauſe the nature of things dooth not permit, being ſuch as are méere contraries, and (as it is ſaid of you) doo implie contradiction, and this muſt not be imputed to an infirmitie in God. Howbeit you hauehave not prooued, that there is héere no repugnancie of the termes (as you ſpeake:) onelie you ſaie it.
D. Tresham.
Here there is no difficultie on the behalfe of the things: for Paule diſtinguiſheth betwéene a naturall bodie and a ſpirituall bodie. But the bodie of Chriſt is ſpirituall: and hereby is taken awaie all the difficultie on the behalfe of the thing. And not onelie is the bodie of Chriſt ſpirituall: but euen ſo ſhall our bodies be after the reſurrection.
D. Martyr.
I knowe, that the bodie of Chriſt is ſpirituall: but Auguſtine ſaith in an epiſtle to Conſentius; It is ment that a naturall bodie is ſaid to be like vntounto other liuing creatures, bicauſe of the diſſolution and corruption of death; but a ſpirituall bodie is ſo called, bicauſe it is now immortall with the ſpirit. And a little after; Therefore as a naturall bodie is not a ſoule, but a bodie, ſo we muſt thinke that a ſpirituall bodie is not a ſpirit, but a bodie. And in his treatiſe De ciuitate Dei, the 13, booke, and the 20. chapter; Howbeit, bicauſe it ſhall be ſubdued to the ſpirit, by an excellent and woonderfull eaſineſſe of obeieng, euen to the accompliſhing of the moſt aſſured will of immortalitie, which cannot be diſſolued. And a litle after; Euen as the ſpirit which ſerueth the fleſh, is not amiſſe called carnall, ſo the fleſh ſeruing the ſpirit, is called ſpirituall, not that it is changed into the ſpirit. You heare what things are ſpoken of a ſpirituall bodie, among the which we find not, that it is in diuers places at one time. For it is euen as repugnant to the nature of a bodie, to be in diuers places at once, as it is to be no bodie.
D. Tresham.
I denie your minor propoſition, that it is as repugnant to the nature of a bodie, to be conuerſant in manie places at once, as it is to be no bodie; for this latter includeth contradiction of the verie termes, and ſo dooth not the former. And more readilie may this be doone in a bodie, which hath the properties of a glorious bodie.
D. Martyr.
I will prooue anon, that it is againſt the bodie of Chriſt, being definit, and circumſcribed by limits of place, and a creature, to be in manie places at once. But as touching the glorie which he now hath, I ſaie I doo not exclude the gifts of glorie. Howbeit, I will proſecute the argument in hand; to wit, that Auguſtine ment not, that the ſoule of Chriſt was at one time both in hell and in heauen with the théefe: much leſſe therefore ſhall this be granted to the bodie, which is not attributed to the ſoule. Neither in that treatiſe dooth Auguſtine exclude the Euchariſt.
D. Tresham.
Yes verelie, he did exclude it.
D. Martyr.
Auguſtine made mention there of the Euchariſt, but intended a far other matter than to exclude the ſame from the truth determined. For he diſputed of the holie Ghoſt, how he being one, diſtributeth his gifts without diuiſion of himſelfe, that he maie adorne with his graces, the myſticall bodie of the church, which myſticall bodie of Chriſt, he ſaith, is ſet foorth in our ſacrifice.
D. Tresham.
What if Auguſtine denie that the ſoule of Chriſt cannot be in diuers places; therefore can it not be? Shall the ſaieng of Auguſtine diminiſh the power of God, that it ſhall not doo as it will? No, it ſhall not diminiſh it.
D. Martyr.
It ſhall now ſuffice at this preſent, that we hauehave ſéene Auguſtines iudgement, that Chriſt as touching his humanitie, & bicauſe of the quantitie of a true bodie, is in heauen; but as touching his diuinitie, euerie where.
D. Tresham.
When Auguſtine ſaith: Chriſt, in that reſpect that he is man, is in heauen, vnderſtandeth that to be true as touching viſible forme: for ſo he expoundeth himſelfe in that place, ſaieng; If he ſhall come according to that voice of the angell, euen in ſuch wiſe as hée was ſéene go into heauen, that is (to vſe his owne words) in the ſame forme of fleſh: according to this forme, he ſaith, he muſt not be thought to be diſperſed euerie where. Afterward Auguſtine maketh mention there of our ſacrifice. And at that time no man doubted of the truth of the ſacrament.
D. Martyr.
You ſhall neuer find there out of Auguſtine, that the bodie of Chriſt by an inuiſible forme may be in manie places [at once:] this is of your owne deuiſe. And I hauehave now ſhewed to what end he made mention there of the Euchariſt. Moreouer, we doo not diſpute here of the truth of the ſacrament, which we all confeſſe; but we contend as touching the maner how Chriſt is there. And I will ſhew moſt aſſuredlie, that it is in God alone to be in manie places, and euerie where at once, and that it muſt not be granted vntounto creatures. For by this reaſon dooth Didymus, in his firſt booke De ſpiritu ſancto, prooue the Godhead of the holie Ghoſt, It is onelie God that can be in manie places at once.bicauſe he was able to be in many places at one time, which can be no condition of anie creature. And the verie ſelfe-ſame reaſon made Baſil, in his booke De ſpiritu ſancto, chapter 22. Wherefore if theſe mens arguments ſhould be of anie ſtrength, it would be concluded, that the humane nature in Chriſt is the diuine nature, ſéeing it is affirmed of you to be in manie places at once, and ſo all things would be confounded. But now let vsus heare their words. Didymus ſaith thus; The holie Ghoſt himſelfe, if he were one of the creatures, he ſhould at the leaſt-wiſe hauehave a ſubſtance circumſcriptible, or within limitation, euen as hauehave all things that be made. For albeit, that the inuiſible creatures are not limited within place and bounds; yet are they bounded by the propertie of their ſubſtance. But the holie Ghoſt, ſith he is in manie places, hath no limited ſubſtance. For Ieſus ſending foorth the Preachers of his doctrine, repleniſhed them with the ſpirit, and breathing vponupon them; Receiue ye (ſaith he) the holie Ghoſt, Iohn. 20, 22.and go yee foorth and teach all nations: not as though he ſent them all to euerie nation. Neither in verie déed did the apoſtles trauell togither vntounto all nations; but ſome into Aſia, ſome into Scythia, and others were diſperſed into other nations, according to the diſpenſation of that holie ſpirit which they had. After what maner alſo we hauehave heard the Lord ſaie: I am with you euen vntill the end of the world. Héerewith all likewiſe agréeth that ſaieng; Act. 1. 8.Ye ſhall receiue power of the holie Ghoſt, when hee ſhall come on you; and ye ſhall be witneſſes vntounto me both in Ieruſalem, and in all Iudaea, and in Samaria, and vntounto the vttermoſt ends of the earth. Now then, if theſe apoſtles for the teſtimonie of the Lord, being placed in the vttermoſt confines of the earth, were diſtant in moſt far places one from an other, & yet that the holie Ghoſt dwelled in them, hauing a ſubſtance which cannot be bounded or limited, The angels cannot be in manie places at once.it is an euident token that the power of angels is far other than this is: ſéeing (for example ſake) the angell which was preſent with the apoſtle, when hée praied in Aſia, could not at the ſelfe-ſame time be preſent with others, which were placed in other parts of the world. But the holie Ghoſt not onelie is at hand with them which are ſeparated one from an other, but alſo remaineth an aſſiſtant to all particular angels, principalities, thrones, dominations; and as he ſanctifieth men, ſo is he of an other nature than men be of. Baſil in his booke De ſpiritu ſancto, the 22. chapter; Therefore as touching the holie Ghoſt, whom the world cannot receiue, but may be ſéene onlie of the ſaints, through a pureneſſe of hart, what are we elſe …o iudge of him, but that all honour belongeth vntounto him? All other powers are beléeued to be in a place limited. For the angel, which ſtood by Cornelius, was not in the ſame place, wherein hée ſtood with Philip. Neither yet the angel, which ſpake vntounto Zacharie from the altar, did for that time alſo fill his ſtation in heauen. But the holie Ghoſt all at one time both wrought in Abacuk, and was beléeued to be in Daniel at Babylon, and was with Ieremie in the dungeon, and with Ezechiel in Chobar: for the ſpirit of the Lord hath filled the whole world. Pſal. 138, 7.And againe; Whither ſhall I go from thy ſpirit? Or whither ſhall I flie from thy face? Alſo the prophet; Bicauſe (ſaith he) the Lord ſaith among you; Agge. 2, 6.And my ſpirit ſtandeth in the midſt of you. But of what nature muſt we beléeue that he is, who is in euerie place, and who is preſent with GOD? Whether of a nature that comprehendeth all things, or elſe that is tied vntounto particular places? Such as the ſonne of GOD ſhewed the nature of angels to be. Howbeit, this thou wilt not ſaie. Here you may perceiue, that theſe moſt holie & learned men doo decrée, that euerie creature, yea euen angels be of a limited nature, and that they cannot be in diuers places at one time. And by this meanes they prooue the diuinitie of the holie Ghoſt, bicauſe he may be found at one time in diuers and ſundrie places. Let vsus contriue the matter into the forme of an argument; Whatſoeuer is in manie places at once, the ſame is God; The bodie of Chriſt is not God, but a creature; Therefore the bodie of Chriſt is not in manie places at once.
D. Tresham.
I did not affirme that the bodie of Chriſt is euerie-where, although it may be in diuers places at once. And albeit that the bodie of Chriſt aſſumpted be not GOD, yet is Chriſt, God. And as touching Baſil, Didymus, and Auguſtine, they ſpeake onelie of that, which of his owne proper nature is euerie-where, or in manie places at once; and that they prooue to be God: but yet doo they neuer abridge the power of God, but that another thing than God may by his power be in diuers places at one time.
D. Martyr.
When it is auouched that it can be togither in manie places, by the like reaſon it is appointed to be eueriewhere. And wheras you ſaie, that theſe fathers doo ſpeake of that, which in his owne proper nature may be in manie places, and doo name ſuch a thing to be God; and yet that they denie not, but that anie thing, which is created, may by the power of God be in manie places at once: it is not true. But this rather ouerthroweth their argument concerning the holie Ghoſt. For if the holie Ghoſt hauehave béene in manie places at once, the heretike will ſaie; This was by the power of God, not by his owne proper nature. And ſo by this reaſon it ſhould not be prooued, that he is a thing not created. And therefore, for the proofe of this matter, it behooued them to vnderſtand abſolutelie, that whatſoeuer is in manie places at one time, is God.
D. Tresham.
Chriſt is God, and that is ſufficient for vsus.
D. Martyr.
But yet (ſaith Auguſtine) we muſt beware, that we doo not ſo build vp the diuinitie of Chriſt, that we deſtroie his humanitie.
D. Tresham.
I ſaie that the humanitie of Chriſt is not deſtroied, by aſcribing vntounto him a multitude of places. For ſéeing he himſelfe is omnipotent, he may, if he will, euen according to his bodie, be in manie places at one time.
D. Martyr.
The queſtion is not, whether Chriſt be omnipotent, or God; for both of theſe doo we confeſſe: but it ſtandeth in this, whether his bodie may be at one time in manie places; which theſe fathers denie can be ſaid of anie creature: but you affirme it of Chriſts bodie, the which neuertheleſſe, is a creature. Wherefore I demand of you, whether the bodie of Chriſt be circumſcribed or no?
D. Tresham.
To be ſhort, it is whereſoeuer it will, and it may be in manie places at once.
D. Martyr.
Then heare what Cyrill ſaith in his dialogs of the Trinitie, the ſecond booke, pag. 245. If the diuine nature ſhould trulie, as they ſaie, receiue diuiſion and partition (as they ſaie it dooth) it would be vnderſtood to be a bodie; and if a bodie, then to be altogither in a place, both in bigneſſe and quantitie. And if it ſhould be of quantitie, then might it not chooſe but hauehave limit or bound. Sée then to how ſmall purpoſe you delaie to grant me, that that bodie of Chriſt is within limits, ſéeing that Cyrill euidentlie ſaith, that the diuinitie it ſelfe ſhould be within limits if it were of quantitie. And ſo this argument is inuincible; Whatſoeuer is within limitation cannot be in manie places at once. This propoſition would the fathers now hauehave cited. Héerevnto adde the Minor; The bodie of Chriſt is bounded within limits. For ſeeing it hath quantitie, it cannot chooſe but hauehave limitation, & that did Cyrill now teſtifie; Wherefore it cannot be in manie places at one time.
D. Tresham.
The Maior is vnderſtood of groſe bodies, not of glorified bodies. How can that bodie be cloſed vp in anie place, which roſe vp, the ſepulchre being faſt ſhut, and entered in when the doores were cloſed?
D. Martyr.
This did I earſt while teach out of Cyrill; that if the diuinitie it ſelfe were of quantitie, it ſhould be circumſcribed: ſéeing therfore it dooth not exclude God, much leſſe dooth it exempt glorified bodies, ſith there is nothing more glorious than God. Neither is there anie néed now to obiect againſt me, either his comming foorth, the ſepulchre being ſhut, or his going in when the doores were faſt. The place will ſerue to ſpeake of thoſe matters, when it ſhall be appointed my turne to anſwer, and yours to oppoſe.
D. Tresham.
Cyrill ſpeaketh of a quantitie which hath the meaſure of quantitie, and after that maner he dooth not reſtreine glorified bodies. Againe, we doo grant that an accident may be in manie places at one time. As for example, health is one and the ſelfe-ſame in all parts of the bodie, and ſhall we denie this to the bodie of Chriſt?
D. Martyr.
Cyrill could not more expreſſelie ſaie, & more diligentlie ſtop all ſhifts, when he ſaid; that Euen the diuinitie it ſelfe alſo, if it were of quantitie, ſhould both hauehave a place, and be bounded within limits. And as to that which you anſwer me as touching an accident, namelie, of health; the reaſon is not alike in both: for health is a qualitie, not a bodie; neither dooth it occupie a place, and is one and the verie ſame, according as the bodie of the liuing creature, wherein it is ſaid to be called one. But the health of one and the ſelfe-ſame liuing creature, is not the ſelfe-ſame in another liuing creature: for qualities hauehave their ſubiects according to the places; That an accident cannot be togither in two ſubiects.and it is vnpoſſible for them to be the ſame in number, at one time in diuers ſubiects: but all the parts of a liuing creature be the verie ſame in ſubiect, and one by the knitting togither of members.
D. Tresham.
The reaſon of Didymus dooth procéed from that that is of it owne nature in manie places, and not otherwiſe. And all the Doctors agrée, that Chriſt was borne, his mothers wombe being cloſe; and that he roſe, the ſepulchre being ſhut, and that he went vntounto his diſciples when the doores were faſt. And Hugo de ſancto victore ſaith; that The angels are not circumſcribed by place. Wherefore although the bodie of Chriſt be properlie in heauen, yet bicauſe it is ſpirituall, it is not repugnant to the power of God, but that it may be in manie places.
D. Martyr.
Whether the fathers vnderſtand their reaſons touching that, which in his owne proper nature is in manie places, I hauehave alreadie anſwered. As touching the virgines wombe, the ſepulchres, and the doores being faſt ſhut, oppoſe you, and I will anſwer in place conuenient. As for Hugo de ſancto victore and others, when they ſaie that angels are not conteined within the precinct of place, they muſt I ſaie be vnderſtood as concerning locall compaſſe, whereby the bodies which are among vsus are compaſſed about with the circumference of the aire, or ſome other thing conteining them. But theſe things cannot ſo be taken, that the angels or anie creature ſhould be vnderſtood to hauehave no definit ſubſtance, ſo as when they be in anie one place, they cannot be elſe-where. And ſo I returne to the argument: it is a firme concluſion; This thing is in manie places, Therefore it is the Godhead.
D. Tresham.
I anſwer: Chriſt is God; and now the ſpeach betwéene vsus is as concerning the bodie, which hath the Godhead ioined therewith.
D. Martyr.
I demand of you: Is the bodie of Chriſt a thing created or no?
D. Tresham.
I grant it is; but Chriſt is no creature.
D. Martyr.
But I ſaie that Chriſt is both; to wit, a creator and a creature. Chriſt by reaſon of his ſundrie natures is both a creature and a creator.As touching his Godhead, he is a creator; and as touching his humanitie, a creature: and if a creature, as theſe fathers doo affirme, he cannot be in diuers places at once.
D. Tresham.
That which Chriſt tooke once vponupon him, he neuer let go: and therefore bicauſe of his Godhead, which is inſeparablie knit vntounto his bodie; Chriſt muſt not be diuided, but yet his natures muſt be diſſeuered.the bodie of Chriſt may be in manie places.
D. Martyr.
We likewiſe doo not diuide Chriſt; and yet will we hauehave both his natures to be whole. And ſith the Godhead doth not cauſe but that the bodie of Chriſt is a creature, and you hauehave now heard out of Baſil and Didymus, that the powers created cannot be in manie places at once, you your ſelfe ſée what dooth follow.
D. Tresham.
They diſputed of the nature of the thing, not of the abſolute power of God: neither is reaſon or ſenſe to be followed in matters of faith: otherwiſe, manie abſurdities wold follow in matters of faith.
D. Martyr.
I cannot tell how they could hauehave ſpoken more apparantlie of the power of God: when as Cyrill dooth not exclude euen the, diuinitie it ſelfe, when he ſaith; If it were of quantitie, it might not chooſe but be circumſcribed. And I acknowledge that which you ſaie: that in matters of faith we muſt not follow reaſon nor yet ſenſe. Howbeit, it is no article of the faith, that the bodie of Chriſt is in manie places at once, ſith the ſcriptures doo not teach this anie where. Naie rather we learne otherwiſe out of them; to wit, that Chriſt is verie man, and that he hath a verie bodie; whereto is verie agréeable that it ſhould be limited within bounds, and compaſſed within ſome certeine place. And touching his bodie, we beléeue that he is aſcended into heauen, that he hath left the world, and ſitteth at the right hand of the father.