Common Places, Disputation · Day 2

Common Places · Disputation · Day 2

p. 193The diſputation of the ſecond day, which was the 29. daie of Maie, betweene D. Peter Martyr, and D. William Chadſe.

D. Peter Martyr.

I Thinke it not méet (right honorable) that I ſhould vſe at this preſent anie preface. For yeſterdaie we declared thoſe things which were thought good to be applied to the preſent purpoſe. And by your good foreſight & authoritie it hapned, that all things were peaceablie and quietlie performed: which I hope this daie ſhall no leſſe come to paſſe. Now maiſter Doctour as concerning the matter, you being preſent yeſterdaie, might ſufficientlie vnderſtand what queſtions are propounded, & perceiue ſome reaſons of mine opinion: wherefore to procéed in our purpoſe, I deſire you to ſhew what you doo iudge touching the queſtions; neither doo I feare, but that all things ſhall be ſpoken of you, with indifferencie and modeſtie. Howbeit before you anſwer, you ſhall ſuffer me, according to my accuſtomed maner, to call for the helpe of God.

The Praier.

YEſterdaie, O almightie GOD, we began by thy gratious goodneſſe to diſpute: and ſince this daie alſo wee ſhall proceed in that buſineſſe, we call vponupon thee againe, who art the founteine of light, the moſt perfect truth, and the moſt cleere wiſedome, that thou wilt ſo direct our words, that we fall not into abſurdities; but rather, that thoſe things which ſhall be handled, may both become more plaine, and alſo be ſet foorth to the praiſe and glorie of thy name, through Chriſt our Lord, Amen.

The Preface of D. VVilliam Chadſe.

GReat is the matter (right famous Doctor) and full of myſteries, which yeſterdaie was handled, & this daie ſhall be handled. Great, bicauſe we diſpute of the bodie wherewith we be ſatiſfied, and doo liue for euer: and of the bloud whereof wée drinke, and which redéemeth the people; a thing full of myſteries: for vnleſſe ye beléeue, you ſhall not vnderſtand; My words are ſpirit and life. It is the ſpirit which quickeneth, Iohn. 6.John 6the fleſh profiteth nothing. The Capernaites heare, and ſaie; This is a hard ſaieng, and who is able to abide it? The Chriſtians heare and crie inceſſantlie with Peter; Thou haſt the words of eternall life; Iohn. 6, 68.John 6:68we beleeue and knowe, that thou art the waie, the truth, and the life. We beléeue that thou diddeſt promiſe the holie Ghoſt, not which ſhould come after one or two thouſand yeares, but euen within a few daies after that thou hadſt ſpoken it. We acknowledge the performance of this thy holie ſpirit, he ſhall lead vsus into all truth, he ſhall teach vsus all things whatſoeuer thou haſt ſaid vntounto vsus. Forſomuch therefore as thou art true, yea the verie truth it ſelfe; ſith thoſe things which hauehave gone foorth of thy lips cannot be fruſtate, I firmelie beléeue from thy mouth, and pronounce it from my hart, as touching the preſence of thy bodie, in the moſt holie ſacrament of the Euchariſt; that no feined nor phantaſticall, p. 194nor imaginatiue, nor bare figuratiue bodie, but thy true, reall, ſubſtantiall, yea, and not to forbeare the groſſer kind of termes, thy corporall, naturall, and carnall bodie is there preſent; Matt. 26, 26.Matt 26:26ſéeing thou haſt ſaid: Take ye, eate ye, This is my bodie, which is giuen for you, which is broken, deliuered, or ſhall be deliuered for you. But touching the maner how or after what ſort it is there, whether with the bread, whether the elements be changed, or whether the bread, as the ſchoole-diuines ſpeake, be tranſubſtantiated, the holie ſcripture in plaine words d…th not teach. But what ſhall we ſaie, it ſaith if not in plaine words, therefore it hath not taught it? God forbid. Iohn. 16, 12John 16:12Manie things hauehave I to ſaie vntounto you, which ye cannot now beare. He hath taught; The bread which I will giuegive, Iohn. 6.John 6is my fleſh, which I will giuegive for the life of the world. He taught; He tooke bread in his hands, he gaue thanks, he brake the bread, and diſtributed it [ſaieng] This is my bodie. He taught it, yet ſomewhat obſcurelie. He would not then be touched, bicauſe he had not as yet aſcended to his father. He aſcended, he ſent the holie Ghoſt; this holie Ghoſt exerciſed his office, taught the church, taught the Councels, taught the fathers all truth. Wherefore giuegive eare vntounto him, put your truſt in him, he ouercommeth, and ſhall ouercome the world. Howbeit, ſince there is none of ſo happie a wit, of ſo firme a memorie, of ſo ſound and perfect vtterance, but is eaſilie diſquieted, either with the force of arguments, or with the outward ſhew of authorities, or with the obſcureneſſe of the fathers, in a matter otherwiſe moſt true; I deſire pardon of you the kings maieſties moſt honourable commiſſioners, and I ſubmit my ſelfe vntounto you, if perhaps I vtter anie thing which ſhall either be repugnant to the ſcriptures, or anie maner of waies diſagréeable to the laws of this realme. And that we may happilie performe all theſe things, let vsus with ioint praier call for the helpe of his holie ſpirit, who knoweth all things, and teacheth all things, ſaieng togither after this maner: Come holie ſpirit repleniſh the hearts of thy faithfull ones, &c. Let vsus praie: O God, which haſt taught the harts of the faithfull by the illumination of thy holie ſpirit, &c.

Now then (moſt famous Doctor) I prepare my ſelfe to the queſtions propounded. But firſt (by your leaue) partlie for my owne inſtruction, partlie for that thoſe things which yeſterdaie were alledged by you, may ſéeme not to be aſſoiled, and partlie that they which be preſent ſhould not be ſeduced, I will run ouer two or thrée authorities, which yeſterdaie you brought foorth. You argued out of Saint Cyprian: Euen as in the perſon of Chriſt is hidden the Godhead, &c. And euen as the Godhead and the fleſh is one Chriſt, ſo the bread and the bodie of Chriſt doo make one ſacrament. I anſwer, To Cyprian.that the ſimilitude dooth agrée, not as touching the ſecret li…g hidden; to wit, that euen as the Godhead is cloſe hidden in the humanitie, and as a ſoule reaſonable is cloſe hidden in the bodie, ſo vnderunder the ſacrament is ſecretlie hidden the bodie of Chriſt, vnderunder the ſhew of bread. Otherwiſe if it ſhould hold likeneſſe and proportion in all things, it would followe, that Chriſt could not die; and that his ſoule was neuer ſeparated from his bodie. For Athanaſius ſaith: Euen as the ſoule reaſonable, and the fleſh is one man, ſo God and man is one Chriſt: which neuertheleſſe is falſe, ſéeing the Godhead could not be ſeparated from the manhood, that is to wit, either from the bodie or from the ſoule, when as notwithſtanding the ſoule might be plucked awaie from the fleſh by death.

Gelaſius, whom you alledge on your part, To Gelaſius.fauoreth Neſtorius. Neither dooth it well conclude? In part he is no Neſtorian, Therfore he is none at all. Aſſuredlie he was ſuſpected of this hereſie: he might therefore be denied, but yet he expoundeth himſelfe: It remaineth in the propertie of nature; that is, in the accidents and ſhewes of bread; it hath the taſt of bread, it hath the power of nouriſhing, and other qualities of bread. To Auguſtine Ad Dardanum.And this ſenſe dooth Auguſtine vſe in an epiſtle vntounto Dardanus, vnderunder this word Subſtance, when he ſaith; He ſhall come againe (as the words of the angell teſtifie,) euen as he was ſéene to go into heauen; to wit, in the ſame forme and ſubſtance of fleſh. And as concerning that which Auguſtine ſaith to Dardanus; True it is that the bodie of Chriſt is in one onlie place, vnderunder the forme of man. To Auguſtine in Sententijs Proſperi.You alledged moreouer Auguſtine in the ſentences of Proſper, who ſaith, that a ſacrament conſiſteth of two things, that is to ſaie, of a ſacrament, and the matter of the ſacrament. I anſwer, that the outward ſacrament is that which appeareth to the eie: but the matter of the ſacrament is the bodie of Chriſt. Bréefelie, Auguſtines mind is, that this ſacrament ſtandeth of two things; namelie, of the outward viſible ſigne, that is, the ſhewes of bread and wine; and of the matter of the ſacrament, that is, the bodie of Chriſt: and theſe things doo without doubt remaine. This is it which is gathered out of Auguſtine, for the ſame Auguſtine calleth it the ſame, and not the ſame. Theodoretus, albeit I hauehave not his booke, and that in Cyrill he is condemned with Neſtorius, he I ſaie is of the verie ſame mind that other of the fathers be, who when they ſaie, that the nature remaineth, they vnderſtand the propertie of the bread. And after that ſort we refuſe not Theodoretus, but we admit him; To Theodoretus.yet in this ſenſe, that he alone be not repugnant vntounto manie. p. 195And this is the rule, which you would to be obſerued in interpreting of the fathers.

To Origin.I gant that to be true, which Origin hath vponupon the 15. of Matthew, in the fragments; to wit, that this materiall thing goeth into the draught, yet neuertheleſſe he interpreteth himſelfe in another place; Sticke not (ſaith he) to the bloud of the fleſh, but learne the bloud of the word: for if we ſhall without faith eate the fleſh, or drinke the bloud, it profiteth not, but goeth into the draught; not the fleſh it ſelfe, but the bread and wine. For the ſame Cyprian in his ſermon De lapſis, ſaith; that The Lord doubtleſſe departeth, when he is denied: and he addeth; When his comfortable grace, through our departing from a holie life, To Ireneus.is changed into aſhes. Irenaeus (you ſaie) calleth it bread; and indéed before conſecration it is verie bread: howbeit, when the word of God commeth therevnto, it is made the bodie of Chriſt; ſo as that creature goeth before the conſecration. And in that (ſaith he) he confeſſed the cup, which is of the creature that is amongſt vsus, to be his bloud, he ſhewed, that by the woonderfull power of GOD, the bloud of our Lord is made of a creature, which is amongſt vsus. Neither muſt it be vnderſtood, that it is togither both the bloud of Chriſt and the wine, but that a creature in reſpect of vsus, is made bloud, after that the words be pronounced.

To Gregorie.Gregorie likewiſe In registro, ſaith; that It may be made as well of ſwéet bread, as of leauened bread; not that he meaneth bread to remaine. To Epiphanius.Beſide this, Epiphanius in Anchorato is alledged by you: and that place dooth moſt of all make for vsus. Wherefore, I maruell that you made mention of Epiphanius. And for an anſwer it ſhall ſuffice to read his words. We ſée that our ſauiour, as the Goſpell teſtifieth, tooke it into his hands, that he roſe in the ſupper, and tooke theſe things; & when he had giuen thanks, he ſaid; This is mine, This and This: and we ſée that it is not equall nor like, neither to the image in the fleſh, nor to the inuiſible Godhead, nor yet to the faſhion of the members. For this is of a round and inſenſible forme as touching the power, and yet would he by his grace ſaie; This is mine, This and This: and there is no man but beléeueth his ſaieng. For he which beléeueth it not to be true, euen as he ſpake it, falleth awaie from grace. And hereof it may be vnderſtood, that whoſoeuer beléeueth not the verie bodie to be there, he falleth from grace and ſaluation. Now to come to the matter propounded: I anſwer as touching the firſt queſtion, that in the ſacrament of the Euchariſt, the bread and wine is changed in ſubſtance into the true bodie & the true bloud of our Lord Ieſus Chriſt.

D. Martyr.

I hauehave heard you allege much as touching thoſe things, which were diſcourſed yeſterdaie: and you hauehave indeuoured to frame ſomewhat a large anſwer vntounto thoſe matters, which I in the obiections, vſed againſt the other aduerſarie. But now, if I would ſhew of what ſtrength your anſwers be, the diſputation wold be excéeding long. Againe, ſince I hauehave other reaſons, in the ſhewing wherof, this daies ſpace (as I thinke) will not ſuffice, I giuegive you my word, that vponupon that daie, wherein I ſhall anſwer you, I will repeate all theſe ſaiengs of yours, and will declare, of how ſmall ſtrength they be to weaken my part. And in the meane time, leſt anie ſhould ſlander me without cauſe, and by your words be mooued to drawe me into enuie, I proteſt, that we in the communion doo receiue the verie bodie, and the verie bloud of Chriſt, but yet with the mind, and with faith. Neither doo I affirme it to be a feigned or phantaſticall bodie. But now onelie is called into queſtion, after what maner the ſame true bodie, and true bloud is preſent in the Euchariſt: I ſaie, ſpirituallie, and that we by faith doo imbrace the ſame, and make it to be preſent. But you affirme, that we take it with the mouth and carnallie. And I wholie perſuade my ſelfe, and knowe for a certeintie, that thoſe things, which I hauehave ſpoken, doo not tend to a diuiſion of the auditorie, as you accuſe me, but vntounto the teaching of the truth. But omiting theſe matters, let vsus come to the handling of the queſtion. In all ſacraments there ought to be an analogie or proportion obſerued and kept betwéene the ſacrament and the matter of the ſacrament: That an analogie muſt be kept in the ſacraments.which analogie Cicero calleth a conueniencie. And Auguſtine De catechizandis rudibus, would that a ſacrament ſhould hauehave a likeneſſe of the thing it ſelfe. And that dooth he alſo teſtifie vntounto Boniface: where, bicauſe of this likeneſſe, he attributeth vntounto the ſacraments, the names of the things themſelues. Séeing therefore the Euchariſt hath for the matter of the ſacrament both the bodie of Chriſt, and the myſticall bodie; ye which by tranſubſtantiation take awaie the bread and wine, ouerthrowe the analogie, which conſiſteth therein; that euen as we be naturallie nouriſhed by bread and wine, Two kinds of analogie in the Euchariſt.ſo by the bodie and bloud of Chriſt, we are nouriſhed ſpirituallie, both in the outward and inward man. And as concerning the myſticall bodie, therein dooth the ſimilitude ſtand; that euen as bread and wine conſiſt of much gathering and preſſing togither, that is to ſaie, of manie graines of corne, and manie grapes; ſo the myſticall bodie ſtandeth of manie members, which growe vp togither in one.

D. Chadſe.

I denie the Minor propoſition, that the ſubſtance of the bread being departed, p. 196the analogie alſo is taken awaie.

D. Martyr.

I hauehave prooued it; for euen as our bodie is nouriſhed naturallie by bread and wine, That our bodies are not nouriſhed by accidents.ſo ſpirituallie we be nouriſhed by the bodie and bloud of Chriſt. And it is manifeſt, that our bodies are not nouriſhed by accidents, but by ſubſtance.

D. Chadſe.

We take not awaie the analogie: for that conſiſteth in the matter, which is had before the conſecration; for the word commeth vntounto the element, and it is made a ſacrament, and when conſecration is finiſhed, there remaine accidents, which lead vsus by the hand to that ſimilitude. And thoſe outward things doo ſuffice to ſhew that, which you ſéeke: and they be left through the great merciemercy of GOD, bicauſe we may not loath the bodie and bloud of Chriſt, if they ſhould be ſhewed vntounto vsus without the ſhewes of bread and wine. And yet for all this conueniencie it is not required, that the nature of bread and wine ſhould remaine.

D. Martyr.

Your anſwer ſtandeth vponupon manie chéefe points; I will replie to euerie one by it ſelfe. Firſt, whereas you ſaie; It ſufficeth that it is bread and wine before conſecration, by which ſubſtances we be nouriſhed, it prooueth not, but that in the ſacrament it ſelfe the conueniencie is by you taken awaie. For we ſpeake not of the ſacrament, when it is now a ſacrament, where alſo we affirme, that the analogie muſt be kept. You appoint the ſame to be before the ſacrament; and when ye come to the ſacrament, you take it awaie, and ſo ye ſinne againſt the ſacrament. In baptiſm is kept an analogie, bicauſe water remaineth.Doubtleſſe in baptiſme it fareth not after that maner: for by the water, wherewith we be commonlie waſhed, is ſignified the purging of the ſoule; neither is the water taken awaie. No; but it remaineth, and we are waſhed therewith: and if it were taken awaie, it ſhould be no full ſacrament. And therefore it is not enough to ſaie, that before conſecration, there was a due matter extant. Againe, the ſaieng, which you alledge out of Auguſtine; The word commeth to the element, If the word come vntounto the element it dooth not thruſt it out.and is made a ſacrament, dooth make moſt of all againſt you: for he ſaith not; It thruſteth out the element, but it commeth to the element; and the meaning is, that the element it ſelfe is made a ſacrament. The verie ſame merciemercy, which you ſaie is giuen vsus by reaſon of the accidents, that in them may be hidden the bodie of Chriſt, leaſt while it is ſéene, it ſhould cauſe a lothing thereof; euen the ſame, I ſaie, we hauehave by the remaining of bread and wine. For accuſtomed natures are not loathſome to vsus. And whereas you affirme, that the accidents or ſhewes doo lead vsus vntounto that ſimilitude, it dooth not ſatiſfie. Firſt, bicauſe that, which you ſpeake of accidents is a feigned thing. Secondlie, bicauſe that muſt remaine, which nouriſheth vsus naturallie: which accidents doo not performe. For a ſacrament muſt ſignifie the matter of the ſacrament, but not a ſubſtance that had béene, which ye ſaie it hath caſt awaie. Laſtlie, you alledge no cauſe, why ye extrude the bread. Oftentimes yeſterdaie did I aſke, why? But could heare nothing: perhaps you will aſſigne a cauſe.

D. Chadſe.

Firſt I anſwer, that it is not required, that bread ſhould remaine in the Euchariſt, as water dooth in baptiſme: for the nature of both ſacraments is not alike; ſith in this ſacrament it is ſaid; This is my bodie: but in that other it is not ſaid; This water is my bloud, or my bodie. Further, it is not neceſſarie (as you argue) that the element ſhould remaine after the comming of the word. And that dooth naturall reaſon teach by a ſimilitude. As in digeſtion there commeth a naturall heate vntounto the meate now receiued, and changeth the ſubſtance thereof into fleſh; ſo in the ſacrament, when the word commeth, it changeth the ſubſtance of bread into the true bodie of Chriſt. And whereas you demand, why we doo take awaie bread, we anſwer; Bicauſe the holie Ghoſt foreſawe, that there would come heretiks, which would ſaie, that in the ſacrament there is bread togither with the bodie of Chriſt, and that the ſubſtance of bread is the fleſh of Chriſt, and which would denie reall preſence; bicauſe they labour to prooue, that the ſubſtance of bread dooth there remaine.

D. Martyr.

Your anſwer ſtandeth on thrée parts. The firſt is, that you doo not admit a ſimilitude betwéene baptiſme and the Euchariſt: as if ſo be that I had argued from the like. I touched ſomewhat of baptiſme by the waie: but the ground of the argument was, that a conuenient ſubſtance ought to be kept in the ſacraments. And that, as touching the Euchariſt is that, which nouriſheth vsus; which is doone by the ſubſtance of bread, not by accidents. And yet doo I not for this cauſe denie, that there ought not to be had the ſame conſideration in baptiſme, that is in the Euchariſt: neither hauehave you ſhewed the contrarie. Alſo you contend, that Auguſtines ſaieng; The word commeth to the element, and it is made a ſacrament, dooth not make againſt you, as I ſhewed that it did. But I prooue that it maketh againſt you, bicauſe he iudgeth, that the element doth remaine, and that the word is ioined therewith; and ſo of them is made the ſacrament. And as for your ſimilitude of naturall digeſtion, it ſerueth not to the purpoſe. For when the naturall heate commeth, the meate is conuerted into our ſubſtance; p. 197which if it were abſent, as ye exclude bread in the tranſubſtantiation, we ſhould not be ſuſteined or nouriſhed by anie meanes. Againe, that there is the ſame conſideration to be had of naturall heate, that is of the words of conſecration, you make but ſmall proofe. Laſtlie, as touching the cauſe that ye bring, why ye reiect bread; namelie, bicauſe the holie Ghoſt foreſawe, that there ſhould come heretiks, which would ſaie that bread remaineth, or that the bodie of Chriſt is not reallie or ſubſtantiallie in the Euchariſt; I ſaie that is a vaine cauſe. For theſe heretiks, as ye call them, were the fathers, who ſaie that bread there remaineth. When the holie Ghoſt teacheth doctrines of faith, the word maketh mention of it.Furthermore, if the holie Ghoſt taught the church this matter, whie doo ye not bring foorth the word whereby he taught it?

D. Chadſe.

It is not required that the matter ſhould remaine in this ſacrament, according to the ſubſtance: for as I hauehave ſaid, the analogie may be had by the accidents which remaine. And moreouer, Auguſtine ſaith not that the element remaineth, ſo the ſubſtance of bread is not reteined, when digeſtion is paſt. And hereof let Phyſicians and Philoſophers iudge. Finallie I anſwer; the holie Ghoſt taught the church in the Laterane Councell, that we ſhould confeſſe a tranſubſtantiation.

D. Martyr.

VntoUnto the latter part of your anſwer I replie, that I aſked, by what word of God the holie Ghoſt taught tranſubſtantiation? And you anſwer me; by the Laterane Councell, for the which we are not to paſſe what it hath decréed, vnleſſe it hauehave iuſtified his decrées by the word of God. But whie do I demand this of you, ſéeing you confeſſed in you preface, that tranſubſtantiation cannot expreſſedlie be prooued out of the holie ſcriptures? Againſt the other point I ſaie againe, that vnleſſe the matter or ſubſtance of the meate or bread ſhould remaine in vsus after the digeſtion, we could not liue. Indéed ſome part therof is caſt foorth by the draught and excrements; but on the other ſide, vnleſſe that ſomewhat did remaine, we ſhould not be ſuſteined. But I wil ſhew how wel this ſimilitude maketh for you: In the naturall concoction, the ſubſtance & matter of the meate is reteined, according to a due proportion, but the forme & accidents are doone awaie. But ye on the contrarie part doo caſt awaie the ſubſtance and reteine the accidents. And hereof (as you alſo ſaid) I would hauehave the Phyſicians and Philoſophers to iudge. For in the nouriſhing of the bodie, I doo not appoint anie forme of bread to remaine, but the matter, ſubſtance, and bodie of the ſame.

D. Chadſe.

I affirme that Councels muſt by all meanes be greatlie regarded, when they decrée the word of GOD, according as it was doone by the Laterane Councell, which I cited. For out of the Goſpell you hauehave tranſubſtantiation, although obſcurelie, when it is ſaid; This is my bodie. And we ſaie moreouer, that the accidents remaine, bicauſe of our infirmitie. And beſides; euen as our fleſh is made of bread when it is digeſted, the ſubſtance of bread not remaining; ſo of the element, when the word is ioined therevnto, is made the bodie of Chriſt.

D. Martyr.

This is euen as much as to hauehave ſaid nothing; ſith you hauehave not as yet ſhewed, that the Laterane Councell decréed it out of the word of God. And I hauehave now often obiected, that the element muſt of neceſſitie remaine, if it ſhall be made a ſacrament. And for hauing a conſideration of our infirmitie, the ſubſtance of bread dooth profit euen as much, and a great deale more, than dooth the accident.

D. Chadſe.

I grant that which Auguſtine ſaith; The word commeth to the element, & is made a ſacrament; and yet dooth he not ſaie, that the element is made a ſacrament.

D. Martyr.

Let vsus ponder the words; The word commeth vntounto the element & is made a ſacrament. What is made a ſacrament?

D. Chadſe.

Not the element, nor the word, but ſome certeine third thing compounded of both, being another than either the word or the element is.

D. Martyr.

A ſacrament is the ſigne of an holy thing, & this is agréeable to an element, By the definition of a ſacrament is prooued that bread remaineth,namelie, to be a ſigne. And all men doo grant, that ſacraments be made of the thing, and of the ſigne. Forſomuch therefore as ſignification belongeth to the element, it is neceſſarie that it ſhould remaine. And this doo you grant before you be aware, when you ſaie that the ſacrament is neither the element nor the word, but ſome third thing compounded of theſe. But how can it be compounded thereof, if it remaine not? And this doo you plainelie perceiue to come to paſſe in baptiſme, where we doubt not but that the water is an element, which ſéeing it dooth ſignifie, it dooth remaine.

D. Chadſe.

It is not of neceſſitie that the element ſhould remaine in the Euchariſt, as it dooth in baptiſme. This ſimilitude I hauehave alreadie denied, and I denie it againe.

D. Martyr.

I produced the argument from the definition of a ſacrament, which in verie déed is a ſigne, and ſéeing the propertie of ſignifieng belongeth vntounto an element, it muſt of neceſſitie remaine; vnleſſe you will hauehave the nature of a ſacrament to be deſtroied. And herevnto you anſwer nothing. And when I bring p. 198in a ſimilitude of baptiſme, you perpetuallie denie the ſame; as though that Chriſt were not receiued of vsus in both of theſe ſacraments. There we be regenerated in Chriſt: here we féed vponupon the ſelfe-ſame Chriſt. There we are baptiſed into one bodie, to wit, of Chriſt: here we hauehave bin made to drinke in one ſpirit, as it is ſaid vntounto the Corinthians: 1. Co. 12, 13. Gal. 3, 27.1 Cor 12:13Gal 3:27and in baptiſme we put on Chriſt, as it is ſaid to the Galathians. Wherefore theſe two ſacraments be alike. Neither dooth it cauſe that this ſimilitude ſhould be denied, bicauſe Chriſt ſaid not; This water is my bodie, as he ſaid in the Euchariſt; This is my bodie. For it is not requiſit for the making of theſe words true, that the nature of bread ſhould be caſt awaie; but although the ſame nature be preſerued, yet is that moſt true which Chriſt ſaid. Now then what conſtreineth you to extrude the bread?

D. Chadſe.

We are conſtreined by the words of Chriſt, for he ſaith; This is my bodie, and ſaith not; This water is my bloud.

D. Martyr.

It is a woonder, that ſith yée attribute ſo much to the power of God, as by it ye ſaie is made ſo manie and ſo great miracles in tranſubſtantiation; whie alſo ye cannot or will not thereby perſuade your ſelues that the ſubſtance of bread remaineth. But ye ſaie, that to this end, The aduerſaries will not decree that by the power of God, bread can remaine and the bodie of Chriſt be giuen. Mat. 4, 4.Matt 4:4that the bodie of Chriſt may be giuen, ye are compelled to affirme, that the ſubſtance of the bread is changed. And this alſo was the diuels counſell, that Chriſt, if he would eat, ſhould firſt change the bread into ſtones: as though that Chriſt by the power of God had not béene able to eate anie thing, and to be ſuſteined by whatſoeuer it had béene. Wherevpon he verie well anſwered; Man liueth not by bread alone, but by euerie word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. As if he had ſaid; I might alſo eate of ſtones, if I would, and there ſhould be no néed to conuert them into bread. So then, if we may through the power of God be nouriſhed by euerie thing, whie alſo ſhall it not be lawfull with verie bread to receiue the bodie of Chriſt?

D. Chadſe.

We reaſon not of the power, but of the fact: for although it might hauehave béene doone otherwiſe, yet was it ſo inſtituted by Chriſt.

D. Martyr.

I ſpake this as touching the power of God, to ſhew that the ſame dooth not let, but that the bread may remaine, and yet the bodie of Chriſt be giuen: for I heare it to be maruellouſlie extolled by you, when ye decrée, that there be accidents without a ſubiect: and I thought that the verie ſame might be doone; to wit, that in the ſacrament, bread as well as the accidents might remaine: and againe, I did it, to the intent I might force out of you what neceſſitie there is to take awaie the bread. For as to that which ye ſpeake of the fact, it appeareth not: ſith the ſcripture doth not teſtifie that Chriſt would hauehave the bread to depart. Wherfore it appeareth not as yet, that ye be compelled by the word of God to extrude the bread.

D. Chadſe.

The neceſſitie is out of the word of God, and it is conteined ſufficientlie in the ſcriptures, namelie, in theſe words; Iohn. 6, 51.John 6:51This is my bodie. Againe; The bread which I ſhall giuegive, is my fleſh, the which I will giuegive for the life of the world.

D. Martyr.

Theſe two things are not repugnant; to wit, that it is not the bodie of Chriſt and bread. For other ſacraments alſo doo kéepe the element, and yet hauehave the matter of the ſacrament. And bicauſe you pretend the word of God; This is my bodie, I alſo hauehave often ſhewed, that to affirme it both of the bodie of Chriſt and bread, hath the word of God for it. Now then, if you pretend ſo much the word of GOD, whie doo you not reteine both the bread and the bodie?

D. Chadſe.

I grant indéed, that the ſcripture dooth ſpeake of both, but I denie that ſenſe which you make; for the word teacheth otherwiſe, and therefore the bread is not reſerued herein. And to hauehave the bread preſent, dooth derogate from the maieſtie and power of God.

D. Martyr.

That the word teacheth the bread to be preſent, I hauehave alreadie declared before out of the ſcripture: inſomuch as Ieſus tooke bread, bleſſed it, brake it, and gaue it, It doth not derogate from the maieſtie of Chriſt, to hauehave bread preſent.all which are referred to bread: and to hauehave bread to be preſent, is by no meanes anie derogation to the power or maieſtie of God.

D. Chadſe.

I denie that Chriſt gaue bread, but he gaue his bodie; and that which he maketh demonſtration of, was bread at the firſt, but by conſecration it is made the bodie.

D. Martyr.

The ſcripture is verie plaine, which ſaith; that Chriſt not onelie tooke, but alſo gaue. What did the Lord take? What did hée breake? What did he giuegive? You can make no other anſwer, but bread, if you will reteine the grammaticall conſtruction.

D. Chadſe.

He gaue his bodie; and a déed doone, is recited of the Euangeliſt, not a maner and order of dooing.

D. Martyr.

I denie not but that both are giuen, as well the bodie as the bread; but I vrge you who denie the bread, when as the grammatticall ſenſe conſtreineth you, whether you will or no, to grant that he gaue bread. Neither is this p. 199word, bodie, referred vntounto thoſe verbs; He tooke, he bleſſed, he brake, and he gaue, but vntounto this verbe Eſt, Is. Yet (as I hauehave ſaid) I denie not but that the bodie of Chriſt is giuen: howbeit ſince the holie ſcripture hath both, to wit, as well bread as bodie; you ought to grant both. But let vsus trie an other waie. Ye euermore vſe this propoſition, This is my bodie, to prooue that bread muſt be excluded out of this ſacrament; and yet is not that which ye would hauehave, neceſſarilie prooued hereby; for ſo much as ye take your argument from a doubtfull thing. For if we ſhall bring in manie ſuch like propoſitions, which be held for figuratiue, and as I may ſaie, ſignificatiue kind of ſpéeches, you cannot prooue but that this is of the ſelfe-ſame kind. It is written vntounto the Corinthians; 1. Cor. 10, 41 Cor 10:4But the rocke was Chriſt. Iohn. 6, 70. Gen 17, 11.John 6:70Gen 17:11And Chriſt ſaith to his apoſtles; HaueHave not I choſen you twelue, and one of you is a diuell. Matt. 17, 10 Iohn. 20, 22.Matt 17:10John 20:22And of circumciſion; My couenant ſhall be in your fleſh. And of Iohn; If ye will receiue him, he is Helias. Againe; When he had breathed vponupon them, he ſaid: Receiue ye the holie Ghoſt. Iohn. 15, 1.John 15:1And againe; I am the vine, I am the doore. Gen. 37, 27. 1. Co. 12, 27Gen 37:271 Cor 12:27Of Ioſeph, Iuda ſaid; He is our brother and our fleſh. Paule ſaid of Chriſt; He is our peace. And of our ſelues; Yee be the bodie of Chriſt. Eſai. 1, 14.Isa 1:14And it is written alſo; that He is a ſtone of offenſe, Rom. 1, 16.Rom 1:16and a rocke to ſtumble at. And Paule affirmeth the Goſpell to be the power of God to ſaluation. Pſal. 110, 7. Pſa. 119, 86 and 142.Ps 110:7Ps 119:86Ps 119:142And in the ſcriptures it is diuerſe times ſaid, that The words of the Lord are righteouſneſſe, iudgement, and truth. And the ſame apoſtle teſtifieth, 1 Cor. 1, 18.1 Cor 1:18that The Goſpell vntounto the vnfaithfull is but fooliſhneſſe. In the booke of Geneſis; Gen. 41, 25.Gen 41:25The ſeuen eares are ſeauen yeares, and the ten peeces of the clocke, are ten tribes of Iſrael, 3 Kin. 11, 30as Ahias the Silonit ſaith. Alſo the woman weareth vponupon hir head foreign, that is, power. In like maner; The prieſt did eat the ſinnes of the people. Againe, Chriſt for vsus became ſinne. The lambe or the ſacrifice is the paſſeouer. And againe; Chriſt our paſſeouer is offered vp. And infinit other places, which in the holie ſcripture hauehave the like maner of ſpéech, in the which account ſith this ſentence, This is my bodie, ought to be numbred, and is cited of you in a plaine ſenſe, it concludeth nothing, ſince you leane to ambiguitie. And when ye ſay, that ye be herevnto compelled by the holie ſcriptures, you bring foorth that ſentence of GOD which is in controuerſie, whoſe right ſenſe neuertheleſſe may appéere by other places.

D. Chadſe.

I denie that we leane to ambiguities. There is none but doo grant that there be manie figuratiue ſpéeches in the ſcriptures, but yet we denie that all be figures. Neither is it a good argument: Here and there be figuratiue ſpéeches, Therefore this alſo is a figuratiue ſpéech. But whereſoeuer there is a figure, there the circumſtance of the place ſheweth it: but no circumſtance is here that maketh demonſtration hereof. And if ſo be that the verbe, Is, ſhould be taken for, it ſignifieth, Chriſt ſhould be no verie man, except by ſignification. And when it is ſaid: The word was made fleſh, Iohn. 1, 14.John 1:14we ſhould interpret it; it ſignifieth fleſh, and the word was not in verie déed made fleſh. And whereas it is written, God was the word, we ſhould interpret it, that he ſignified the word: and thus all things ſhould be confounded. Wherefore we conclude, that in this place there is no figure.

D. Martyr.

As touching Chriſt, whether he be God and man, there be extant moſt euident teſtimonies, whereby we are conſtrained to vnderſtand abſolutelie thoſe ſentences which you alledged. But that we ſhould affirme in this place a figuratiue ſpéech, we are lead by the words of the ſcripture, by the nature of a ſacrament, and alſo by teſtimonies of the fathers. As touching the ſcripture, it is written there; Doo this in remembrance of me; and remembrance is not of things corporallie preſent, but of ſuch as be abſent. It is added; Vntill my comming: which is not agréeable, if he were alreadie come thither by conſecration. And Paule ſaid; The bread which we breake, is it not the communion of the bodie of Chriſt? But it agréeth not with the bodie of Chriſt to be broken, fith by reaſon of his glorie, it cannot poſſiblie ſuffer. And moreouer the Lord ſaid, that they ſhould take and eat; which without a figure cannot be vnderſtood, if you refer it to the bodie of Chriſt: for it beſéemeth not that he ſhould be broken and grinded with the téeth, the which is doone in true and proper eating. Moreouer ye your ſelues are compelled to admit a figure; for by your opinion well knowne, the bodie of Chriſt is not in the Euchariſt, except after the words be vttered: ſo as the verbe, Is, cannot be vnderſtood in his owne proper ſignification, while ye vtter the ſame: for it behooueth firſt that a thing be, before anie thing can truelie be ſpoken of the ſame. Beſides this, in Luke, and in Paule, the words be ſpoken of the cup; wherein ye cannot ſhun a figure, when it is ſaid: This cup is the new teſtament; which is nothing elſe, but, it ſignifieth the new teſtament. Againe, in the ſixt chapter of Iohn: My words be ſpirit and life, the fleſh profiteth nothing. And he made mention of his aſcenſion. And thus much out of the ſcriptures; by and by I will ſpeake of the nature of the ſacrament, and of the fathers.

D. Chadſe.

I anſwer, that thoſe p. 200words; This doo in remembrance of me, and till I ſhall come, doo not argue a figure. It is no good argument; Somwhat is doone in remembrance of a thing, Therefore it is nothing, or it remaineth not. Chriſt thought rather by thoſe words to commend vntounto them the action which was then doone before them, that in verie déed they might doo that which they ſaw he had doone. And whereas you adde; Vntill I ſhall come, it muſt be vnderſtood as touching his humane forme, wherein he ſhall come to iudge: for this ſacrifice ſhall not ceaſe vntill the end of the world. And vntounto thoſe things, which you hauehave ſpoken of breaking, thus I anſwer; that the bodie of Chriſt was trulie broken vponupon the croſſe, when his ſide was opened with a ſpeare, and he is broken euerie daie ſpirituallie in the ſacrament, when we ſet foorth his death.

D. Martyr.

There is no man doubteth, but that Paule, 1. Co. 10, 161 Cor 10:16when he ſaid; The bread, which we breake, is it not the participation of the bodie of Chriſt? ſignified that ſame viſible breaking of the ſignes, and diſtribution of the ſacrament, which we ſée to be doone in the Lords ſupper. And whereas you ſaie, that there may be a memorie of a thing which remaineth, therein you are deceiued; bicauſe the nature of memorie is, that it muſt be of a thing alreadie paſt, or which at the leaſtwiſe is not preſent: naie rather, the preſence of a thing, and the remembrance of the ſame hauehave betwéene them a flat contrarietie. I demand of you moreouer, why he named his aſcenſion? Was it not to let vsus vnderſtand that he muſt not be eaten carnallie?

D. Chadſe.

Therefore did he ſpeake of his aſcenſion, bicauſe he trulie aſcended into heauen, and is there trulie; not as though his verie preſence were not here alſo, not indéed to be deuoured, but to be receiued and eaten, according to his commandement.

D. Martyr.

Trulie it ſhould hauehave béene nothing to the purpoſe to hauehave mentioned his aſcenſion, vnleſſe he ment to note, that he ſpake of that kind of eating, which the abſence of a corporall thing might not hinder. But now, what ſaie you at the length to that place alledged? The bread, 1. Co. 10, 161 Cor 10:16which we breake, is it not the communion of Chriſts bodie? This, if you refer it to Chriſts bodie, is not broken: for this is agréeable to bread, and they doo tranſfer it to the bodie of Chriſt by a figure.

D. Chadſe.

So muſt wée vnderſtand in that place, Bread broken, euen as it is there ſaid; We being manie are one bread, that is to wit, figuratiuelie. For if bread in the former place ſhould be taken for naturall bread, it ſhould ſo likewiſe be taken in the place following, & ſo all wée ſhould be naturall bread, and our ſubſtance ſhould be the ſubſtance of bread, if you will argue from the nature of bread in the firſt part.

D. Martyr.

My purpoſe was onelie to ſhew, that you are not able to defend, that you in the communion doo breake bread, when you take it awaie from thence, and eſpeciallie if you take bread for the bodie of Chriſt figuratiuelie, as you your ſelfe doo now confeſſe. For you will hauehave it to be vnderſtood after the ſelfe-ſame maner, as when afterward it is ſaid; 1. Co. 10, 171 Cor 10:17Wee being manie are one bread: and yet you ſée that it can not properlie be fit for allegoricall bread to be broken. And thus for your tranſubſtantiation ſake, you be conſtreined to deuiſe there two figures: firſt, to vnderſtand allegoricall bread in both the places; ſecondlie, to vnderſtand Breaking figuratiuelie. And ſo you, The place of Paule expounded. 1. Co. 10, 1…1 Cor 10:1which are againſt figures, doo run continuallie into them. But for my part I vnderſtand bread in that place properlie. And when it is ſaid; We being manie are one bread, I interpret, in ſignification, not in ſubſtance. For euen as the bread is one, and conſiſteth of manie graines; or euen as it is one, and is doone into manie parts, ſo we in like maner are one, and alſo manie members: and thus I vnderſtand the bread in both places after one maner. The figure is in the word Sumus, We be. Herwithall, if you will vnderſtand The bread, which is broken, in like maner as afterward, when it is ſaid; We being manie are one bread, you ſhall be compelled by a figure, to vnderſtand the myſticall bodie. But how ſhall that be broken? A figure in the words (This is my bodie) prooued from the nature of a ſacrament.And ſith you be ſo readie with your figures, I ſée no cauſe why it ſhould ſo much gréeue you to admit a figure in the propoſition, which we hauehave in hand; to wit, This is my bodie. But as to the ſecond, how will ye auoid a figure, ſith a ſacrament is here inſtituted, and vntounto ſacraments figures be moſt familiar?

D. Chadſe.

We doo not here vtterlie denie a figure; for it is not bread that is handled, but it is called bread, and that by a figure; but yet in the ſacramentall words, or words of conſecration, we denie that there is a figure; bicauſe none of the circumſtances doo ſhew the ſame.

D. Martyr.

How can you denie a figure to be in the ſacramentall words, ſince it is plainelie ſaid at the cup; 1. Co. 11, 211 Cor 11:21This cup is the new teſtament, where if you grant a figure, why is it abſurd, that the other part, which is ſpoken at the bread, ſhould be figuratiue? And I woonder that you will acknowledge no circumſtance in this place, ſince I ſhewed before of manie, which you diſſembled and paſſed ouer.

D. Chadſe.

That which you ſpeake dooth p. 201not conclude. For here at the cup, the circumſtance conſtreineth vsus to confeſſe a figure, but nothing conſtreineth on the other part. Againe, whereas Luke and Paule ſpake figuratiuelie, the other two euangeliſts ſaid flatlie; This is my bloud.

D. Martyr.

Whereas you ſaie that Matthew & Marke ſaie abſolutelie; This is my bloud, bicauſe thoſe words alſo which are in Luke and Paul, howſoeuer they be put, muſt néeds be true: which cannot be, if a figure be not admitted. And that there is a figure in the former ſentence, not onlie the holie ſcriptures and the nature of a ſament (as I hauehave ſaid) but alſo the fathers hauehave confeſſed the ſelfe-ſame. Whie doo you ſo earneſtlie ſéeke to ſhun the figure? Doubtleſſe Tertullian ſaid; This is my bodie, that is, a figure of my bodie. Alſo Auguſtine vponupon the third pſalme ſaid, that Chriſt gaue a figure of his bodie. And againſt Adamantus the Manichei; The figure is prooued out of the fathers.He doubted not to ſaie, This is my bodie, when he gaue a figure of his bodie: and Ierom ſaith with Tertullian; that Chriſt repreſented his bodie. And ſuch teſtimonies innumerable there be, all which doo ſhew, that they admitted a figure in the words which are ſpoken at the bread.

D. Chadſe.

True it is that Tertullian and Auguſtine ſaie, that it is a figure, but yet they exclude not the thing it ſelfe, ſo as both the figure and the thing figured ſhould be all one. Euen as in the epiſtle to the Hebrues, Heb. 1, 3.Heb 1:3The ſon is the image of the fathers ſubſtance, & yet is the ſame that the fathers ſubſtance is. But if you will ſaie there; He is a figure of the fathers ſubſtance, Therefore he is not the fathers ſubſtance: you plainelie ſée that the argument dooth not hold. So in the preſent matter, to ſaie; It is a figure of the bodie of Chriſt, Therefore it is not the bodie of Chriſt: is no good concluſion.

D. Martyr.

How much that concludeth or not concludeth, I diſpute not at this preſent, onlie this I affirme; that the fathers in that kind of ſpeach, This is my bodie, acknowledged a figure, and that doo their owne words ſhew, when they often inculcate a figure and repreſentation. And Auguſtine in his treatiſe De doctrina chriſtiana, and elſe-where moſt plainlie teſtifieth, that the ſpeach of eating the bodie of Chriſt is figuratiue. And therefore what you denie, he plainelie affirmeth. And whereas you alledge, that a figure and a thing figured is all one, it is from the purpoſe we hauehave in hand; and yet ſhall you hardlie be able to proue the ſame. Wherefore to the place in the epiſtle to the Hebrues, Heb. 1, 3.Heb 1:3that the ſonne is called a figure of the fathers ſubſtance; I ſaie that Paule dooth there ſpeake of the ſonne, ſo far foorth as he is man, and in this reſpect he is a figure, and not the ſubſtance of the father. For he hath it by the figure Antonomaſia that he is the image of his father, and that dooth more noblie agrée with him than with other men. The words of th'epiſtle be theſe; At ſundrie times & in diuers maners ſpake God in the old time to the fathers in the prophets, Heb. 1, 1. A place to the Hebru… expounded.Heb 1:1but in theſe laſt daies he hath ſpoken vntounto vsus in his ſonne. But if you vnderſtand [Sonne,] as touching his Godhead, God as well ſpake by him through the prophets in the old teſtament, as he ſpake to vsus in our daies. But herein ſtandeth the difference, that he did that now by his humanity which in old time he did not performe Howbeit if you ſhall altogither vrge that this ſpeach muſt be vnderſtood of the diuine perſon, it ſhould not yet prooue, that the figure and thing figured is all one. For the Gréeke words are foreign, that is: The figure of his ſubſtance. And that which our interpretor abſolutelie called ſubſtance, in Gréeke it is foreign. And ſéeing the perſon of the ſonne is not the perſon of the father, verie well alſo may the ſon, as touching his Godhead, be called the ſubſtantiall figure of the father. Yet it followeth not therfore, that the figure and thing figured is all one: for betwéene perſons there is a reall diſtinction, as they call it.

D. Chadſe.

I anſwer, that this is common in the ſcriptures that the thing which is aſcribed to the manhood, belongeth to the Godhed, Iohn. 3, 13.John 3:13and ſo the contrarie. As for example; No man aſcendeth into heauen, but he which came downe from heauen, euen the ſonne of man which is in heauen; whereas notwithſtanding the ſonne of man deſcended not from heauen. And Paule ſaith; They would neuer hauehave crucified the Lord of glorie. And therefore Chriſt both according to his manhood, and according to his Godhead, is called the image of his fathers ſubſtance. For if this be agréeable vntounto him by one nature, it may be attributed vntounto him according to the other, by participation of the properties. And herevnto is added, that Chriſt as a méere man cannot be called the image of his fathers ſubſtance; for then ſhould I and all other creatures be called images of the fathers ſubſtance: and therefore in that reſpect that Chriſt is a figure, he is alſo ſaid to be the thing figured. And vntounto Tertullian I anſwer, that he writeth againſt Marcion, who affirmed Chriſts bodie to be a phantaſticall bodie: but he confeſſed the figure of an humane bodie to be in Chriſt, wherevpon Tertullian argued from the confeſſions which Marcion made. Thus he induced his argument; That which is phantaſticall, hath no figure, as Marcion ſaid it had; Therfore Chriſt had a true and no phantaſticall bodie. And this p. 202was Tertullians ſcope: and he reaſoned ſo of neceſſitie to confound the heretike, & he gathered it violentlie. And ſo this in effect is Tertullians meaning. Marcion attributed vntounto Chriſt a figured & phantaſticall bodie, and yet in the ſacrament he denied not the bodie of Chriſt to be, that is, the figure of his bodie. Hereof he argueth, that there is not a figure of a bodie, vnleſſe there be a true bodie alſo; bicauſe there is no figure but of a truth.

D. Martyr.

As touching the firſt: I neuer denied a participation of the properties in the two natures of Chriſt; whereby I grant that that which is ſaid of the one, may alſo be attributed to the other: but yet I ſaie, it muſt be diligentlie examined, when ſuch participations doo come togither; of which nature that is ſpoken which wée héere pronounced, as in both your examples it appeareth. For when it is ſaid, that the ſonne of man deſcended from heauen, we receiue that maner of ſpéech: but yet we confeſſe that the ſame muſt be admitted as touching his Godhead. Againe, we confeſſe that the Lord of glorie was crucified, but we teſtifie that the ſame is attributed vntounto him in reſpect of his humanitie. And ſo I in that place to the Hebrues, grant Chriſt to be an image of the fathers ſubſtance; but yet as the matter is there handled, I did affirme, that the ſame is ſpoken according to his humanitie; ſéeing before the redemption, GOD ſpake to the fathers in the diuinitie of Chriſt, but in theſe latter daies he ſpake by his ſonne; namelie, when he had put vponupon him the humanitie. Which ſaieng alſo, if you wold néeds hauehave it to reſpect the diuinitie, I ſent you vntounto the Gréeke text, out of which you might well vnderſtand the difference betwéene the figure and the thing figured. But whereas you ſaie beſides, that then he ſhould be no more according to the image of GOD, than I or an other creature, I denie the conſequent: for as he is among all men the moſt excellent, ſo likewiſe is he among vsus the principall image of GOD. Neither ſaid I, that this agréeth vntounto him as he is méere man. For who ſéeth not, that vntounto the humanitie of Chriſt, is not beſéeming ſo great an excellencie as we ſée the ſame hauehave, vnleſſe it be bicauſe it hath the Godhead ioined therewith? And as touching Tertullian, I acknowledge as you ſaie, that he argueth there againſt Marcion, but not after ſuch a maner as you recite the argument: for he reaſoneth with him by things manifeſt, & commonlie granted, wherein alſo an heretike durſt not diſagrée from the common ſenſe of the church; namelie, that this ſacrament ſhould be a figure of the Lords bodie. And he argueth; Of a thing phantaſticall there is no figure, for a figure ſignifieth a true thing, but this ſacrament is a figure of the bodie of Chriſt; and Therefore the bodie of Chriſt is no phantaſticall thing, bicauſe it hath this ſacrament for his figure. And you ought to knowe, that to the end a figure ſhould not be vaine, is required that the ſame repreſent ſome truth. And this is an eaſie and plaine meaning of Tertullians words. But that which you bring, that the collection is forced, & ſuch like, they be ſtrange ſpéeches. And if Tertullian would hauehave argued after this maner, he néeded not to hauehave produced the Euchariſt, he might ſufficientlie out of Marcions words hauehave prooued that which hée went about, ſaieng; Forſomuch as thou granteſt, that that which Chriſt bare about him, was a figure, and but a ſhape of a bodie; and a figure cannot be but of ſome thing that is extant indéed, thereby it is prooued, that it is a true bodie which Chriſt tooke vponupon him. So then a making mention of the Euchariſt would be ſuperfluous, but according to my allegation, it is manifeſtlie concluded. The Euchariſt (as all men confeſſe) is a figure of Chriſts bodie, therefore the bodie of Chriſt is a true bodie, otherwiſe it ſhuld not hauehave a figure.

D. Chadſe.

I anſwer as before. Firſt, that Chriſt, as he is méere man, can no more be ſaid to be the image of his fathers ſubſtance than other creatures. And as touching the participation of the natures, the ſelfe-ſame Chriſt is both the figure and the thing which is figured. And to Tertullian I ſaie againe, it is a figure, and yet not a figure onelie, but the thing it ſelfe alſo: the words of Chriſt neceſſarilie enforce the ſame.

D. Martyr.

I ſaie, that héere is no conſtreint by the word of God, but that both may be granted; to wit, as well the bread as the bodie of Chriſt. But now will I ſhew (bicauſe you ſaie that it is not onelie the figure, The Euchariſt is a ſigne of a thing which ſubſtantiallie, corporallie, and reallie is abſent.but the thing it ſelfe withall) that this ſacrament is a figure of a thing, which in reſpect of ſubſtantiall and reall preſence, is abſent. Ambroſe in his 4. booke De ſacramentis, the fourth chapter: Euen as thou receiueſt the ſimilitude of death, ſo dooſt thou drinke the ſimilitude of the pretious bloud. But there is no man doubteth that the death of Chriſt is not reallie preſent in this ſacrament; and yet neuertheles it is ſaid, that in ſuch wiſe is droonke the ſimilitude of the bloud, as the ſimilitude of the death.

D. Chadſe.

I am glad you attribute ſo much to Ambroſe, he is altogither on my ſide, as it appeareth by thoſe bookes of the ſacraments, and euen by this verie chapter, and by theſe words which you recite. For he ſtraitwaie addeth, that this ſimilitude was giuen, bicauſe of the horrour of bloud. And if ſo be that thoſe things which go before, & which followe, be weighed, p. 203it ſhall be perceiued, that he meaneth far otherwiſe than you alledge. For the ſcope of Ambroſe is to teach, that in the Euchariſt is repreſented the death of Chriſt: that euen as you beléeue that Chriſt died for you, ſo by his bloud your ſinnes are cleanſed; but of a ſubſtance remaining of the ſignes there is no mention.

D. Martyr.

You vaunt that Ambroſe is wholie yours, that ſhall I afterward knowe in the obiections which you will make againſt me. But as concerning this place, he ſaith plainlie, that euen as the one is a ſimilitude of his death, ſo the other is a ſimilitude of his bloud. And hereby you hauehave it ſufficientlie prooued, that the ſubſtance of bread remaineth, when the thing which it ſignifieth is ſubſtantiallie and reallie abſent: euen as we knowe that the death of Chriſt is not preſent, when we doo communicate, except by ſhewing & remembring of the ſame.

D. Chadſe.

But he ſaith not that it is onlie a ſimilitude: for in other places, he teacheth in plaine termes a naturall change of the bread and wine.

D. Martyr.

I weigh nothing the word, onelie, whether it be or be not expreſſed, ſéeing it is plainelie enough conteined in the ſimilitude alledged, that the thing it ſelfe is ſhewed to be abſent. And the time ſhall ſerue to diſcuſſe this mutation which Ambroſe maketh, when I ſhall come to anſwer your obiections. Auguſtine ſuch, that Chriſt gaue a ſigne of his bodie.Howbeit, that you may vnderſtand how euidentlie the fathers acknowledge a figure in this place, I hauehave thought good to cite Auguſtin againſt Adamantus the Manichei. Chriſt doubted not to ſaie; This is my bodie, when he gaue a ſigne of his bodie.

D. Chadſe.

I acknowledge theſe to be the words of Auguſtine, and I will ſhew by what reaſon he was lead to write them. All the Manicheis were enimies of the old teſtament. And when we read in Deuteronomie; The ſoule is the bloud, Deut. 12, 23Deut 12:23this ſaieng Adamantus refelled, as though it had béene repugnant with the new teſtament. And he obiected againſt him; Feare ye not thoſe which kill the bodie, but cannot kill the ſoule. Matt. 10, 28Matt 10:28Adamantus ſaid; So often as the bloud is ſhed and troden vnderunder foot, ſo often dooth the ſoule ſuffer theſe iniuries. If it be the bloud, whie ſhould it not be rightlie ſaid, that men cannot hurt the ſoule? Auguſtine anſwereth two maner of waies. Firſt, that in Deuteronomie, the bloud is called, not the ſoule of a man, but of a beaſt. Secondlie, he ſaith; What if I ſhould ſaie, that this after a certeine maner of ſpeaking, is to be vnderſtood euen of the ſoule of man, as Chriſt doubted not to ſaie; This is my bodie, when he gaue a ſigne of his bodie? And this ment he; that euen as ſecretlie in this ſigne lieth hid the reall bodie of Chriſt, ſo in the bloud, is the ſoule; and euen as the bloud is the ſigne of the ſoule hidden therein, ſo is the forme a ſigne of the bodie; and this ſigne, bicauſe of the preſence lieng hidden, is called the bodie of Chriſt.

D. Martyr.

This hath not Auguſtine; that the bodie of Chriſt (forſooth) lieth hid in the ſhewes of bread and wine; this is your owne deuiſe. You contended before, that the ſigne, and thing ſignified; the figure, and thing figured are all one. But will you now ſaie, that the bloud is all one with the ſoule? Aſſuredlie, will ye, nill ye, they be two ſubſtances, neither is the one taken awaie by the other, as you affirme here to be doone of the bread. And beſides, when bloud is a ſigne of the ſoule abiding in the bodie, it behooueth that it be ſéene, and that it be foorth of the liuing creatures bodie, and then dooth not the ſoule lie hidden therein. And thereof muſt the ſaieng be, touching that which the ſcripture forbad, that it ſhould not be eaten; and that was ſeparated from the bodie, for otherwiſe it cannot be eaten: and this is it that was then forbidden in the lawe, when theſe things were ſpoken. But let vsus now paſſe ouer this, howſoeeuer it be. Onelie this I hauehave to conclude, That the ſigne is not the thing ſignified.that the ſigne in this ſacrament is not the thing ſignified, nor the figure the thing figured; the which neuertheleſſe you did ſo earneſtlie affirme before. For is the bloud, which is put for the ſigne of the ſoule, the ſoule it ſelfe? Euen ſo is it in that which Chriſt gaue; when as Auguſtine after this maner, ſaith, that it was a ſigne of the bodie of the Lord; it is as much the bodie of the Lord, as the bloud is the ſoule.

D. Chadſe.

I anſwer, that the ſimilitude tendeth not to that end, but rather to teach, that euen as the ſoule lieth hidden in the bloud, ſo is the bodie of Chriſt ſecretlie hidden in the ſhewes of bread and wine, and that is the ſcope of the text it ſelfe. For euen as in this viſible thing is conteined the bodie of Chriſt, ſo in that viſible thing is conteined the ſoule, but the ſimilitudes doo not concur in all points.

D. Martyr.

Me thinks that it hath moſt chéefelie reſpect vntounto that which I ſaid, ſo as he ſhould affirme; that euen in ſuch ſort as the bloud is there the ſoule, ſo the bread is here the bodie. Auguſtine neuer ſpeaketh, either of lieng hidden, or not lieng hidden. Theſe words be afterward péeced too of your ſelfe. His meaning was to ſhew that the ſcripture hath a phraſe, whereby it nameth a thing to be that, whoſe ſigne it was, although it be a thing diſtinct and diuers from the ſame.

D. Chadſe.

Albeit that Auguſtine dooth p. 204not ſaie this, yet dooth the ſimilitude tend to this end: for the bodie ſo lieth hidden in the ſigne, as the ſoule dooth in the bloud.

D. Martyr.

I doo not ſée him here to giuegive an inkeling of anie other thing, but that this is the phraſe and maner of ſpéech of the ſcriptures, to attribute vntounto the ſigne the name of the thing ſignified.

The Commiſſioners commanded that we ſhould diſpute of the ſecond queſtion.

VVhether the bodie of Chriſt be ſubſtantiallie & carnallie in the bread and wine, or vnderunder the accidents of bread and wine.

D. Martyr.

CHriſt tooke bread, he bleſſed it, he brake it, & gaue it to his diſciples, ſaieng; This is my bodie: I demand of you, whether that bodie were **Whether it could paſſiblie ſuffer or not ſuffer.paſſible or impaſſible? Paſſible it was not: for this hath Auguſtine vponupon the 98. pſalme; You ſhall not eate this bodie, which you ſée; neither ſhall you drinke the bloud, which they ſhall ſhed. Neither yet is it beſéeming, or can it be, that a bodie of ſuch condition as ours is, and paſſible, ſhould be caſt into ſo ſmall a péece of bread. But if you will ſaie, that the bodie giuen was impaſſible; firſt, that will not be eaſilie admitted, ſéeing Chriſt himſelfe had not as yet an impaſſible bodie. Againe, the words of the euangeliſt are againſt that: ſith it is ſaid; Eate ye, this is my bodie, which is giuen for you. But it is manifeſt that the bodie, wherein Chriſt was deliuered, was paſſible. Things meere contrarie cannot be togither in one ſubiect.Nor muſt it be admitted, that one verie bodie was at one ſelfe-ſame time both paſſible, and not paſſible, bicauſe theſe things are quite contrarie one to another; and therfore he gaue not his bodie corporallie and reallie; for it could not be deliuered without one of theſe conditions.

D. Chadſe.

I anſwer, that the bodie vnderunder the ſhew of bread was impaſſible. And we ſaie, that at one time, although in a ſundrie reſpect, it was both paſſible and impaſſible. For theſe be accidents, the which in a ſundrie reſpect may be preſent and abſent togither. Doubtleſſe contraries and things oppoſite require all one reſpect.

D. Martyr.

I doubt not, but that theſe be accidents; but that contraries, or things contradictorie, can be affirmed all at once for one ſubiect, and at one verie time, that I ſaie is abſurd. And whereas you ſaie; In diuers reſpects, that helpeth you nothing at all: for in relatiues this might be ſomewhat. Put the caſe it be all one, to be ſaid at once the right hand or the left; great and little: if it ſhall be compared vntounto diuers things it is true. But we diſpute now as touching abſolute qualities; that is to wit, of the ſtate and condition of Chriſts bodie, whether it be paſſible, or not paſſible; and theſe things we denied to hauehave béene both at once, and at one time, by reaſon of a contrarietie of the things. And the words of the euangeliſt doo reſtreine it to a paſſible ſtate. For it is ſtraitwaie added; Which ſhall be giuen for you.

D. Chadſe.

The relatiue Which, dooth note the ſubſtance, that there is no other ſubſtance vnderunder the ſhewes of bread and wine, than that which ſhall be giuen for you, yet not a qualitie, I ſaie, paſſible or impaſſible.

D. Martyr.

But forſomuch as you will hauehave here the relatiue, Which, to hauehave relation to a ſubſtance, and ſo the ſenſe to be; This bodie which ye receiue, is a ſubſtance, euen all one with that, which ſhall be giuen for you; but agréeth not in condition or qualitie. This expoſition of yours being admitted, I demand of you, how you will expound vntounto me the ſaieng of Auguſtine, which I auouched; You ſhall not eate this bodie which you ſée. Let the relatiue Which, be likewiſe vnderſtood in this place in ſuch wiſe, as it ſhould hauehave relation to a ſubſtance, as you affirme it muſt be doone in the euangeliſt, and you ſhall ſée what will followe; euen this verelie, that we doo not eate Chriſt ſubſtantiallie: or elſe, if you would that in Auguſtine the relatiue Which ſhould betoken the qualitie, you ſhall ſuffer me likewiſe ſo to vnderſtand the words of the euangeliſt for a qualitie, and you muſt not denie me that, which you grant vntounto your ſelfe.

D. Chadſe.

In Auguſtine, the relatiue Which, dooth betoken a qualitie, not a ſubſtance. And this are we conſtreined to anſwer, bicauſe he ſpeaketh of a bodie, which they ſawe: but there are not ſéene anie other than accidents; for the ſubſtance it ſelfe is not ſéene. Moreouer, thoſe things, which Auguſtine ſpeaketh, muſt be vnderſtood ſpirituallie, not carnallie; as the Capernaits vnderſtood, who thought that the fleſh of Chriſt ſhould be eaten, as fleſh that is bought out of the ſhambles. And it is all one, as if it ſhould be ſaid; Ye ſhall not eate it in an humane ſhew, but vnderunder another forme; namelie, of common bread, leaſt fleſh ſhould be odious vntounto you.

p. 205D. Martyr.

I heare much, but I did not demand ſo manie things. The queſtion was of this relatiue Quod, Which; for you will vnderſtand it after your owne mind: ſometime that it ſhould betoken a ſubſtance, and ſometime a qualitie. In the euangeliſt you applie it vntounto a ſubſtance; in Auguſtine you refer it to a qualitie: and that you doo for your owne aduantage, and onelie to that end that you may ſhift off arguments.

D. Chadſe.

I therefore interpret it otherwiſe in Auguſtine, bicauſe the words muſt be taken according as they be ſet foorth by the doctors. And ſéeing Auguſtine ſaid; O ye Capernaits, ye ſhall not eate this bodie which ye ſée: I doo neceſſarilie flie vntounto the accidents and qualitie; which is betokened, bicauſe this is ſéene, but not the ſubſtance.

D. Martyr.

This ſhift helpeth you not, for it followeth in Auguſtine: Neither ſhall ye drinke the bloud that they ſhall ſhed which crucifie. me. Here now he ſpeaketh not of drinking the bloud, but of ſheding the ſame: and no man doubteth but that the verie ſubſtance of bloud was ſhed, not onlie the accidents. And ſo there is no cauſe, but as you will your ſelfe, that the relatiue, which, ſhould betoken the qualitie of ſubſtance.

D. Chadſe.

This was the meaning of Auguſtine: Ye ſhall not drinke my bloud vnderunder that ſhew and forme, wherein the Iewes ſhed the ſame, but vnderunder a ſhew of wine in the ſacrament.

D. Martyr.

So doo you interpret & expound him; and in the meane time you anſwer nothing for the libertie and the licence that you take, in the turning of theſe relatiues to your owne purpoſe. But I returne to the chéefe point of the argument, wherein I ſaid, that one and the ſame bodie of Chriſt dooth not ſuſteine at one and the ſelfe-ſame time, ſo contrarie qualities as is paſſible and impaſſible: and you fled vntounto diuers reſpects. But how much that auaileth in this queſtion of the bodie of Chriſt, heare what Vigilius ſaith in his fourth booke againſt Eutyches; Bicauſe that one nature alone receiueth not in it ſelfe anie thing that is contrarie or diuerſe. But diuerſe it is, and farre vnlike, to be bounded within a place, and to be eueryevery-where: for the word is euerie-where, but the fleſh therof is not euerie-where: Thus you ſée that this moſt learned father denieth, that it can agrée with one onelie nature to be limited within a place, and not to be limited. Wherefore the one of theſe things he will hauehave to be attributed vntounto the Godhead, and the other to the manhood, bicauſe the nature of man is not capeable of both. But if we ſhould giuegive you place for your diuers reſpects, it was vnprofitablie ſpoken of him. For ſome man would obiect vntounto him; The humane nature of Chriſt is in one reſpect limited, as you doo ſaie; namelie, as it is in it ſelfe; but as it is in the Euchariſt, it is without limitation. Howbeit, bicauſe to be within limit & without limitation, euen as to be paſſible and impaſſible, be abſolute qualities, therefore in what reſpect ſoeuer you ſpeake, one and the ſelfe-ſame bodie cannot beare both conditions togither at one time.

D. Chadſe.

I doo not confeſſe that the bodie of Chriſt is in diuers places locallie; but I ſaie, that he is in diuers places accidentallie: that is to ſaie, bicauſe the ſhewes, wherein he is conteined, be in diuers places.

D. Martyr.

It was not ment by me out of the place of Vigilius, which I cited, that wée ſhould now ſéeke whether the bodie of Chriſt be in diuers places at once, but onlie to ſhew, that he confirmeth that which I ſaid; to wit, that it is vnpoſſible that one and the ſelfe-ſame nature ſhould togither at one time admit things that be contrarie; and that it dooth not helpe which you ſaid, that this is doone in a ſundrie reſpect: when as thoſe contraries be abſolute. Neither is the ſpeach concerning relatiues, but nature it ſelfe is conſidered. Howbeit, bicauſe you ſlip from thence, and ſhew me, that you affirme the bodie of Chriſt to be in diuers places at once, and that not locallie but by accidents, bicauſe the ſhewes [of bread and wine] are kept in ſundrie places. I come to you alſo in this point, and I ſaie, that your cauſe is not reléeued at all by this diſtinction: for the bodie of Chriſt can neither locallie nor yet not locallie be in manie places, ſith it is a creature, & a thing definite. And you hauehave heard by verie weightie teſtimonies, that it is granted to no creature, no not vntounto angels, to be in manie places at once; who neuertheleſſe are not in place locallie: for they are not corporall. Moreouer, you bring new matters, and ſuch as hauehave not béene heard of, either in prophane writers, or in the holie ſcriptures; that a bodie is in ſome place, and yet not locallie: for this is euen as much to ſaie, as a bodie and yet no bodie.

D. Chadſe.

Theſe things doo therefore happen, bicauſe Chriſt in the ſacrament hath no bodie that conſiſteth of quantitie.

D. Martyr.

This was euen it that I looked for, Chadſe found guiltie of theft and ſacriledge towards Godto find you guiltie both of robberie & of ſacriledge. For you doo vniuſtlie rob the bread of ſubſtance, and deſpoſſe the bodie of Chriſt of his quantitie.

D. Chadſe.

Not onelie ſhall the bodie of p. 206Chriſt, but our bodies alſo be glorified after the reſurrection, and ſhall be immortall, and without quantitie.

D. Martyr.

I cannot woonder ſufficientlie how you ſpeake this. Will you not perceiue, that by taking awaie quantitie frō an humane bodie, ye take awaie the bodie it ſelfe? For ſith it is a liuing bodie, it hath inſtruments alſo, and it behooueth it, that it hauehave manie members and parts, the which cannot conſiſt without ſubſtance and quantitie. And therefore it followeth verie well, that quantitie being taken awaie from an humane bodie, the bodie it ſelfe alſo is extinguiſhed.

D. Chadſe.

I denie the argument.

D. Martyr.

Where doo ye then place the true bodie of Chriſt with his quantitie?

D. Chadſe.

He is in heauen as in place.

D. Martyr.

Then yée doo not appoint the verie bodie of Chriſt to be in the ſacrament. For if he be there without a quantitie, it may indéed be a ſubſtance, but no humane bodie: for that conſiſteth of diuers parts and inſtruments, the which if quantitie be remooued, they hauehave no place.

D. Chadſe.

We ſaie that in the ſacrament is the verie bodie of Chriſt, but yet not in quantitie; nor yet as being in a place.

D. Martyr.

If it be both without place and quantitie, when it is vnderunder your ſhewes, then ſhall it be a ſpirituall ſubſtance: for bodilie and vnbodilie ſubſtances are diſtinguiſhed by the ſubſtance quantitatiue, and not quantitatiue; neither be ſpirits of dimenſions, as bodies be. And this did Chriſt confirme, when he ſaid; A ſpirit hath no fleſh and bones.

D. Chadſe.

I admit the bodie of Chriſt to be ſome ſpirituall thing, bicauſe the ſenſe dooth not iudge thereof, as it may iudge of other bodies which be of quantitie.

D. Martyr.

I ſpeake not here of the bodie of Chriſt, as it is perceiued, or not perceiued by the ſenſe; nor yet ſpeake I of our capacitie, but I ſpeake of that bodie as it is in it ſelfe. And I affirmed that it ought to be of quantitie, and that it hath a bigneſſe: otherwiſe it ſhould be a ſubſtance without a bodie, and ſhould wholie be reckoned among the kinds of ſpirits.

D. Chadſe.

We intreate here of the preſence of Chriſts bodie in the ſacrament, which we affirme to be as touching the thing it ſelfe, and the ſubſtance thereof; and we paſſe not for the accidents of Chriſts bodie, that is, for the quantitie and proportions, whether they be preſent or not preſent. And as touching your argument, I ſaie it is but weake, ſéeing it concludeth not, to ſaie; This bodie is not vnderunder the ſelfe-ſame qualities and quantities; Therefore it is not the ſelfe-ſame bodie. And Chriſt now in heauen hath not the ſame qualities which he had here; Therefore he hath not the ſame bodie. The argument is not good. For if all thoſe qualities which were in the bodie of Chriſt, ſhould be required now in the ſacrament, to this purpoſe, that it ſhould be the ſelfe-ſame bodie, it would follow, that now in heauen is not the ſelfe-ſame Chriſt which was crucified. For now thoſe qualities be not in him which he had vponupon the croſſe, where he ſhed his bloud, and was paſſible. So then, his meaſure is changed, but he euermore remaineth the verie ſame.

D. Martyr.

O good GOD! Here doo you change all things, both the times and the accidents whereof we diſpute. For who denieth here that the bodie of Chriſt may be ſucceſſiuelie vnderunder diuers qualities, and that it is not required that he ſhould alwaies hauehave the ſelfe-ſame? Who knoweth not now that he hath other qualities than he had vponupon the croſſe? That which we contended about before, was this; that at one time, a bodie cannot be paſſible & impaſſible, mortall & immortall. And now that we are in hand with the bigneſſe and quantitie of the bodie, I know not how you digreſſed vntounto qualities. You did anſwer, that therefore the bodie of Chriſt cannot be preſent locallie, bicauſe it ſhould be of no quantitie in the Euchariſt: againſt which opinion was mine argument, that a bodie naturall and inſtrumentall, ſuch as it behooueth mans bodie to be, is taken awaie and altogither deſtroied, if quantitie be taken from the ſame. And herevnto hath béene no anſwer at all.

D. Chadſe.

As touching the qualities, which I ſaie are not requiſit in the bodie of Chriſt, for teſtifieng the ſame to be all one; true it is, that I change the times, but you change alſo the maner. And it is euen all one of the maner, as it is of the time: wherfore if I offend in changing the times, you alſo offend in your argument by changing the maner.

D. Martyr.

Of theſe things, which you ſpeake, there is gathered no anſwer to the argument: for, as you ſpeake, you decrée that Chriſt is at one time in heauen, bounded in with quantitie, and in a place; but that he is in the ſacrament without limitation, without quantitie, and without place: and ſo great contrarieties in their owne nature, Vigilius ſhewed might not be admitted. But if a diuerſitie of maner, as you affirme, maketh it poſſible, that in nature, the ſelfe-ſame things being ſo diuers may be receiued togither, and at one verie time, now hath Eutyches gotten the victorie; neither dooth p. 207Vigilius conclude againſt him. For he will ſaie that the bodie of Chriſt, as touching himſelfe, is bounded within limits, but as it paſſeth into the Godhead, it is without limitation; as touching his owne nature it is definite, but as it paſſeth into the Godhead, it is infinite: and ſo Vigilius laboured in vaine againſt him.

D. Chadſe.

No; but he rather taught this that I hauehave ſaid: onelie he denieth manie places to a bodie, taken after one & the ſelf-ſame maner. And without doubt, a bodie is one thing in ſubſtance, and an other thing in qualitie. But if one will demand whether quantitie be of the nature of ſubſtance, I ſuppoſe you will denie it.

D. Martyr.

I would not be accounted ſo ignorant, as though I knew not the predicaments: I knowe that quantitie commeth after ſubſtance: but yet it followeth not, that thoſe things which by a ſupernaturall reaſon be diſſeuered one from an other; can, as touching their being, be ſeuered in nature one from an other. Wherfore as yet the argument ſtandeth ſtrong of it ſelfe; A bodie which beareth life, forſomuch as it hath inſtrumentall parts, and members which are fit for a liuing creature, it cannot conſiſt without quantitie and place certeine. But if you now obtrude an other maner (as you ſpeake) it is a deuiſe found out of you, to ſhift off this kind of argument.

D. Chadſe.

True it is as touching the bodie of Chriſt in heauen, that it cannot be without quantitie, and without his inſtrumentall parts, but I doo not grant the ſame in the ſacrament, where notwithſtanding, he is all one as touching ſubſtance with him that is in heauen.

D. Martyr.

Theſe things which I hauehave brought are ſo manifeſt, as it is not néedfull for me to labour anie more about them, vnleſſe you bring foorth ſome new matter.

Heere did Doctor Cartwright put foorth certeine arguments, and deſired leaue ſo to doo, and the Chancellor gaue him leaue.

D. Cartwright.

LEaſt it ſhould be ſaid in you, moſt famous Doctor, which the ſcripture ſpeaketh of Chriſt; I hauehave troden the wine preſſe alone, Eſai. 63, 3,Isa 63:3I hauehave determined for the honour of this ſchoole, to take vponupon me a part of the labor. If there ſhould be tranſubſtantiation, euill men alſo ſhould receiue the bodie of Chriſt, but they receiue it not, Whether the wicked doo receiue the bodie of Chriſt.therefore tranſubſtantiation is not granted.

D. Chadſe.

I denie the minor.

D. Cartwright.

Out of the ſixt of Iohn; He that eateth my fleſh, & drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in me; but euill men doo not dwell in Chriſt, therefore they eat not the bodie of Chriſt. And Auguſtine vponupon this place ſaith; This is to eate Chriſt, to hauehave Chriſt dwelling in him. Wherevpon it appeareth, that ſince euill men hauehave not Chriſt dwelling in them, they doo not eate him. And Paule in the firſt epiſtle to the Corinthians; He that eateth this bread, 1. Co. 11, 291 Cor 11:29and drinketh the cup of the Lord vnworthilie, he eateth and drinketh iudgement to himſelfe. Behold he ſaith that they doo eate bread, not the bodie of Chriſt.

D. Chadſe.

VntoUnto the words of Iohn, I ſaie, that thoſe be vnderſtood of them which eate worthilie, for then is it true; He that eateth my fleſh and drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in me, and I in him. But Auguſtine ſpeaketh of the effect of the ſacrament. And Iohn meaneth not; whoſoeuer eateth: but, whoſoeuer eateth as he ſhould eate, dwelleth in me, and I in him. And ſuch phraſes of ſpéech there be found in the ſcriptures. For in Iohn, the diſciples aſked of Chriſt: Who ſinned; this man or his parents, Iohn 9, 2.John 9:2that he ſhould be borne blind? Chriſt anſwereth; Neither this man ſinned, nor yet his parents. Which ſaieng doubtleſſe muſt be reſtreined: for he did not abſolutelie denie that they ſinned, but he denied that this man was made blind bicauſe of their ſinnes. Euen ſo Iohn in this place; He that eateth my fleſh, and drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in me, & I in him; vnderſtandeth it of them that doo eate worthilie. And Auguſtine denieth not, that euill men doo eate, but yet he teacheth the effect of true & worthie eating. And the place cited by Paule, maketh mention in expreſſe words, both of worthie and vnworthie eating.

D. Cartwright.

To denie the ſubſtance of bread to remaine, is to denie the ſacrament: for a ſacrament is the ſigne of an holie thing.

D. Chadſe.

I ſaie that the figure remaineth, the ſhew I meane of bread and wine, which doo as much repreſent the thing ſignified, as if the ſubſtance of them ſhould remaine. For they ſignifie that they be one in Chriſt, and of him be ſpirituallie nouriſhed.

D. Cartwright.

Naie rather, the likenes betwéene the ſigne and thing ſignified, is this; That euen as bread nouriſheth the bodie, ſo the fleſh of Chriſt nouriſheth vsus. And how doo your accidents ſerue to this purpoſe; to wit, the roundneſſe, colour, and ſuch like?

p. 208In the ſecond queſtion.

D. Cartwright.

BIcauſe it is not my mind to be anie let to this reuerend man, but that he may proſecute his determination, as I dealt bréefelie with you in the firſt queſtion, ſo will I doo in the ſecond: wherin I will prooue, that the bodie of Chriſt is not reallie in the ſacrament. Iohn. 16, 7.John 16:7Chriſt ſaid; It is expedient for you that I go my waies. If Chriſt were carnallie preſent, hee ſhould hinder our ſpirituall commoditie.For if he had tarried, he ſhould hauehave béene a lett (as he himſelfe ſaid) of the holie Ghoſt comming vntounto them; for bicauſe they were too much in louelove with his carnall preſence. Wherefore, if after the ſame maner he ſhould be ſaid to be ſubſtantiallie preſent vponupon the altar, the people ſhould be hindered from lifting vp their minds and eies vntounto heauen, and from obteining of the ſpirit and his gifts.

D. Chadſe.

I denie that that preſence, wich we appoint, is an impediment to the people. That preſence indéed, whereby he was conuerſant with his apoſtles, ſhould hauehave béene a lett.

D. Cartwright.

This impediment is euident enough. For men that doo beléeue this reall preſence, doo ſaie, when they hauehave heard a Maſſe; This daie hauehave I ſéene my Lord: and this they thinke to be the whole ſumme of godlineſſe, and ſo are they called awaie from an earneſt and true eating.

D. Chadſe.

If the people be hindered or hurt, their error muſt be corrected, and it ſhould behooue the people to be taught. For if all things that be an offenſe vntounto the people ſhould be taken awaie, the Goſpell ſhould be taken awaie, whereof manie doo take offenſe.

D. Cartwright.

Chriſt is not more in the Euchariſt, than the holie Ghoſt was in the doue: but the doue was onelie a ſigne of the holie Ghoſt that came downe; therefore the Euchariſt is onelie a ſigne.

D. Chadſe.

The holie ſcripture dooth not ſaie, that the doue was the holie Ghoſt, as it ſaith; This is my bodie. Neither is the Euchariſt an inſtrument to ſignifie, as the doue was.

D. Cartwright.

Yes: but Iohn ſaith; I ſawe the holie Ghoſt, which deſcended vponupon him: And it is added; In the likeneſſe of a doue.

D. Martyr.

I will proſecute the firſt argument of D. Cartwright, whom I thanke for ſo taking our part. Trulie he hath pleaſured me verie much, & as I hope, manie others alſo. You take it as granted, that the bodie of Chriſt is trulie eaten of all thoſe that doo communicate: Of wicked mens eating.but I vtterlie denie it to be eaten of the wicked and vnfaithfull. For an vnfaithfull man, if he receiue the bodie of Chriſt, he dooth this either by ſenſe, or by reaſon, or by faith. By the ſenſe it cannot be ſaid, bicauſe it reacheth not vntounto Chriſt, and it onelie receiueth the ſignes: neither (as ye heare take the bodie of Chriſt) can it be receiued by the ſenſe. And in like maner, it cannot be receiued by reaſon; for it paſſeth the capacitie thereof. Now then there remaineth faith; the which ſéeing the vnfaithfull doo want, they cannot thereby receiue the bodie of Chriſt.

D. Chadſe.

I denie the Minor propoſition; for with the mouth they receiue the bodie of Chriſt.

D. Martyr.

As though by the mouth anie thing can be receiued without the ſenſe. Thoſe things, which paſſe through by the mouth, are manifeſtlie felt of vsus.

D. Chadſe.

With the mouth they receiue the bodie of Chriſt; but with the ſenſe they receiue the accidents. Moreouer, if I be without faith, mine vnbeléefe taketh not awaie the faith of GOD, neither dooth it make fruſtrate his word; for after conſecration, it is the bodie of Chriſt, whether I beléeue or beléeue not.

D. Martyr.

Whereas you affirme that the bodie of Chriſt is receiued with the mouth, that is repugnant vntounto that which you hold; for you ſaie, that the bodie of Chriſt in the Euchariſt is not of quantitie; and the action or receiuing of our mouth, ſéeing it is naturall, is not extended vntounto ſpirituall ſubſtance: and you ſhall neuer be able to ſhew anie other thing to be receiued with the mouth, but the ſignes. As touching the truth of the ſacrament and faith of God, I knowe it is a true ſacrament, although we doo not beléeue. And yet that prooueth not, but that he, which is void of faith, hath ſome other thing than the ſacrament, that is, the ſigne or the elements. And what is to eate Chriſt, What is to eate Chriſt.Cyprian declared in his ſermon De coena Domini, when he ſaith; That we might knowe that our eating is our dwelling in Chriſt, & our drinking is a kind of incorporating [into him.] Againe; Wherefore the eating of this fleſh, is a certeine gréedineſſe, and as it were a certeine deſire of dwelling in him. And againe; Looke what food is to the fleſh, that ſame is faith vntounto the ſoule: what meate is to the bodie, that ſame is the word to the ſpirit. And yet againe; Theſe things ſo often as we doo, we ſharpen not our téeth vntounto biting, but with a ſincere faith, we breake and diuide the holie bread. Alſo Auguſtine, in his 21. booke De ciuitate Dei, the 25. chapter, ſaith; And therefore, theſe muſt neither be ſaid to eate the bodie of p. 209Chriſt, bicauſe alſo they muſt not be accounted among the members of Chriſt, and (to forbeare the reſt) They cannot be togither the members of Chriſt, 1. Cor. 6.1 Cor 6and the members of an harlot. Finallie, inſomuch as he ſaith; He that eateth my fleſh, Iohn 6, 56.John 6:56and drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in me, and I in him, it ſheweth what is To eate, not ſacramentallie, but verelie the bodie of Chriſt, and to drinke his bloud, that is he to dwell in Chriſt, and that Chriſt ſhould dwell in him. For he ſo ſpake this, as if he ſhould hauehave ſaid; He that dwelleth not in me, and he in whom I dwell not, let him not ſaie or eſtéeme of himſelfe, that he eateth my bodie, or drinketh my bloud. And in another place he ſaith; that To drinke ſignifieth as much, as to liue. Againe; Whie prepareſt thou thy bellie, and thy téeth? Beléeue, and thou haſt eaten. Which matters ſith they agree not to the wicked, they cannot be ſaid to eate the bodie of Chriſt.

D. Chadſe.

The fathers hauehave reſpect to the effect of the ſacrament, and ſpeake not of the matter of the ſacrament; they write of the ſpirituall eating: and ſuch phraſes hath the holie ſcripture; Luk. 13, 27. Mark. 16, 16Luke 13:27Mark 16:16I know you not, that is to wit, vntounto that end that I will allow of you. Againe; Whoſoeuer is baptiſed, ſhall be ſaued. Likewiſe; Whoſoeuer calleth vponupon the name of the Lord, Ioel. 2, 32.Joel 2:32ſhall be ſaued. It muſt euermore be added; If ſo be he ſhall continue. For I may beléeue and be baptiſed, and yet be damned; if I doo not perſeuere (to the end.) So likewiſe he that eateth Chriſt, hath not the effect of the ſacrament, whereof the fathers ſpeake, vnleſſe he doo eate woorthilie.

D. Martyr.

The holie ſcripture doth not acknowledge an eating of Chriſt, except vntounto ſaluation. Neither hauehave you it out of the holie ſcriptures, that the wicked doo eate the bodie of Chriſt. And of them that eate vnwoorthilie, thus ſpeaketh Paule; If anie man ſhall eate this bread, or ſhall drinke the cup of the Lord. He ſaith that they doo eate bread, not the bodie of the Lord.

D. Chadſe.

Therfore doth Paule ſpeake after this maner, bicauſe he calleth the bodie of Chriſt, bread, in that reſpect; that it was bread before, or elſe for that it hath the forme of bread: and beſides, Paule ſaith; This bread and cup of the Lord.

D. Martyr.

You ſaie, that Chriſts bodie is eaten of the wicked. Paule ſpeaketh it not, but calleth it bread. You run vntounto the accuſtomed refuge. Howbeit, vnleſſe you ſatiſfie the matter otherwiſe, you cannot eſcape, ſéeing Paule dooth plainelie call it bread: and he addeth this article, This: and ſaith, Of the Lord, bicauſe thoſe things be now changed into ſacraments.

D. Chadſe.

Auguſtine againſt the letters of Petilianus, the ſecond booke, 55. chapter, teacheth manifeſtlie, that the wicked doo eate the bodie of Chriſt: and he ſaith; What a madneſſe is it [for them] to communicate in the ſacraments of the Lord? Wherefore theſe, when they ſhall ſaie; Luk. 13, 26.Luke 13:26HaueHave not we in thy name eaten & droonken, ſhall heare it ſaid; I knowe you not, ſéeing they eate his bodie, and drinke his bloud in the ſacrament, and yet knowe not his members diſperſed ouer all the world. And infinite other places more I hauehave, which ſhall be ſhewed when occaſion is offered.

D. Martyr.

The place of Auguſtine which you cite prooueth nothing at all: for it may in this reſpect be ſaid, that the wicked doo eate the fleſh and drinke the bloud of the Lord, bicauſe they receiue the ſacraments of theſe things. And as the ſame Auguſtine teſtifieth; ſacraments be ſo called, of thoſe things which they ſignifie. And as touching the other places, which you ſaie you hauehave, we will ſée how they be alledged, and then will I anſwer them: but as for this time, you hauehave not brought one word out of the holy ſcriptures, to teach that the wicked doo eate the Lords bodie. But out of Auguſtine I will euidentlie ſhew, that theſe propoſitions; namelie, to eate the bodie of Chriſt, and to hauehave ſaluation and life, are conuertible, and interchangeable. For vponupon the Goſpell of Iohn, in the 26. treatiſe he ſaith; He that eateth not his fleſh, nor drinketh his bloud, hath not eternall life in him: & he that dooth eate his fleſh, & drinke his bloud, hath eternall life. Doo you not heare that theſe words are not cōuerted & interchanged one with another? And a little after; This is to eate that meate, and to drinke that drinke, to dwell in Chriſt, and to hauehave Chriſt dwelling in him. And by this meanes, he that dwelleth not in Chriſt, and he in whom Chriſt dwelleth not, without doubt he eateth not ſpirituallie his fleſh, nor drinketh his bloud, though he cruſh with his téeth the ſacrament of the bodie and bloud of Chriſt.

D. Chadſe.

True it is, that they eate not and drinke not vntounto ſaluation: and after ſuch a maner doth Auguſtine vnderſtand the eating of Chriſts bodie. And the ſcriptures doo ſaie, that ſome do eate vnwoorthilie.

D. Martyr.

Auguſtine hath not that which you ſpeake; and Paule dooth plainelie call that, bread, which the wicked doo eate. But it is a deuiſe of your owne, to ſaie; that there is a certeine bodie of Chriſt, that the wicked doo eate, and yet hauehave not ſaluation, nor yet be partakers of the ſpirit of Chriſt.