Common Places, Disputation · Day 4
The diſputation of the fourth daie, made betweene D. VVilliam Chadſe, wherein he oppoſed D. Peter Martyr, the firſt daie of Iune.
The Preface of D. VVilliam Chadſe.
I Find, and I am moſt aſſuredlie taught by experience, that that is true, which that ſame Gregorie Nazianzen, called the diuine, hath in his third booke De Theologia: that To reiect another mans opinion, is no great matter, but eaſie for euerie man; howbeit contrariwiſe to proue his owne, is the point both of a godlie and a wiſe man. For if the contention be about bare words, that will come to paſſe, which that ſame wittie Logician in Nicaeas trulie ſpake: While men ſtriue about words, words are ſet againſt words; and that which is ſpoken, is ouerthrowne by the art of eloquence. But if the triall be about the right ſenſe, Paule pronounceth; A naturall man perceiueth not thoſe things which be of the ſpirit of God: for it is fooliſhnes vntounto him, neither can he vnderſtand, bicauſe they are ſpirituallie examined. If a man appeale vntounto reaſon and profound wiſedome, 1. Cor. 2, 14.by and by it will be ſaid; My ſpeach and my preaching is not in the entiſing words of mans wiſedome, but in the declaration of the ſpirit, and of power, that our faith ſhould not be in the wiſedome of men, but in the power of God. Therefore to diſpute in ſo hard a matter, 1. Cor. 2, 4.and to prooue by reaſons, that which ought to be held onelie by faith and beléefe, is a dangerous thing; and granted to no man, without the ſingular gift of God. Eſpeciallie (according to that ſaieng of Ierom vntounto Paulinus) where there is a diſputation betwéene them, which after prophane writings come to the holie ſcriptures, and by a ſet maner of ſpeach delight the eares of the people: Whatſoeuer they ſhall ſaie, that they thinke to be the lawe of God; and vouchſafe not to knowe what the prophets, & what the apoſtles hauehave iudged, but applie vnfit teſtimonies to their owne ſenſe.
As though it were a kind of ſpeach of great value, and not of vile error, to depraue ſentences and to drawe according to a mans owne will the ſcripture which is againſt him: there to acknowledge a figure, where no figure is; there to deuiſe a figure, where there is a truth; to drawe all to that purpoſe, whither his affection leadeth him. To this verie well agréeth that which Auguſtine hath in his third booke De doctrina chriſtiana, the tenth chapter; If an opinion of anie error hauehave poſſeſſed the mind, whatſoeuer otherwiſe the ſcripture hath affirmed, men thinke it to be a figuratiue ſpeach. But is not this to pleaſe the affection, when as the ſacred ſcripture ſaith manifeſtlie, This is my bodie, to interpret it, This ſignifieth my bodie? When the fathers affirme; verie fleſh and verie bloud, to make a gloſe that the fathers ſpake ſpirituallie, or elſe hyberbolicallie; when they teach that bread is changed, not in forme but in nature; to aſcribe the ſame onelie vntounto an holie vſe? Doo they bring in the ſcriptures? No, but they pretend the ſcriptures, as ſaith Tertullian. And by this their boldneſſe they perſuade ſome, yea & in the diſputation it ſelfe they tire the ſtrong, they catch hold of the weake, and ſend away the indifferent in a doubt. Wherfore we muſt labour diligentlie, that our eies may be opened; we muſt obteine by praiers, that he which is the author of the ſcriptures, will alſo be the interpretour of them, that he will open our ſenſe that we may vnderſtand the ſcriptures. He that ſpeaketh with the toong, let him praie, that he may interpret. And ſo, in ſtead of words, there will procéed vertue; and for reaſon, faith; that we be not carried awaie with euerie wind of a word, but that we may be graffed and rooted in that word, which hath power to ſaue our ſoules. And that this may come to paſſe praie you vntounto the holie Ghoſt togither with me in my accuſtomed praier.
Come holie ſpirit, &c.
D. Peter Martyr.
THoſe things, which you hauehave now ſo bitinglie ſpoken in your preface, how vnagréeable they are to me, I will not indeuour to ſhew. Onlie this will I admoniſh, that I neuer wreſted or corrupted the holie ſcriptures, neither hauehave I imagined figures where they hauehave no place, nor yet hauehave brought in anie new, but ſuch as are vſuall, and which in a maner all the fathers doo acknowledge. Howbeit, I will not ſpend the time in confuting of theſe matters, for there be manie things, which I muſt ſaie, for the confirmation of my queſtions; as commonlie is woont to be doone of them, which are to anſwer in diſputations, leſt they might ſéeme to defend abſurdities: whereby alſo it ſhall be knowne how ſmallie thoſe things which you ſpake earwhilſt doo belong to my opinion. Yeſterdaie in verie déed I was minded to doo this: but bicauſe I cannot tell by what chance I was conſtreined to deale with another aduerſarie, than was determined; I thought good for the ſooner diſpatch with him, & to diſpute with the ordinarie appointed, to pretermit theſe things, & to refer them ouer to this daie. And that our purpoſe may hauehave good ſucceſſe, I will (as I hauehave hitherto doone) call for the helpe of God.
D. Martyrs Praier.
O Almightie God, we acknowledge the weakeneſſe of our mind, and therefore we dare not approch to the beholding and declaring of thy truth, vnles we firſt, as meet we ſhould, doo call vponupon thy name. Wherefore we deſire thee with moſt feruent praiers, that of thy ſpeciall goodneſſe thou wilt infuſe light into our darkeneſſe, and by the benefit of thy holie ſpirit thou wilt make plaine thoſe doubts, which ſhall happen; that the waie of ſaluation may be made manifeſt vntounto them which beleeue, through Ieſus Chriſt our Lord; Amen.
The confirmation of the firſt queſtion.
The firſt reaſon drawne from the ſacrament of baptiſme.FOr confirmation of the firſt queſtion, beſides the reaſons, which you hard in diſputing the former daies, I will now adde theſe alſo. That Chriſt is trulie giuen vntounto vsus in baptiſme, Paule teſtified vntounto the Galathians when he wrote; Gal. 3, 27.So manie of you as are baptiſed, hauehave put on Chriſt. And in the epiſtle vntounto the Romans he ſheweth, Rom. 6. verſe. 4, 5.that by baptiſme we are graffed into Chriſt. And in the firſt epiſtle to the Corinthians he ioineth togither theſe two ſacraments, when he ſaith, that 1. Co. 12, 13We be baptiſed into one bodie, and hauehave droonke one ſpirit. And yet doo not anie ſaie, that vntounto the true receiuing of Chriſt in baptiſme, we hauehave néed of tranſubſtantiation: wherefore it followeth, that the ſame alſo in the Euchariſt is ſuperfluous. Neither is it an eaſie thing to be ſaid, that Chriſt is giuen more excellentlie in the Euchariſt, than he is in baptiſme; ſith by baptiſme we are ſet in him, and by the Euchariſt we are fed in him. And there is no man doubteth, but that our generation dooth bring more ſubſtance to vsus than dooth the nouriſhment. I let paſſe that which Ierom wrote vntounto Hedibia, that we in baptiſme doo eate the bodie and bloud of Chriſt. And Auguſtine ſaith, that by baptiſme we be made partakers of the bodie and bloud of Chriſt, euen before we eate of the Lords bread, and drinke of his cup.
The ſecond reaſon. As Chriſt ſaid; This is my bodie, ſo likewiſe he ſaid, by the mouth of Paule; 1. Co. 12, 27Ye are the bodie of Chriſt; and yet for the making of vsus to be the bodie of Chriſt, there is no néed of tranſubſtantiation. Whie then ſhall it not be true as concerning bread, that it is the bodie of Chriſt, vnleſſe tranſubſtantiation happen therein? Yea, We be more the bodie of Chriſt than is the breadand if a man will well conſider of the matter, the bodie of Chriſt is more ioined vntounto vsus, than it is to the bread: ſéeing what the bread hath, it therefore hath it, to the intent that by it, Chriſt may be ioined vntounto vsus. And the words whereby the bread is brought to become a ſacrament, rather belong vntounto vsus, than vntounto the bread, which is altogither without ſenſe and faith. Againe it is a perillous matter to delude the ſenſes by tranſubſtantiation; bicauſe that then dooth periſh the proofe of the true reſurrection of Chriſt, which he ſhewed to his apoſtles, ſaieng; Feele ye and ſee, Luk. 24, 39.for a ſpirit hath no fleſh and bones. And the Marcionit heretiks would ſoone hauehave ſaid, that Chriſt had no true humane bodie, but onelie the accidents and figure thereof; as ye ſaie of bread, that it is no bread, albeit it ſéeme ſo, if ye reſpect the properties and outward forme thereof. Alſo the fathers thought, that they did effectuallie prooue Chriſt to be true man, by the humane affections and properties which the ſcriptures ſhew of him: namelie, that he did hunger, that he thirſted, that he was wearie, that he ſorrowed, that he woondered, and ſuch other like. Which arguments by the example of your tranſubſtantiation might be denied: and the heretiks might ſaie; Euen as this dooth not followe: to wit, in the ſacrament of the Euchariſt there be properties of bread and wine, therefore the ſubſtance of bread and wine is truelie there: ſo, it followeth not: In Chriſt, there were properties and affections of a man, therefore he had a verie true humane ſubſtance: and thus there ſhall be a windowe opened vntounto moſt gréeuous errors. By tranſubſtantiation, is peruerted the nature of things.Moreouer, by this their vnneceſſarie tranſubſtantiation, they peruert the nature of things, ſith they plucke awaie the accidents from their ſubſtance and proper ſubiect, which is far more than to ſeparate ſubſtance from a quantitie (which before they hauehave ſtriuen to doo, ſuch is their audacitie) forſomuch as the accident is a latter thing than is the ſubſtance. Neither hauehave we heard the ancient fathers make anie mention of this ſo dreadfull a miracle. And ſéeing they were learned, and verie well vnderſtood how a ſubſtance is defined, and how an accident, they would not hauehave paſſed ouer in ſilence ſo great a matter. Nazianzen ſoong in verſe the miracles wrought by Chriſt. And vntounto Auguſtine is attributed the booke of the miracles of the holie ſcripture: and yet is no mention there of accidents ſeparated from their ſubiect. By tranſubſtantiation Chriſt muſt needs eate himſelfe.Beſides, it muſt come to paſſe that the eater, and the meate eaten, muſt be all one: for Chriſt communicated with his apoſtles in the ſupper. And therfore, as theſe men will hauehave it, he ate his owne ſelfe reallie, and by tranſubſtantiation. Admit alſo, that in the ſame ſupper, which Chriſt firſt celebrated with his apoſtles, ſome of the reliks remained after the bread was tranſubſtantiated, the which was reſerued vntounto the morowe, wherein Chriſt was crucified and died; ſhould not the bodie in that bread hauehave béene depriued of ſoule and life? If you denie it, it muſt néeds followe, that the ſelfe-ſame bodie was both aliue and dead at one and the ſelfe-ſame time. By tranſubſtantiation manie abſurdities will followe.But and if you will ſaie, that it died alſo in the bread; then it followeth, that there was made a change, and that a naturall and reall change therein: all which things might hauehave no place in that bread; to wit, that it ſhuld there both be crucified and wounded; ſith vntounto thoſe matters not onelie a quantitie, but alſo a meaſure of quantitie is required, the which from the bodie of Chriſt in the Euchariſt they remooue with great contention. And if ſo be that much bread & good plentie of wine ſhould be tranſubſtantiated by the Maſſe prieſts; verelie they, which ſhould eate and drinke theſe things, ſhuld be filled and nouriſhed, and their bellie ſhould be ſtretched out: and all theſe things doo theſe men attribute vntounto the accidents. If the Euchariſt be burned, there doo appeare aſhes; if it putrifie, worms breake foorth; & ſo a ſubſtance commeth of accidents. But yet (as they dare ſaie anie thing) they imagine that God oftentimes createth new ſubſtances, which doo ſuccéed the accidents, or doo reuoke by miracle the former ſubſtances; and they heape miracles vponupon miracles. For if the mice ſhall gnawe awaie this ſacrament that is kept, what will they eate? They ſaie the accidents. But why not the bodie of Chriſt, ſith they bind the ſame to the accidents, ſo long as they remaine ſound? Which being corrupted, they alſo take awaie from thence the bodie of Chriſt. But whither goeth it when it departeth awaie? Into heauen? But there it is alreadie, and before was. How can it then go thither? It it ceaſe to be, then it is deſtroied and corrupted: which is far from the nature of a glorified bodie. Sometimes alſo there happeneth a vomiting after the receiuing of the communion, as Cyprian teſtifieth of a certeine maid: and he ſaith, that the drinke being conſecrated into bloud, brake foorth of hir bowels. What then ſhall become of the bloud of Chriſt? By affirming tranſubſtantiation they leaue emptie a ſpace or place.And when they ſay that the bread is tranſubſtantiated into the bodie of Chriſt; and ſo tranſubſtantiated, as it is not there locallie, we demand of them what dooth fill the ſpace or place left by the ſubſtance of the bread? For if this be not granted vntounto the bodie of Chriſt, it will remaine void, and be filled vp with no ſound matter. And beſides this, that accidents be without a proper ſubiect, to the end there may nothing want to ſtrange woonders, they attribute vntounto them ſundrie actions and paſſions, which they cannot denie: whereas notwithſtanding betwéene the dooing and the ſuffering is required a communion of one and the ſelfe-ſame matter. That there cannot be a breaking the bread being taken awaie.And whereas there is plainlie ſéene a breaking in this ſacrament, they ſaie, they breake accidents. Which the Mathematicians durſt not pronounce of their quantitie abſtract by imagination; to wit, that they can reallie diuide the ſame. And Platos Idaeae hauehave leſſe abſurditie, according to Ariſtotles diſputing againſt them, than this feigned deuiſe of tranſubſtantiation bringeth with it. But what? They aſſoile all by miracles. But ſo it might be an eaſie matter for euerie man to be a diuine, if all arguments might be diſſolued by miracles. And eſpeciallie when it is a doctrine in religion, that miracles muſt not be multiplied without neceſſitie: which they could neuer ſhew to hauehave béene in this matter.
The confirmation of the ſecond queſtion.
THe end of eating Chriſt, and receiuing this ſacrament is, that wée ſhuld liue, that we ſhuld hauehave euerlaſting life, that we ſhould die, and that Chriſt ſhould dwell in vsus, and we in him: euen as Chriſt teſtified in the ſixt of Iohn. The benefits of this ſacrament are as well had without reall preſence as with the ſame.Howbeit, theſe benefits and commodities may as well be had by admitting a coniunction of the bodie of Chriſt with bread and wine by a ſacramentall ſignification, as if we ſhould affirme him to lie hidden reallie or ſubſtantiallie in the ſignes: for that will bring vntounto vsus no grace, or ſpirit, or renewing, but that we may abundantlie obteine the ſame of Chriſt being in heauen, and through a receiuing thereof by faith. For no mightier is he lieng hidden in the ſignes, than he is reigning in heauen. And yet neuertheleſſe muſt not the communion be thought ſuperfluous, bicauſe we can eate Chriſt without the ſame: for albeit it be lawfull to doo this whereſoeuer; yet conſidering our infirmitie, we are furthered by the helpe and comfort of ſignes: and for the receiuing of them we hauehave the expreſſe commandement of Chriſt.
Chriſt confuted the carnall eating of his bodie.Secondlie, we muſt flie from that eating, which Chriſt confuted: but he confuted the carnall eating of his bodie, when he dealt with the Capernaites; therefore it muſt be taken awaie. Neither will it helpe, if you ſhall ſaie, that they were therefore reprooued, bicauſe they thought that the bodie of Chriſt was to be torne and rent in ſunder; as though after the maner of wild beaſts they ſhould be inuited too the eating of mans fleſh, which ſhould be hewen in ſunder, and ſo diſtributed, as happeneth of meate in the ſhambles. And for this are you woont to pretend. For it maketh no matter to the bringing in of a carnall eating, whether the bodie of Chriſt be eaten by little péeces, or all whole togither. Neither is it true, that it is a ſpirituall eating if the whole bodie be eaten, and a carnall eating if it be cut into parts: for according to this diſtinction, the great huge beaſt of the ſea, which deuoured Ionas, ſhould hauehave eaten him ſpirituallie, bicauſe he ſwallowed him whole at one gulpe. Chriſt plainlie teacheth, that he vnderſtandeth ſpirituall eating otherwiſe, when he ſet foorth to them his aſcenſion into heauen. For he ſhewed therby that he ment of an eating, wherby we may eate by faith a thing that is abſent, as concerning place and ſubſtance. And euen as he called backe Nicodemus from externall and bodilie generation to a ſpirituall regeneration, which we obteine in the mind and inward man; and lifted vp the woman of Samaria from the corporall and externall water, to the drinke, whereby our minds be refreſhed, the holie Ghoſt, I meane: ſo Chriſt taught the Capernaits, which now thought that his fleſh ſhould be eaten outwardlie and carnallie, he taught them (I ſaie) that eating, which we receiue with the mind, and imbrace with the faith.
We no leſſe receiue Chriſt in his word, than in the Euchariſt.Furthermore, we no leſſe receiue the bodie and bloud of Chriſt in the word of God, than in this ſacrament. For what elſe by the teſtimonie of Auguſtine be ſacraments, than viſible words. Yea and the ſame Auguſtine, in the title De conſecratione, diſtinction the ſecond, in the chapter Interrogo vos, ſaith; Of no leſſe account is the word of God, than is the Euchariſt. Alſo Ierom vponupon Eccleſiaſtes, teſtifieth; that we in the holie ſcriptures doo eate the fleſh of the Lord, and drinke his bloud. In like maner wrote Origin vponupon Matthew, treatiſe 25. and among the number of the homilies 26. And Chryſoſtome vponupon Iohn, homilie 45. And Baſil, in his 141. epiſtle. Yea and reaſon it ſelfe perſuadeth it: for whatſoeuer fruit or grace the bread hath in the ſacrament, it hath it by the word. And beſides this, the words doo more plainelie both expreſſe and ſignifie the nature of a ſacrament, than the ſignes doo. Séeing therefore it is not affirmed, that the bodie of Chriſt dooth corporallie and reallie ſticke in the words, why ſhall we rather place the ſame in bread and wine?
And herwithall agréeth that, which we hauehave in the firſt chapter of Iohn; that we be clenſed and waſhed with the bloud of Chriſt: the which in verie déed is doone, ſo often as we conuert vntounto him, and by faith and repentance doo returne vntounto him. And yet neuertheleſſe muſt it not be, that ſo often as we be waſhed, he is corporallie and reallie preſent with vsus; but it is ſufficient, that he be caught hold of with a faithfull mind, whereby alſo the bodie of Chriſt may be eaten, and his bloud droonken, he being abſent; ſéeing that a reall preſence ſéemeth as well to be required vntounto waſhing, as vntounto eating and drinking, if we ſhall vnderſtand theſe things to be doone naturallie and groſſelie. Howbeit, it muſt be conſidered, when we ſaie that the bodie and bloud of the Lord is receiued by faith, we doo not affirme theſe things to be altogither abſent; for by the power of faith and ſpirituallie, they be made preſent vntounto vsus. For Paule ſaith vntounto the Epheſians; Epheſ. 1, 20.that We are alreadie ſet with Chriſt at the right hand of God in the heauenlie places. And the ſame apoſtle vntounto the Romans, ſaith; Rom. 8, 24.that We by hope are ſaued. And he faith to the Galathians; Gal. 3, 1.To whom Chriſt before was deſcribed in your ſight, and among you crucified.
The ſcripture onelie ſheweth of two commings of Chriſt.Ouer this, the holie ſcripture dooth record to vsus no more but two commings of Chriſt. The firſt, an humble forme to redéeme vsus; the other glorious, when he ſhall come to iudgement. But ye inuent euerie daie infinit commings. For whereſoeuer there is anie ſaieng of Maſſe, or where the faithfull communicate, ye decrée that the bodie of Chriſt is reallie and ſubſtantiallie preſent; wherevnto notwithſtanding ye neither grant an humble forme, nor yet a glorious: but after a certeine middle maner, ye tie the ſame vntounto ſacramentall ſignes, whereof neither the ſcriptures ſpeake, nor yet is there brought anie effectuall reaſon.
The nature of a ſacrament is more kept in ſignification than in bodilie preſence.Againe, whereas all men agrée, that the ſupper of the Lord is a ſacrament, and the definition of a ſacrament is, to be a viſible ſigne of an inuiſible grace; it is plaine, that we rather kéepe the nature thereof than ye doo: for we beléeue that the bodie of Chriſt is ioined to the elements or ſignes, by a ſignification: and yée which affirme a tranſubſtantiation or reall preſence, cannot auoid it, but that both the wicked and vnbeléeuers doo eate Chriſt: which, how abſurd it is, hath béene alreadie declared. Laſtlie, when the holie ſcripture ſetteth foorth anie thing vntounto vsus to be beléeued generallie, it is requiſite, that we ſhould chooſe that waie vntounto vsus, (if anie ſhould be choſen) which is the eaſier and the readier, and that dooth not call men awaie, but rather lead them by the hand to faith: and ſo will fewer and leſſe abſurdities fellow, nor will miracles be multiplied. But this doo not ye performe, which hauehave choſen waies, for the defenſe whereof there is néed of infinit miracles; and abſurdities come togither without meaſure. And this ſhall ſuffice for confirming of the two propoſitions which are in hand. Yet before you come to oppoſe me with anie thing, I will faithfullie performe that which I promiſed you, when you began to deale againſt me in an other diſputation of ours. In your preface, you tooke vponupon you a certeine matter which was not neceſſarie for you; To the ſolutions of the arguments which theſe mē brought in.euen to ſhew the ſolutions which ſhould hauehave béene requiſite to vſe vntounto the arguments, which I obiected againſt Doctour Treſham, with whome I had diſputed the daie before; and I had ſaid, were not ſatiſfied. My argument out of Cyprian was this: Euen as in the perſon of Chriſt was ſéene his manhood, and his Godhead laie hid; ſo in the ſacrament, the diuine eſſence did viſiblie infuſe it ſelfe, &c. Wherevpon I concluded; that euen as in Chriſt dwelled the whole humanitie, ſo muſt verie bread be reſerued in the ſacrament. Of the argument of Cyprian.You indeuoured to anſwer, that Cyprians compariſon muſt not be vnderſtood, as touching the entireneſſe of the two natures in Chriſt, but as touching the ſecret lieng hidden: that is to wit, that euen as the diuinitie lay hidden in the manhood of Chriſt; ſo in the accidents, that is, in the ſhew & forme of bread, lieth hidden the bodie of Chriſt. This you thinke to be an abſoluing of the argument: but in verie déed it is not ſo; bicauſe the ſcope of Cyprian in this compariſon, was no ſecret lieng, as you doo feine. But the matter is expounded ſufficientlie by him, when he ſaith; that In religion there might be a deuotion concerning ſacraments, and that there might be opened a more perfect acceſſe vntounto the truth, whoſe bodie the ſacraments be.
But how much his words make for me, conſider you. The diuine eſſence (ſaith he) infuſeth it ſelfe in the viſible ſacrament: but & if the ſame doo infuſe it ſelfe therein, it dooth not exclude the nature thereof, as you imagine; naie rather it dooth preſerue it. For thoſe things that are powred into an other thing, doo not annihilate the ſame. But as for the ſecret lieng hidden, which you alledge, I alſo hold with that as well as you. For the bodie of Chriſt, which is ſignified in the ſacrament, is not ſéene therein; but it lieth hidden, as in the ſcriptures the ſenſe is ſaid to lie hidden vnderunder the letter. So as I likewiſe approoue the ſecret hiding that you ſpeake of: but you vtterlie reiect the entireneſſe of the natures, which Cyprian expreſſeth. And as concerning that which you afterward bring in touching Athanaſius, I iudge the ſelfe-ſame which you doo anſwer; that A ſimilitude muſt not hold in all matters, but in thoſe onelie which are expreſſed. Wherefore you may ſée, that Athanaſius ſaith plainlie, that Chriſt conſiſteth of two natures: and he taketh his ſimilitude from man, who is alſo made of two things. And thus far dooth the ſimilitude hold, and muſt not be extended anie further. So dooth Cyprian declare, that the diuine eſſence infuſeth it ſelfe in the ſacraments; euen as in the perſon of Chriſt was ſéene his humanitie, and his Godhead laie hid. I ſaie nothing that Cyprian hath not; I take nothing which he himſelfe offereth not; I ſéeke no matter from without: onelie I ſaie with him, that in the Euchariſt are theſe two things, to wit, the diuine eſſence which is infuſed, and the ſacraments wherevnto it is infuſed. But you bring in here other matters touching the ſeparation of the Godhead, which ſerue not to the purpoſe. But if the diuine eſſence doo ouerthrowe the natures and ſubſtances of the ſacraments, wherein it is infuſed, then hath vtterlie the ſimilitude touching Chriſt, no place. And vntounto Gelaſius, Of the argument out of Gelaſius.whom I cited, you anſwer, that partlie he was a Neſtorian heretike, and partlie not. And you ſaid; It followeth not: he was not altogither a Neſtorian heretike, therefore in part he was not: and ſo you added, that it was lawfull to denie him. But yet you deuiſed, that whereas it is written in him; that The ſubſtance or nature of bread and wine doo not ceaſe to be, thoſe words hauehave an interpretation with them: bicauſe it is added; But yet they remaine in the propertie of their owne nature, that is, in the accidents, which hauehave the power of nouriſhing, and reteine the ſelfe-ſame taſt, the ſame figure, and the ſame colour, &c. Howbeit, this is not to aſſoile an argument. For firſt, whereas you accuſe Gelaſius of Neſtorian hereſie, it is a matter vntounto me rare and vnheard of. This man was not infected with that infamie. Moreouer, your expoſition which iudgeth that bread & wine doo remaine in the propertie of their owne nature, that is, in the accidents, is ſtrange. Séeing by the propertie of nature, he vnderſtandeth no other thing, but a proper nature, which we call ſubſtance. And this I declare, bicauſe, if your interpretation ſhould be admitted, then is Gelaſius argument altogither without force. For he writeth againſt Eutyches, who would that the bodie of Chriſt did not remaine, but was changed into the Godhead. And he argueth from the nature of the ſacrament of the Euchariſt, which he will hauehave to conſiſt of two parts; namelie, of bread and wine, which be the ſignes; and the matter of the ſacrament, that is, the bodie and bloud of Chriſt. And he argueth; If theſe two things remaine entire in the ſacrament, then are there alſo two entire natures in Chriſt. Wherefore ye, when by tranſubſtantiation ye take awaie bread, and in place thereof put accidents, ye vtterlie ouerthrow the argument. For euen Eutyches would hauehave granted, that the ſubſtance of the bodie of Chriſt being taken awaie, and changed into the Godhead, the accidents thereof did remaine; ſo as he might ſéeme to be man, and yet was none indéed.
To Auguſtine.Neither is that againſt vsus, which you cite out of Auguſtine; that Chriſt will come in the ſame forme and ſubſtance of fleſh, as he was ſéene go into heauen: as though he vnderſtood the ſubſtance in that place, to be the properties & accidents. Which in no wiſe is true, but rather maketh againſt you. For Auguſtine in that place meaneth, that Chriſt ſhall come with the verie ſubſtance of an humane nature: neither did Gelaſius after anie other maner vnderſtand the ſubſtance of bread to remaine. Againe, you indeuored to ſhift off the place taken out of the ſentences of Proſper; (Euen as the perſon of Chriſt conſiſteth of God and man, ſéeing Chriſt himſelfe is verie God, and verie man: bicauſe euerie thing conteineth in it ſelfe the nature and truth of thoſe things, whereof it is made, &c.) you indeuored, I ſaie, to ſhift off this, by ſaieng, that the ſacrament is that outward thing, which appeareth to the eie; and the matter of the ſacrament, the bodie of Chriſt: for there Auguſtine calleth it (himſelfe, and not himſelfe) the anſwer is profitable. Bicauſe you hauehave it againe out of Auguſtine, which you heard out of Cyprian and Gelaſius, euen that the ſame thing happeneth to this ſacrament, that dooth vntounto Chriſt; namelie, that it conſiſteth of two verie natures. And it behooueth, that you diligentlie weigh the words, wherein it is ſaid; that Euerie thing conteineth the nature and truth of thoſe things, whereof it is made. And who doubteth, but that this ſacrament is made of bread and wine? Wherefore, if it conteine onlie the accidents of theſe things, it ſhall not conteine, as Auguſtine ſaith, the nature and truth of thoſe things.
To the epiſtle vntounto Dardanus.And to the epiſtle of Auguſtine vntounto Dardanus; that The bodie of Chriſt ought to be in one certeine place, by reaſon of the meaſure of a true bodie, you ſaid, that it muſt be anſwered as touching his humane forme; but in an inuiſible forme, as he is in the ſacrament, he may be in manie places. Here alſo you anſwer nothing: ſéeing you weigh not with me thoſe words [bicauſe of the meaſure of a true bodie.] For a ſubſtance, which wanteth the meaſure of a bodie, is no true bodie; and ſo you will not appoint the verie bodie of Chriſt to be in the Euchariſt. Againe, you doo not wholie recite my argument out of the epiſtle to Dardanus: for I ſaid; Séeing Auguſtine dareth not attribute to the ſoule of Chriſt, that it could be togither, and at one time both in hell and in paradiſe, that is in heauen with the théefe; how ſhall we grant this vntounto the bodie, that it is not a ſpirit as well as the ſoule? This was my argument, the which as yet remaineth ſtrong and vnanſwered.
As touching Theodoret, you affirmed, Gennadius giueth a good teſtimonie of Theodoret.that he hath the ſelfe-ſame meaning, when he ſaid; that bread dooth not change his nature: which ſenſe alſo the fathers hauehave, when they ſaie; that the natures of the bread and wine doo remaine. For they meane the properties, that is, the accidents. And how ſmallie this alſo maketh for the purpoſe, I refer you to thoſe things, which we ſpake of Gelaſius. For both of them dealt againſt the ſame Eutyches; and they ſhould hauehave concluded nothing, if for ſubſtance or the nature of bread, which they ſaie remaine, they vnderſtand accidents. And ſo doo we expound Theodoret, as he agréeth with all the other fathers, by whom vndoutedlie the bread is reteined in the Euchariſt.
You will afterward grant, To Origin.that thoſe be true matters, which Origin hath in his fragments vponupon Matthew, chapter 15. Euen that the matter of this bread goeth into the draught; and you ſaid, that he interpreteth himſelfe, while he willeth vsus, that we ſhould not hauehave reſpect vntounto the fleſh and bloud, but ſhuld receiue the ſacrament of the word. And ſo you inferred, that this ſigne is turned in euill men into aſhes; the holineſſe, as Cyprian ſpeaketh, paſſing awaie. I maruell that you make a diſtinction here of good and euill perſons; ſéeing Origin ſpeaketh generallie of the matter of this bread, and meaneth to ſhew that the words of Chriſt be true, when he ſaith; That which entereth into the mouth defileth not man, but is receiued into the bellie, and paſſeth into the draught. He had indéed mooued a queſtion, how that might be true, as touching the bread of the Lord, that it paſſeth into the draught. His anſwer is, that this muſt be vnderſtood as touching the matter, but not as touching ſanctification. But you ſéeme to affirme this to be onelie vnderſtood concerning euill men: and you make that like vntounto it, which Cyprian ſpeaketh of the conuerſion into aſhes. Where I demand of you what that is, which is turned into aſhes? Not the bodie of Chriſt; for that ſhuld be wicked to affirme: not accidents, vnleſſe you will hauehave them to bréed a ſubſtance. I knowe you will flie vntounto miracles; that is, that God ſhould create a new matter, or cauſe the old to come againe. But ſuch things did Origin neuer imagine, whoſe full meaning you hauehave alreadie heard of me. And that, which you alledge out of Cyprian, was a miracle, and of him it might properlie be ſaid, that there was a conuerſion into aſhes, bicauſe he reteineth bread, which by a miracle might be turned into aſhes. But ye, when ye remooue the ſubſtance of bread hauehave nothing, which you may ſaie is conuerted either into aſhes, or into excrements. Wherefore if you will hauehave a new matter to be created, then muſt ye not make it a conuerſion, but a creation. And finallie, as I hauehave ſaid; the ſentence of Origin is vniuerſall, reſpecting as well the good as the euill.
To IreneusAlſo to Irenaeus, when he ſaith; The bread wherin there is a thankſ-giuing is the Lords bodie. And againe; He took that which is bread of a creature, Matt. 26, 26.and giuing thanks he ſaid, This is my bodie: and likewiſe the cup, which is of the creature that is among vsus, he confeſſed to be his bloud. You anſwered, that all theſe things muſt be referred to bread before conſecration, ſith then it is a creature, ſuch as is among vsus; but that now of that matter, the word being come thervnto, it is made the bodie of Chriſt, and that the ſame creature remaineth not in ſuch ſort as it was before. In your anſwer you commit two faults, bicauſe firſt you ſatiſfie not the ſenſe of the words. For Irenaeus moſt plainlie pronounceth, touching that, ouer which thanks are giuen, that both it is bread, and alſo the bodie of Chriſt; for in that thanks are giuen, it noteth the time paſt, and neuertheleſſe he calleth it bread as yet. Againe, you paſſe in ſilence that ſimilitude, which I moſt of all vrged: As bread, hauing receiued a calling from the earth, is no more common bread, but is become the Euchariſt, conſiſting of two things, earthlie and heauenlie; ſo likewiſe our bodies, receiuing the Euchariſt, are no more corruptible. And I concluded; that ſuch a change of the bread there is in the ſacrament, as there is of our bodies. Here you ſaie nothing.
To Gregorie in Regiſtro.Gregorie was obiected in Regiſtro, who ſaith; While we receiue as well the ſwéet bread as the leuened bread, we are made one bodie of the Lord. You anſwer, that he ment nothing elſe but that the ſacrament may be made as well of ſwéet bread as of leuened bread, & not that he ment bread to remaine. And héere likewiſe you run to the accuſtomed ſhift of bread before conſecration. Howbeit Gregories words forbid you ſo to doo; for he ſaith: While we receiue as well ſwéet bread, as leuened bread. And the verbe of the preſent tenſe dooth plainelie betoken, that we in the communion doo receiue either ſwéet bread, or leuened bread; and in truth we receiue not the ſacrament, but after conſecration. EpiphaniusThe words of Epiphanius, whereof I argued, you thought good to recite all at full length, the which are on this wiſe; He roſe vp 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 of equalitie nor alike, neither to the image of the fleſh, nor to the inuiſible Godhead, nor yet to the lineaments of the parts of his bodie: for this is of a round forme, & inſenſible as touching power; and yet he would of his grace, ſaie; This is mine, and this, and this; and euerie man dooth beléeue it, &c. This doo you interpret, that that which is of a round figure, is inſenſible; and you infer, that by theſe words it may be vnderſtood, that whoſoeuer dooth not beléeue, that there is the true bodie of Chriſt, falleth awaie from grace and ſaluation. My argument was brought in, that the bodie of Chriſt was by the Lord ſpoken concerning the bread, the which my aduerſarie denied: for he ſaid; It was abſurd, either for the bread or the accidents to be called the bodie of Chriſt. Againſt him I brought theſe words of Epiphanius, wherein he plainelie ſaith, that As touching that which is of round forme, it pleaſed Chriſt by his grace to ſaie: Both this, and this; to wit, Both this, and this is mine, that is, my bodie. And the round thing it ſelfe, to the intent you may vnderſtand that it is bread, he calleth it inſenſible as concerning power; which may in no wiſe be vnderſtood of the bodie of Chriſt, for he addeth; But our Lord we knowe to be altogither ſenſe, and he that altogither perceiueth, &c. And againe, when he ſaith; For this is of a round forme, can you vnderſtand the accidents, for thoſe be roundneſſe it ſelfe, and not of a round forme, in the genetiue caſe? Neither can it be ſhewed to be the bodie of Chriſt, ſith he is not of a round forme. Wherefore that ſtandeth ſtrong, which I inferred thereof, that the bodie of Chriſt, according to Epiphanius, is ſpoken of bread. And I maruell at you, that ſince you hauehave taken vponupon you to diſſolue arguments, which were not aſſotled, you ſpake nothing of Baſil, Didymus, Cyrill, & Vigilius. And vnderſtand you me, that I hauehave ſpoken theſe things, not onelie to ſtand to my promiſes: but alſo to the intent that thoſe things might not be without fruit, which I obiected in the firſt diſputation: whereby you ſaid that you were afraid, leaſt they which heard them ſhould be ſeduced. And thus was it neceſſarie, that thoſe things, which I had ſpoken not to ſeduce, but to teach, I ſhould confirme after this maner, that they might atteine to their end. And now hauehave you leaue for anie thing that I knowe to oppoſe what you will.
D. Chadſe.
You hauehave ſpent a good part of the time, wherein we might hauehave diſputed, in reckoning vp theſe things; and now you ſéeme ſo to handle the matter, as if I ſhould change my perſon, and of an oppoſer become an anſwerer: which fault I committed not at the beginning of the firſt diſputation, when I propounded thoſe ſolutions which were méet for your arguments, ſéeing I was to anſwer. And now are they reherſed of you out of time, which you ſhould not hauehave doone.
D. Martyr.
I hauehave not doone anie thing here amiſſe. For one to confirme his queſtions before he diſpute, and to fortifie them with ſure arguments, is the vſuall maner of all diſputers. And for ſo much as the time of oppoſing was but ſhort. I might not go through with the principall reaſons which I had. And for this cauſe, leaſt I ſhould ſéeme to affirme falſe and vnaduiſed matters, they were at the leaſt wiſe in this place to be explained. In verie truth I promiſed that I would at this time bring a confutation of your anſwers, which all men can teſtifie, which both now are, and then were preſent. And at that time I ſhewed good cauſe, whie I then omitted the handling thereof: euen to the intent we ſhould not looſe our labour, and that the hearers might not be forced to heare in a maner no other thing that daie; ſauing the arguments which were handled the daie before. Neither did it like me, that you would conſtreine me by that cunning, to diſpute with you, not after my mind, but according to your owne liking. For ſéeing it was then my turne to oppoſe, I thought good to kéepe my ſelfe frée, for the bringing in of thoſe arguments, which I had determined of, and not to handle thoſe which your ſelfe had propoſed. And yet neuertheleſſe, if you had then vrged me and egged me to hauehave procéeded therein, I would hauehave yéelded vntounto you: but ſince you ſpake not of it, I thought good by your conſent to deferre that matter vntill this daie. Neither muſt it be ſo gréeuous vntounto you, if I now requite you like for like: bicauſe it is more iuſt, that I ſhould defend mine owne matters, than it was requiſite that you ſhould vndertake to defend other mens.
D. Chadſe.
Howbeit I conſtreined you not to change your perſon, ſith you then obiected, and I anſwered. But what ſhall I now doo? Let there be giuen vsus an other daie to diſpute.
This did the Viſitors denie, that it might be doone, otherwiſe I had bin content.
D. Chadſe.
THen ſéeing the perſons muſt be changed, now if it ſhall be thought good, I will come thither, and you ſhall come hither, that I may anſwer vntounto theſe things, and that you may oppoſe.
D. Martyr.
I ſhall be content that you doo what you will. If an other daie may be granted I ſhall be glad; but if that maie not be, and that you will performe it now, it is all one to me, doo what you will.
The Viſitors once againe put it to his free choiſe, to doo what he would.
D. Chadſe.
SIth they hauehave ſo thought it good, let vsus procéed. That the bread and wine may be tranſubſtantiated into the bodie and bloud of Chriſt, thus I prooue. In the ſixt chapter of Iohn there is mention made of fiue kinds of bread. The firſt, whereby the multitude was refreſhed: wherevpon Chriſt ſaid; Yee ſeeke me, bicauſe ye did eate bread. Iohn. 6, 26.The ſecond bread is faith, whereof it is ſaid; verſe. 27.Labour for the meate which periſheth not, but which indureth. They ſaid, What ſhall we doo? And Chriſt anſwered; verſe. 29.This is the worke of God that ye beleeue. The third bread is Manna, wherof it is ſaid; verſe. 31.Your fathers did eate Manna in the wilderneſſe, and be dead. verſe. 35.The fourth bread is Chriſt, wherevpon he ſaith; I am the bread of life. The fift bread is not that which the Capernaits vnderſtood, that is to wit, a viſible bodie, but an inuiſible, that is the ſacramentall bread. For they ſtroue for this kind of bread. verſe. 51.And therefore Chriſt anſwereth, The bread which I will giuegive, is my fleſh, which I will giuegive for the life of the world. Which is no other bread than that, which was afterward giuen by Chriſt in his ſupper, when he ſaid; This is my bodie, nor yet anie other than hoong vponupon the croſſe. But if it be fleſh, then is it no bread.
D. Martyr.
That bread, The bread ſpoken of in the ſixt of Iohn, is metaphoricall.which is ſpoken of in the ſixt of Iohn, and which you now make an argument of, is truelie the fleſh and bloud of Chriſt, and is called bread by a metaphor, the which is verie apt and plaine. And the metaphor is this: that Euen as bread dooth naturallie nouriſh and ſuſtaine vsus; ſo the fleſh of Chriſt being eaten ſpirituallie and by faith, dooth ſuſtaine vsus both as touching the ſoule and bodie. And when you argue; In the ſupper, Chriſt gaue this fleſh, which metaphoricallie is called bread; Therfore muſt the naturall ſubſtance of bread be taken awaie: I denie the concluſion. For this ſacrament, beſides that ſpirituall eating of the fleſh of Chriſt, which metaphoricallie in the ſixt of Iohn he called bread, addeth ſignes, and an outward eating of the true bread, that the ſame ſpirituall eating might be holpen, and be the more effectuall. For what letteth, but that therein is promiſed the fleſh of Chriſt to be giuen for the life of the world; and yet that it was not ſimplie & nakedlie giuen afterward, but the ſignes of bread and wine ioined therewithall?
D. Chadſe.
That which was giuen in the ſupper, is the bread, which Chriſt promiſed in the ſixt chapter of Iohn; but yet that bread was his fleſh. And leaſt anie man ſhould doubt, what maner of bread it might be, he addeth; Which I will giuegive for the life of the world. It was no bread ſubſtantiallie: and no more was this ſubſtantiallie bread, which was giuen in the ſupper.
D. Martyr.
That which was giuen in the ſupper, was not onlie the bread, which is ſpoken of in the ſixt of Iohn, as you in the antecedent vnderſtand it; but it had alſo, as I hauehave ſaid, naturall bread ioined therewith for a ſigne: and that ſacramentall bread was the fleſh of Chriſt, to be giuen vntounto death for our ſaluation. And when you demand, how the bread, which was giuen, was fleſh: I anſwer; Not ſubſtantiallie, but (as they ſpeake) ſacramentallie, that is, by ſignification. And the ſenſe of Iohn is, that the fleſh of Chriſt to be giuen vponupon the croſſe for our ſaluation is bread; that is to ſaie, ſpirituall meate, whereby we are ſuſteined through faith: and that meate is offered vntounto vsus in the communion by the word of God, and by the ſignes. So as, if he in the ſixt of Iohn had ment a ſymbolicall or ſignifieng bread, ſith then he gaue it not: he would hauehave ſaid; The bread, which I will giuegive, ſhall be my fleſh: but he ſaith in the preſent tenſe; It is my fleſh: as if he ſhould ſaie; My fleſh is bread metaphoricallie; which fleſh of mine I will giuegive, euen vntounto the croſſe for the life of the world.
D. Chadſe.
Chriſt, in the ſixt of Iohn, ſaid; The bread, Iohn. 6, 51.which I will giuegive, is my fleſh: but in the ſupper he gaue that fleſh, which hoong vponupon the croſſe; and therefore by teſtimonie of the ſcriptures, he gaue his fleſh reallie in the ſupper. For that, which then he promiſed, he performed in the ſupper, in giuing his bodie, which he was to giuegive for the life of the world. So then we grant, that the ſignes were vſed in the ſupper; but the ſubſtance of thoſe ſignes we ſaie is the fleſh of Chriſt, by reaſon of the words alledged; The bread, which I will giuegive, is my fleſh. Wherevpon it is euident, that here is tranſubſtantiation.
D. Martyr.
That in the ſupper he gaue his verie bodie, I hauehave alwaies teſtified: but yet he ioined thervnto the ſignes of bread and wine, as I hauehave alreadie ſaid, and you now, as I hauehave heard, doo grant: but in your argument you fall into equiuocation, bicauſe you paſſe from metaphoricall bread, vntounto true and naturall bread. For wheras Chriſt ſaith; The bread, By bread in the ſixt of Iohn the Lord vnderſtood not a ſigne of the ſacrament, but his owne fleſh.which I will giuegive, &c. by bread, he meaneth not a ſigne; that is to wit, that he will giuegive naturall bread in the ſupper; but he expreſſeth a metaphoricall name attributed to his fleſh, bicauſe he ſhould be vntounto vsus in ſtéed of bread, or like bread, of whoſe propertie that we might be admoniſhed, and vnderſtand that the fleſh of Chriſt is bread allegoricallie, he would in the ſupper giuegive vsus naturall bread, ſaieng; This is my bodie: Matt. 26, 26.that is to ſaie; My bodie, which ſhall be giuen for you, if it be eaten of you ſpirituallie and by faith, it ſhall be in ſtéed of bread, or like bread, for the nouriſhing and ſuſteining of you.
D. Chadſe.
I ſpeake of bread after the ſelfe-ſame maner that it is ment in the Goſpell: that the fift kind may be diſtinguiſhed from the fourth, which is; I am the bread of life. Wherefore, the fift kind muſt be no allegoricall bread, but that whereof the Lord ſaid; The bread, which I will giuegive, is my fleſh. Other bread then ſhall it not be, but my fleſh, although vnderunder another forme, leaſt ye ſhould be confounded. And this he ſaid to confirme them before hand, leaſt the apoſtles ſhould contend among themſelues about the eating of the Lords bodie. Otherwiſe Chriſt ſhould hauehave promiſed that, which he did not performe: and therfore (ſaith he) I will giuegive: ſith as yet the time was not come. Neither is it for you to ſaie, that the bodie or fleſh of Chriſt ſhould be as it were bread: for the promiſe made by Chriſt is not after that maner, but it conteineth flatlie that that bread, which ſhuld be giuen, is fleſh. And euen this dooth Cyrill confirme, when he ſaith; And doubt not whether this be true, ſith he manifeſtlie ſaith; This is my bodie, &c: but receiue the words of ſaluation in faith, although thy ſenſe doo not teach it thée.
D. Martyr.
Your argument is verie long: which that I may ſatiſfie, I reduce it to two principall points; namelie, to the ſaieng of Chriſt in the ſixt of Iohn, and vntounto the ſentence of Cyrill. As touching the ſixt chapter of the euangeliſt, I denie not, but in that place is intreated of diuers kinds of bread: but that they be well diſtinguiſhed of you, that I grant not, neither doo I much care. But yet that Chriſt ſpake of eating of himſelfe, and promiſed that he would giuegive himſelfe to be eaten, I allow of it. For he ſaid that he would giuegive bread, which is his fleſh, that ſhould be giuen for the life of the world. You ſaie; What bread is this? Chriſt anſwereth; It is my fleſh. And he addeth; I will giuegive the ſame for the life of the world: and ſo being giuen, he is your bread, if you will receiue him by faith. Wherefore he ſaid, that he would giuegive his fleſh vponupon the croſſe, and to be eaten; and the ſame he metaphoricallie called bread. And after this maner he taught the Iewes, which were at controuerſie, the ſpirituall ſenſe. And that he might doo this the plainlier, he added; The words, which I ſpeake, are ſpirit and life: to the intent they might vnderſtand, that the eating ſhould not be carnall, but ſpirituall by faith: wherevnto afterward in the laſt ſupper, he ioined the ſacramentall ſignes, wherof he now made no mention. But in that he nameth bread, he meaneth his fleſh; the which, while we doo communicate, it is eaten of vsus ſpirituallie, which is the chéefeſt matter that ought to be had in receiuing of the ſacrament. Thy Iohn in deſcribing the ſupper maketh mention of the fleſh and bloud of Chriſt.And this, Iohn vnderſtanding, he in his Goſpell, where the ſacrament is inſtituted, when he deſcribeth the laſt ſupper, made no mention thereof, bicauſe he had in this place abundantlie enough ſpoken of the ſame. And therefore I grant, that he did that in the inſtitution of the ſacrament, which he had before ſpoken in the ſixt chapter. For he gaue his fleſh to be eaten, but yet with ſacramentall ſignes. And whereas you obiect, that Chriſt ſaid not, that his fleſh ſhould be like vntounto bread; that maketh no matter, bicauſe in ſuch kind of figures as theſe, the token of a ſimilitude is not alwaies expreſſed: for in the ſcriptures, Chriſt is called a lambe, and not in ſtéed of a lambe. And God is ſaid to be fire, and it is not added; that he is like fire. But whereas it is ſaid in the future tenſe; I will giuegive: it is therefore, bicauſe the fleſh, which we eate in the ſacrament, tended to that which ſuffered and was crucified. Which things as yet happened not, when Chriſt ſpake theſe words, but were to come; yet muſt they be alwaies before our eies when we communicate. And as concerning the ſentence of Cyrill, I anſwer; that I nothing doubt, but that the ſame bread, which is giuen vntounto vsus in the ſacrament, is the bodie of Chriſt; but yet after ſuch a maner as the ſcripture teacheth.
D. Chadſe.
In the ſupper he ſtood to his promiſes. Wherefore that, which he then gaue, was his fleſh, which ſhould be giuen for the life of the world: the verie ſame, I ſaie, which hoong vponupon the croſſe. And this, as I hauehave ſaid, dooth Cyrill teſtifie.
D. Martyr.
Chriſt ſtood to his promiſes, as you doo ſaie, and gaue his fleſh, which in Iohn is metaphoricallie called bread; but yet in giuing his bodie and his fleſh, which ſhould be deliuered vponupon the croſſe, he gaue therewithall true and naturall bread: and no other thing did Cyrill meane.
D. Chadſe.
So then you will grant this at the leaſt-wiſe, that it was his verie bodie, and his verie fleſh, which he gaue in the ſupper, but yet togither with bread.
D. Martyr.
It was his verie bodie and his verie fleſh, but yet it was giuen by ſignification.
D. Chadſe.
He gaue his fleſh, which hoong vponupon the croſſe, and that bodie which was crucified; but it hoong not ſpirituallie vponupon the croſſe, neither was naturall bread crucified: wherefore that bread in the ſixt of Iohn is not vnderſtood metaphoricallie, but muſt be vnderſtood to be the reall fleſh of Chriſt.
D. Martyr.
You huddle vp manie things, which I muſt vnfold, that I may denie the falſe, and grant thoſe that be true. I hauehave alreadie ſaid, and now I ſaie againe, that you vſe an equiuocation; ſéeing for a metaphoricall bread, you alwaies oppoſe vntounto me the bread giuen by Chriſt in the laſt ſupper, the which was true and naturall bread, and a ſigne of this allegoricall bread, that is, of the fleſh of Chriſt. Howbeit, It is ſhewed what maner of promiſe it was that Chriſt made in the ſixt of Iohn.I neuer granted you, nor yet will grant, that Chriſt in Iohn promiſed a ſignifieng bread, but ſuch a bread, as being taken metaphoricallie, is euen all one with fleſh. And in the laſt ſupper he gaue this allegoricall bread; that is, his fleſh to be eaten ſpirituallie. And he not onelie ſtood to his promiſes, but he gaue more than he promiſed, by adding of the ſignes. And that, which you would prooue in your argument; to wit, that the bodie of Chriſt hoong not vponupon the croſſe ſpirituallie, and that naturall bread was not crucified, or giuen for vsus, is of no importance. Inſomuch as the words of Chriſt doo ſufficientlie beare record, that the bodie of Chriſt is otherwiſe eaten of vsus, and was otherwiſe crucified; bicauſe the Lord would hauehave this to be a ſpirituall eating, ſéeing that he called the Capernaits from a carnall eating. Verelie to hang vponupon the croſſe, and to die, were naturall actions. Wherfore you offend in the argument, by going from the ſubſtance to the qualitie, and from the thing it ſelfe to the maner. So as we grant, that the bodie of Chriſt is eaten of the communicants, but yet not after the ſame maner that it hoong vponupon the croſſe. And I maruell that you obiect this, who would not grant, that Chriſt was ſo crucified, as you appoint him to be couered vnderunder your formes.
D. Chadſe.
The Lord promiſed, that he would giuegive the bread, which was his fleſh, that ſhould be giuen for the life of the world. But this bread, as Maſter Doctor granteth, he gaue not but in the ſupper; Therfore in the ſupper he gaue the verie fleſh, which ſhould be giuen for the life of the world. And this propoſition; The bread is the bodie of Chriſt, is vnpoſſible; vnleſſe we vnderſtand it by a figure and ſignification, therefore it behooued that there ſhould be tranſubſtantiation, for this purpoſe, that he ſhould giuegive his true bodie.
D. Martyr.
That the Lord gaue in the ſupper that which he promiſed, I granted: but that the Lord did not the ſame elſe-where than in the ſupper, I granted not. For how often ſoeuer, as we beléeue that Chriſt is fullie crucified for vsus, we eate his fleſh, which metaphoricallie is called bread. But I confeſſe that he did this moſt eſpeciallie in the ſupper: neither muſt you vnderſtand me to hauehave ſaid, that it is there onelie doone. But what maner of argument is this: Chriſt gaue his fleſh to thoſe that ſ…pped with him, and in Iohn, that fleſh is called bread metaphoricallie, bicauſe vntounto vsus it is in ſtead of bread; and Therefore he gaue not alſo true and naturall bread? Theſe things are not repugnant in themſelues, naie rather they doo verie well agrée, This propoſition the bread is the bodie of Chriſt is not vnpoſſible.and both of them togither are verie true. Neither is this propoſition, The bread is the bodie of Chriſt vnpoſſible; bicauſe it is ment, by ſignification. And Auguſtine teſtifieth that ſacraments hauehave their names of things which they ſignifie; & that bodie which is offered vntounto vsus by ſignification, is a true and no feigned bodie.
D. Chadſe.
That which he promiſed and gaue in the ſupper, was the verie true fleſh of Chriſt: therefore he gaue true fleſh and not bread; and the fleſh giuen for the life of the world was not ſpirituallie true fleſh, but true fleſh carnallie, and by no meanes naturall bread; wherefore tranſubſtantiation is prooued.
D. Martyr.
He gaue his verie fleſh euen as he promiſed, but yet to be eaten ſpirituallie, and therewithall alſo he gaue a ſacramentall ſigne. How often ſhall I tell it you? He gaue them both. What maner of concluſion is this? He gaue this; Therefore with this, he alſo gaue not that? Likewiſe I doo not ſaie, that the fleſh of Chriſt is fleſh ſpirituallie, but verie fleſh, but this word (Spirituallie) I doo applie vntounto our eating, and vntounto the maner of our receiuing.
D. Chadſe.
This then you grant, that Chriſt gaue his true fleſh in the ſupper.
D. Martyr.
He gaue his verie fleſh to be receiued by faith, and to be eaten ſpirituallie, but togither with the ſame, he alſo gaue the ſignes.
Heere the Kings Maieſties Commiſſioners ſaid that the ſolution of the argument, which I gaue, was ſufficientlie vnderſtood; and therefore willed him to proceed further.
D. Chadſe.
WIll you giuegive credit to one or two witneſſes of my opinion.
D. Martyr.
Such they may be as credit is not to be giuen them? Whie vſe you this preface? Name them, if they be woorthie of credit, I will beléeue them.
D. Chadſe.
Ambroſe prooueth tranſubſtantiation, in his booke De ijs qui initiantur myſterijs, chapter the ninth and laſt, where in the firſt part of the chapter he ſaith; that, It is not bread which nature hath formed, but which bleſſing hath conſecrated. And héere you cannot anſwer, that the change is made as touching the ſight: bicauſe he addeth afterward that the nature is changed. And he teacheth it by an example: for the rod which Moſes held, was a nature turned into a ſerpent, and not in ſight onlie. Theſe be his words; We will prooue that this is not it which nature hath framed, but which bleſſing hath conſecrated; and that there is a greater force of bleſſing than there is of nature, bicauſe through bleſſing, euen nature it ſelfe is changed. Moſes held the rod, he caſt downe the ſame, and it became a ſerpent. Againe, he tooke the ſerpent by the taile, and it returned into the nature of a rod. Wherefore you ſée that by a grace propheticall the nature was twiſe changed, both of the ſerpent and of the rod. The riuers of Aegypt ranne with pure ſtreames of waters; and ſuddenlie out of the veines of the founteine bloud began to breake foorth. There was no drinke in the riuers: againe at the praiers of the prophet, the bloud of the riuers ceaſed. Héere you ſée that Ambroſe teſtified the change of the nature, that is, a tranſubſtantiation.
D. Martyr.
Verie well; I acknowledge Ambroſe words, but procéed on further.
D. Chadſe.
The people of the Hebrues were cloſed in round on all parts; on the one ſide being compaſſed in with the Aegyptians; on the other ſide ſhut vp with the ſea. Moſes held vp his rod, he diuided the waters, and congealed them in maner of a wall; and betwéene the waters there appéered a foot-waie. Iordan turning backward againſt his owne nature, returneth into the originall of his owne founteine. Is it not manifeſt that the nature of the ſea waters or courſe of the riuer was changed? The people of Iſrael in the fathers time were athirſt, Moſes toucht the rocke, & water flowed out therof. But hath not grace wrought beyond nature, that the rocke ſhould guſh out water, which by nature it had not? Marah was a moſt bitter riuer, Exo. 15. ver. 25.in ſuch ſort, that the people being drie, could not drinke of it. Moſes threw a trée into the water, and nature laid awaie the bitterneſſe of hir waters, the which was ſuddenlie ſwéetened by grace. 4 King. 6, 5.VnderUnder Elizaeus the prophet, the iron of a hatchet fell from one of the ſonnes of the prophets, and was drowned in the water. He that loſt the iron, intreated Elizaeus; Elizaeus threw a péece of wood into the water, and the iron ſwam. And euen this alſo we know was doone againſt nature: for heauier is the matter of iron, than the liquor of water. Wherefore we perceiue, that grace is of greater vertue than nature is: and we account that there is yet ſtill remaining a grace of propheticall benediction. And if a mans bleſſing were of ſo great ſtrength, that it was of force to change nature; what ſaie we of the diuine conſecration it ſelfe, where the verie words of the Lord our ſauiour doo worke? For this ſacrament, which thou receiueſt, is made by the words of Chriſt. But if Elias words could ſo greatlie preuaile, as that it brought downe fire from heauen; ſhall not Chriſts ſpéech be of force to change the kinds of the elements? You hauehave read concerning his works of the whole world; Pſal. 32, 9.For he ſpake, and they were made; hee commanded, and they were created. So then, the word of Chriſt, which of nothing could make that which was not; can it not change thoſe things which be, into that which they were not? For it is no leſſe matter to giuegive new natures vntounto things, than it is to change natures. Hereby alſo it appeareth, that Ambroſe ment that the natures be changed.
D. Martyr.
Procéed in your reading, the which if you will not, Bicauſe Chriſts fleſh eueryevery fleſh, therefore it is a verie ſacrament of his fleſh.I my ſelfe will. The verie fleſh of Chriſt vndoubtedly was that which was crucified, which was buried; and therefore the ſacrament of his verie fleſh. Euen the Lord himſelfe pronounced, This is my bodie. Before the bleſſing of the heauenlie words, an other kind is named; after conſecration, the bodie of Chriſt is ſignified. He himſelfe ſaith, it is his bloud; before cōſecration it is called another thing, after cōſecration it is called blood, & thou ſaiſt; Amen.
D. Chadſe.
I will read it out to the end, if you will.
D. Martyr.
At the end thus it is written; Neither can we ſaie how we be regenerated. What? Are we entred againe into our mothers wombe, and be we borne anew? I doo not acknowledge the ordinarie courſe of nature, but here there is no order of nature, where there is an excellencie of grace. Finallie, the vſe of nature dooth not alwaies make regeneration. And thus far Ambroſe. Now doo you ſée, that we deſpiſe not Ambroſe. Albeit I know there be learned men, Some hauehave ſuſpected Ambroſe bookes De ſacramentis, to be none of Ambroſe works.which hauehave in ſuſpicion theſe Commentaries De ſacramentis, and thinke them to be none of Ambroſe works; which opinion neuertheleſſe I paſſe not of, but willinglie accept them. And I am not ignorant, that the biſhop of Rocheſter, to ſhew, that theſe were verie Ambroſe bookes, cited the teſtimonie of Auguſtine, in the preface to his booke De doctrina Chriſtiana: bicauſe he ſaith there, that Ambroſe wrot a booke De ſacramentis: howbeit, if a man read ouer the place that is cited, he ſhall find no ſuch matter.
D. Chadſe.
It is to be found in Auguſtine, in the ſecond booke of retractations, when he maketh mention of the bookes De doctrina Chriſtiana, where he ſaith; that Ambroſe wrote a booke either of ſacraments, or of propheſie. And that chapter is woont to be prefixed in place of the preface, to his bookes De doctrina Chriſtiana. Howbeit, I take not now vponupon me to defend the biſhop of Rocheſter.
D. Martyr.
I remember alſo beſides this, Auguſtine againſt Iulianus ſaith; Augu. contra. Iulianum.that Ambroſe wrote a booke De ſacramento vel De philoſophia. Albeit, that by thoſe things which be there ſpoken, it dooth not appeare, that he ſpake of thoſe bookes which we now examined. Yet (as I hauehave alreadie ſaid) we will not here contend, for I admit that they be Ambroſe bookes: and I anſwer, that he ment to prooue nothing elſe, but the change of bread, which we call a ſacramentall change, and ment not that the nature of bread ſhould be taken awaie therin. And that this was his opinion, it appeareth plainlie enough out of his fourth booke De ſacramentis, the fourth chapter, where he writeth; If then there were ſo great a power in the word of the Lord Ieſu, that the things ſhould begin to be, which were not: of how much more operation ſhould his word be, that they ſhould remaine the ſame things that they were, & yet be changed into an other thing? Here dooth he plainlie ſet downe two things: firſt, that the ſignes [of bread and wine doo remaine that which they were before; which muſt not be vnderſtood concerning accidents, as you would hauehave it,] but as touching the ſubſtance: for that dooth the relatiue [Which] betoken vntounto vsus. The ſecond matter is, that they be changed into an other thing: bicauſe of common bread it is made a ſacrament. And this is no vulgar change, but is ſuch as goeth beyond nature. And as to that which he ſaid at the beinning of the chapter; I anſwer, that it maketh not againſt me, ſéeing I doo grant ſuch a change to be of the natures, as they receiue other conditions, and aſcend vntounto a new degrée: for they become ſacraments, and ſo were they not before. As for the examples which be here put of Ambroſe, I anſwer that they be manifold, and therefore I reduce them vntounto two kinds. For he reckoneth vp ſome, where the former nature is vtterlie caſt awaie; as it happened in Moſes rod, when it was turned into a ſerpent; and in the waters of Aegypt, when they were changed into bloud. And other things there be, The example of Ambroſe we reduced to two cheefe parts.wherein the firſt ſubſtance remaining, there is made onelie an accidentall change. In which kind are the diuiſion of the red ſea, the going backe of the riuer of Iordan, the healing of the waters of Marah; the rocke yéelding water, and the iron ſwimming. So by ſuch kind of ſimilitudes may this ſacramentall change be prooued. Séeing if you vnderſtand thoſe things, wherein the nature which was before, was vtterlie taken awaie, you ſhall hauehave an argument a Maiori. And when you affirme that God made ſo great a change, as he vtterlie tooke awaie the natures and ſubſtances which were before, and brought in others: whie ſhall it be doubted, that he is able of common bread and wine to make a moſt effectuall ſacrament? But by other ſimilitudes, wherein the firſt ſubſtance is kept, and new qualities and conditions brought in, otherwiſe than nature by vſuall cuſtome permitteth, euen this ſacramentall change is prooued, by things doone of equall greatneſſe, and like power. For it is not to be doubted, but that God, who hath beyond nature printed ſo maruellous affects and qualities in the things which we hauehave rehearſed, he can giuegive a ſacramentall power, the natures of bread and wine remaining. And the words, which he hath in this chapter, muſt not be lightlie paſſed ouer, when he ſaith; Verie fleſh, without doubt, was that of Chriſt, which was crucified and was buried, and therefore a ſacrament of his verie fleſh; for it thereby appeareth, that he prooued that Chriſt had verie fleſh, and a verie bodie: the which alſo we grant, againſt Martion and Eutyches. Afterward he added, that this is the verie ſacrament of his fleſh; the which is verie agréeable to our opinion: ſéeing we ſaie, that the ſame is here both effectuallie and trulie ſignified, and that it is trulie, but yet ſpirituallie receiued of vsus by the communion. Neither muſt thoſe words be paſſed ouer, which he writeth a little after: Before the bleſſing of the heauenlie words, an other kind is named; after conſecration, the bodie of Chriſt is ſignified. When I doo ſaie, that in the ſacrament, the bodie of Chriſt is ſignified; I may ſéeme vntounto you to ſpeake both ſtrange and abſurd things: and yet notwithſtanding ye heare the ſame euerie where ſpoken of the fathers. Now then, when you demand what maner of change this is, whereof Ambroſe, or what elſe he was that ſo largelie writeth, dooth ſpeake; I anſwer, that ſuch a change it is, wherby the bread and wine are tranſlated from their naturall order, and prophane degrée wherin they were, to a ſacramentall ſtate and order, as well by the worke of the holie Ghoſt, as by the inſtitution of the Lord. Neither is this a hard kind of ſpéech, to ſaie; that the nature is changed, when it atteineth vntounto other conditions, ſéeing it ſuſteineth & abideth ſuch a change. You vrged that which he wrote at the begining, to wit; that this is not it which nature framed, but which bleſſing hath conſecrated: as if theſe words were altogither repugnant vntounto our opinion; which is not ſo: ſéeing Ambroſe ſpeaketh of the ſacrament, and ſpeaketh thereof formallie if I may ſo ſaie. And which of vsus doubteth, Not nature but the power of God, is it that frameth the ſacrament.that the condition of a ſacrament commeth not from nature it ſelfe, but is cauſed by conſecration? And this ment he to expreſſe, that holie bread hath it not from nature, that it is a ſacrament, but hath gotten that by conſecration.
D. Chadſe.
But yet theſe things hauehave I ſpeciallie noted in Ambroſe. Firſt I would hauehave you to tell me this one thing; How doo you aſſure me that I receiue the bodie of Chriſt? And that remaineth yet for vsus to prooue. Further let vsus prooue, that it is not the ſame which nature framed, but which bleſſing conſecrated; and that there is a greater power of bleſſing, than there is of nature, ſith by bleſſing, nature it ſelfe is changed. Moreouer, leaſt you ſhould ſaie, that the change is ſacramentall, to the intent that the bread may be made a ſigne; the examples which followe doo teach, that the ſubſtance is changed into an other nature: and therefore Ambroſe ſaith, that the nature is changed; but you denie it.
D. Martyr.
I denie not, but I affirme with Ambroſe, that ſacramentallie it is changed and I ſaie alſo with him, that a ſacrament is not that which it ſéemeth to be, if we ſpeake of that which is the chéefe part thereof: for that which is ſignified, as it is not ſéene, ſo is it moſt ſpeciallie ſought for of the faithfull, neither is it by nature either framed or faſtned in this ſacrament; but by bleſſing it is annexed to the ſame. Neither will he hauehave the change here to be ſuch, as ſhall caſt awaie the former nature: and this hath béene alreadie declared ſufficientlie by the examples of him alledged.
D. Chadſe.
Ambroſe ſaith; that This is not that, which nature framed, but with bleſſing conſecrated.
D. Martyr.
This did I expound before. For a ſacrament is a heauenlie thing, which nature hath not framed, but by conſecration it commeth to the bread: yet not ſo, as it ſhould caſt awaie his owne ſubſtance. And this ſhould not ſéeme to be otherwiſe than Ambroſe ment, who, as I hauehave cited him, in his fourth booke, and fourth chapter De ſacramentis, ſaith; Of how much more operation is the words of Chriſt, that theſe things ſhuld be that they were? This ſpéech ſufficientlie ſheweth, that he iudgeth not, that the nature of the ſignes muſt be caſt awaie.
D. Chadſe.
If they be as they were; then be they no ſacraments, bicauſe firſt they were no ſacraments. Beſide, the ſaid Ambroſe in his booke, which I alledged, De ijs, qui initiantur myſterijs, affirmeth; that the kinds of the elements are changed: for he writeth; If Elias words were of ſo great force, as they could fetch downe fire from heauen; ſhall not the ſaieng of Chriſt be of as great force to change the kinds of the elements?
D. Martyr.
To that, which you firſt obiect; If they be as they were, then be they no ſacraments. I denie the conſequence; ſith both the one and the other may verie well be. For Ambroſe addeth; And are changed into another thing: to the intent you may ſée, that the nature of bread remaineth, and is changed into a ſacrament. And whereas you vrge the matter, that he writeth, that the kinds of the elements are changed; A diſtinction of Species or kinds.I diſtinguiſh, that if by the kinds, you vnderſtand the accidents; that is to wit, the forme, figure, taſte, and colour of the bread and wine, it is not changed; as the ſenſe dooth teſtifie. But if by the kinds you meane the natures and ſubſtances of the ſignes, to them I grant there happeneth (as I hauehave often ſaid) a ſpirituall and heauenlie change. For while this holie rite is in executing, there is brought into the ſignes, thorough the inſtitution and words of the Lord a ſacramentall reſpect. And that ſame reſpect of ſignifieng as well the myſticall bodie, as the bodie it ſelfe of Chriſt is grounded, not in the accidents of bread and wine, but euen in the natures of them, through the comming of the holie Ghoſt, which vſeth them as inſtruments.
D. Chadſe.
Is the bread changed as concerning the ſubſtance, or as concerning the accidents?
D. Martyr.
Change according to nature two maner of waies.Bicauſe here falleth out an ambiguitie and equiuocation, I will vſe a diſtinction: If you vnderſtand change according to the ſubſtance, ſo as the ſubſtance it ſelfe ſhuld either periſh, or be conuerted into another ſubſtance, I agrée not vntounto ſuch a change: but if you meane the ſubſtance to be ſo changed, as it ſhould receiue another qualitie and condition than it had before; I grant that the ſame is changed.
D. Chadſe.
You ſpeake of an accidentall change, which is made according to a new decrée and condition; which is to be changed into a ſacrament, and accidentallie: but Ambroſe ſpeaketh of a change of the element and nature. And therefore I demand of you: what is that that is changed after conſecration?
D. Martyr.
I doo not diſſent from Ambroſe, but with him I affirme, What that is, which is changed in the ſacrament.that there is here made a change of the element and nature, after ſuch a maner as hath béene now declared. And when you demand, what it is that is changed after conſecration: I anſwer, that the change, wherof we now ſpeake, is all one in thoſe things which now by conſecration ſuſteine another qualitie, and hauehave obteined a greater dignitie; to wit, a ſacramentall ſtate, the which before they had not. And albeit you indeuour to extenuate ſuch a change, yet is it not ſmall, or to be contemned; ſéeing both the power and worke of the holie Ghoſt commeth therevnto.
D. Chadſe.
You as yet anſwer me of an accidentall change; but what change is here in the element?
D. Martyr.
A great change vndoubtedlie, whereby the element is made a ſacrament, in ſuch ſort, as that element by this change, is now called another thing than it was before. And leaſt you ſhould doubt, what I meane by elements; I ſaie, that by them nothing elſe is ſignified, than the ſignes or tokens: euen as the ceremonies and ſacrifices of the old fathers are by Paule called elements. And the ſubſtance of theſe elements; that is to ſaie, of the ſignes, is that, which abideth and ſuſteineth this change that is brought in by conſecration: and the verie ſame hauehave I oftentimes confeſſed both in anſwering and in expounding. When I of blacke am made white, there is no néed that my ſubſtance or nature ſhould ceaſe: and ſo iudge you of the bread, when it is made a ſacrament.
D. Chadſe.
The condition, which commeth therevnto, dooth not change the nature, and yet Ambroſe ſaith that it is changed. And the ſame father, in his fourth booke De ſacramentis, the fourth chapter; Therefore who is the authour of the ſacraments, but the Lord Ieſus; from heauen did theſe ſacraments come; for all counſell is from heauen. And in verie déed it is a great & diuine miracle, that God rained downe Manna from heauen for the people; and the people laboured not, and yet did eate. Thou perhaps wilt ſaie, that my bread is vſuall bread. Howbeit, this bread is bread before the words of the ſacrament; but when conſecration commeth, it is made of bread, the fleſh of Chriſt. Wherefore let vsus laie this foundation; Note that bread is the bodie of Chriſt, which theſe men denie.How can it be, that that which is bread ſhould, by conſecration, be the bodie of Chriſt? And againe; Wherefore that I may anſwer you, it was not the bodie of Chriſt before conſecration; but I ſaie vntounto you, that it is now the bodie of Chriſt; Pſal. 33, 9.Hee ſpake the word, and it was made; hee commanded, and it was created.
D. Martyr.
Adde withall, that which is ſaid betwéene; How much greater worke is it that they be as they were, and yet be changed into an other thing.
D. Chadſe.
Theſe words make nothing againſt me. Let them be as they were, that is, let them appeare as they were: for they reteine the ſelfe-ſame forme, figure, and properties. Alſo Ambroſe meaning is thus expounded; If GOD could make all things of nothing, how much more could he make one thing of another? If of that which is not extant, he could make anie thing, much more could he doo it of that which is. And therefore he ſaith, that they may be as they were; bicauſe they were firſt Beings, and they were extant, and not bicauſe they continue afterward the ſelfe-ſame according to ſubſtance, but that they may be what they were in reſpect of their Being, and be changed into an other thing, in reſpect of their ſubſtance. Bréeflie he meaneth, that of one nature is made an other; and that is, to be changed into an other thing. And therefore by thoſe words which be at the end of the chapter (to wit; Therefore haſt thou learned, that of bread is made the bodie of Chriſt; and that the wine and water is powred into the cup, but by conſecration of the heauenlie word it is made bloud) there appeareth to be a tranſubſtantiation, and that of bread is made the bodie of Chriſt; and of wine, bloud.
D. Martyr.
Firſt will I anſwer to thoſe things which you your ſelfe cite out of this chapter: then will I adde that which is omitted by you, and which confirme my opinion. Firſt I grant, that the Lord is the authour of the ſacraments: ſecondlie I agrée, that bread before the words of the ſacrament is vſuall bread, but that when conſecration commeth, it is the bodie of Chriſt, to wit, ſacramentallie. Thus much neither doo I denie, nor euer hauehave I denied. But yet conſider you again with me, that he addeth; Let vsus therefore laie this foundation. How can that which is bread be made by conſecration, the bodie of Chriſt? The outward ſigne, is named both bread and the body of Chriſt.Where you ſée that he pronounceth two things of the ſigne; that both it is bread and the bodie of Chriſt withall. And he ſaith; that We muſt earneſtlie indeuour to hauehave this to be plainlie declared: and he ſaith, that this is doone by conſecration. But who douteth that conſecration is a ſacramentall thing? Whereby it appeareth, that the ſigne as touching nature remaineth bread, and yet by conſecration it is ſacramentallie the bodie of Chriſt? And Ambroſe interpreteth himſelfe, when he ſaith; that They be thoſe things that they were: which words you thus expound and interpret; that they be, that is, That they ſéeme to be. Whereas notwithſtanding Ambroſe hath [They be,] which word reſpecteth not an appearance of a thing, but the verie truth of the thing. And who ſéeth not, that when it ſerueth your owne turne, figures doo excéedinglie pleaſe you: ſo as, when ye thinke good, ye vſe them, though they be neuer ſo far fetcht? Before, in the Euangeliſt, you would hauehave the particle, Quod [which] to ſignifie a ſubſtance; in Auguſtine, a qualitie: and héere in Ambroſe you interpret [They be] that is, they ſéeme to be. And therefore Ambroſe, when hée ſaid; that Thoſe things doo remaine, he added; that They be changed into an other thing: that is to ſaie; They be made ſacraments. Which words doo teſtifie, that I hauehave declared the verie true meaning of this father. But how ſophiſticall that other interpretation is, wherein you ſaie; They be what they were, that is; They firſt were, & had beings. As though Ambroſe ſhould ſaie; They be as they were, as touching their being, but they be changed into an other thing as touching their nature: all men vnderſtand and perceiue, that this ſenſe is moſt ſtrange. Which that it may the better appeare, I thinke it not amiſſe to recite againe the words of Ambroſe; How much more effectuall is the word of Chriſt, that they be the ſame they were, and are changed into an other thing? There was no heauen, no ſea, no earth: but heare him that ſpeketh; He ſpake the word, and they were made; Pſal. 33, 9.hee commanded, and they were created. Therefore to anſwer you; It was not the bodie of Chriſt before conſecration, but after conſecration it is the bodie of Chriſt; He ſpake and it was made, He commanded, and it was created. Thou thy ſelfe waſt, but yet thou waſt an old creature; after that thou art conſecrated, &c. thou beganneſt to be a new creature. A ſimilitude of our change.Now doo you heare by ſimilitude he declareth the bread to be changed in nature, euen by that, whereby the condition is not caſt awaie, but changed. For in theſe words, he brought foorth two maner of reaſons to prooue a ſacramentall change. The firſt was drawne from the commandement of the Lord, bicauſe he ſpake it; the other is from the change which is doone in vsus, when we be regenerated: but therein we admit not our owne nature to be a dooer. And therefore muſt it not be ſaid of bread that it leaueth his ſubſtance. Otherwiſe an argument from the leſſer to the greater affirmatiuelie dooth not hold; to wit, that by the leſſer change we ſhould prooue the greater. And therfore when Ambroſe compareth theſe two togither, he will hauehave them equall. But procéed we vntounto thoſe words which are written in the end, where you read; For euen as thou haſt receiued the ſimilitude of his death, ſo likewiſe dooſt thou drink the ſimilitude of his pretious bloud. What could more plainelie be ſaid in theſe words, to ſhew a condition or qualitie ſacramentall, the which ſtandeth in a ſimilitude & ſignification?
D. Chadſe.
Ambroſe, when he had ſaid; that This is not it which nature hath framed, but which bleſſing hath conſecrated, immediatelie, to the intent he might ſhew what maner of change it was; he added the examples of the rod, and of the water changed into bloud, wherein the former nature is caſt awaie; and the examples which doo onelie ſhew a change of the qualities and properties, he placed further off. Why then ſhall we rather refer the change of the bread and wine, vntounto the change of the propertie and condition, ſéeing the other kind of change is put in the firſt place? And eſpeciallie ſince Ambroſe addeth, that the words of Chriſt are a working kind of ſpeach, and he ſaith; that We are become another thing. And that which you bring as touching the change of vsus, ſith we be made a new creature, I ſaie; that Therein is néed of grace, and it is a ſpirituall change. But in this place Ambroſe ſpeaketh of the change of the element. Read the ſame father in the fift chapter of the ſame booke, and in the firſt chapter of his ſixt booke De ſacramentis.
D. Martyr.
Why Ambroſe putteth in the firſt place, the change wherein the ſubſtance is caſt awaie, the reaſon may be eaſilie ſhewed; bicauſe that change is greater than the other, and therefore is firſt placed. Againe, where he argueth two maner of waies: partlie from an effect that is greater, and partlie from the like, or that which is equall; he beginneth his argument, as méet it is, from a thing that is greater. And that the ſecond kind of change ſerueth to the purpoſe, héereby it appéereth, ſéeing in the 4. booke of ſacraments, where he minded to prooue the ſame matter, but more bréeflie, he reciteth onelie thoſe examples, which doo ſhew a change of the properties, and ſpeaketh not of the firſt kind, wherein nature is doone awaie. That the words of Chriſt are effectuall to worke, I willinglie grant, for thereby the ſignes, whoſe nature remaineth, are made another thing; that is to wit, ſacraments. And whereas you ſaie, that our change is made by grace, and is ſpirituall, I grant it: but that Ambroſe ſpeaketh not of that change, I denie it. Neither is it anie let, A plaine declaration of Amboſes words.that he calleth the ſame a change of the elements, as I hauehave declared before. Forſomuch as the element is that part of the ſacrament which is perceiued; and the ſame is trulie ſaid to be changed, bicauſe it hath and executeth another office than before. And that which you infer of the fift chapter of the firſt booke, and of the firſt chapter of the ſixt booke, if you will obiect, we will anſwer. Now is it ſhewed ſufficientlie, that there is nothing, of the which you hauehave cited, dooth make againſt vsus, but that all things ſerue for our part.
D. Chadſe.
I deſire you that you will read theſe chapters at home by your ſelues, and yée ſhall ſée that they cannot be otherwiſe vnderſtood than of tranſubſtantiation.
Heere the Commiſſioners commanded that we should proceed to the ſecond queſtion.
The ſecond queſtion.
D. Chadſe.
THat the true & reall bodie of Chriſt is in the Euchariſt, thus I prooue. Chryſoſtome in his 17. homilie vponupon the Hebrues; Doo we not offer euerie daie? Yes indéed we offer: howbeit we doo the ſame in remembrance of his death; and the ſacrifice is one, not manie. How is it one, and not manie? And bicauſe that ſacrifice was once offered, it was offered in the moſt holie place of all: but this ſacrifice is an example of that. Euen this doo we offer alwaies; and not now one lambe, and to morrowe another; but alwaies the ſelfe-ſame: and therefore this ſacrifice is one; otherwiſe by this reaſon there be manie Chriſts, bicauſe it is offered in manie places. God forbid! But one Chriſt is euerie where, both being héere full, and there full one bodie, &c. Out of theſe words thus I diſpute; Our oblation is all one with that which Chriſt offered, but Chriſt offered his true and reall bodie; therefore we doo offer the ſame.
D. Martyr.
That we hauehave the ſelfe-ſame bodie in the ſupper of the Lord, which Chriſt offered vponupon the croſſe, as touching the ſubſtance and truth of nature, I grant; but yet not after the ſelfe-ſame maner, bicauſe we receiue it ſpirituallie, that is, by faith. But this bodie, in a ſubſtantiall and corporall preſence did hang vponupon the croſſe. And theſe two things which I affirme, you may gather out of Chryſoſtome. He ſaith; It is all one which we offer; to wit, as touching the matter, and bodie of Chriſt. Howbeit, he addeth alwaies, Remembrance, Example, and Commemoration, the which words doo ſhew a diuerſe maner. And this opinion of mine will I euidentlie ſhew out of the words of Barnard, in his 33. ſermon vponupon the canticles: But in how great an abundance ſoeuer theſe things doo war fat, not with the like pleſantneſſe is receiued the barke of the ſacrament, and the fatneſſe of the wheate; faith and the kind, memorie and preſence, eternitie and time the face, and the glaſſe, &c. Where you ſée that he putteth an Antitheſis betwéene memorie and preſence. And therefore we confeſſe with Chryſoſtome, that we hauehave the verie ſame bodie that was offered vponupon the croſſe. Howbeit, bicauſe he alwaies interlaceth memorie and mindfulneſſe, he ſheweth that it is no waie of receiuing the ſame by a bodilie preſence, but by the preſence of faith, which can make things that be abſent, ſpirituallie preſent: as Paule to the Galathians ſaith; Gal. 3, 1.that Chriſt was crucified in them. Iohn. 1, 56. Eph. 1, 20.Againe; that Abraham ſawe the daie of the Lord, and was glad. And God made vsus now to ſit at the right hand, in heauenlie places. How was this? By a carnall preſence? No, but by faith, which excludeth not the truth of the thing. And bréefelie as touching the argument, we hauehave euen the verie ſame, but not after the ſelfe-ſame maner; that is to wit, in the ſame kind of preſence. Faith excludeth not the truth of the thing.And ſo it followeth not: Chriſt reallie and corporallie gaue himſelfe vponupon the croſſe, and Therefore we hauehave him after the ſelfe-ſame maner in the communion.
D. Chadſe.
We offer ſaith Chryſoſtome euen the ſelfe-ſame that he offered, although he be there after an other maner and after an other forme: and as this man teſtifieth, we offer not now one lambe, or an other lambe to morrowe, but euermore one and the ſelfe-ſame. Otherwiſe it is confeſſed, that Chriſt offered himſelfe for a price, and we for a myſterie and remembrance.
D. Martyr.
They which communicate the ſelfe-ſame Chriſt, and full whole, that is, neither of his natures cut off, or diminiſhed, doo receiue him by faith. For faith dooth neither hurt him, nor defile him, nor yet diminiſh him. Naie rather, it dooth ſuffer him to be as he is, and to remaine in his owne place; and yet dooth it ſpirituallie imbrace euen himſelfe full and whole.
D. Chadſe.
Is there in the ſacrament the bodie of Chriſt or no?
D. Martyr.
I denie not but that in the ſacrament is the verie bodie of Chriſt ſacramentallie; that is to ſaie, by an effectuall ſignification: and I aſſuredlie affirme, that he is trulie giuen vsus, and receiued of vsus, but yet with the mind and with faith; that is, ſpirituallie or ſacramentallie, to wit, that he is verelie preſent to our faith. The difference betwéene vsus, is as touching the maner of the preſence. Ye doo imagine and feigne to your ſelues a certeine hiding of Chriſt in the bread, or in the formes of bread, the which I denie. That he is preſent after ſuch a maner as I hauehave declared, I grant; and I hauehave prooued, after what ſort he may be granted to be in the ſacrament.
D. Chadſe.
It is euen the ſelfe-ſame ſaith Chryſoſtome.
D. Martyr.
He affirmeth it to be the ſelfe-ſame, but yet he addeth; In remembrance and recordation; the which words belong to the mind and to faith, not vntounto bodilie preſence.
D. Chadſe.
Is it a true and carnall bodie, which is in the ſacrament, or is it a ſpirituall bodie?
D. Martyr.
I hauehave alreadie granted it to be a true bodie, but yet (that I may ſo ſpeake) not by a reall preſence. It is the ſelfe-ſame bodie, as I hauehave declared, as concerning nature; but yet we receiue the ſame with the mind and with faith, euen in ſuch wiſe as we receiue the ſigne of the ſame with the hand and with the mouth.
D. Chadſe.
It is euen the ſelfe-ſame ſaith Chryſoſtome.
D. Martyr.
Both the things which he ſaith, muſt be ioined togither, as well that It is euen the ſelfe-ſame; as that which he addeth, By commemoration.
D. Chadſe.
If when we doo receiue the ſacrament, the ſelfe-ſame bodie is giuen, which Chriſt offered; it followeth, that Chriſt is reallie and ſubſtantiallie in the ſacrament.
D. Martyr.
I denie the argument; for you paſſe from the ſubſtance vntounto the accident. And you make Quid, what, to be Quale, after what maner. That it is the verie ſame bodie as touching nature, I hauehave granted it almoſt an hundred times: but it followeth not as touching the maner of the bodilie preſence, either that he is there, or that he is receiued of vsus.
D. Chadſe.
Is he there?
D. Martyr.
He is, but yet ſacramentallie, and by ſignification; as our meaning is in our words, or in our writings, to wit, that by theſe it is ſignified, but it dooth not lie hidden vnderunder them.
D. Chadſe.
Is it the verie bodie or no?
D. Martyr.
How often ſhall I tell you? It is the verie bodie, but yet it is not there, except by a ſacramentall ſignification.
D. Chadſe.
I demand what is the ſubſtance of that ſacrifice, which is offered daie by daie? You ſaie; that if I ſhall offer it with the mind & with faith, it is the verie bodie of Chriſt. Chryſoſtome, hauing a reſpect not to my faith, but to the ſubſtance of the ſacrifice, ſaith; We offer not an other, but the ſelfe-ſame ſacrifice: and ſo it appeareth, that we deuiſe nothing but that which Chryſoſtome hath.
D. Martyr.
The ſubſtance of our ſacrifice is a giuing of thanks for the bodie of Chriſt giuen vponupon the croſſe. And by reaſon of this giuing of thanks, faith and confeſſion, the fathers ſaid that the bodie of Chriſt is offered in the ſupper. Wherefore, as touching the ſubſtance, this bodie, for the which we giuegive thanks, differeth not from that which was crucified: but yet to this end, that it ſhould be offered of vsus, is not required that he ſhould be preſent corporallie; neither that he ſhould be held ſubſtantiallie in the hands of the communicants.
D. Chadſe.
Chryſoſtome, vponupon Iohn, homilie … Pa…ents oftentimes gaue their children to be nouriſhed of others; but I doo nouriſh them with my fleſh: my ſelfe I giuegive to them, I …auo… all men, I … all men an excellent hope of things to come. Your brother would I be, and I hauehave part… … fleſh and bloud for you … I hauehave againe gi… you thoſe things whereby … ioined vntounto you. Here Chryſoſtom… ſheweth that we be nouriſhed by the time fleſh of Chriſt. He that is nouriſhed by his mothers breaſts, is nouriſhed by the fleſh of his mother. And Chriſt ſaith, that he in like …re… …oth nouriſh vsus with his fleſh; and therfore he meaneth not this by ſignification: for this ſhould not be to nouriſh vsus by his owne, but by another fleſh. Wherfore it followeth, that the fleſh of Chriſt is preſent indéed.
D. Martyr.
That Chriſt dooth giuegive himſelfe vntounto vsus, and dooth nouriſh and mainteine vsus by his fleſh, I grant. But whereas you adde, that we cannot be nouriſhed, vnleſſe his fleſh be preſent corporallie, I denie it, ſith this meate and eating is performed by faith.
D. Chadſe.
Yea but he ſaith; Séeing he hath now giuen himſelfe, much more will hée giuegive himſelfe hereafter; therefore is it the ſelfe-ſame, which is now giuen, and which hereafter ſhall be giuen.
D. Martyr.
It is the ſelfe-ſame, but here it is onelie receiued by faith: and that it may the more effectuallie be receiued, there be ſignes and ſacraments giuen vntounto vsus.
D. Chadſe.
Shall not they then, which be without faith, receiue the bodie of Chriſt?
D. Martyr.
They ſhall not receiue it; Euill men receiue not the bodie of Chriſt.for they want the inſtrument, whereby the bodie of Chriſt is receiued, as I hauehave ſhewed before.
D. Chadſe.
And is it there, although it be not receiued of them?
D. Martyr.
Yea, it is by a ſacramentall ſignification in the elements, bicauſe they ſignifie, repreſent, and giuegive vntounto vsus the bodie and bloud of Chriſt; but yet they are not tranſubſtantiated, or the bodie lieth not hidden in them ſubſtantiallie and reallie, or corporallie and carnallie; to the granting wherof you would ſéeme to driue me, by ſo manie your ſuperfluous queſtions. And when I affirme a ſacramentall ſignification, you muſt vnderſtand ſuch as is effectuall vntounto beléeuers, as may further the communicants, and may ſtir them vp to imbrace Chriſt by faith, the which can hauehave no place in them that be deſtitute of faith. For I ſhewed that before, when I oppoſed you, that vnbeléeuers cannot receiue the bodie of Chriſt.
D. Chadſe.
What then is a ſacrament?
D. Martyr.
A ſacrament, What is a ſacrament.as the Schoole-diuines define it, and is had out of Auguſtine, is the ſigne of a holie thing, or a viſible ſigne of an inuiſible grace. And the holie Ghoſt vſeth the ſacraments, that he may giuegive vntounto vsus Chriſt ſpirituallie to be imbraced with the mind and with faith; euen as we are ſaid to receiue ſaluation by the words of God: not that ſaluation lieth hidden in thoſe words, or ſtandeth in reall preſence, but is conteined by ſignification. And this compariſon of diuine words is verie agréeable with ſacraments; ſéeing by Auguſtines iudgement, ſacraments be viſible words. Wherfore, by this anſwer you vnderſtand what I meane by a ſacrament.
D. Chadſe.
By this means euerie thing may be a ſigne of the bodie of Chriſt.
D. Martyr.
Forſomuch as the Lord did not inſtitute all things to this purpoſe, That euerie thing cannot be a ſigne of the bodie of Chriſt, as the Euchariſt is.nor that all things hauehave the word of God, which in the ſacraments is the chéefeſt part; therfore all things cannot be called ſignes of the bodie of Chriſt, after ſuch a maner as now we take true and effectuall ſacraments to be.
D. Chadſe.
Auguſtine, in his third booke De trinitate, the fourth chapter, is of my opinion. For when he ſpeaketh of the Euchariſt, he ſaith; It is not ſanctified to be ſo great a ſacrament, except the ſpirit of God doo worke inuiſiblie. Lo, here you hauehave it, that the holie Ghoſt and the worke of God is required to the making of a ſacrament; but there ſhould be no néed of ſo manie things, to bring but in a ſignification onelie.
D. Martyr.
I woonder that you cite that place of Auguſtine, ſith he there maketh ſpeciallie againſt you. Let vsus ſée what he ſaith there. The apoſtle Paule might by ſignifieng hauehave preached the Lord Ieſus, one waie by his toong, another waie by an epiſtle, and another waie by a ſacrament of his bodie and bloud. The Lord Ieſus by a ſacrament of his bodie and bloud is ſignified.Here you ſée that the Lord Ieſus Chriſt is ſignified by a ſacrament of his bodie & bloud; the which you indeuor now to diſprooue. But let vsus procéed. Neither in verie déed doo we ſaie, that his toong, or parchment, or inke, or the ſignifieng ſounds vttered with the toong, or figures of letters written vponupon little ſkins, is the bodie and bloud of Chriſt; but that onelie, which we doo rightlie receiue, being made of the fruits of the earth, and conſecrated by myſticall praiers. Héere likewiſe you heare, that that which we receiue of the fruits of the earth, is called the Lords bodie. Wherevpon it followeth, that bread dooth there remaine, vnleſſe you will ſaie that the earth dooth bring foorth accidents. And whereas you obiect, that the worke of God and the holy Ghoſt are requiſit for the making of this a ſacrament; I grant it: but that the ſignification of the bodie of Chriſt is not ſo great a matter, as it hath néed of thoſe things, that doo I denie. You hauehave oftentimes alreadie heard, that we doo not héere ſet downe a common or vulgar ſignification; but a ſacramentall, mightie, and effectuall ſignification, whereby the beléeuers are incorporated into Chriſt.
D. Chadſe.
But the bread by his ſubſtance nouriſheth, therefore it may ſignifie the bodie of Chriſt before conſecration: alſo it is gathered, and conſiſteth of manie praiers before conſecration, therefore it may ſignifie the vnion of the church. Howbeit it is none of Auguſtines mind; that anie thing ſhould be called the bodie and bloud of Chriſt, bicauſe of the ſignification; but only in this reſpect, that being taken out of the fruits of the earth, and conſecrated by myſticall praier, we receiue it vntounto ſaluation. Neither meaneth he, that the bread taken from the fruits of the earth dooth ſo remaine, but after ſuch a ſort as Ambroſe ſaith, that that which nature hath made is by bleſſing changed.
D. Martyr.
As touching the firſt: you cannot in verie déed ſaie of water, that whereſoeuer it is, euen out of baptiſme, it ſignifieth the waſhing of the ſoule. But dooth it therefore followe, that that ſignification is ſacramentall, when the word of the Lord is abſent, nor yet the inſtitution of Chriſt is exerciſed therein? We ſpeake here (as we hauehave often ſaid alreadie) of the power and effectuall ſignification of ſacraments, the which we obteine by the word and inſtitution of God. As touching the other, Auguſtine ſaid moſt plainelie, that by thoſe thrée; that is to wit, by the toong, parchements (that is to ſaie writings) and by the ſacrament, the bodie of Chriſt is ſignified, and then followeth that which you ſaie; to wit, that it is receiued to ſaluation. And of the change, that is to ſaie, the caſting awaie of that ſubſtance that is gathered of the fruits of the earth, there is no mention at all: how Ambroſe muſt be vnderſtood, I hauehave declared before.
D. Chadſe.
Chryſoſtome, in the 45. homilie vponupon Iohn, in the ſixt chapter thus writeth; This bloud being ſhed, ouerflowed all the world, whereof Paule vntounto the Hebrues pronounced manie things. This bloud purged the ſecret and holie places. But and if the figure thereof was of ſo great force in the temple of the Hebrues, and when it was ſprinkled vponupon the doore poſts in the midſt of Aegypt; of much more force was the truth it ſelfe. This bloud ſignified a golden altar, without this the high prieſt durſt not enter into the innermoſt places. This bloud made the prieſts. This bloud in a figure, purged ſinnes. In the which figure if it were of ſo great force; if death ſo feared the ſhadowe, how greatlie I beſéech you will it be afraid of the truth? &c. He compareth the ſacraments of the old teſtament with the ſacraments of the new teſtament, as one may ſaie; the ſhadowe and figure with the truth: and he nameth our myſteries, …nderfull and dreadfull. If then, as he ſaith, the old fathers had the ſhadowes, and we ther…l, it followeth in the ſacrament of the Euchariſt, that the verie bodie of Chriſt is preſent… otherwiſe, if we ſhould hauehave himſelfe thereby ſignification onelie, there is no more to be attributed vntounto our ſacraments, than to the ſacraments of the old lawe.
D. Martyr.
Whereas Chryſoſtome ſaith, that the ſacraments of the old fathers, being compared vntounto ours, be ſhadowes and figures, I grant the ſame. Howbeit, it muſt be ſo vnderſtood, that ſhadowes and figures were there, becauſe the comming of Chriſt was as yet expected. Againe, the ſignifications of thoſe ſacraments were more obſcure, both which is agréeable vntounto figures and ſhadowes: for figures did foreſhew Chriſt to come, and ſhadowes doo want plentie of light. By theſe kind of meanes was Chriſt ſignified in the ſacraments of the old fathers, and by faith was giuen to be receiued of the beléeuers. But now to vsus in the new ſacraments he is offered, as he that is alredie come, that hath performed his promiſes, and that is crucified for vsus in verie déed. Beſides, the words which we hauehave in our ſacraments, be far more cleare and plaine than were the words of the old ſacraments in the lawe. But you vnderſtand this word, truth, as though it ſhould ſignifie reall preſence; and therefore you infer, that the bodie of Chriſt is preſent with vsus reallie, corporallie, and ſubſtantiallie. But the fathers vnderſtand, truth, to be in our ſacraments, if they be compared to the ſacraments of the old fathers; bicauſe they repreſent the thing that is now performed, euen that the kingdome of heauen is opened, and that the benefit of our redemption is, with all euidence and aſſuredneſſe, alreadie finiſhed and made perfect, and beſtowed on vsus, as if were before the eies of faith.
D. Chadſe.
Yea, but the ſacraments of the old fathers were euen as much true as ours be; the ſelfe-ſame power was in them that is in ours. Thoſe fathers as well beléeued that Chriſt would come, as we that he is come. For by the teſtimonie of Paule, all our fathers droonke of the ſelfe-ſame ſpirituall rocke, and did eat the ſelfe-ſame ſpirituall meat.1 Co. 10, 4.
D. Martyr.
True it is, that the old fathers, as touching the thing it ſelfe, had the ſelfe-ſame ſacraments that we hauehave, which were ſignes that Chriſt ſhould come, and offered him vntounto the beléeuers: but the difference (as I ſaid) was that Chriſt hath now performed indéed, the price of our ſaluation, but then he was afterward to performe the ſame. And a thing that is alreadie done, if it be compared euen to it ſelfe, which ſhall afterward be doone, both it is more aſſured, and may be called a truth: but it is ſaid to hauehave a ſhadowe and a figure, when it is not yet performed. Ouer this, no man doubteth but that that Chriſt and his death is expreſſed vntounto vsus, with more plaine and euident words. By theſe things you may gather, that (as Paule teſtifieth) we as touching the ſubſtance hauehave the ſelfe-ſame ſacraments with the old fathers; but that there be manie differences alſo betwéene them, as touching the thing preſent, which I hauehave rehearſed.
D. Chadſe.
The ſacraments of the fathers promiſed but grace, ours giuegive the ſame: which things you in your lectures did interpret; They ſignifie grace giuen. Wherefore, if thoſe ſacraments ſignified grace to be giuen, and ours ſignifie the ſame alredie giuen, the ſignification is alike, in the one, and in the other; and our ſacraments ſhall hauehave no more than thoſe of the fathers. And againſt that which you bring that the ſacraments of the old fathers were more obſcure, I will prooue, that they had a more euident ſignification: for the bloud of the lambe offered, did more plainelie repreſent the bodie of Chriſt, than the bread and wine, if bread and wine be there.
D. Martyr.
I will anſwer to euerie thing in order. I affirme that which you obiect againſt me; to wit, that the ſacraments of the old lawe ſignified grace that ſhould be giuen; and ours, the ſame alredie giuen and exhibited, that is to wit, Chriſt alreadie incarnate, and which hath ſuffred death. And while I was in my reading, among manie other things which I diſcourſed as touching this matter, I remember that I alſo ſaid this, bicauſe I would not admit, that the ſacraments of anie of both, either ours, or theirs of old time, of themſelues doo giuegive grace. For whatſoeuer grace we hauehave, that doo we obteine by faith, and not (as you feigne and ſaie) for the works ſake that is wrought. Neither doo we for this cauſe make ſacraments to be the more contemptible: forſomuch as we determine, that they, while they be rightlie receiued, doo helpe, confirme, & increaſe faith, whereby alone we be iuſtified. For the holie Ghoſt, as it vſeth the words of God, and the ſcriptures, as it were inſtruments to change & to ſaue vsus; ſo like wiſe dooth it vſe the ſacraments. Now you ſée how I hauehave vnderſtood, that the ſacraments of the lawe ſignified grace to be giuen, & how ours ſignifie the ſame alreadie giuen. Wherevnto you may adde, that faith is more holpen by our ſacraments, than by thoſe of the old fathers; partlie, bicauſe the words are plainlier expreſſed, and that our excellent matter, which is the redemption by Chriſt, is more euidentlie ſet foorth in theſe. And ſéeing faith is gotten by the word, the more manifeſt that the word is, the more erneſtlie is faith ſtirred vp, & the more doth it apprehend the thing ſignified; partlie bicauſe I eaſilie agrée, that a more plentifull ſpirit is granted by our ſacraments, than was giuen by the ſacraments of the old fathers. And that remaineth as a ſure ground, which before I ſpake of, that the thing to be doone, being compared to that which is alreadie doone, may be called both a ſhadowe and a figure. Againe, whereas you vrge, that the lambe & ſtaieng of beaſts for ſacrifice, more manifeſtlie repreſented Chriſt and his death; I anſwer, that the perſpicuitie and plainneſſe of the ſacraments muſt chéeflie be regarded in the words. Bicauſe, if you compare the words with the elements, the words be the life of them; and to the old fathers were not giuen ſo expreſſe and plaine ſpéeches of Chriſt, and his death, as at this daie is vſed in our ſacraments. It is ſaid; This is my bodie, Matt. 26, 26which ſhall be giuen for you. And againe; This is my bloud, which ſhall be ſhed for you vntounto the remiſſion of ſinnes. And what can there be more plainlie and euidentlie ſpoken?
D. Chadſe.
Where the faith is of more abundance, there is the ſacrament more excellent; But the faith of Abraham was greater than ours is; Therefore he held a more excellent ſacrament: and ſo ſhould it follow, that the ſacraments of the old fathers were better than ours.
D. Martyr.
The firſt propoſition, which you take vponupon you to prooue, is not altogither true, neither is it of neceſſitie, that where faith is more abundant, there the ſacrament ſhould be more excellent: ſéeing Abraham both beléeued and was iuſtified, before he had the ſacrament of circumciſion. For there may be faith, yea, and it ought to be had before the receiuing of the ſacraments. We indéed hauehave granted, that the ſame is holpen and confirmed by thoſe ſacraments, but not that it ſhould be giuen onelie by them. If you had ſaid, that thoſe ſacraments, whereby the faith is more confirmed and increaſed in the beléeuers, ought to be eſtéemed the more excellent, you ſhould hauehave ſaid true; but yet that which you adde as touching Abraham, would not be to the purpoſe, vnleſſe you had ſhewed, that he obteined his faith by the ſacrament, which is not true. And againe, whereas you ſaid that Abraham had a greater faith than ours is, that ſhould not be well affirmed, bicauſe to conclude that which you went about, you ſhuld hauehave prooued that Abraham had a greater faith than is had in the new teſtament; and then ſhould you take for a proofe a thing that were doubtfull. For how doo you knowe, but that Paule, Peter, manie of the apoſtles and martyrs had as much faith as Abraham? Wherefore both the Maior and Minor propoſition of your argument dooth admit exceptions, and you imbrace more in the concluſion than can be found in the whole antecedent.
Here the Kings Maieſties Commiſsioners made an end of the diſputations, when they had heard eleuen of the clocke ſtrike. And M. D. Richard Cox Commiſsioner, and Chancellour of the Vniuerſitie of Oxford, made this oration as followeth.
YE Students of the Vniuerſitie of Oxford, we hauehave beſtowed foure halfe daies in examining of two queſtions: namelie, of tranſubſtantiation, and of reall preſence of the bodie of Chriſt in the ſacrament. Greatlie did this diſputation delight vsus. And I would to God that the time would hauehave giuen vsus leaue to heare all thoſe things, which might hauehave beene ſaid in this matter! That which wee wiſhed came to paſſe, to wit, that the diſputation was quiet. The hearers I hope, as they be now quiet, ſo they will be deſirous to learne the truth. They which were the diſputers on eitherſide, hauehave moſt diligentlie performed their part, and muſt not be defrauded of their due commendation. Men of our nation and of Oxford, beſides that they hauehave performed that which their conſcience perſuaded them, they hauehave brought no ſmall honour vntounto this Vniuerſitie: for that in ſo great a cauſe they hauehave not ſhrunke, but that they would openlie teſtifie, according to the meaſure of their learning, and gift imparted to them by the benefit of God, both of what mind they werein theſe controuerſies, and by what reaſons and authorities they were driuen herevnto. Verie learnedlie doubtleſſe, did they performe the charge committed vntounto them. Howbeit, the other learned men, which in ſo great matters hauehave held their peace, hauehave I know not how by their ſilence procured to themſelues the blemiſh of deniall. But Peter, who is worthilie called Peter, for his aſſured ſtedfaſtnes; Martyr, and worthilie called Martyr, for the innumerable teſtimonies which he manie times vttereth of the truth, ought to hauehave great thanks at this time, both of vsus and of all the godlie: firſt, bicauſe hee hath taken exceeding great paines in ſuſteining the burthen of the diſputations. For if Hercules was not to deale againſt twaine, what ſay we of Peter alone againſt all commers? Againe, whereas he vndertooke to diſpute, he diſprooued the vaine ſaiengs of vaine men, which ſpread enuious and odious things againſt him; namelie, that he would not or durſt not defend his doctrine. Finallie, that he ſo ſingularlie well anſwered the expectation of the great magiſtrates, yea, and of the Kings maieſtie, while he not onelie hath deliuered vntounto the Vniuerſitie the doctrine of Chriſt, out of the liuelie fountaines of the word of God, but (ſo far as laie in him) hath not ſuffered anie man either to trouble or ſtop the fountaines. Wee hauehave heard this chriſtian contention, the which was taken in hand for the trieng and ſearching out of the truth. The verie which maner of proceeding ought to bee as the onelie marke, whervnto all men doo bend their eie in euerie diſputation. This ought all men to ſearch out which hauehave a louelove to ſincere religion. For what elſe meaneth that ſaieng; Search the ſcriptures, but diligentlie to ſearch the truth out of the ſcriptures? Howbeit, wee are not now minded to giuegive iudgement of theſe controuerſies, and vtterlie to breake the ſtrife. But then ſhall it be determined, when it ſhall ſeeme good vntounto the Kings Maieſtie, and the Eſtates of the church of England. Neuertheleſſe, if I, whome you of your courteſie hauehave choſen to be your Chancellor, did not now ſupplie the place of an other perſon (for the Kings authoritie hath now otherwiſe appointed mee) I would moſt gladlie yeeld an account of my faith in theſe propoſitions. For I am not aſhamed of the Goſpell of Chriſt, nor yet of the truth which ſhineth vntounto all men out of his word: and this doubtleſſe will I be readie to doo at an other time, when oportunitie ſhall be offered. And now in the meane time, I exhort you that be ſtrangers and forrenners, if now there be anie, that ye will returne to your owne home. I would not hauehave you continuallie to wander in the fathers and Councels, as in your countrie; doo not you ſuppoſe that thoſe be your principles; I would not hauehave you to be deceiued in the probable words of mans wiſedome. What principles had the fathers? What Councels had they? How ſhamefullie did the fathers fall in manie things? How fowlie did the Councels erre? I will not here rehearſe their errours. I will not here ſtir this puddle. And yet for all this, ſhall the fathers and the Councels be the grounds of diſputations? There hauehave beene heretofore heretikes which denied either a part of the ſcripture, or elſe the whole. And at this daie there be Libertines, which be infected with the ſelfe-ſame madneſſe: thoſe doo denie and tread vnderunder foote the cheefe principles of our chriſtianitie; who place the word of God in the higheſt watchtower, and hauehave it in verie great reuerence; and from hence onelie doo ſeeke for life and ſaluation: holding principles which bee moſt aſſured, ſound, and holie. And yet in the meane time, not reiecting the moſt holſome teſtimonies of godlie fathers: naie rather imbracing and reuerencing them as bright beames of the holie Ghoſt, which after ſome ſort doo lighten the darkneſſe of our eies. Wherefore I beſeech you for your ſaluation ſake, and for the merciemercy of GOD, as well you that be yoong as old, that you will performe two things. Firſt, that you will now at the laſt laie awaie thoſe controuerſies, which hauehave diſquieted and rent in ſunder the church of Chriſt, theſe manie ages, as touching tranſubſtantiation, and I wot not what reall preſence. There is no end of quarelling, theſe be the diuels ſnares, wherein he perpetuallie wrappeth vsus, and letteth vsus from true godlineſſe. But it behooueth vsus that be godlie chriſtians, cheeflie, yea, & generally to regard what Chriſt did, and what he hath commanded vsus to do. Let vsus conſider thoſe be the moſt holie and dreadfull myſteries of Chriſt. Let vsus vſe them verie oftentimes vntounto our ſaluation; let vsus come vntounto them with feare and trembling, leaſt we at anie time come vnworthilie, and receiue the ſame to our iudgement and condemnation. Secondlie, that ye betake your ſelues to the ſtudie of the word of God. VntoUnto this marke direct all your darts: herevnto refer all your ſtudies. Whether they be philoſophicall, or mathematicall, or matters phyſicall, or whatſoeuer elſe they be, let them be as it were the waiting maids of this Queene. From hence ſeeke all your faith. From hence let your religion be eſtabliſhed and made perfect. Heauen and earth shall paſſe, but my word shall not paſſe. By this, as it were by a certeine rule, let all controuerſies be examined, and defined. Beſides this, there is one thing, wherof we muſt admoniſh you all: namelie, that ye abandoning all papiſticall vanities, ſuperſtitious & feined worſhipping of God, you giuegive diligent indeuour to ſearch out the truth: or at the leaſtwiſe that ye be no impediment, but that they which be deſirous of the truth, may proceed in the worke of godlineſſe. For wee knowe, and bee certeinlie aſſured, that there be ſome vnquiet and troubleſome perſons; mooued of a prepoſterous zeale, to hinder the proceeding of the truth. We knowe there bee ſome which doo perniciouſlie follow the example of their father, while they ſpread euerie where the ſeed of diſcord, and doo inuentlies. I knowe there be falſe and enuious rumors carried about. We knowe that vaine men, when they cannot by true meanes further their cauſe, they woorke by ſlanderous ſpeeches: ſo eaſilie intreated is an euill cuſtome to worke againſt the truth. Howbeit to make an end, if yee bee indued with anie louelove of the truth, ſeeke out the ſame with patient minds; require it with feruent praiers of almightie God. Atteine to the knowledge thereof by a ſincere comparing of places togither. Let chriſtian charitie wax hot in you. Hee that is weake in faith, receiue him. For the ſtronger (ſaith Paule) ought to ſuſteine the imbecillities of the weake ones, and not pleaſe themſelues: let euerie man pleaſe his neighbour vntounto good edifieng. Beware of the wilineſſe of Satan, which lieth in wait for you, leaſt you ſhould yeeld to the words of our Lord Ieſus Chriſt; that you may dote about queſtions and differences, and ſtrifes of words, whereof ariſe enuies, contentions, blaſphemies, ill ſuſpicion, &c. We may by our authoritie command you, and threaten the obſtinate with due puniſhment; yet we had rather for the louelove we beare you, deſire and exhort you. Wherefore, if there be anie conſolation in Chriſt, if anie comfort of louelove, if anie fellowſhip of the ſpirit, if anie bowels of compaſsion, fulfill you our ioie. And our ioie is, that we ſee manie in this Vniuerſitie to grow vp notablie in good learning and godlineſſe. Our ioie is, that wee ſee you ſo modeſt and readie to obeie. Fulfill you therefore our ioie, that is, ſearch ye the truth, which hath now manie ages lien hidden, as it were in a darke dungion: when yee hauehave found it out, receiue it with a ſincere faith; and beeing receiued, beautifie the ſame with good maners. So ſhall your light ſhine before men, that they may ſee your good works, and glorifie your father which is in heauen, to whome be all glorie, for euer and euer; Amen.