PART TWO

A Disputation on the Sacrament of the Eucharist

[129] Letter from the Royal Legates

The Illustrious Legates of His Royal Majesty Who Presided over this Disputatio Give Greetings to Upright Readers.

WHEN THALES OF MAGNESIA was asked how great the distance is between truth and deception, it seems to us that his answer was not unwise: “As far as the distance between eyes and ears.”1 Clearly this statement means that the eyes are reliable observers of events and are obviously the classic witnesses, while the ears often provide an opening to lies. Fictitious and false information often rushes into the heart through them. Therefore eyewitnesses who describe what they have seen happening before their eyes should be believed. But on good grounds the trustworthiness of those who are accustomed to put forward in blind testimony nothing beyond their own fickleness should always be held suspect. But just why? For this reason, our good man: we are not ignorant that certain worthless fellows given to trickery have spread false rumors among the common folk about that disputation over the Eucharist held at Oxford a few months ago. We know that, while fictitious accounts were diligently related and false claims were eagerly listened to, many people drew enormous pleasure, namely because thereby some harsh stains were spotted on the fame and erudition of Peter Martyr (a man in every way very learned, even by someone passing judgment out of jealousy). Also there were not lacking those who were quite triumphant in their hearts, as if they had won a victory, because, thanks to false calumnies spread through barbershops, they were seeing an excellent man robbed of his reputation.

Just as this event brought us no little pain, so it is why we greatly rejoice now that it took place for two reasons: because through it was made plain to all how willingly the papists are accustomed to delude [130] their people (when the situation demanded lies) and because when attacked by their insults and insolence Peter Martyr was finally forced to publish these words of his. Certainly this is why, if we wish to measure the events by the outcome, we too give the greatest possible thanks to those people. For if they could have borne in silence this defeat of their dogma, then the fruit of this debate would never have reached to foreign nations, nor would their disgrace have been forced out beyond the boundaries of our kingdom.

We are all very slothful in promoting the work of true religion. No holidays are granted to the discreet servants of the papacy; they know a thousand skills by which they perform a service to the truth; but this is the master stroke; as Isaiah puts it, they have made lies their refuge and have entrusted themselves and their possessions to vanity, as to the loftiest citadel of their safety.2 This indeed was the old practice and ancient law of their ancestors, whom they imitate, so that while they are looking after their own advantage or else trying to deceive their enemies, there is nothing they are not allowed to say, it is all right to lie about anything. So that we may pass over in silence their many forefathers, what of those who summoned Stephen to judgment, even though they were unfair in their case against Stephen and could not resist his wisdom and the Spirit?3 Who were willing to admit that they were overcome because of imprudence, or plead that Stephen was superior because of the truth of his cause or their own fault of ignorance through overconfidence? Indeed, when they could not open their mouths with their tongues, you see them grinding their teeth, you see them suborning men who say, “We have heard Stephen blaspheming Moses and God.”

It will be clear to you when you read what is written here how Peter Martyr stood out both in debating and in responding, and what his antagonists were able to bring forward to defend their cause. We entrust the judgment to you, we want to set you up as arbiters: is victory in a most just cause to be assigned to Peter or to Tresham, Chedsey, and Morgan? Nothing was done in the dark, but everything was carried out in the open and in the brightest light. Also, how did the debate go for those spectators who would have preferred to die rather than see their scholastic teaching hissed off the stage as false? They saw the defenders of their dogma drawn into extreme difficulties, the doctrine [131] itself twisted into the greatest peril; still they kept silent and they clearly deserted (if this can be desertion) under the point of a lance. They brought no help to a person in danger and truly begging for aid. What are you seeking? Let the lies be driven away and the path to truth be built up. Let not deceit find such an easy access to men’s ears. May impostors be given no platform. In short, there will be no reason for even a small crowd to follow the papists, and the number of our followers will be increased both at home and abroad.

Our oration has gone longer than planned. Let this take the place of a conclusion: that we have diligently read through what is here presented to you by Peter Martyr and that we confirm this to you as a testimonial by the integrity residing in our name.4 If you carefully examine the summary of the disputation, or the substance itself, Peter Martyr changes nothing and even uses almost the same words in writing that both he and his antagonists used in the disputation. Nothing was ever added which could either help his cause or be offensive to his opponents.5 Farewell.

[133] A Disputation

on the Sacrament of the Eucharist Held within the Famous University of Oxford in England, Anno Domini 1549

“God made man upright, but they have sought out many devices.”

Ecclesiastes 7.6

QUESTIONS PROPOSED FOR DISCUSSION7

1. There is no transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist.

2. The body and blood of Christ are not in the bread and wine carnally and corporeally, nor as others say, under the species of bread and wine.

3. The body and blood of Christ are united with the bread and wine sacramentally.

[2r] Disputation on the sacrament of the Eucharist held publicly in the School of theology at Oxford, with the eminent Reverend Dr. Henry Holbeach, bishop of Lincoln, Dr. Richard Cox, chancellor of the university, Dr. Simon Haynes, dean of Exeter, Master Richard Morison, esquire, and Christopher Nevinson, doctor of civil law, the royal legates who were present, by Doctor Peter Martyr Vermigli, Florentine, regius professor of sacred literature.8

[Discussants: For the one side was Dr. Peter Martyr. For the other side were Dr. William Tresham, Dr. William Chedsey, and Master Morgan, M.A.]9

[134] FIRST DAY10

On the first day, which was 28 May 1549, Dr. Peter Martyr and Dr. William Tresham debated before the royal visitors. Among them the most honorable Dr. Cox, Chancellor of the University of Oxford, spoke as follows before the disputation began.

(A) CHANCELLOR COX

Most learned gentlemen, although because of my office I must preside over scholarly disputations, especially theological ones, personally I consider it most fitting for this one to be held now; it is agreeable to His Majesty the King, through authority committed to us [2v] by letters patent, in establishing public readings and disputations as in other affairs.11 Accordingly, we decided not only to be present, but also to preside, to oversee and moderate. I want you who have taken on yourselves this task of debating to consider how difficult is the subject you propose to handle. Keep in mind that the eyes of all are turned on you. Consider well and regard the glory of God, laying aside rivalries and squabbles. I know that you are serious and learned, yet I thought it good to advise you for the sake of my office. I also warn other spectators and auditors, that putting aside any factions that may exist, they should attend so quietly and peaceably that no party spirit is evident. Follow Paul’s precept, that in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ you will understand the same thing and all think the same, that there be no schisms among you, but that you will be a united body, having the same mind and opinion.12 Set bad feelings aside, along with noises, disturbances, mockery, and outbursts. In particular I warn you young men, who are more gifted with warm emotion than judgment. In the greatest [3r] controversies there is usually discord, hatred, envy, as happened in the disputes of Stephen and Paul. In no way do I want this to happen among you; rather do I want you to learn to know the truth, and when you have known it to embrace it. So will you do your duty, and also what is most acceptable to us, and God will bless our venture.

[135] (B) PETER MARTYR’S PREFACE13

Most eminent and distinguished commissioners of His Majesty the King, if I had thought that troubles of the mind, hatreds or enmities are the constant companions of public debates, I would never have been brought to this occasion. But since I see now that such things do not always follow, but are associated by chance or (as they say) by accident [per accidens], I am here to debate. Certainly my desire to search out and reveal the truth has moved me above all else. Those who take this matter in hand for love of contention, for worldly glory or profit, must not be taken for theologians, but light and empty sophists, sensual, addicted to their stomach and to ambition. We should be of such a mind that freely and of our own accord we yield to known truth showing itself in discussion. In fact this is no small part of divine worship. Therefore away with confusion of mind, and let every faction be far removed on all sides. [3v] If this happens, much profit will come from this exercise. By itself iron is cold and stone quite senseless; but if struck together fire results. And if clouds, otherwise of dark and heavy nature, meet together and are driven against one another, they cause bright lightning in the air; likewise the minds and studies of scholars are slow in themselves, but in the conflict of dispute they are stirred up and come alive.

Such admirable and honorable affairs as debates should not be rejected because of their abuse, nor counted unprofitable and harmful, since we do not doubt that they are the gifts of God. We owe that excellent teaching of Jesus our Lord and Savior to disputes he had with Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians—about loving our neighbor, the resurrection, paying tribute to Caesar, the sign of Jonah the prophet, and similar matters. Nor is it unknown to you how greatly the debates of Paul and the other apostles and Fathers profited the church. Surely they may be carried out by us without bitterness, hatred and envy, so that the Spirit of Christ is present. There is indeed a great difference between disagreement and bearing hatred. The first belongs to judgment, which is exercised in the understanding part of the mind; but the other, namely hatred, is a fire within the will. Paul dissented from Peter and rebuked him, yet did not hate him.14

[136] I thought it good to speak like this about public disputations in general. Coming nearer these debates of ours, I admit [4r] that I hesitated for some time before descending into this arena, because I saw that subject was to be handled by which the church is greatly disturbed today. Those who take on themselves the order of the priesthood think that if transubstantiation and a carnal and corporeal presence of Christ’s body is removed from the Eucharist, all of their dignity would collapse—as though they had no other office but to change the substance of bread, or enclose the very body of Christ in the bread. So mindless and foolish are the people that if someone teaches differently about the sacrament than has been received in the past, they think Christ is taken away from them. When we teach something else about the Eucharist than is manufactured and believed in the Papacy, they run together in a mob and cry with the silversmiths, “Great is Diana of the Ephesians.”15

They should have considered that those who attribute too much to sacraments and make an idol of them are to be accused no less than those who neglect them. We have always avoided both these extremes as we were able.16 But now, when I see that through your authority all things are quiet, I am impressed, and gladly take on this task of disputation. I will not repeat my own reasons why I did not want to debate, when suddenly challenged, lest I might seem to indulge my feelings.17 Therefore I come to the questions. Some criticize me for them as if I have not observed a logical order [dialecticam methodum], proposing first what should have been in question, namely whether the body of Christ is in the sacrament; afterwards the mode is to be examined. But I state the contrary: that the best method is here observed, a logical one. I am not ignorant of Aristotle’s teaching in his Posterior Analytics where he states [4v] that we should first inquire whether something exists, and afterward see why, what and for what it is.18 Since neither of us doubts that there is a body of Christ, and since I am asked whether it is in the Eucharist, I answer them appropriately by my three questions. [137] First, it is not there through transubstantiation; second, it is not joined to the bread and wine, or to their species corporeally and carnally, or (as they would have it) really and substantially; but it is there only through a sacramental union, which is a most effective signification. You have therefore a lucid method, which we will explain as follows so that it may be clearer. There is a certain joining of the body and blood of Christ with signs. Both sides agree, but the controversy stands as to what kind it is.

I open with my three questions,19 beginning with the more crass, that is, through transubstantiation, which I reject; afterward I proceed to the other mode, corporeal and carnal presence, or else real or substantial (as they say) all of which I count the same and do not admit. I prove a third mode, namely a sacramental signification. As to the words corporeally and carnally which seem to be ambiguous, I say that I understand them as if it should be said really and substantially; but I will not trouble them about this difference in debate. The reason why I derived adverbs from the nouns flesh and body rather than from thing and substance, was to accommodate myself to the holy Scriptures; when they mention a sacrament, they do not have the names of thing and substance, but only of body, flesh and blood; therefore I have written, “corporeally and carnally.”20 My adversaries also contend [5r] that the latter question is superfluous, for they say, “If you remove transubstantiation and real substance and presence, it follows of necessity that in the sacrament only signification remains.” I answer that they are Anabaptists who would have the sacrament to be nothing else but a badge [tesseram] and profession of our fellowship that we have among us through love; they take no account of the Holy Spirit, whom we claim to be present in this sacrament. Moreover since Marcionites, Valentinians, Manichees, and that sort of heretic21 denied that Christ had a true body, they could not abide the signification that we assert here. Therefore the third question is useful against these plagues. Lastly, besides all these things, I want these questions to correspond with what I have taught in the schools, where I have observed this same [138] method.22 Now it remains that we begin the topic. But first of all, as is customary, let us call for the help of God by prayer.

(C) PRAYER

Almighty God, in your mercy you have promised to govern us by the inspiration of your Holy Spirit and to lead us into all truth; first we give boundless thanks for so rich and fruitful a promise, which we do not doubt you will fulfill in good faith. Further, because we are gathered together in your holy name, and what we are to discuss is of such great moment; therefore with all our heart we pray and beseech you to give us your promised grace, and permit us to so moderate and direct what we have taken upon ourselves to handle, that through it glory may be given to your name, truth to this school, and edification to the holy church. [5v] Banish evil affections, we beseech you, illuminate our hearts and the hearts of listeners with the light of the holy Scriptures; what seems obscure in them make plain, and keep us from error through them; whatever matters have perhaps not been rightly understood, grant that now they may be more truly and faithfully perceived, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

(D) WILLIAM TRESHAM’S ADDRESS

Most honorable sir, I have undertaken the discussion of a matter of truth. I face a hard task and take on myself a heavy burden. In fact I have agreed to meet and to debate with one who is both learned, sharp-witted, and experienced in all sorts of letters both human and divine; and this on a most serious matter and in an assembly of famous scholars. I attempt a difficult task, which no doubt many other graduates of this university could resolve and settle if they wished, and much better, more precisely and elegantly than I, who am but a weak debater. It will rest with your impartiality, distinguished royal legates, who have agreed by your honorable presence to adorn and clarify these discussions, to take in good part whatever I will say in debate today, and to interpret for the best all those things which surely will be declared for no other cause than that of godliness. Indeed it was not my intention to be the adversary of this learned man out of any malice, spite, or hatred; but because in a way he himself provoked me and my conscience [139] moved me, and finally because your authority allowed me, [6r] I am come to contend in this field [palestram] of learning. To contend, I say, as with a friend and intimate: yet I prefer truth before a friend—for its defense I will endeavour to refute this Doctor with all my powers, a man of long experience in these matters. Yet above all things I put my trust in him who promises the confessors of his name, saying: “Settle it therefore in your minds, not to meditate beforehand how to answer; for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict.”23

Now then (most learned Peter) I arm myself to examine your conclusions, the first of which is this: “In the sacrament of the Eucharist, there is no transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.” Second, “the body and blood of Christ is not substantially or naturally in the Eucharist, under the forms of bread and wine.”24 I give no credit at all to these conclusions, but am quite convinced, as I will always maintain, that they are false and quite alien to Christian religion.

In due time I will not refuse to declare that the subject is as I have just said, and will demonstrate quite clearly by holy Scripture and many testimonies of the Fathers. Today I have also taken it on myself to defend and confirm the truth previously received by the church, quite contrary, and (as they say) diametrically opposed to your conclusions. I have taken this controversy in hand, not to substitute for Doctor Smith who is absent,25 in whose plans I was certainly not involved, but only to extol the glory of Christ and the truth of the faith. Let no one think that I am led to prefer my opinion [6v] from mere credulity, but through great and urgent reasons. The first is the agreement and total consent of the holy Evangelists and of Saint Paul the apostle, supporting our assertion. From them the consent of the whole world and perpetual use of the same has flowed even to us. The second is the authority of our holy mother the church, not to be ignored, which [140] decreed through public edicts regarding the certain truth of this sacrament against Berengar, Wyclif, and such as were of their opinion.26

Thirdly, there are the clearest testimonies of orthodox Fathers; unless expounded otherwise than those Fathers meant, they obviously support our assertion. Fourth and last is that I am clearly authorized by the edict of our most noble and serene King Edward the Sixth, and the act of His Majesty’s Council.27 These reasons seem to me sufficient to believe as I do. Therefore most learned Peter, whatever force of arguments you have to say and bring against me, speak and declare them all; you are free to choose [ubi libet, licet], as I have said, and my answer to your conclusions is shown.

DR. PETER MARTYR

I do not acknowledge the praises you attribute to me, but I accept your goodwill towards me. When you say that you were provoked by me, that is not so: rather am I drawn by others to debate, as everyone knows. As for the reasons you say moved you to dispute against me, I do not much care: how important they are I will acknowledge when it is your turn to respond. Only on the last point, namely regarding the royal edict, since I do not understand English, I say this, that I know nothing of it, but hope that in the process of debate, if it counts against me I will understand it. Therefore passing over these matters, I come to the arguments.28

(E) [THE DISPUTATION BEGINS] [7r]

Dr. Peter Martyr: As to the first question: the Scriptures agree with me, explicitly acknowledging bread and wine in this sacrament. It says in the Gospels29 that the Lord Jesus took bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to his disciples. Paul taught the same in Corinthians 10 and 11, where if you will consider it diligently, he often mentions [141] bread.30 So in company with Scripture we too must retain the natures of the symbols.

Dr. William Tresham: It is also found in the Scriptures that man is called earth or ashes; Eve, a bone; a rod, a serpent; and water, wine; yet they were not these things but were called so through a figure [per tropum]. Moreover, the argument is reflexive or reciprocal and may be turned back on you; for even in the Scriptures it is often called the body of the Lord. For the same reason the body of Christ is truly present in this sacrament, which you deny in the second question; therefore your argument is returned on your own head.

Martyr: As for the former part of your answer, you affirm that the saying of holy Scripture when it names bread is figurative [tropicam] because the things keep the names of the natures from which they were derived. I am amazed how easily you fly to tropes, which you abhor so much when dealing with this sacrament. But I let this go and answer that in the places noted, Scripture expressly reminds us of the conversions of those things, for it amply shows that the human body was fashioned out of the earth, that Eve was made from Adam’s rib, that the rod was turned into a serpent, and that water was made wine. Thus we are forced to admit these figures. Now prove to us from Scripture that the bread is turned, as to its substance, into the body of Christ, and we will grant your figure, that is, to call bread not what is now bread, but what was so before. [7v] Moreover, those things you bring in must throw their old substance away, since they do not retain their accidents, which you pretend happens in this sacrament where you remove substance and retain accidents. In the other part of the answer you added that it counts against me that the body of Christ is really present, since holy Scripture calls it body as well as bread; how much this makes against me I will answer when my turn comes to respond, if you object the same thing to me.

Tresham: It was decided that we should use concise arguments, but you mix up several things. Yet regarding conversion, which you deny in holy Scripture, I prove it from Matthew where Christ says, “This is my body.”31 It is not an indicative saying of God, or merely significative, but effective, active and working. Augustine said on [142] Psalm 73: “The sacraments of the old law promise a savior, the new give salvation,” therefore I claim that the bread is turned into the body of the Lord.32

Martyr: I use brief arguments and will continue to do so insofar as the subject allows. But as to your proof of transubstantiation which you now advance, I make no answer, because at this point it is my part to oppose.33 Since you don’t admit the proof I brought from Scripture that the bread remains, while you play with tropes, I will show you that the Fathers did not think like this, but along with holy Scripture hold that bread remains in the sacrament, and interpret and understand it as I have alleged. In his sermon On the Lord’s Supper, the ancient author Cyprian says: “Just as in the person of Christ the humanity was seen and his divinity hidden, even so in the visible sacrament the divine essence mysteriously infuses itself, that in religion there might be devotion about [8r] the sacraments.”34 Here you see that a comparison is made between the person of Christ and this sacrament: just as both include two natures, so must we preserve both of them intact, which you do not do by transubstantiating.

Tresham: I will oppose Cyprian against Cyprian, and interpret him through himself. He says in the same sermon: “This bread, which the Lord delivered to his disciples, changed not in form but in nature, is by the omnipotent Word of God made flesh.” You35 hear of a change of the nature of bread; therefore, we should not believe that such a martyr fights with himself, and has forgotten himself in what follows.

Martyr: This does not answer the place cited but shifts the argument. When I take the turn of respondent, I will explain the place you throw at me. Therefore it is your part now to respond to the objection, namely how in your view this comparison Cyprian makes between Christ and this sacrament takes place.

[143] Tresham: Cyprian is his own best interpreter.

Martyr: Since you bring nothing else, I cite Gelasius, who affirms the same thing about this comparison.36 Against Eutyches37 he says that without doubt the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ which we receive is something divine; through it we are made partakers of the divine nature, yet the substance of bread and wine does not cease, and truly the image and likeness of Christ’s body and blood are celebrated in the action of the mysteries. Therefore it is surely enough to show that we must judge the same thing about Christ our Lord himself, which in his image we profess, celebrate, and receive. Just as by the working of the Holy Spirit these things pass into the divine substance, while remaining in their natural property, [8v] even so they reveal that the principal mystery itself, whose efficacy and truth they represent properly, consists of the one Christ, with both natures still enduring.

Tresham: That book is not received among the authentic works of Gelasius. Moreover, Gelasius was the bishop of Rome, and I marvel that you bring only him, since there are twenty bishops who count expressly against you.

Martyr: This answer has two parts: that the book is not authentic, then that it is written by a bishop of Rome. As to the first, no reason is given why the book should be suspect, especially since he writes against the heretic Eutyches. If this is how you are going to proceed, avoiding an argument by saying that any book is suspect, then I can reject every book which I think opposes me. Secondly, at that time the Roman pontificate was not so defiled and corrupt, nor had it become such a tyranny as fell on it later, that the authority of Gelasius is to be faulted. Besides, I do not propose him because he was a bishop of Rome, but because he agreed with the Word of God, in which case we should take more account of him alone than of twenty or a hundred others, if they oppose the Word of God. But to proceed: Augustine is introduced, who gives the same opinion of that comparison, as he is cited in On consecration, second distinction, from the sentences of Prosper. His words are these: “For example, the person of Christ consists of God and man, since the same Christ is very God and very man, because everything contains in itself the nature and truth of the things of which [144] it is made. But the sacrifice of the church consists of two things, the sacrament and the matter of the sacrament.”38 [9r] Here you see the same comparison between the Eucharist and Christ: it follows that just as the two natures remain whole in Christ, so the substance of the bread must not be removed from the Eucharist.

Tresham: In the place you have cited Augustine supports me most of all, for I interpret him to mean that in the sacrament he would have the very flesh of Christ to be concealed in the form of bread, which he called the matter of the sacrament; also he would have the accidents under which the body of Christ is hidden to be the sign of the flesh thus concealed. Moreover, besides this he says that the hidden flesh of Christ is a sign of the body of Christ hanging on the cross, and so it is a sign of itself.

Martyr: We are not arguing just now about whether sign and thing signified are one, but about the comparison between Christ and the Eucharist, and about the two natures in both, which you do not keep whole in the sacrament if you substitute accident for substance. For Augustine affirms that everything contains in itself the nature and truth of those things of which it consists. No one doubts that the sacrament is made of bread. When you add that (according to Augustine’s judgment) the body of Christ is contained under the accidents of bread and wine in such a way that the substance of those symbols is forced out, you did not get it from his words.

Tresham: I say that by those words Augustine teaches that the sacrament consists of the body of Christ and of accidents, such accidents being the outward sacrament.

Martyr: You say that the sacrament consists of accidents and of the body of Christ, but I insist on the comparison between Christ himself and the Eucharist; for the sacrament must correspond with him; therefore just as in Christ neither of the natures has perished, so in the Eucharist both must remain. Otherwise heretics will always [9v] say that39 the divine nature is indeed conceded to be in Christ, but he had only the form and accidents of a human body.

Tresham: If the Eucharist in fact corresponds with Christ as you maintain, [145] it follows that just as true bread is said to be there, so the true body of Christ must be present, which counts most of all against your second question. So the argument is not valid, because the similitude does not move on all fours.

Martyr: You answer that this counts against me because I do not hold the body of Christ to be truly contained in the sacrament; but so far as I can see, you do not reply to the comparison of these Fathers, unless simply to deny it, and so the argument remains untouched. For the Fathers introduced it chiefly to show that on both sides, in Christ as in the sacrament, the two natures remain whole and perfect. But how I consider the true body of Christ to be in the sacrament will be explained later, when I come to the second question. Now from the witnesses brought forward, we have effectively concluded that bread is not to be removed. In confirmation we have Theodoret, who wrote excellent dialogues against Eutyches. In the first he says: those things which seem to be signs are honored with the name of his body and blood, certainly not by changing the nature itself but by joining grace to nature.40

In the second41 dialogue, he brings in the opposing heretic [Sodalis] like this: “As, then, the symbols of the Lord’s body and blood are one thing before the priestly invocation but after it are changed and become something else, so after the ascension the Lord’s body was changed into the divine substance.” The Orthodox answered: “You are caught in the very net you yourself wove; for after consecration [10r] those mystical signs are not deprived of their divine nature, but remain in their former substance, figure, and form.”42 So he concludes against Eutyches that the body of Christ was not changed into the divine nature, as he affirmed. So you see that these Doctors—Cyprian, Augustine, Gelasius, and Theodoret—quite agree among themselves that because of the correlation the sacrament has with Christ, in whom both humanity and divinity remain whole, the substance of bread in the sacrament does not go away.

[146] Tresham: Reduce your argument into a form and then I will construct a response.

Martyr: This is Theodoret’s reasoning: as bread remains whole in the sacrament and does not depart from its nature, so in Christ the body remained, and was not changed into the divine nature, as heretics claim.43

Tresham: They still count for me, and conclude that the true body of Christ is there, which you deny in your second question. Moreover, this Theodoret whom you cite was a Nestorian, as appears clearly enough by the history of Nicephorus and the Council of Chalcedon, the eighth action.44 The testimony of a heretic deserves no authority in such a great matter.

Martyr:45 That Theodoret was no Nestorian no one can prove better than himself; when he wrote against all the heretics who preceded him he did not leave Nestorius untouched. Rather, he wrote a special chapter against him, and called him a most fitting tool of the devil. But here is the reason for what you assert about Nicephorus and the synod of Chalcedon: in the Synod of Ephesus grave offenses occurred between Cyril, president of the Council, and John, patriarch of Antioch, because Cyril and his friends had proceeded to the condemnation [10v] and deposition of Nestorius, without waiting for him and other bishops. Thus they went beyond the bounds of humanity and also aroused hatred among themselves, beneath the dignity of Christians. Things reached such a state that they excommunicated one another and deposed one another. But afterward they returned to friendship. During this dissension Theodoret, who favored John, wrote against Cyril’s anathemas, in which he leaned heavily on him.46 If one will read diligently, he will hardly find from that writing that Theodoret was either a heretic, or inclined to the perverse doctrine of Nestorius, although his adversaries, and those who favored Cyril, so slandered [147] him. But as we have said, at length they were all reconciled among themselves. In this eighth action of the synod of Chalcedon it appears clearly that Theodoret was falsely censured; there it shows what excellent tribute he enjoyed from the Council fathers, who restored him to his place; he publicly condemned Nestorius, showing that he never held to his doctrine. You can read about Theodoret in the writings of Bessarion, cardinal of Nicaea, in the Council of Florence.47 Since the Synod of Chalcedon did not refuse his confession but allowed it, why don’t you admit his acquittal? Because he wrote these things against Eutyches after the Synod of Chalcedon where he was accepted as orthodox, they should not be easily denied (as you would have it). We should give more weight to the Council, to Leo the most holy bishop of Rome, and to many more bishops, than to that single monk Nicephorus.

Tresham: The purification by which someone purges himself is not acceptable or adequate. Let another praise you, says Solomon, and not your own mouth.48 It is certain that Cyril wrote many things against him. [11r] I repeat, he is an obscure author and no one has him but you; therefore he must not be introduced in order to define such a great matter.

Martyr: Yes indeed, when someone’s faith is under discussion, he is the proper witness to himself. If one is accused of Arian falsehood, he could purge himself in no better way than by detesting Arius and writing against him. But if you think that Theodoret is to be rejected because he opposes Cyril and Cyril wrote against him, by the same token you will reject Cyprian because once in the matter of baptism he not only dissented from Stephen, bishop of Rome, but also from other Doctors of sound judgment. You should refuse the writing of Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and Theophylact, who fought and quarreled among themselves so much that John Chrysostom was expelled and thrown out of his diocese. When you object that he is an obscure writer whom no one has but myself, you should know that the book is printed and for sale in Rome.49

[148] Tresham: I answer that it would be a long and tedious thing to go to Rome for one such book.

Martyr: If you will not allow him, I will set him aside, and offer you Origen, who supports me. Writing on the fifteenth chapter of Matthew, he says: “If whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is cast out, that food sanctified by the Word of God and by prayer, insofar as it is material, passes into the stomach and beyond. But whatever has prayer joined to it becomes profitable and effective according to the proportion of faith, that the mind may become acute, beholding what is of benefit. It is not the material bread but the word spoken over it that profits whoever eats it to the Lord not unworthily; [11v] these things concern the figurative and symbolic [typico symbolicoque] body.”50 So far Origen.

Tresham: Origen’s belief is suspect in this matter. The passage is found in the fragments recently added by Erasmus.51 You remember the popular saying about Origen: “Where he has spoken well, no one has spoken better; where evil, none worse.”52 Against this doubtful Origen I oppose Chrysostom, a very sound writer: “Do you see the bread? do you see the wine? is it voided like other food? Far be it from you to think such a thing.”53

Martyr: I am sorry indeed that so notable a man, I mean Origen, fell into such grave errors. But his heresies are recorded by Jerome, Epiphanius,54 and other worthy Fathers, who examined him closely and condemned his errors publicly, lest simple folk should be infected; yet he was never faulted on this point.

Tresham: A negative argument from authority is weak and invalid: they did not write that he erred in regard to the Eucharist; therefore he did not err. Again,55 this place comes from the fragments lately interpreted by Erasmus, which perhaps the authors you named never saw.

Martyr: Nevertheless it is likely, and most probable to all that judge [149] rightly, that since they did not keep from speaking of his other errors, which in your judgment are not more serious, they would not have neglected this which you account to be of such moment. Your cavil that these fragments are added by Erasmus is frivolous, since he did not fabricate them himself. Since all books have been discovered in the same way, by scholars in old libraries, by similar argument all books could be refused when they are cited. But let us hear Irenaeus, book 4 Against heresies: “Taking bread of the same condition as ours, he [12r] acknowledged it to be his body. Then in the same manner taking the cup, among creatures like ourselves, he acknowledged it to be his blood.”56 But accidents that float without a subject are not creatures like us, rather are they great miracles. Therefore Irenaeus did not think of those things when he calls the matter of this sacrament a creature like ourselves, that is, ordinary.

Tresham: We must join the head with the tail, namely that Irenaeus should say: Christ took bread and made it his body. He acknowledges that the body of Christ is in the Eucharist and is made of bread; for he says, “Bread that comes from the earth is no longer common bread, but is made the Eucharist.”

Martyr: When he called bread which is from the earth his body, or said that it is made the Eucharist, it does not favor the point that the substance of bread should be excluded.

Tresham: It would surely be a very absurd proposition to say: “This bread is the body of Christ.”

Martyr: To understand Irenaeus’ mind more thoroughly, we must hear him speak in the same book 4, where he says: “For just as bread from the earth receives divine invocation and is no longer common bread but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, earthly and heavenly, so also our bodies receiving the Eucharist are no longer corrupt, since they have the hope of resurrection.”57 Here you may gather that this bread is changed into the Eucharist or into the body of Christ, just as our bodies are changed and made incorruptible. Yet in this change, the substance of our bodies is not [150] cast away; and so neither does the substance of the bread depart, nor is there any need of your transubstantiation.

Tresham: This argument is not firm, because it is derived from a simile.58 Most of the learned bring this same text against you; for bread (says Irenaeus) receiving [12v] the command of God, is now no longer common bread but the Eucharist, and so our bodies are made incorruptible. Such a change in bodies is not natural but spiritual, for Cyprian says: “Truly the union of ours and his does not mingle the persons, nor unite the substances, but relates the affections and joins the wills.”59 Describing this spiritual change, Paul says: we are transformed spiritually into Christ, proceeding from glory to glory, from day to day.60 There is a great difference between the change of our body and the Eucharist. For we are not incorruptible by nature, but by a spiritual purity and transformation accomplished by grace, faith, love, godliness, and so on.

Martyr: You did not need to labor so hard in declaring how our bodies are incorruptible, since I am pushing the similitude taken from Irenaeus, that there is a similar change in both. I infer that the substance of bread does not perish any more than our bodies cast off their first substance in their mutation.

Tresham: I answer that the change of our bodies into Christ should be understood in respect of the holy virtues of Christ abiding in us, through which we are given assurance that our bodies will in the future be incorruptible; I add that this argument is drawn from a simile and therefore not firm.

Martyr: Our body cannot be said to be changed into the virtues of Christ, for they do not pertain to the body. Again, my reason61 is from the authority of Irenaeus; he introduces the similitude, so the argument is not answered. Moreover, you should note that it is said here that the Eucharist consists of two things, earthly and heavenly. So it follows that the bread remains, which is [13r] called earthly.

Tresham: “This sacrament consists of two things; therefore two things remain in it”? I deny this argument. It is true that it is made of [151] something earthly, not that it remains so but because it was so before it was blessed; but after consecration two things no longer remain, only one. Take an example: we grow through nourishment, yet food is converted through natural digestion into something else, and no longer remains.62

Martyr: What you take for granted is quite absurd, that the sacrament consists of two natures before it is blessed; for before the blessing it is not a sacrament, nor the body of Christ. Hence Irenaeus speaks of the Eucharist which is now the Eucharist; I will not admit that anything consists of things that do not exist. To your likeness of the nourishment of our body, I say that food is digested in the stomach; I do not deny that part is expelled with other excrements; but unless its substance remains and is retained in the body, we would not be nourished. Yet all these things have little to do with the issue. I still insist that Irenaeus establishes such a change of the bread into the Eucharist, as the change of our bodies into an incorruptible state, an objection you have not yet answered.

Tresham: To the first point I answer: a mixed body consists of elements, yet its elements do not exist.63 To the other point I say, an argument taken from a simile is not valid.

Martyr: You answer just as absurdly when you take something as consisting of what does not exist. As to what you posit about a body you call mixed, you should understand that elements exist in it according to the way that it consists of them. For if it consists of them in act, as they say, [13v] they are present there in act; if it consists of them in power or in strength, they are there in this way.64 You repeat that arguments from similes are not valid; I showed before that I do not bring or make up any simile here; I merely stress what Irenaeus wrote.

Tresham: I repeat that an argument taken from a similitude is not valid.

Martyr: Is this to answer an argument? I myself did not reason from a simile, but follow that of Irenaeus. You might justly have refuted it if I myself had brought the simile.

Tresham: I say also that similes we find written elsewhere and have not [152] devised ourselves, are likewise invalid in arguments, as I will show from the holy Scriptures. The Lord said, “Father, make them all one, as you Father are in me, and I in you.”65 Is it then to no avail if we should argue: the Father and the Son are of one substance; therefore Christ and we are of one substance?

Martyr: Your answer is no answer, as Hilary shows: in his eighth book The Trinity he teaches that what you deduce from the similitude taken out of Scripture is fitting, and is a firm argument.66 You think it is worthless, but he says that it reaches a valid conclusion, and acknowledges by the force of that argument that we are of one substance, and naturally joined with Christ through his humanity; we are consubstantial with him, as Cyril says. So you see that the simile you have drawn from the sacred writings makes the argument true.

Tresham: I marvel that you fly to Hilary, since he counts against you. Bucer will be a witness of this, who says that we are joined with Christ in the holy communion not only by will, but also by natural participation, just as Hilary writes.67 [14r]

Martyr: First, I did not cite Hilary because of the question of the Eucharist, but to show that an argument is valid when derived from a likeness taken from Scripture, which you denied. Now you show that in Bucer’s opinion Hilary says that we are joined to Christ not only by will but also by a natural participation, which is not truly demonstrated, as you thought. I do not deny that the participation of Christ with us which Hilary asserts is also natural, but the question is not the union of Christ with us, but with the bread. You will note that a little before, Hilary himself has the same union existing with us in baptism, that is, natural and not through will.68 Therefore transubstantiation would follow in baptism; if you do not accept it in that case, I see no reason for you to urge it here. But if you object the passage to me when opposing me, you see clearly that it counts for nothing against me. For here we are disputing (as I [153] have said) against transubstantiation, and a real union of Christ with the bread, not about the true union of Christ with us, which I do not deny. As for what Bucer thinks, or how he agrees with me, I will say elsewhere.69 To sum up: we have a union with Christ that is entirely natural; for he truly took our nature on him from the Virgin. Further, through faith our flesh and nature is more conformed to the immortality of Christ’s nature, and is daily increased, while we use the sacraments;70 but this union and participation [coniunctio et communicatio] which we are acknowledged to have with Christ is natural. These things will be declared in more detail when we come to the place [14v] of Hilary. Therefore leaving this argument from Irenaeus, which has not been answered sufficiently, I will confront you with Gregory, the bishop of Rome, who says in his Register: “While we receive the unleavened as well as the leavened bread, we are made one body71 of our Lord and Savior.”72 But unleavened and leavened bread clearly show that bread still remains, for those are properties of bread, which have no place if you remove it.

Tresham: Gregory turns everything into allegories, and is concerned with behavior, warning us to be unleavened and sincere, as Paul says: “In the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”73 So the argument is fruitless, since it is taken from a wrong sense, as Augustine told Vincent the Donatist.74 An argument derived from anything else than the literal sense has little force to persuade anything by effective inference. Or else it may be answered in another way, that he speaks of the material of bread, which before consecration was either unleavened or leavened.75

Martyr: It is clearly stated that in this place Gregory spoke nothing allegorically, for it was called into question at that time, the controversy being whether the bread of the Eucharist should be leavened [154] or unleavened. Gregory was consulted, setting down his opinion on the matter in his Register.

Tresham: Now I understand it better than before. I recall the controversy; the Greeks err even to this day, still retaining leavened bread. Yet the passage contains nothing against me. Gregory makes no difference as to whether the bread of which the sacrament consists is unleavened or leavened; it is called unleavened bread or leavened from what it was before.

Martyr: I’m surprised in your answer when you say that the Greeks [15r] err to this day, since Gregory shows it makes no difference whether it is taken as leavened bread or unleavened. To claim that he should be understood as meaning before consecration does not agree with his words. For he says, “While we receive,” and the sacrament is not taken before consecration.

Tresham: After the bread is transubstantiated it takes its name from that from which it is derived.

Martyr: Every time similes are introduced that prove bread is in the sacrament, you shift from those matters through a trope taken from their former nature. It leads me to argue with you as follows: Transubstantiation is not evident or proved by holy Scripture; therefore it must not be received.

Tresham: By the power of the holy Scripture which says, “This is my body,” the church was compelled to assert transubstantiation. For it is impossible for this proposition to be true in fact, unless this change is decreed.

Martyr: Why so? This is news to me. If accidents remain with the body of Christ, why not the substance?76 How has the substance offended more than accidents, that it may not abide with the body of Christ? Especially since a good part of the controversy seems to be about quantity and dimensions, which you still retain; for the quantity and mass of bread is not abolished.

Tresham: The substance does not remain because it did not suit Christ who instituted this sacrament. Christ could have arranged for the bread to remain, but it cannot, because his word now wields his usual power.

Martyr: Since77 you did not answer to my satisfaction I asked why the bread could not remain. Only by the Word of God and the will of [155] Christ, you say. But I still do not understand what the words of Christ are intended to prevent. Nor do I see where you get this statement about the will [15v] of God, by which you will not allow bread to remain.

Tresham: Because it is impossible for the Word of God to be false. Also it is impossible to prove from the meaning of words [ex proprietate vocum] the truth of the Lord’s words when he said, “This is my body,” without transubstantiation.

Martyr: I could speak now about the trope of that statement, by which I could show it to be true, as are many like it, while things remain as they were before. But I let this pass and proceed in the question already raised: why does the substance perish here rather than accidents? I do not hear any reason why you should remove the one rather than the other.

Tresham: I have already said that the terms of the proposition, “This is my body,” cannot be true unless transubstantion occurs, because the bread is not the body of Christ, nor are accidents the body of Christ. Moreover the Word of God would not be operative and effective unless transubstantiation intervenes and the accidents are clearly seen to continue. Therefore keeping the sense of the saying, and putting no figure in the words,78 it is impossible for the proposition to be true unless transubstantiation be admitted.

Martyr: I note in your answer that the body of Christ cannot be spoken of truly either of the bread or of the accidents, even though Epiphanius says in the Ancoratus:79 “True is he who together with grace has given what is according to the human image. And how many similar things are there? For we see what our Savior80 took into his hands, as the Gospel states, that during the Supper he arose and took these things, and after giving thanks said: ‘This is mine, and this, and this’.81 We can see that it is not equal or alike, either to the image in the flesh or to the invisible deity, nor yet to the features of bodily members. For this is round in form and without the power of sense: [16r] through grace he would say, ‘This is mine, and this, and this;’ yet no one doubts his saying. For anyone who does not believe it to be true, just as he spoke it, falls from [156] grace and salvation. But we believe what we have heard because it is from him. Truly we know our Lord, who is completely sense, endowed with every sense, completely God, completely the mover, completely the agent, completely light, and completely incomprehensible, yet is he the very same whom he gives us by his grace.” By these words you hear that through his grace the Lord said, “This is my body,” about something round in shape and insensible as to power. Nor can you avoid the fact that something round, whether substance or accident, is that of which Epiphanius said, it is called the body of the Lord. He will have the body of Christ to be referred to what is insensible according to potency. Now it does not agree with the body of Christ to be without sense, just as you have it explicitly in the sentence cited.

Tresham: We must read the old Fathers with a goodwill, as Erasmus said.82 Let the notaries write that I name neither the accidents nor yet the bread as the body of Christ. Further, it may be answered another way, that he spoke like this before he had finished speaking.

Martyr: Since you will not have it that the round object, which he said is called the body of Christ, is bread or accident, what then did he mean by this demonstrative pronoun, this?

Tresham: What else can I say but that what Christ himself meant was evident. Let83 him who instituted it be asked. But if it is spoken about bread, it is meant before consecration. The84 Fathers, as I have said, [16v] must be read with favor.

Martyr: I like your saying that the Fathers should be read favorably, and I know that sometimes they must be interpreted with skill. But when they speak the truth there is no need of pardon, nor do I think that in this passage Epiphanius requires it; he honors the Word of God85 completely, and speaks well of it.

Tresham: In book 4 of The Trinity, as I recall, Hilary says that the meaning [157] of sayings must be taken from the causes of the sayings, because the substance is not subject to speech, but speech to the substance.86 Therefore to answer according to the condition and truth of the matter, I affirm that Epiphanius said that as regards the round figure, the Lord would say “This is my body,” not that there is true bread under the round figure, but because it seems so and appears to our sense. Therefore I said that he must be read in the best light, because his words pretend bread to remain, which nevertheless does not remain.

Martyr: What you bring out of Hilary is of little help to you, seeing that Epiphanius cannot be understood otherwise than I have declared. For it is plainly stated that through grace the Lord said about a round figure that it was his body. Therefore whether you say that round object is bread or an accident, he speaks quite against you, for by it he names his body. But so that you may understand that true bread is present, I will illustrate it most clearly from the words of the Evangelist.87 Christ took bread, he blessed, broke, and gave to his apostles, saying, etc. Those four verbs, “to take,” “to bless,” “to break,” and “to give,” govern only one accusative case, that is, bread. Therefore just as it is true bread while received and blessed, it is no less true while it is broken and given. So it follows that Christ gave bread, not accidents alone. Otherwise the Evangelist would have said that Christ broke [17r] his body and gave his body; but as you have heard, he refers everything to bread; I don’t think the Evangelist has any need of favoritism.

Tresham: I say with Saint Peter that Scripture is not a matter of private interpretation.88 According to my assertion, the church Fathers expound clearly enough89 that Christ gave his body and that in putting this verb “gave” he used a trope.

Martyr: You still do not satisfy me; I admit what Peter says, that Scripture is not of private interpretation, that is, it should not be expounded according to our own private feelings; but you are no further ahead. As for what you claim about the Fathers, I showed their witness, that they are on my side. So I repeat these words: Christ took bread, blessed bread, broke bread, and gave bread. So [158] say the old Fathers as well as the Scriptures. You run to figures of speech, and seem to say that we must use the Spirit. But I do not see where we should seek the Spirit except in the sacred writings, which say that both are given, bread I mean and the body, which I also acknowledge; but in rejecting the bread, you do not agree with them.

Tresham: The Scriptures must be expounded by the same Spirit by which they were written. The Holy Spirit taught the holy Fathers that immediately, as soon as the words of consecration are uttered, the substance of bread and wine ceases; all the catholic Doctors are of this mind. I do not have only the Fathers, but Christ himself, who promised in John 6 that he would give us his flesh; he is faithful, and his truth90 depends not on the Fathers but on himself. The bread, he says, which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.91 And so I confess that it is bread, bread, bread, bread, up to the last pronunciation of the words. Afterwards it is not bread but flesh.

Martyr: The words of Scripture say both: bread is given, and also flesh. Why do you not [17v] then admit that bread is given, as the Evangelists have clearly written?92 You claim that the Fathers support you, but I have now shown by many of their testimonies that it is not true. I agree that the Scriptures should be expounded by the same Spirit by which they were written. But when they are expounded by you otherwise than they mean, such exposition does not proceed from the Spirit by which they were written, for that Spirit does not contradict them.

Tresham: I say both: yet I do not understand the Scriptures as you do. For all controversy constantly arises over the understanding of Scripture. Through Scripture Arius attempted to remove the divinity of Christ; through Scripture Nestorius and Eutyches endeavored to take away his humanity. Through Scripture Mani destroyed free will; through Scripture Pelagius extolled free will beyond reason. Through Scripture Luther preserved the truth of the body of Christ in the Eucharist. On the contrary, through Scripture Zwingli seemed to take away the real presence of the body of Christ from the Eucharist; finally all were heretics, while the devil has always [159] said: “It is written”; yet they were wrong. Therefore it appears that we must fly to that Spirit by which the Scriptures are produced. As Peter the apostle says, the Scripture is not of private interpretation, and that Spirit is promised to the church.

Martyr: Perhaps heretics have the Scriptures, but they do not have them properly; they follow the form but not the sound sense. I’m not sure which church you are telling me to follow, but I know this, that the Evangelists, Paul, and the holy Fathers whom I have named, testify that bread is here, and the holy Scriptures say the same quite clearly. Without these things I have rehearsed there is no church; and no good spirit opposes them.

Tresham: These words of Christ, “Do this in [18r] remembrance of me,” are words of command, and bid us do what Christ did. He gave his own body, saying it was his body; what Christ the church’s spouse did, by his command the church does through the Scriptures.

Martyr: Of these words which you recite, Chrysostom wrote on 1 Corinthians 11, homily 27: “For Christ said in the bread and in the cup, ‘Do this in remembrance of me.’”93 You can hear how it is called bread after consecration.94 Also Cyril on John, book 14, chapter 14: “He gave them pieces of bread.”95

Tresham: The Fathers call it bread from its starting point [terminus a quo], that is, because of its former name.

Martyr: You96 waver and are stuck on the starting point; you deny a figure yet always defend yourself by a figure.

Tresham: I have many places of Chrysostom on my side, and oppose Chrysostom to Chrysostom. When teachers speak obscurely they are to be interpreted by clearer places. In the sermon on Judas’ betrayal, Chrysostom confesses that the bread is changed.97

Martyr: It is not now my turn to answer.98 When you oppose me, I will respond to your objection from Chrysostom. Meanwhile, since I do not wish to seem too inflexible, I hold with Chrysostom that the [160] bread is changed, yet into a sacrament; but I deny that the substance of bread is removed, nor will you ever show it from Chrysostom. Yes and Cyril says that even in the bread we receive his precious body and in the wine, his blood.

Tresham: We receive it in the bread and wine; that is, in the forms [in speciebus] of bread and wine.

Martyr: What do you call the forms of bread and wine?

Tresham: The accidental forms of bread and wine. [18v]

Martyr: Truly you do not have this signification from the Fathers; for by species they understood the very natures of things, not accidents. Ambrose, in his book Of those initiated in the Mysteries, the last chapter:99 “If the speech of Elijah were of such power as to bring down fire from heaven, will not the saying of Christ be effective, to change the form of elements?”100 He treats of a sacramental change. Therefore, if he means forms as accidents, it would follow that accidents would be changed in the Eucharist, which denies the sense. In the same chapter: “Before the blessing of the heavenly words, another form is named; after consecration the body of Christ is signified.” Augustine on John, the 26th treatise: “They did one thing and we did another, but in a visible form that still signified the same.”101 He is speaking there of the difference between the sacraments of the old and new law. In a way, the same thing is said by Augustine, in his treatise On catechizing, book 1, chapter 26.102

Tresham: The Fathers sometimes call the form the substance and sometimes the accident; for it is an ambiguous word; what the Scriptures call bread, and the Fathers also name bread, we say are forms of bread.

(F) HERE IT SEEMED GOOD TO THE VISITORS THAT WE SHOULD DISCUSS THE SECOND QUESTION103

Martyr: We deny that the body and blood of Christ is in the bread and [161] wine carnally and corporeally, or substantially and really, as you put it, or under the forms of bread and wine. I will prove this from Scripture. At the end of Mark: “After he had spoken to them the Lord Jesus was taken up into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God.” In Matthew 26: “The poor you shall have with you always, but me you shall not have.”104 John 16: “I leave the world and I go unto my father.” Many shall say in those days: “Behold here is Christ or there is Christ; [19r] do not believe them.”105 Acts 3: “Whom the heavens must hold, until the time of the restitution of all things.” And Colossians 3: “Seek those things that are above, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God.”106 So from these sayings it seems that once taken up from here, Christ lives in the heavens; since it is contrary to the nature of a true human body to be in many places at once, it follows that Christ’s body is not really in the bread or wine.107

Tresham: I deny108 that it cannot agree with a human body to be in different places at once, for the holy Scriptures teach the opposite, that after the ascension Christ was with his apostles even according to his humanity. In I Corinthians 9 Paul says: “Did I not see the Lord?” And the 15th of the same letter, “And last of all he was seen of me, as of one born out of time.”109 In Acts 9: “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” Also, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.” A little later Ananias said, “Brother Saul, the Lord has sent me, even Jesus who appeared to you in the way.” Barnabas said afterward to the apostles concerning Saul, how he had seen the Lord along the way and had spoken to him.110 During this time we must believe that Christ was in heaven at the right hand of his Father, because it is an article of faith. Nevertheless he was then on earth in visible form. So you have proved nothing; the body of Christ may well be in the sacrament under an invisible form, since at that time he was on earth in visible form, as we have proved. Therefore your reasons are not conclusive.

[162] Martyr:111 The answer will not do, for how do you know that Christ did not appear to Paul while he abode in heaven? He was seen by Stephen, sitting at the right hand of God. Augustine also on Psalm 54 says that the head which was in heaven cried out for the body on earth and said: [19v] “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”112 Moreover, was not Paul caught up into the third heaven, when he was able to see Christ? He told this to the Corinthians.113 He says only that he saw Christ, nothing of the place or time. Christ appeared to Paul when he was on the road and spoke to him while he was there; nevertheless (as I said) he might do this while remaining in heaven, and devise a voice that could be heard on earth from there. Furthermore, given the case that the Lord showed himself to be seen by Paul on earth, you cannot show that he was in heaven at the same time. We believe the article of faith that he was assumed into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father; but that he cannot at times transfer himself from there and appear to whom he will, we are not bound to believe. It is enough to confess that he has his proper mansion in heaven.114

Tresham: When Augustine says on the Psalm that Christ was in heaven when he cried, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” it favors my position. For it signifies that he was both in heaven and on earth at the same time. Or I can reply: by heaven he means the air, where perhaps Christ was when he cried, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” And that the air is called heaven, Scripture affirms when it says, “The birds of heaven.”115

Martyr: When you say that in Augustine’s opinion Christ is in both places, heaven and earth, you did not learn that from him; rather, he shows himself elsewhere to be of a different mind. To leave Christ hanging in air is absurd; you seem to make him a bird.

Tresham: I do not make Christ a bird, for then he would be like a bird when he hung upon the cross.

Martyr: No indeed, for he was then fastened to the wood. But throw these toys away. If we would see Augustine’s opinion on the subject, [163] let us consider his letter to Dardanus, where he wrote concerning the glorified body of Christ, [20r] that it is in a certain place because of the mode of a true body.116 He was asked the question: how was the thief with Christ in paradise that day on which he died, as he promised he would be? He answered, if we take heaven for paradise, that was not the case for his humanity, because his body was in the sepulchre and his soul in the underworld. Therefore he taught that this should be understood about his divinity. From this I conclude: if Augustine dared not admit that the soul of Christ is at one time in both hell and heaven, much less must it be granted to his body.

Tresham: I say with Augustine, distinguish the times, and Scripture agrees. There were three errors that Augustine was attacking in that place; one is of those who put the Word, that is, the deity, in place of the soul of Christ; another put the Word for the mind of Christ’s soul; the third consisted of those who had the body of Christ spread everywhere.117 Therefore in that place Augustine speaks of the body of Christ so far as it has a visible form; it is this mode he says to be only in heaven unless at any time it happens otherwise through a miracle. Nonetheless, he is in the sacrament according to an invisible form in which Augustine believed it to be in different places at once; for in the same letter he mentions our sacrifice. Nor should we doubt that Christ gave himself visibly and again invisibly, as he wished. Thus in Luke 4: when he withdrew himself from the multitude, and went through their midst, and on mount Tabor showed his glorified body.118 Therefore I answer Augustine that he does these works as he pleases now more than ever.

Martyr: You have gathered many things together, but it cannot be proved from all these that Augustine would have the body of Christ to be in many places at once. Though he mentioned our sacrifice, that was for a different reason, [20v] which does not belong to this topic, as is clear to its readers. Rather he relates our sacrifice to the unity of the mystical body, not even mentioning the flesh or blood of Christ himself. Nor does he take on the rebuttal of errors concerning the soul or mind of Christ, but urges Dardanus not to [164] become involved with them. It shows how much he writes against you, since he will have no accidents if the subject is gone, or bodies if you remove their place. Certainly, if he did take your part when he wrote these things, we must make an exception of the Eucharist. Besides, if we grant that a body may be in many places at one time, it must be acknowledged that it cannot be in every place, something that Scotus also saw.119 Yet as I have already stated, it still stands by the saying of Augustine that because of the mode of a true body, the body of Christ requires a certain place.

Tresham: Yet if God wills it can be in many places, indeed as many as he chooses. Nor should it detract from his divine power, which does not include a contradiction in terms.

Martyr: Nothing of the divine power is diminished by me, even if I have spoken like this. I refer to the power of God with the greatest reserve; yet there are many things which cannot be done because the nature of things does not permit: they are contraries, and as you said imply contradiction, which is not to be attributed to any infirmity in God.120 But you have not proved that there is no opposition of terms (as you put it); you merely say it.

Tresham: There is no difficulty here in terms of objects; for Paul distinguishes between a natural [animale] and a spiritual body.121 But the body of Christ is spiritual, and this removes all difficulties from it. Not only is Christ’s body spiritual, but so will our bodies be after122 the resurrection. [21r]

Martyr: I know that the body of Christ is spiritual; but Augustine says in the letter to Consentius: “it is understood that a natural body is said to be like other animate beings, because of the dissolution and corruption of death; but a spiritual body is called this because it is now immortal with the spirit.”123 And a little after: “Therefore just as a natural body is not a soul but a body, so should we think that a spiritual body is not spirit but body.” In City of God, book 13, chapter 20: “Because it will serve the spirit by a great and wonderful [165] readiness to obey, so that it fulfils by the most secure will an indissoluble immortality.” And a little later: “If we may justly call the spirit serving the flesh carnal, so may we call the flesh serving the spirit spiritual, not because it will be turned into spirit.”124 You hear what is said of a spiritual body, where we do not find that it is in various places at the same time, for that would be to say that a body is not body. It is as repugnant to the nature of a body to be in various places at once, as it is not to be a body.

Tresham: I deny your assumption, that it is as contradictory to the nature of a body to dwell in many places at once, as it is not to be a body; for the latter includes a contradiction in terms, whereas the former does not. This may be done more easily in a body which has the properties of a glorious body.

Martyr: I will prove later that since the body of Christ is finite and circumscribed, and a creature, it is inconsistent for it to be in many places at once. As regards the glory which he has at present, I say I do not exclude the gifts of glory. Yet I will pursue the present argument, that Augustine did not mean that the soul of Christ was at one time both in hell and in heaven with the thief; much less therefore shall this be granted to the body which [21v] is not attributed to the soul. Nor does Augustine exclude the Eucharist in that treatise.

Tresham: Yes, he did exclude it.

Martyr: Augustine mentions the Eucharist there, but intended something quite different than to exclude it from established truth. He was dealing with the Holy Spirit, who is one but distributes his gifts without dividing himself, to adorn with his graces the mystical body of the church, that mystical125 body of Christ which he says is displayed in our sacrifice.

Tresham: What if Augustine denies that the soul of Christ cannot be in various places, can it therefore be? Will Augustine’s saying lessen the power of God, that it will not do as it chooses? No, it will not.

Martyr:126 It is enough for now that we have seen Augustine’s opinion that Christ is in heaven in terms of his humanity and because of the nature of a true body, but is everywhere in terms of his divinity.

[166] Tresham: When Augustine says: in respect to his humanity Christ is in heaven, this should be taken as true regarding visible form; for so he explains himself in that place, saying: if he shall come according to that voice of the angel, just as he was seen going into heaven, that is (to use his own words), in the same form of flesh; according to this form, he says, he must not be thought to be dispersed everywhere. Afterward in that passage Augustine mentions our sacrifice, where he says: “We give thanks.” At that time no one doubted the truth of the sacrament.

Martyr: You will never find from Augustine that the body of Christ can be in many places in invisible form: this is your own creation. I have now shown why he mentions the Eucharist there. Moreover, we do not dispute here about the truth of the sacrament, which we all confess; but we contend about the way in which Christ is there. I will show most surely that it is for God alone to be in many places [22r] and everywhere, which should not be allowed to creatures. By this reasoning Didymus, On the Holy Spirit book one, proves the godhead of the Holy Spirit, because he could be in many places at once, which does not belong to any creature. Basil made the same case in his book On the Holy Spirit chapter 22. So if their argument is firm we should conclude that the human nature in Christ is the divine nature, since you asserted that it is in many places at once, and so everything would be confused. But now let us hear their words. Didymus says: “The Holy Spirit himself, if he were one of the creatures, would at least have a circumscribed substance, like all things that were made. For although invisible creatures are not set within places and boundaries, yet they are limited by the nature of their substance. But because the Holy Spirit is in many places, he does not have a limited substance. Sending forth the preachers of his doctrine, Jesus filled them with the Spirit, and breathing on them, said: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit,’ and ‘go forth and teach all nations,’127 not as if he sent them to all nations. Nor indeed did the apostles go to all nations together, but some into Asia, some to Scythia, and others dispersed to other nations, according to the dispensation of that Holy Spirit whom they possessed. In this sense also we have heard the Lord say: ‘I am with you even to the end of the world.’ And that saying agrees: ‘You shall receive power when [167] the Holy Spirit shall come on you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the ends of the earth.’128 They were placed in the outermost limits of the earth for the Lord’s witness, [22v] being far distant from one another. Yet the Holy Spirit indwelt them, having a substance that is without limits; this shows that the power of angels is quite different from this. For example, the angel present with the apostle in Asia when he was praying could not at the same time be present with those who were located in other parts of the world. But the Holy Spirit is not only joined with those who are separated from one another, but also indwells all the particular angels, principalities, thrones, and dominions; as he sanctifies us, so is he of another nature than human.”129 In On the Holy Spirit, chapter 22, Basil says: “Therefore regarding the Holy Spirit, whom the world cannot receive, but whom saints alone may behold through purity of heart, what can we think but that all sorts of honor belong to him? […] All other powers are believed to exist in a circumscribed place. For the angel who stood by Cornelius was not in the same place where he stood with Philip; nor did the angel who spoke with Zechariah from the altar at the same time also occupy his own post in heaven. But the Spirit is believed to be simultaneously at work in Habakkuk and in Daniel in Babylonia, and is said to have been both with Jeremiah in the cataract and with Ezekiel in Chebar. ‘For the Spirit of the Lord fills the whole world.’ Again: ‘where shall I go from your spirit? Or where shall I fly from your face?’130 And the prophet: ‘Because I am with you, says the Lord, and my spirit stands in your midst.’131 But what should we believe his nature to be, who is in every place and is one with God? Is it a nature that fills all things, or else is tied to particular places? The Son of God showed what is the nature of angels.”132 But you will not say this. Here you may perceive [23r] that these most holy and learned men assert that every creature, even an angel, is of a limited nature, and cannot be in various places at one time. By this means they prove the divinity of [168] the Holy Spirit, because he may be found at one time in various different places. Let us sum up as follows. Whatever is in many places at once is God; the body of Christ is not God but a creature; therefore the body of Christ is not in many places at once.133

Tresham: I did not state that the body of Christ is everywhere, although it may be in various places at once. And although the body that Christ assumed is not God, yet Christ is God.134 As to Basil, Didymus, and Augustine, they speak only of what is everywhere by its own nature, or in many places at once; and they prove this to be God; yet they never diminish the power of God; rather something other than God may be in various places at the same time through his power.

Martyr: When one states that it can be in many places at once, by the same reason it is held to be everywhere. What you say about these Fathers is not true, that they say that something may be in many places through its own nature, and take such a thing to be God, yet do not deny that anything created may through God’s power be in many places at once. This overturns their argument about the Holy Spirit. For a heretic will say: if the Holy Spirit has been in many places, this was by the power of God, not by his own nature; this argument would not prove that he is not created. Therefore to prove this matter they must understand absolutely that whatever is in many places at one time is God.

Tresham: Christ is God, that is enough for us.

Martyr: Yet Augustine says we must beware of exalting the divinity of Christ so far that we destroy his humanity.

Tresham: [23v] I say that the humanity of Christ is not destroyed by ascribing to him a multitude of places. For since he is himself omnipotent, if he chooses he may be in many places at once, or everywhere, even in the body.

Martyr: The question is not whether Christ is omnipotent, or God,135 for we allow both of these, but whether his body may be in many places at once; they deny that this may be said of any creature, but you affirm it of Christ’s body, which is but a creature. Therefore I ask you whether the body of Christ is circumscribed.

[169] Tresham: To put it briefly, wherever it wills to be it is, and it can be in many places at once.

Martyr: Then hear what Cyril says in his dialogues On the Trinity, book 2, page 245.136 If the divine nature should truly (as they say) receive division and partition it would be understood to be a body; and if a body, then completely in a place, both in number and quantity. And if quantity, then it could not avoid being circumscribed. See then how vain is your hesitation in granting that Christ’s body is within limits, since Cyril clearly says that if the divinity were quantitative, even it would be circumscribed. So this argument is unanswerable: whatever is within limits cannot be in many places at once. The Fathers would have cited this proposition here. Add the minor: the body of Christ is circumscribed; for since it has quantity it cannot help but have limits, and Cyril testified to this fact. Therefore it cannot be in many places at once.137

Tresham: The major is understood of earthly bodies, not glorified. How can that body be enclosed in any place, which arose when the sepulchre was shut fast, and entered when the doors were closed?

Martyr: I taught this before from Cyril, that if the divinity itself had quantity [24r] it would be circumscribed. Since it does not exclude God and nothing is more glorious than God, much less does it exempt glorified bodies. Nor do you need now to object against me either his coming forth from the closed sepulchre, or his going in when the doors were shut. The passage will serve to discuss those matters when it comes my turn to answer and yours to oppose.

Tresham: Cyril138 speaks of a quantity as having the measure of quantity, and in that way he does not restrict glorified bodies. Again, we grant that an accident may be in many places at once. For example: health is one and the same in all parts of the body: will we deny this to the body of Christ?

Martyr: Cyril could not state more clearly or stop all evasions more diligently, when he did not exclude divinity itself from having a place and being circumscribed, if it had quantity. As to what you answer [170] me about an accident, namely of health, it is not the same reason in both. Health is a quality not a body; it does not occupy a place, and is one and the same with an animal body, where it exists and is called such. But the health of one and the same creature is not identical in another; for qualities have their subjects on account of location, and it is impossible for them to be the same in number in various subjects at once; but all the parts of a creature are the same in subject, and united by the conjunction of members.139

Tresham: The argument of Didymus proceeds from that which is in many places by its own nature, and not otherwise. All the Doctors agree that Christ was born when his mother’s womb was closed, that he rose when the sepulchre was sealed, and that he went in to his disciples when the doors were fast.140 Hugh of Saint Victor says that the angels are not circumscribed by place.141 Therefore although Christ’s body is properly in heaen, yet because [24v] it is spiritual, it is not contrary to the power of God that it can be in many places.

Martyr: I have already replied as to whether the Fathers understand their reasons about what is in many places by its own nature. As to the Virgin’s womb, the sepulchre and doors being shut, you must oppose, and I will respond in due time. But when Hugh of Saint Victor and others say that angels are not circumscribed by place, they must be understood concerning local boundaries, by which bodies among us are surrounded by the condition of air, or something else containing them. But these things cannot be taken as if to understand that angels or any creature lack a definite substance, so that when they are in any given place they cannot be elsewhere.142 So I return to the argument, it is a firm conclusion: this thing is in many places; therefore it is God.

[171] Tresham: I answer: Christ is God, and the present debate between us concerns the body, which has divinity joined to it.

Martyr: Let me ask you: is the body of Christ created or not?

Tresham: I admit that it is, yet Christ is not a creature.

Martyr: But I say that Christ is both, creator and creature. As to his divinity he is a creator, as to his humanity a creature; and if a creature, as these Fathers claim, he cannot be in various places at once.

Tresham: What Christ once took on he never let go; therefore because of his divinity, which is inseparably joined to his body, the body of Christ can be in many places.

Martyr: We do not divide Christ in the least, yet we would have both his natures to be whole. Since the divinity does not prevent the body of Christ from being a creature, and you have now heard from Basil143 and Didymus that created powers cannot be in many places at once, you yourself see what [25r] follows.

Tresham: They discussed the nature of the thing, not the absolute power of God. Neither reason nor sense is to be followed in matters of faith; otherwise, many absurdities would result.

Martyr: I do not know how they could have spoken more clearly about the power of God. Cyril does not even exclude divinity itself, when he says: if it were of quantity, it could not help but be circumscribed. I acknowledge what you say, that in matters of faith we must not follow reason or sense. Yet it is not an article of faith that the body of Christ is in many places, since the Scriptures never teach this. We have learned otherwise from them, that Christ is true man, and has a true body, to which it is most agreeable that it be circumscribed and enclosed within some given place. As to his body, we believe that he has ascended into heaven, that he has left the world and sits at the right hand of the Father.144

[172] SECOND DAY

Disputation of the second day, which was the 29th of May, between Dr. Peter Martyr and Dr. William Chedsey.

(A) DR. PETER MARTYR

Worthy gentlemen and distinguished Royal legates: I do not think it is right for me to use a preface at this time. Yesterday we stated those things which were thought suitable for the present purpose. By your arrangement and authority it happened that everything fell out peaceably and quietly. I hope that [25v] it will be the same today. Now concerning the matter, distinguished and learned Doctor, since you were present yesterday you should understand well enough what questions are proposed, and some reasons for my opinion. Therefore to proceed with our intention, I would have you show your judgment on the questions; I am sure that whatever you say will be impartial and modest. But before you answer, allow me, according to my custom, to ask for God’s help.

PRAYER

Almighty God, yesterday by your help we began to debate; since today also we will proceed in that matter, once again we call upon you, who are the fountain of light, the most perfect truth and clearest wisdom, that you will so direct our words that we do not fall into absurdities, but rather that those things to be handled may become more plain and also be set forth to the praise and glory of your name, through Christ our Lord. Amen.

(B) PREFACE OF WILLIAM CHEDSEY

The subject handled yesterday, famous Doctor, is a great one and full of mysteries; so it will be today. Great, because we dispute about the body by which we are nourished and live forever, and about the blood that we drink and that redeems the people. Full of mysteries because unless you believe, you will not understand: “My words are spirit and life. It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh avails nothing.”145 The Capernaites hear and say: “This is a hard saying and who can [26r] [173] abide it?” Christians hear and along with Peter cry without ceasing: “You have the words of eternal life; we believe and know that you are the way, the truth, and the life.”146 We believe that you promised the Holy Spirit would come, not after a thousand years or more, but a few days after you had spoken. We acknowledge the work of your Holy Spirit. He will lead us into all truth, he will teach us all things that you have said to us. Since therefore you are true, the very truth itself, and since what has gone forth from your lips cannot be defeated, I firmly believe from your mouth, and pronounce it from my heart, regarding the presence of your body in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, that no fictitious or fantastic, no imagined or mere figurative body, but your true, real, substantial—and lest we seem to avoid crasser terms, your corporeal, natural, and carnal body—is present, since you have said: “Take, eat, this is my body which is given for you, broken, delivered or to be delivered for you.”147 But as to the mode or in what way it is there, whether transelemented with the bread and (as they say) transubstantiated, the Scriptures do not teach in plain words. What shall we say? It does not teach in plain words; therefore it has not taught it? God forbid. “I have many things to say to you, which you cannot now bear.” He has taught: “The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”148 Taking bread in his hands, giving thanks, breaking the bread, and distributing it, he taught: “This is my body.” He taught it, although rather obscurely. He would not be touched at that time because he had not yet ascended to his Father. He ascended, he sent the Holy Spirit; this Holy Spirit performed his role. He taught the church, [26v] he taught Councils and Fathers the whole truth. Therefore heed him, trust him, he overcomes and will overcome the world. Yet since no one is so great a genius, of such firm memory, or such sound and solid eloquence as not to be easily disturbed in a subject otherwise most true, either by force of arguments, a display of authorities, or the obscurity of the Fathers, I ask your pardon, most excellent royal commissioners, and promise obedience, if perhaps I say something repugnant to Scripture or in any way departing from the [174] laws of this realm. In order to perform all these things well, let us with common prayer call for the help of his Holy Spirit, who knows all things and teaches all things, saying together: “Come, Holy Spirit, replenish the hearts of your sons,” etc. Let us pray: “O God, who has taught the hearts of the faithful by the illumination of the Holy Spirit,” and so forth.149

Now then, most famous Doctor, I prepare myself for the proposed questions. But first, by your leave, partly for my own instruction, partly so that what you alleged yesterday may not seem to be questioned, and partly that those who are present should not be seduced, I will run over two or three authorities which you advanced yesterday.150 You argued from St. Cyprian: “Just as divinity is hidden in the person of Christ,” etc. And just as the divine and the flesh make up one Christ, so the bread and the body of Christ make one sacrament. I answer that the similitude does not relate to presence, but to what lies hidden, as follows: as the divine is hidden in the humanity, and as the rational soul is hidden in the body, so in the sacrament the body of Christ lies hidden under the form of bread.151 Otherwise, if likeness holds in all things, it would follow that Christ could not die, and that his soul was never separated from [27r]152 his body. Athanasius says: As the rational soul and the flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ. But this is false, since the divine could not be separated from the human, either from body or from soul, even if the soul could be snatched from the flesh by death.

Gelasius,153 whom you take to be on your side, favors Nestorius. Nor is it a valid argument to say that in part he is no Nestorian; therefore he is none at all. It is certain that he was suspected of this heresy; this could be denied, except that he explains himself: it remains in the property of nature, that is, in the accidents and forms of bread; it has the taste of bread, it has [175] the power of nourishing, and other qualities of bread. Augustine uses this sense in the letter to Dardanus, saying under this word substance: “He will come again, as the words of the angel testify, just as he was seen to go into heaven, that is, in the same form and substance of flesh.”154 As to what Augustine says to Dardanus, it is true that under human form the body of Christ is in one place only. You also appealed to Augustine in the sentences of Prosper, who says that a sacrament consists of two things, namely a sacrament and the matter of the sacrament.155 I answer: the outward sacrament is what appears to the eye, but the matter of the sacrament is the body of Christ. In sum, Augustine would have this sacrament to consist of two things, the outward visible sign, that is, the forms of bread and wine, and the substance of the sacrament, that is, the body of Christ; without any doubt these things remain; this is what we gather from Augustine. He calls it the same and not the same. As for Theodoret, although I do not have his book and he is condemned by Cyril along with Nestorius, I say he is of the same mind as other Fathers, who when they say that the nature remains, understand the property of bread. [27v] In this way we do not reject Theodoret, but accept him; yet in this sense, that he is not himself one opposed to many. This is the rule that you yourself wish to observe in interpreting the Fathers.156

I grant that what Origen has in the fragments on Matthew 15 is true, that this material is in turn cast out. But he interprets himself in another place: do not stick, he says, to the blood of the flesh, but learn the blood of the Word. For if we eat the flesh or drink the blood without faith, it is of no effect but is passed out; not the flesh itself, but the bread and wine.”157 In his sermon On the Lapsed, Cyprian says that without doubt “the Lord withdraws when he is denied,” adding “when his saving grace is changed to ashes by the flight of sanctity.”158 Irenaeus, you say, calls it bread in book 4 chapter 32; and before consecration it is indeed true bread. But when the Word comes the body of Christ is made from this matter, so that creatureliness precedes consecration. [176] When he said that the cup, which belongs to creatures like ourselves, is confessed to be his blood, he showed that by the wonderful power of God, the blood of our Lord is made from a creature that exists among us. Nor should it be understood that it is both the blood of Christ and wine together, but a creature like us becomes blood after the words are pronounced.

Likewise Gregory in the Register says that it may be made of unleavened or of leavened bread; not that he takes bread to remain.159 Beside this, you introduced Epiphanius in the Ancorato. That place counts for us most of all, so that I wonder why you mentioned Epiphanius. In answer it is enough to read his words.160 “For we see what our Savior took into his hands, as the Gospel states, that during the supper he arose and took these things, and after giving thanks said: ‘This is mine, and this and this.’ We can see that it is not [28r] equal or alike, either to the image in the flesh or to the invisible deity, nor yet to the features of bodily members. For this is round in form and without the power of sense; through grace he would say: ‘This is mine, and this and this’; yet no one doubts his saying. For anyone who does not believe it to be true, just as he spoke it, falls from grace and salvation.” It may be understood on this point that whoever does not believe the true body to be there, falls from grace and salvation.

Now to come to the matter proposed: on the first question I reply: in the sacrament of the Eucharist the bread and wine is transubstantiated into the true body and the true blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

(C) PETER MARTYR VS. WILLIAM CHEDSEY

Martyr: I have heard you speak at length about those things discussed yesterday. You have tried to frame a rather large answer to those items I used against the other opponent in the objections. But if I were to demonstrate the strength of your answers at this point, the debate would become immense. Moreover, since I have further points to make, I think this day’s space will not be enough. I give my word that on that day when I answer you, I will repeat all these sayings of yours and will show how little strength they have to weaken my position. Meanwhile, lest anyone should slander me without cause, or be moved by your words to tempt me to envy, I declare my belief that in the communion we receive the very body [177] and the very blood of Christ, but by mind and faith [animo et fide]. Nor do I hold it to be a fictitious or imagined body; at the moment what is called into question is only the way in which that true body and true blood is present in the Eucharist. I say spiritually, and that we embrace it by faith, and make it present. [28v] But you affirm that we receive it by mouth and carnally. I am completely persuaded and know positively that what I have said does not tend to seduce my listeners, as you accuse me, but to teach the truth. But omitting these matters, let us turn to the discussion of the question itself. An analogy should be observed in all sacraments between the sacrament and the matter of the sacrament: Cicero calls it “agreement” [convenientiam].161 Augustine On instructing the unlearned wishes a sacrament to have a likeness to the thing.162 He says this in the letter to Boniface, where on account of this likeness, he gives the sacraments the names of the things. Since the Eucharist has for the matter of the sacrament both the body of Christ and the mystical body, you who through transubstantiation remove the bread and wine, overthrow the analogy which obtains in it, that just as we are nourished naturally by bread and wine, so are we nourished spiritually by the body and blood of Christ, both inwardly and outwardly. As for the mystical body, the likeness holds in it, that just as bread and wine consist of much gathering and flowing together, that is, many grains of corn and many grapes, so the mystical body consists of many members, united in one.163

Chedsey: I deny the minor proposition, that when the substance of bread is removed, the analogy falls.164

Martyr: I have proved it; for as our body is nourished naturally by bread and wine, so we are nourished spiritually by the body and blood of Christ. And it is obvious that our bodies are not nourished by accidents, [178] but by substance.

Chedsey: We do not destroy the analogy, for it consists in the matter present before the consecration; “the word comes to the element, and it is made [29r] a sacrament,”165 and when consecration is finished, accidents remain, which lead us by the hand to that likeness. Those externals are enough to show what you are seeking; and they are left through the great mercy of God, so that we may not dread the body and blood of Christ if they were shown to us without the forms of bread and wine. Yet this analogy does not require the nature of bread and wine to remain.

Martyr: You have several points in your response; I will reply to each in turn. First, when you say that it is enough that before consecration it is bread and wine, by which substances we are nourished, it only proves that you remove the analogy in the sacrament itself. For we speak of the sacrament when it is now a sacrament, and contend that the analogy must be kept there. You put it before the sacrament, but when it comes to the sacrament you take it away, and so you sin against the sacrament. Certainly in baptism it does not go like that; for the purging of souls is signified by the water in which we are all bathed, nor is the water taken away; rather it remains and we are washed with it. If it were taken away, it would not be a full sacrament. So it is not enough to say that before consecration a fitting substance was present. Again, what you bring from Augustine: “The word comes to the element and it is made a sacrament,” counts against you most of all; for he does not say it “casts out” the element, but it “comes to” the element: the meaning is that the element itself becomes a sacrament. We have the same mercy while bread and wine remain which you say is given us through accidents, so that the body of Christ may be hidden in them, lest while it is seen it should cause loathing. For familiar natures are not loathsome to us. Your point that accidents or forms [29v] lead us to that likeness will not do. First, because what you say about accidents is false; second, because what nourishes us naturally must remain; accidents do not provide this. A sacrament must signify the matter of the sacrament, but not a substance that once existed, which you say it has thrown out. Last, you bring no reason why you exclude bread. Yesterday I asked you why often enough but heard [179] nothing; perhaps you will oblige.

Chedsey: First I answer that it is not necessary for bread to remain in the Eucharist as water does in baptism, for the nature of both sacraments is not the same. For here it is said “this is my body,” but in the other it is not “this water is my blood, or my body.” Further, it is not necessary (as you argue) for the element to remain after the coming of the word. Natural reason teaches us so by a simile: as in digestion a natural heat comes to the food we receive and changes its substance into flesh, so in the sacrament when the word comes it changes the substance of bread into the true body of Christ. To your question why we eliminate bread, I answer: because the Holy Spirit foresaw that heretics would come,166 who would say that in the sacrament there is bread along with the body of Christ, and that the substance of bread is the flesh of Christ, and would deny the real presence, since they contend that the substance of bread remains there.

Martyr: Your answer involves three points. The first is that you do not admit a likeness between baptism and the Eucharist, as if I had argued from a simile. I touched on baptism as an aside, but the ground of the argument was that appropriate material must be kept in the sacraments; in regard to the Eucharist [30r] what nourishes us is what comes from the substance of bread, not from accidents. Accordingly I do not deny that there should be the same analogy [ratio] in baptism and Eucharist; nor have you shown the contrary. Also you contend that Augustine’s dictum, “The word comes to the element and it is made a sacrament,” does not count against you, as I showed. I prove it because he thinks the element remains and the word is joined to it, and so from them the sacrament is made. As for your simile of natural digestion, it does not serve the purpose. For when natural heat comes, meat is converted into our substance; if it were absent, as you exclude bread in transubstantiation, we would not be sustained or nourished by anything. Again, you don’t prove easily to me an identical ratio with natural heat and the words of consecration. Lastly, regarding the reason you bring for rejecting bread, namely because the Holy Spirit foresaw that heretics would come who would say that bread remains, or that the body of Christ is not substantially or really in [180] the Eucharist: I say it is empty. For these heretics (as you call them) were all future Fathers, who say that bread remains there. Furthermore, if the Holy Spirit taught this to the church, why do you not produce the sentence where he taught it?

Chedsey: It is not necessary for matter to remain in this sacrament as to substance, for (as I have said) we can have an analogy through the accidents that remain. Moreover, Augustine does not say that the elements remain, or that after digestion the substance of bread is not retained. Let physicians and philosophers judge on this point. Finally, I answer: the Holy Spirit taught the church in the Lateran Council that we should acknowledge transubstantiation.167 [30v]

Martyr: To the last168 part of your answer I reply that I asked by what Word of God the Holy Spirit taught transubstantiation, and you answer me: through the Lateran Council. What they decided should not be heeded unless their decrees are confirmed by the Word of God. But why do I ask you this, since you confessed in your preface that transubstantiation cannot be proved explicitly from the holy Scriptures? Against the other point I repeat that unless the matter and substance of food or bread remained in us after digestion we could not live. Of course some portion is expelled as excrement, but on the other hand, unless something remained we would not be sustained. I will show how well this simile supports you. In the natural process the substance and matter of food is retained in due proportion, but the form and accidents disappear. You, on the contrary, throw out the substance and keep the accidents. As you also said, I would have physicians and philosophers rule on this. For in nourishing I do not judge that any form of bread remains, but its matter, substance, and body.

Chedsey: I affirm that councils must by all means be highly regarded when they decree from God’s Word, as the Lateran Council did, which I cited. For you have transubstantiation from the Gospel, although obscurely, when it is said: “This is my body.” We say moreover that the accidents remain because of our weakness. Besides, just as our flesh is made from digested bread, although the substance of bread does not remain, even so the body of Christ is [181] made from the element when the Word is added.

Martyr: This says nothing, because you have not yet shown that the Lateran Council drew its decrees from the Word of God. I have already objected often to this, [31r] that the element must remain necessarily if it will become a sacrament. As for taking account of our weakness, the substance of bread benefits equally and even more than the accident.169

Chedsey: I grant that which Augustine says: “The word comes to the element and it is made a sacrament”; yet he does not say that the element is made a sacrament.

Martyr: Let us consider the words: “The word comes to the element and it is made a sacrament.” What is made a sacrament?

Chedsey: Not the element, not the word, but a kind of third thing compounded of both, different from either the word or the element.

Martyr: A sacrament is the sign of something holy,170 and this is consistent with an element, to be a sign. Everyone admits that sacraments are made of the thing and the sign. Therefore since signification belongs to the element, it is necessary that it should remain. You grant this without knowing it, when you say that the sacrament is not the element or the word, but some third thing composed of them. How can it be a compound if it is no longer there? You see clearly that this happens in baptism, where we do not doubt that the water is an element, which remains because it signifies.

Chedsey: It is not necessary that the element should remain in the Eucharist as in baptism. I have already denied this similitude and I deny it again.

Martyr: I produced an argument from the definition of a sacrament which is indeed a sign, and since the property of signifying [significandi ratio] belongs to an element, it must remain of necessity, unless you wish to destroy the nature of a sacrament. To this you answer nothing. When I bring in the simile of baptism, you keep denying it, as if Christ were not received by us in both of these sacraments. There we are regenerated in Christ, here we feed on the same Christ. There we are baptized into one body, namely Christ’s, here we drink of the one spirit, as it is said to [31v] the Corinthians; [182] and to the Galatians that in baptism we put on Christ.171 Therefore these two sacraments are alike. Nor should this similitude be denied just because Christ did not say, “This water is my body,” as he said in the Eucharist, “This is my body.” The truth of these words does not require the nature of bread to be cast out, but to be preserved; still what Christ said is most true. Now then what constrains you to exclude the bread?

Chedsey: We are constrained by the words of Christ, for he said, “This is my body,” and he did not say, “this water is my blood.”

Martyr: Since you attribute so much to divine power, by which you say so many and such great miracles are made in transubstantiation,172 it is a wonder why on such grounds you cannot or will not persuade yourself also that the substance of bread remains. You declare that it is so that the body of Christ may be given, and are compelled to say that the bread is transubstantiated. This was also the devil’s counsel, that if Christ would eat, he should first change stones into bread, as though Christ by the power of God could not have eaten anything and be sustained by whatever it was. So he answered rightly, “Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.”173 As if he had said, I might also eat of stones if I would, and there would be no need to convert them into bread. So then, if through the power of God we could be nourished by everything, why is it not also lawful to receive the body of Christ with actual bread?

Chedsey: We are not arguing about the power174 but the fact; for although it might have been done otherwise, it was so instituted by Christ.

Martyr: I spoke about the power of God to show that this does not prevent the bread from remaining, and yet the body of Christ is given; for I hear you praising it highly when you judge that there are accidents without a subject. [32r] I thought the same thing might be done, that bread as well as accidents might remain in the sacrament, and I also did it to get from you what necessity there is to remove the bread. As to what you say about the fact, it is not proved, since Scripture does not testify that Christ wished the [183] bread to disappear. Hence it does not yet appear that you are compelled by the Word of God to exclude the bread.

Chedsey: The necessity comes from the Word of God, and is contained sufficiently in the Scriptures, namely in these words: “This is my body.” Again, “The bread which I shall give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”175

Martyr: These two things are not contrary, namely that it is both the body of Christ as well as bread. For other sacraments also keep the element, yet have the nature of a sacrament. Because you claim the Word of God: “This is my body,” I have often shown that the Word of God supports both the body of Christ and bread. If you are so keen on the Word of God, why do you not retain both?

Chedsey: I admit that Scripture speaks of both, but I deny the sense that you make, for the Word teaches otherwise; therefore the bread is not preserved here. To have the bread present detracts from the majesty and power of God.

Martyr: I have already declared from Scripture that the Word teaches that bread is present, since Jesus took bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it, all of which are referred to bread; and to have bread present by no means detracts from the power or majesty of God.

Chedsey: I deny that Christ gave bread, but he gave his body. What he showed was at first bread, but by consecration was made body.

Martyr: Scripture is quite clear, stating that Christ not only took but also gave. What did the Lord take? What did he break? What did he give? You can make no other answer but bread, if you will retain the grammatical construction. [32v]

Chedsey: He gave his body; the Evangelist recites a fact, not a manner and order of doing.176

Martyr: I do not deny that both are given, body and bread, but I urge you who deny the bread to grant that he gave bread when the grammatical sense constrains you, whether or not you wish to. This word “body” is not referred to those verbs: he took, he blessed, he broke and gave, but to the verb “is.” Yet (as I have said) I do not deny that the body of Christ is given; but since holy Scripture has both, bread as well as body, you should allow both. But let us try something else. You constantly use this proposition, “this is my [184] body,” to prove that bread must be excluded from this sacrament; yet it does not necessarily prove what you wish. For you take up an argument from a doubtful point. If we bring in many propositions like that, which are considered as figurative and (so to speak) significative, you cannot help but prove that this is the same kind. It is written to the Corinthians: “But the rock was Christ.” Christ said to his apostles: “Have I not chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?” Of circumcision: “My covenant shall be in your flesh.”177 Concerning John: “If you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah.” Again, “When he had breathed upon them, he said: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’” Also: “I am the vine, I am the door.”178 Judah said about Joseph: “He is our brother and our flesh.”179 Paul said of Christ: “He is our peace,” and of ourselves: “You are the body of Christ.”180 It is written also that “He is a stone of offense, and a rock of stumbling.”181 Paul affirms the Gospel to be the power of God to salvation. In the Scriptures it is often said that the words of the Lord are righteousness, judgment and truth.182 The same apostle testifies that: “To unbelievers the gospel is but foolishness.”183 [33r] In the book of Genesis, “The seven ears are seven years,” and “the ten pieces of cloth are the ten tribes of Israel,” as Ahijah of Shiloh says.184 Also the woman wears exousia on her head, that is, power.185 Similarly, “The priest ate the sins of the people.”186 Christ for us became sin. The lamb or the sacrifice is the passover. Still again: “Christ our passover is offered up.”187 There are countless other places in holy Scripture that have a similar kind of speech. For this reason, since this sentence, “This is my body,” should be included, and is cited by you in a plain sense, it comes to nothing, since you lean to ambiguity. And when you say that you are compelled by the holy Scriptures, you bring that Word of God into question, whose right sense can be shown from other [185] places.188

Chedsey: I deny that we lean to ambiguities. Everyone admits many tropes in Scripture, but we deny that they are all figures. Nor is it a good argument: there are tropes here and there; therefore this is also a trope. Wherever there is a figure, the context of the place informs us: there is no circumstance here that shows it. If the verb “is” is taken for “it signifies,” Christ would not be truly human except by signification. When it is said: “The Word was made flesh,” we should interpret it as “it signifies flesh,” so that the Word was not actually made flesh. When we read, “God was the Word,” we should interpret it that he signified the Word; and so everything would be confused. Therefore we conclude that there is no figure in this place.

Martyr: Whether Christ is God and man, the clearest testimonies are present by which we are constrained to understand simpliciter those sentences you just now alleged.189 But we are led to affirm a trope in this place by the words of Scripture, the nature of a sacrament, and testimonies of the Fathers. As to the Scripture, [33v] it is written: “Do this in remembrance of me,” and remembrance is not of things corporeally present, but absent. It is added, “Until I come,” which is not appropriate if he has already come through consecration.190 Paul said, “The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” But it is not fitting that the body of Christ should be broken, since because of his glory it is quite impassible. Moreover the Lord said that they should take and eat, which cannot be understood without a figure, if you refer it to the body of Christ, for it does not seem that he should be broken and ground with the teeth, which is done in true and proper eating. Moreover you yourselves are compelled to admit a figure, for by your own opinion the body of Christ is not in the Eucharist except after the words are uttered. Therefore the verb “is” cannot be understood in its proper signification while you speak it, for a thing must first be, before anything can truly be said of it.191 Besides this, in Luke and in Paul the words are spoken of the cup, where you cannot avoid a figure, when it is said: “This cup is the new testament,” [186] which is nothing else than it signifies the new testament. Again, in the sixth chapter of John, “My words are spirit and life. The flesh is of no avail.” And he mentioned his ascension.192 So much from the Scriptures; later I will speak of the nature of the sacrament, and of the Fathers.

Chedsey: I answer that those words, “Do this in remembrance of me,” and “until I come,” do not prove a trope. It is not a valid argument to say: something is done in remembrance of something; therefore it is nothing or does not remain. Rather, by those words Christ intended to commend to them the action performed before them at that moment, so that they might do in fact what they saw he had done. When you add, “Until I come,” it must be understood about his human form, in which he will come for judgment; for [34r] this sacrifice will not cease until the end of the world.193 As to what you said about breaking, I reply that the body of Christ was truly broken on the cross, when his side was torn by a spear, and he is broken every day spiritually in the sacrament when we show forth his death.194

Martyr: No one doubts that when Paul said, “The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” this signified that same visible breaking of symbols and distribution of the sacrament that we see being done in the Lord’s Supper. When you say that there can be a memory of something that remains and is present you are deceived; because it is the nature of memory that it must be of something past, or at least not present; rather the presence of something and its remembrance are in clear contradiction. I ask you moreover why he mentioned his ascension. Was it not to let us understand that he must not be eaten carnally?

Chedsey: He spoke of his ascension because he truly ascended into heaven, and is truly there; not as though his very presence were not also here, yet not to be devoured, but to be received and eaten according to his command.

Martyr: Surely it wouldn’t have been relevant to mention his ascension, unless he meant to indicate that he spoke of that kind of eating which the absence of a corporeal object cannot hinder. Finally, [187] what do you say to that place cited: “The bread which we break, is it not the communion of Christ’s body?” If you refer it to Christ’s body it is not broken, for it is agreeable to bread, and they transfer it to the body of Christ through a trope.

Chedsey: We should understand “broken bread” in that place, just as it is said there, “We being many are one bread,”195 that is, figuratively. If bread is to be taken in the former place for natural bread, it should likewise be taken in the next place; so would we be natural bread, and our substance would be the substance of bread, if you wish to argue from the nature of bread in the first part.

Martyr: I tried to show that you cannot argue that you break [34v] bread in the communion when you remove it from there, especially if you take bread for the body of Christ figuratively, as you yourself now admit. For you will have it understood in the same way as when it is later said, “we being many are one bread,” yet you see that it cannot properly suit allegorical bread to be broken. For your transubstantiation’s sake, you are forced to devise two figures: first, to understand allegorical bread in both places, and second, to take the breaking figuratively. So you who are against figures are always running into them. For my part I understand bread in that place properly, and when it is said, “we being many are one,” interpret it as signification, not in substance. Just as the bread is one, and consists of many grains, or is one and made into many parts, so are we one, and also many members; so I take the bread in both places in the same way. The figure is in the verb sumus, “we are.” If you understand “The bread which is broken,” in the same way as afterward when it is said, “we being many are one bread,” you must understand the mystical body through a trope. But how will it be broken? Since you are so ready with figures, I don’t see why it should grieve you so much to admit a figure in the proposition before us, that is, “This is my body.” As to the second, how can you run from a figure, since a sacrament is instituted here and figures are quite familiar in sacraments?

Chedsey: We do not deny a figure here completely; for what is handled is not bread, but is called bread through a figure; but we deny that there is a figure in the sacramental words or words of consecration because none of the circumstances shows it.

[188] Martyr: How can you deny a figure in the sacramental words, since it is plainly [35r] said at the cup, “This is the cup of the new testament?” If you concede a figure there, why is it absurd that the other part which is spoken of bread should be figurative? I am amazed that you will acknowledge no circumstance here, since I showed many before, which you ignored and passed over.

Chedsey: What you say does not follow. At the cup the occasion forces us to acknowledge a figure, but there is no constraint in the other part. Again, whereas Luke and Paul spoke figuratively, the other two evangelists said simply,196 “This is my blood.”

Martyr: There is no problem when you say that Matthew and Mark declare absolutely, “This is my blood,” because however they are put, those words must also be true, according to Luke and Paul; this is impossible if a figure is not admitted. That there is a figure in the former sentence is proved not only by the holy Scriptures and the nature of a sacrament (as I have said) but the Fathers also acknowledge it. Why do you shrink so much from it? Tertullian said, “‘This is my body,’ that is, a figure of my body.”197 Augustine on the third psalm said that Christ gave a figure of his body. And against Adimantus the Manichean: “He did not hesitate to say, ‘This is my body,’ when he gave a figure of his body.”198 Jerome says with Tertullian that Christ represented his body. Such testimonies are innumerable, all of them showing that they admitted a figure in the words spoken over the bread.

Chedsey: It is true that Tertullian and Augustine199 say that it is a figure, yet they do not exclude the thing itself, so that the figure and the figured are the same. Likewise to the Hebrews: “The Son is the image of the Father’s substance,”200 and yet is the same as [35v] the Father’s substance. But if you say in that place: he is a figure of the Father’s substance; therefore he is not the Father’s substance, you see clearly that the argument does not hold. So in the present matter, to say it is a figure of the body of Christ and therefore it is not the body of Christ, does not follow.

[189] Martyr: Whether it follows or not is not in question; I only say this, that in that style of speech, “This is my body,” the Fathers identified a figure, as their own words show, for they often use a figure and representation. In his treatise On Christian doctrine and elsewhere, Augustine clearly declares that the saying about eating the body of Christ is figurative: what you deny, he affirms at length.201 When you allege that sign and signified are one, it is beside the point, nor could you easily prove it. To the place in the letter to the Hebrews that the Son is called a figure of the Father’s substance, I say that Paul there speaks of the Son insofar as he is human, and in this respect is a figure, and not the substance of the Father. Through the figure antonomasia he comes to have the image of the Father, which fits him more nobly than other men. Here are the words of the letter: “In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son.”202 If you understand “Son” in regard to his divinity, God spoke through him as well as the prophets in the Old Testament, as he spoke to us in our time. But the difference lies in this, that now through his humanity he performed what he did not in antiquity. If you argue that this speech must be understood of the divine person, it still would not prove that sign and signified are one. [36r] For the Greek words are “the likeness of his substance.”203 What our interpreter simply called “substance” is in Greek hypostasis. Since the person of the Son is not the person of the Father, in terms of divinity the Son may well be called the substantial figure [figura hypostaseos] of the Father. Yet it does not follow that figure and figured are one; for between persons there is (as they term it) a real distinction.204

Chedsey: I answer that it is common in the Scriptures for something divine to be ascribed to the human, and vice versa. For example, “No man ascends into heaven, but he who came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven,”205 even though the Son of man did not descend from heaven. And Paul: “They [190] would not have crucified the Lord of glory.”206 Therefore according to both his humanity and his divinity Christ is called the image of the Father’s substance. For if this suits him in one nature, it may be attributed to him according to the other, by a participation of properties [communicatio idiomatum]. We may add that as mere man Christ cannot be called the image of the Father’s substance, for then I and all other creatures would be called images of the Father’s substance. Therefore insofar as Christ is a sign, he is also said to be what is signified. I answer Tertullian that he was writing against Marcion who took Christ’s body to be a fantasy, but acknowledged the figure of a human body in Christ, so that Tertullian argued from Marcion’s own confessions. Thus his argument runs: what is fantasy does not have a figure, as Marcion stated; therefore Christ had a true body, not fictional. This was Tertullian’s aim; he reasoned like this from necessity to confound the heretic, and argued forcefully.207 This is in brief Tertullian’s meaning: he attributed a figurative and imaginary body to Christ, but in the sacrament did not deny [36v] the body of Christ, that is, the figure of his body. Hence he concludes that there is no sign of the body unless there is also a true body, because there is no sign except of a truth.

Martyr: On the first, I never denied a communication of properties in the two natures of Christ, through which I agree that what is said of one may also be attributed to the other. Yet I maintain that when such communications occur, we must be careful about which nature the description refers to, as your two examples show. When it is said that the Son of man descended from heaven, we accept that manner of speech, but believe that it should be taken in relation to his divinity. We also confess that the Lord of glory was crucified, but claim that this is attributed to him in respect of his humanity. And so in that place to the Hebrews I grant that Christ is an image of the Father’s substance; yet as the matter was handled there, I affirmed that it is said according to his humanity, since before the redemption God spoke to the fathers through the divinity [191] of Christ, but in these latter days he spoke by his Son, namely, when humanity was placed on him. If you wish this saying to apply wholly to the divinity, I referred you to the Greek text, from which you might well understand the difference between sign and thing signified. But when you add that in that case he would no more be in God’s image than I or other creatures, I deny the consequent; for just as he is the most excellent among all, so likewise is he the principal image of God among us. Nor did I say that this agrees with him as mere man. For who does not see that such great excellence is not becoming to the humanity of Christ as we see that it is, unless because it has divinity joined to it? As [37r] for Tertullian, I acknowledge as you say that he argues there against Marcion, but not in the way you present the argument. For he deals with him by clear and common beliefs, in which even a heretic dare not disagree from the common sense of the church, that this sacrament should be a figure of the Lord’s body. And he argues: there is no figure of a fantasy, for a figure signifies something true; this sacrament is a figure of the body of Christ; therefore the body of Christ is no fantasy, because it has this sacrament for its figure. You should know that for a figure not to be empty, it is required that it represent some truth. This is the easy and plain meaning of Tertullian’s words. It is inconsistent of you to propose that the conclusion is forced and so on. If Tertullian had wished to argue like this, he need not have produced the Eucharist, but could have proved what he sought sufficiently from Marcion’s words, saying: you granted that what Christ bore about him was a figure and appearance of a body; a figure can only be of something that exists; by this it is proved that it is a true body which Christ took on himself. So then mention of the Eucharist would be superfluous, but according to my opinion it is clearly inferred. The Eucharist is a sign of Christ’s body, as all will acknowledge; therefore the body of Christ is a true body; otherwise it would not have a sign.

Chedsey: I answer as before. First, insofar as he is mere man, Christ208 can no more be said to be the image of his Father’s substance than other creatures. As for the communication of natures, the same Christ is both sign and thing signified. To Tertullian I repeat, it is a sign, yet not [37v] a sign only, but the very thing itself as well; the [192] words of Christ necessarily determine it.

Martyr: I say that there is no constraint here by the Word of God, but that both should be allowed, bread as well as the body of Christ. Now, because you say that it is not only the sign but also the reality, I will show that this sacrament is a sign of something which is absent in terms of substantial and real presence.209 Ambrose, in book 4 Of Sacraments, chapter 4: “Just as you receive the likeness of death, so you drink the likeness of the precious blood.”210 But no one doubts that the death of Christ is not really present in this sacrament; and yet it is said that a likeness of the blood is drunk in the same way as a likeness of the death.

Chedsey: I am glad you attribute so much to Ambrose; he is completely on my side, as is evident by these words that you cite from those books Of Sacraments, and this same chapter. For he adds at once: this likeness was given because of the horror of blood. If you weigh the antecedent and consequent you will see that he means something far different than you suppose. For the aim of Ambrose is to teach that the death of Christ is represented in the Eucharist, and that just as you believe Christ died for you, so by his blood your sins are cleansed. But there is no mention of the substance of signs remaining.

Martyr: You boast that Ambrose is wholly yours;211 I will learn how later, in the objections you make against me. But regarding this passage he says plainly: just as the one is a likeness of his death, so the other is a likeness of his blood. There is enough here for the substance of bread to remain when what it signifies is substantially and really absent, just as we know that the death of Christ is not present when we communicate, except by showing and remembering it.212

Chedsey: But he does not say that it is only a likeness; for in other places [38r] he teaches in plain terms a natural change of the bread and wine.

Martyr: I’m not concerned with the word “only,” whether stated or not, [193] since in the similitude before us it is implied clearly enough that the thing itself is shown to be absent. There will be time to discuss this change which Ambrose makes when I come to answer your objections. But that you may understand how clearly the Fathers acknowledge a trope in this place, I wish to cite Augustine, against Adimantus the Manichean: “Christ did not hesitate to say, ‘This is my body,’ when he gave a sign of his body.”213

Chedsey: I acknowledge these as Augustine’s words, and will show why he was led to write them. All the Manicheans were enemies of the Old Testament. When we read in Deuteronomy, “The soul is the blood,” Adimantus214 rejected this saying, as though it contradicted the New Testament, and answered, “Fear not those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul.”215 Adimantus said, “As often as the blood is shed and treated with contempt, so often does the soul suffer these injuries. If it is the blood, why should it not rightly be said that men cannot hurt the soul?” Augustine answered in two ways. First, in Deuteronomy the blood is not called the soul of a man but of an animal.216 Second, he says: what if I should say that by a certain form of speech this is to be understood also of a human soul, as Christ was willing to say, “This is my body,” when he gave a sign of his body? He meant that just as the real body of Christ lies hidden secretly in this sign, so is the soul in the blood; and just as the blood is the sign of the soul hidden within, so is the form a sign of the body; and because of the presence [38v] lying hidden, it is called the body of Christ.

Martyr: We do not learn from Augustine that the body of Christ in fact lies hidden in the forms of bread and wine; this is your own device. You argued before that the sign and the signified, the figure and the figured are one. Will you now say that the blood is one with the soul? Indeed, like it or not they are two substances, nor is the one destroyed by the other, as you claim happens here to the bread. Besides, when blood is a sign of the soul’s abiding in the body, it must be seen, and when it issues from the living creature’s body, the soul does not lie hidden in it. We should understand what that saying is, as to what Scripture forbids us to eat; it was separated [194] from the body, for it cannot be eaten otherwise; and this is what was forbidden, when these things were declared in the Law. But let us now pass over this, however it stands. I have only this to conclude, that in this sacrament the sign is not the signified, nor the figure the thing figured; which nevertheless you argued so earnestly before. For is the blood, which is put as sign of the soul, the soul itself? It is in what Christ gave, as Augustine says in his own way that it was a sign of the body of the Lord; it is as much the body of the Lord, as the blood is the soul.

Chedsey: I answer that the similitude does not lead to that end, but rather teaches that as the soul lies hidden in the blood, so is the body of Christ hidden in the forms of bread and wine, and that is the intention of the text. As the body of Christ is contained in this visible thing, so in that visible thing the soul is contained, but the similarities do not correspond in all points.

Martyr: It seems to me to refer chiefly to what I said, as if he should affirm: in the same way as in that place the blood is the soul, so here the bread is the body. Augustine never speaks either of lying hidden or not. You yourself devised [39v] these words later, wishing to show that there is a phrase in Scripture by which something is called from what it signifies, although it is distinct and different.

Chedsey: Although Augustine does not say this, yet the similitude intends the same thing; for the body lies hidden in the sign in the same way as the soul in the blood.

Martyr: I do not see him hinting at anything else than that to attribute to the sign the name of the thing signified is the biblical phrase and manner of speech.

[195] THE COMMISSIONERS RULED THAT WE SHOULD DEBATE THE SECOND QUESTION.

(D) WHETHER217 THE BODY OF CHRIST IS SUBSTANTIALLY AND CARNALLY IN THE BREAD AND WINE, OR UNDER THE ACCIDENTS OF BREAD AND WINE.

Martyr: Christ took bread, he blessed it, broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “This is my body.” I ask you whether that body was passible or impassible? It was not passible, for Augustine on Psalm 98 has: “You will not eat this body which you see, nor drink the blood which they will shed.”218 It is not appropriate, nor can it be, that a body sharing our condition and also passible, should be put into so small a piece of bread. If you say that an impassible body was given, it will not be easily admitted, since Christ himself did not yet have an impassible body. The words of the Evangelist are also against it, for it is said, “Eat, this is my body, which is given for you.” But it is agreed that the body in which Christ was delivered was passible. Nor is it admissible that the same body [39v] was both passible and not passible, because these things are contradictory. Therefore he did not give his body substantially and really, for it could not be offered without one of these conditions.

Chedsey: I answer that the body was impassible under the form of bread. We admit that at the same time, it was both passible and impassible, although in another respect. For these are accidents, which in one way may be present and absent together. Certainly, contraries and opposites require the same mode.219

Martyr: I do not doubt that they are accidents; but I say that it is absurd for contraries or contradictories to be affirmed for one subject at one time. When you say “in another respect” that does not help you at all. This might be so in relatives: put the case as valid, whether said of the right hand or the left, of large and small; when compared with different things it is true.220 But at present we are [196] debating absolute qualities; that is to say, the state and condition of Christ’s body, whether it is passible or not passible; we denied that they occur together at the same time, on account of their being contradictory. The words of the evangelist limit it to a passible state, for it is added at once: “which shall be given for you.”

Chedsey: The relative “which” [quod] denotes the substance, that there is no other substance under the forms of bread and wine, than what will be given for you; yet not a quality, I say, whether passible or impassible.

Martyr: But here you want the relative “which” to refer to substance, so that the sense is: this body which you receive is a substance, even the same as that which shall be given for you; but this does not agree in condition or quality. If [40r] we admit your interpretation, I ask how you will expound the saying of Augustine which I introduced: “you will not eat this body which you see.” Let us understand the relative “which” in this passage as meaning relation to a substance, as you argue in the case of the evangelist, and you will see what follows, namely that we do not eat Christ substantially. If you wish Augustine’s quod to denote quality, you must allow me likewise to understand the words of the evangelist as a quality, and must not deny me what you allow yourself.

Chedsey: In Augustine, the relative “which” denotes quality, not substance. We are forced to answer this because he speaks of a body which they saw; but nothing else than accidents are seen, for the substance itself is not seen. Moreover, what Augustine says must be understood spiritually, and not carnally as did the Capernaites who thought that Christ’s flesh should be eaten just like something bought in the market. It’s the same as to say: you will not eat it in a human form, but under another, namely, common bread, so that you will not abhor flesh.

Martyr: I hear a great deal, but I didn’t ask for so much. The question concerned this relative term, which you insist on taking in your own way, sometimes to mean a substance and sometimes a quality. In the Evangelist221 you refer it to substance, in Augustine to quality; you do this for your own advantage, only to avoid argument.

Chedsey: I interpret it differently in Augustine because the words must be taken as they are set forth by the Doctors. And since Augustine [197] said, “not this body which you see [40v] will you eat, O Capernaites,” I must run to the accidents and quality signified, because this is seen and not the substance.

Martyr: This move doesn’t help you, for Augustine continues: “nor will you drink the blood that they who crucify me will shed.” Here he does not speak of drinking the blood, but of shedding it; no one doubts that the very substance of blood was shed, not accidents alone. So you have no reason why the relative should signify the quality of substance, except your own choice.

Chedsey: This was Augustine’s meaning: you shall not drink my blood under that species and form in which the Jews shed it, but under the form of wine in the sacrament.

Martyr: So you interpret it, meanwhile answering nothing as to the liberty you take in turning these relatives to your own purpose. But I return to the chief point of dispute, where I said that the same body of Christ does not sustain such contrary qualities as passible and impassible at the same time; you take refuge in different cases. But how successful that is in this question of Christ’s body, hear Vigilius in book 4 against Eutyches: “Because one nature does not receive in itself anything that is contrary or different. But it is different, and quite unlike, to be bound within a place, and also to be everywhere; for the word is everywhere, but its flesh is not everywhere.”222 So you see that this most learned Father denies that it can agree with one nature to be circumscribed and not circumscribed. Accordingly, he wants one of them attributed to the divinity and the other to the humanity, because human nature is not capable of both. But if we make room for your different aspects, he must have spoken in vain. For someone would object [41r] to him: the human nature of Christ is in one respect limited, as you say, namely as it is in itself; but as it is in the Eucharist it is without limits. To be within and without limit, like being passible and impassible, are absolute qualities, no matter how you phrase it, and the same body cannot sustain both conditions together at one time.

Chedsey: I don’t admit that the body of Christ is in different places locally;223 but I say that he is in different places accidentally; that is [198] to say, because the forms in which he is contained are in different places.

Martyr: I did not cite Vigilius in order to argue that we should now enquire whether the body of Christ is in various places at once, but only to show that he confirms what I maintain, that it is impossible for one and the same nature to sustain contrary things at one time. Nor does it help when you say that when contraries are absolute this happens in another way; it does not concern relatives, rather are we considering nature in itself.224 You run away from this point, telling me you hold that Christ’s body is in various places at once, not locally but through accidents, because the forms of bread and wine are kept in many places. Here too I match you and say that your cause is not helped by this distinction; for the body of Christ cannot be in many places either locally or not locally, since it is created, something within limits. You have heard by weighty evidence that it is not given to any creature, not even angels, to be in many places at once, even though they are not in a place locally, for they are not corporeal. Moreover, you bring new matters, unheard of in secular writers or holy Scripture: that a body is in some place, yet not locally; [41v] for this is to say, as a body and yet not a body.

Chedsey: These things happen because in the sacrament Christ does not have a body made up of quantity.225

Martyr: This was what I expected, to find you guilty of both robbery and sacrilege. For you unjustly rob the bread of substance, and despoil Christ’s body of its quantity.

Chedsey: Not only will Christ’s body be glorified after the resurrection, but our bodies also, and will be immortal and without quantity.

Martyr: I cannot wonder enough how you say this. Do you not see that by taking quantity from a human body, you take away the body itself? For since it is an instrument,226 a living body, it must have many members and parts, which cannot exist without weight and quantity. So it follows properly that when quantity is removed from a human body, the body itself is also extinguished.

[199] Chedsey: I deny the argument.

Martyr: Where then do you place the true body of Christ with his quantity?

Chedsey: He is in heaven as in a place.

Martyr: Then you do not have the very body of Christ in the sacrament. For if he is there without quantity, it may indeed be a substance, but not a human body, for that consists of various parts and instruments, which have no place once quantity is removed.

Chedsey: We hold that the very body of Christ is in the sacrament, yet not in quantity or in a place.

Martyr: If it is without both place and quantity when under your forms, then will it be a spiritual substance. For corporeal and incorporeal substances are distinguished by mass as to quantity or not. They are not spirits that have dimensions like bodies, as Christ confirmed when he said: “A spirit has no flesh and [42r]227 bones.”228

Chedsey: I admit that the body of Christ is something spiritual, because our senses do not recognize it as they do other bodies that have quantity.

Martyr: I am not dealing with the body of Christ as it is perceived or not perceived by sense, nor of our capacity; I speak of that body as it is in itself. I affirmed that it ought to have quantity, and that it has a size; otherwise it would be a substance without a body, and would be counted within the class of spirits.

Chedsey: We are treating the presence of Christ’s body in the sacrament, which we think relates to the thing itself and its substance, but we are not concerned with the accidents of Christ’s body, whether its quantity and dimensions are present or not. As to your argument, I say it is invalid. It does not follow to say: this body is not under the same qualities and quantities; therefore it is not the same body; Christ now in heaven has not the same qualities as he had here; therefore he does not have the same body. The argument does not hold. For if all those qualities which were in the body of Christ were required now in the sacrament so that it should be the same body, it would follow that the same Christ who was crucified is not now in heaven. For those qualities are not in him now which he had on the cross, where he shed his blood and was passible. So then his mode is changed, but he remains the same forever.

[200] Martyr: Good God! You change everything, both the times and the accidents we are discussing. For who denies that the body of Christ may successively have different qualities, and that it is not necessary for him always [42v] to have the same? Who does not know that he has other qualities now than he had on the cross? What we debated before was this: that a body cannot be both passible and impassible at the same time, or mortal and immortal; now that we are dealing with the size and quantity of the body, I don’t know how you drifted into qualities. You answered that the body of Christ cannot be present locally, because in the Eucharist it should not be quantitative; against this opinion my argument was that a natural and organic body, such as is fitting for the human body, is removed and altogether destroyed if quantity is withdrawn from it. To this there has been no answer at all.

Chedsey: As to qualities, I say they do not need to be in the body of Christ for it to be itself; it is true that I change the times, but you change the mode. It is the same with both mode and time; therefore if I offend by changing the times, you also offend in your argument by changing the mode.

Martyr: No solution to the argument comes from the things you say; for as you talk you put it that Christ is at the same time in heaven, circumscribed by quantity and within a place, but that in the sacrament he is not circumscribed, is without quantity and without place. Vigilius taught that such contraries cannot be admitted in the same nature. But if a different mode (as you claim) makes it possible for such differences to be received in the same nature at the same time, then Eutyches has the victory, and Vigilius loses to him. For he will say that the body of Christ in itself is limited, but as it passes into divinity it becomes limitless; as his own nature it is definite, but as it passes into the divine it is infinite; so Vigilius labored in vain against him.

Chedsey: No, [43r] rather he taught as I have said, only he denied many places to a body when they have the same mode. Without doubt a body is one thing in substance and another in quality. But if one asks whether quantity is of the nature of substance, I think you will deny it.

[201] Martyr: I would not be counted so ignorant as not to know the predicables.229 I know that quantity comes after substance; but it does not follow that things separated from one another by a metaphysical reason can, in terms of their existence, be separated in nature from one another. Therefore the argument stands in its own strength. Since a body with life has organs and members that suit a living creature, it cannot exist without quantity and a definite place. But if you now introduce another mode (as you say) it is a figment that you have discovered, in order to evade this sort of argument.

Chedsey: It is true with regard to the body of Christ in heaven that it cannot be without quantity and instrumental parts, but I do not grant the same thing in the sacrament, where notwithstanding, he is one in substance with him that is in heaven.

Martyr: The matters I have brought are so clear that I need not labor any more about them, unless you produce something new.

(E) AT THIS POINT DOCTOR CARTWRIGHT ASKED PERMISSION TO ADVANCE CERTAIN ARGUMENTS, AND THE CHANCELLOR GAVE HIM LEAVE.230

Cartwright: Lest it be said of you, most famous Doctor, what Scripture says of Christ, “I have trodden the winepress alone,”231 I wish to take on part of the labor, for the honor of this school. If transubstantiation exists, the wicked also would receive the body of Christ, but they do not; therefore transubstantiation is not granted.

Chedsey: I deny the minor.232

[43v] Cartwright: From John 6, “He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood, dwells in me,”233 but the wicked do not dwell in Christ; therefore they do not eat the body of Christ. On this place Augustine says: “This is to eat Christ, to have Christ dwelling in one.”234 Therefore it seems that since the wicked do not have Christ dwelling [202] in them, they do not eat him. Also Paul in 1 Corinthians: “He that eats this bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself.”235 Note that he says they eat bread, not the body of Christ.

Chedsey: I say that the words of John are understood about those who eat worthily, for then it is true, “He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood dwells in me, and I in him.” But Augustine speaks of the effect of the sacrament. John does not mean “whoever eats” but “whoever eats in the proper way,” dwells in me, and I in him. Such turns of phrase are found in the Scriptures. For according to John, the disciples asked Christ: “Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?” Christ answered: “Neither this man sinned, nor his parents.”236 This saying must surely be limited; for he did not deny absolutely that they sinned, but denied that this man was made blind because of their sins. In the same way this passage in John, “He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me and I in him,” should be taken to mean those who eat worthily. And Augustine does not deny that the wicked eat, but teaches the effect of true and worthy eating. The place cited by Paul mentions expressly both worthy and unworthy eating.

Cartwright: To deny that the substance of bread remains is to deny the sacrament; for a sacrament is [44r]237 the sign of a holy thing.

Chedsey: I say that the figure remains, I mean the appearance of bread and wine, which represent the thing signified, as much as if their substance remained. For they signify that they are one in Christ, and are spiritually nourished by him.

Cartwright: No: rather the likeness between sign and signified is this: just as bread nourishes the body, so the flesh of Christ nourishes us. How do your accidents serve this purpose, their roundness, color, and so on?238

IN THE SECOND QUESTION

Cartwright: Since it is not my purpose to hinder this venerable man, but rather allow him to pursue his intention, I will deal briefly with [203] you in the second question as I did in the first; I will prove that the body of Christ is not really in the sacrament. Christ said, “It is expedient for you that I go away.”239 For if he had stayed (as he himself said) he would have prevented the Holy Spirit from coming to them, for they were too concerned with his bodily presence. Therefore, if he is said to be substantially present in the same way on the altar, the people would be hindered from lifting up their minds and eyes to heaven, and from obtaining the Spirit and his gifts.

Chedsey: I deny that the presence we uphold is an obstacle to the people. In fact that presence in which he was familiar to his apostles would have been an obstacle.

Cartwright: The obstacle is plain enough. For when those who believe this real presence have heard mass, they say “This day I have seen my Lord,” and think this is the whole of devotion, and so are called away from a sincere and true eating.

Chedsey: If people are hindered or hurt, their error must be corrected and they should be taught. For if everything that offends people were taken away, the Gospel would be removed, by which many take offense.

Cartwright240: Christ is not [44v] more in the Eucharist than the Holy Spirit was in the dove; but the dove was only a sign of the Holy Spirit that descended; therefore the Eucharist is only a sign.

Chedsey: Scripture does not say that the dove was the Holy Spirit in the same way as it says, “This is my body.” Nor is the Eucharist a means of signifying as was the dove.

Cartwright: Yes, but John says: “I saw the Holy Spirit descending on him.”241

Chedsey242: Truly it was the Holy Spirit that descended, but it adds, “in the form of a dove.”

(F) [DR. MARTYR NOW REPLACES DR. CARTWRIGHT]243

Martyr: I will pursue the first argument of Dr. Cartwright, whom I thank for taking our part. He has indeed pleased me very much and, I hope, many others also. You assume that the body of Christ [204] is truly eaten by all those that communicate; but I completely deny that it alludes to the wicked and unfaithful. If someone without faith receives the body of Christ, he does this either by sense, by reason, or by faith. It cannot be said to be by sense, because it does not reach Christ, and receives only symbols; nor (since you place the body of Christ here) is it received by the sense. Similarly, it cannot be received by reason, for it passes its capacity. What remains is faith; since unbelievers are without it, they cannot receive the body of Christ in this way.

Chedsey: I deny the minor proposition; for with the mouth they receive the body of Christ.

Martyr: As if by the mouth anything can be received without the sense! Those things that pass through the mouth are obviously sensed by us.

Chedsey: With the mouth they receive the body of Christ but with the sense they receive the accidents. Moreover, if I am without faith, my unbelief does not take away the faith of God, nor does it frustrate his Word; for after consecration it is the body of Christ, whether I believe or not.

Martyr: What you say about the body of Christ’s being received [45r] with the mouth, is the opposite of what you claim. For you say that Christ’s body is not a quantity in the Eucharist; and since the act or grasp of our mouth is something natural, it does not extend to spiritual substance. You can never show that anything is received with the mouth except symbols. As to the truth of the sacrament and God’s faithfulness, I know that it is a true sacrament even if we don’t believe. Yet that does not prove that someone without faith has something other than the sacrament, that is, the sign or symbol. What it means to eat Christ was described by Cyprian in his sermon The Lord’s Supper, when he said: “That we might know that our eating is dwelling in Christ and our drinking a kind of incorporation.” Again, “Therefore it is a kind of greed for this flesh, and a sort of desire to dwell in him.” Also: “What food is to the flesh, so is faith to the soul; what meat is to the body, so is the word to the spirit.” Still again: “As often as we do these things we do not sharpen our teeth with biting, but with sincere faith we break and share the holy bread.”244 In City of God book 21, chapter 25, Augustine [205] says: “Therefore they cannot be said to eat the body of Christ, because they are not to be counted among the members of Christ. For (to omit other reasons) ‘they cannot be at once members of Christ, and members of a harlot.’245 Finally, his own saying, ‘Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood, dwells in me and I in him,’246 shows what it is to receive Christ’s body, not only sacramentally but truly, and to drink his blood, that is, to dwell in Christ, as Christ also dwells in him. For he said this as if he had said: ‘whoever does not dwell in me and in whom I do not dwell, let him not say or think that he eats my body or drinks my blood.’”247 Elsewhere he says that to drink is to live. Again: “why do you prepare your stomach [45v] and your teeth? Believe and you have eaten.”248 Since such matters do not agree with the wicked, they cannot be said to eat the body of Christ.

Chedsey: The Fathers are concerned with the effect of the sacrament, and don’t discuss the matter of the sacrament; they treat of spiritual eating, and the Scriptures have such phrases as “I do not know you,”249 that is, for the appointed purpose. Again, “Whoever is baptized shall be saved.”250 Likewise, “Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved.” We should always add: if he perseveres. For I may believe and be baptized and yet be damned, if I do not persevere. So also whoever consumes Christ has not the effect of the sacrament which the Fathers are speaking of, unless he does eat worthily.

Martyr: Holy Scripture does not acknowledge any eating of Christ that does not lead to salvation, nor do you have it from the sacred writings that the wicked eat the body of Christ. And of those who do so unworthily, Paul says: “If anyone eats this bread or drinks the cup of the Lord”; he says they eat bread, not the body of the Lord.

Chedsey: Paul speaks like this because he called the body of Christ bread, in the sense it was bread before, or else it has the form of bread; besides, Paul says, “This bread and cup of the Lord.”

Martyr: You say the body is eaten by the wicked. Paul does not say this [206] but writes “bread.” You run to the usual refuge. But unless you meet the point some other way you cannot escape, since Paul plainly calls it bread, adding the article, “this,” and saying, “of the Lord,” because those things are now changed into sacraments.

Chedsey: Augustine Against the letters of Petilian, book 2, chapter 55, teaches clearly that the wicked eat the body of Christ, saying what madness it is for them to participate in the sacraments of the Lord.251 “Thus when they say: ‘Have we not eaten and drunk in your name,’ you will hear it said, ‘I do not know you,’252 who [46r] eat his body and drink his blood in the sacrament but do not know his members dispersed around the world.” I have many other places that will be shown as occasion is provided.

Martyr: The passage of Augustine which you cite proves nothing; for it may be granted that the wicked eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Lord in the sense that they receive the sacraments of these things. Augustine says the same: “Sacraments take their names from the things they signify.”253 As to the other places you claim to have, we will see how they are stated, then I will respond. As for the present, you have brought nothing from Scripture which teaches that the wicked participate. But I will show clearly from Augustine that these propositions, to eat the body of Christ and to have salvation and life, are interchangeable. For on John, treatise 26: “He that does not eat his flesh or drink his blood, does not have eternal life in him; and he that eats his flesh and drinks his blood has eternal life.”254 Don’t you hear how these words are exchanged and converted with one another? And a little after: “This is to eat that meat and to drink that cup, to dwell in Christ and have Christ dwelling in him.” By this means, whoever does not dwell in Christ, and in whom Christ does not dwell, without any doubt does not spiritually eat his flesh or drink his blood, even though carnally and visibly one crunches the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ.

Chedsey: It is true that they do not eat and drink to salvation, and in such a way Augustine understands the eating of Christ’s body. And the Scriptures say that some eat unworthily.

[207] Martyr: Augustine does not have what you say, and Paul plainly calls what the wicked eat “bread.” But it is your own figment to say that there is a certain body of Christ that the wicked eat yet do not have salvation, [46v] or participate in the Spirit of Christ.255

[208] THIRD DAY [TERTIO ACTIO]

THE THIRD ACT WAS BETWEEN MR. MORGAN, DR. TRESHAM, AND DR. PETER MARTYR256

Because Dr. Tresham’s books had not been brought, through the fault of his servants, he requested a slight extension of time. But not wishing this to pass in vain, the Visitors ordered Mr. Morgan, Master of Arts, to oppose; accordingly, he was deputized that day for this purpose.257

(A) PETER MARTYR VS. PHILIP MORGAN258

Morgan: On what grounds am I to deal with you, most learned Sir, in setting down your opinion? Will you hold only to the Scriptures? or will you commit the matter to the Fathers and Councils?

Martyr: I had decided to say something before the disputation to the questions I proposed, and would have spoken briefly to satisfy my adversary who was to debate with me today. But since it has happened that you are his substitute for the moment, what I had in mind to oppose I will now defer till another time. But before I answer those things you asked, I will make my customary prayers.

PRAYER

Almighty God, since we will debate the principal mysteries of our religion, we approach your goodness and mercy, through which, setting aside all desire of contention and removing all anxiety of mind, we may sincerely seek out the truth, and having found it [209] may embrace it; having obtained it may teach it with purity. Therefore guide us in debate by the rule of your Holy Spirit, so that in discussing your Word, in examining reasons, and in matters to be persuaded or dissuaded, we ask that we may not depart by a nail’s breadth from the sum of godliness; [47r] but whatever we discover, think, and say, being directed by your help and power, may as much as possible redound to the honor of your name, through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Now I make my answer. I have proved in teaching elsewhere that the criterion or principle of theological subjects, by which we judge sacred letters, is twofold, namely by the Holy Spirit and by the Scriptures; one is inward and the other outward.259 Because we deal tat present with the outward, I say that nothing other than Scripture should be used. I lay the foundation in it, and in it I chiefly rest. Truly I will not reject the Fathers; on the contrary, I attribute a great deal to them when they speak according to the Scriptures. I have cited them as you have heard, and perhaps lingered too much in that line, not that I depend on them, but because I see many addicted to them in a superstitious way, who are forever crying: the Fathers, the Fathers! thinking they are always against us. I wished to show such people that they make most of all for us. What I have said regarding the Fathers you may consider as the answer about Councils. To conclude: we hold to the holy Scriptures, and defer to all who speak and will speak according to them.

Morgan: Therefore let us proceed from the Scriptures. This proposition before us, in which it is said, “This is my body,” is ambiguous. Some260 gather transubstantiation from it; others, a bodily presence with the bread; others, impanation, by which the body of Christ and the bread are joined in one person; others determine a bare sign, and still others an effectual sign. Nor do we lack those who care no more for the presence of Christ261 than to drive all [210] worship away, as I know a young Englishman did.262 Since we see different people with different opinions, teach me what sense of this Scripture [47v] we should retain.

Martyr: It is not difficult to draw the proper meaning of these words from the Scriptures, if well examined. In John chapter 6, Christ shows most clearly that the eating of his body is to be understood spiritually. He said that his words are spirit and life; again, that the spirit quickens, but the flesh profits nothing, and immediately mentioned his ascension. He dealt so plentifully with this subject in that chapter that afterward at the Last Supper he said nothing about it, as Augustine testifies in his book The Consent of the Gospels.263 Consider afterward that in the same chapter Christ denied the carnal eating which the Capernaites imagined: from this you may gather that the eating of Christ’s body is not carnal, but spiritual. So you have a clear and simple sense about this saying. Besides, Scripture most clearly calls it bread. “The Lord took bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it.” “The bread which we break,” says Paul, “is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” Again: “As often as you eat this bread.”264 Similarly, it appears by these sayings that bread remains; nor is there any reason why you should argue that the passage is obscure on this point. Many things declare that there is a figurative kind of speech here. For it does not properly suit the body of Christ to be eaten, since what we eat we crush and grind with our teeth, and passing down into the stomach they are digested and converted into our own substance; this is a grave error when speaking properly of the body of Christ. The clearest trope is used at the cup when it is said, “This cup is the new testament,” and so forth.265 Further, in Scripture there are very clear passages on the sacraments, from which the interpretation of this place may be gathered. For circumcision is called the covenant; the lamb or sacrifice [48r] is called Passover. Paul said of baptism that by it we are buried with Christ; he does not say a sepulchre is signified. We know that Christ has a true human body and was taken up into [211] heaven, and from thence will come to judge the world. If you compare all these places together diligently you will not understand the meaning of this Scripture otherwise than do we.

Morgan266: Luther had the Scripture and disagreed with Zwingli. Catholics see them and read them, and disagree with them both. And the Scriptures seem to be so ambiguous, that unless they are clarified by some other light, that is, the Fathers, they are not sufficient for our instruction.

Martyr: Indeed they are more than enough, as you heard me declare just now.

Morgan: Since I see that you cling to the Scriptures, which nevertheless are twisted differently by different men, I will now deal with you by a brief argument drawn from that place where the sacrament was instituted. Christ took bread. What bread did he take?

Martyr: When you claim that the Scriptures are twisted in various directions according to how different people are affected, I answer that this is done by the fault of evil or ignorant men, yet they must not be blamed as if they are obscure in those things necessary to salvation. When they are brought forth and read simply they fulfill their office well. And the Holy Spirit witnesses that they are profitable to teach, to reprove, and to instruct us, that we may be perfect and equipped for every good work.267 But if any have doubted, it was their own fault, not Scripture’s; and Scripture must not be accused on account of their objections, as though it cannot teach us. We see how arguments that Christ is God were often mounted from the Scriptures against the Arians.268 Yet no matter how they would try, neither side changed [48v] their opinion; but this did not detract from the light and worth of the Scriptures. So there is no reason for you to oppose me with men either still living or recently deceased, who disagreed with each other yet shared the Scriptures.269 Other causes may be found for their disagreement besides the ambiguity of the Scriptures. This is not the place to say how I should judge them; it is enough for me to have defended the function [212] of Scripture. But as to what you asked, namely what bread Christ took, I answer that it was common and ordinary bread; that is, unleavened, because the Passover was celebrated.

Morgan: When270 did he consecrate it? When he took it into his hands? Or when he blessed it? Or else when he gave it? How am I to know when the bread was consecrated?

Martyr: By giving thanks, by speaking as he did and doing as he did. So we too should say and do the very same as he. And because we do not have any other particular passage, that is, four or five words, by which the bread and wine is consecrated, we must recite everything written in the history of the Supper.271

Morgan: Ministers consecrate in the same way that Christ did; does the minister therefore consecrate by taking bread into his hands?

Martyr: No. It is consecrated by fulfilling the Lord’s institution; that is, it is appointed to a holy use. Through the words of the Lord and his command it is made an instrument, to signify effectually the body of Christ. Hence as I say, it is consecrated when all the words are spoken and it is distributed to the faithful.

Morgan: If the words of consecration are not written, then to be sure Scripture is not sufficient by itself regarding consecration. Again I ask: was the bread a symbol before the words were finished? That is, when it is said that he took bread, [49r] was the bread as yet made a symbol of Christ’s body?

Martyr: Not sacramental, as we say. You inferred from what I said that there are no determinate words of institution in Scripture, so it must follow that the Scripture is not sufficient. I answer that it does not follow: even though it defines only four or five words through which, strictly speaking, consecration happens, yet it faithfully describes the whole discourse of this mystery, which is sufficient. Therefore we ought to repeat this in the Lord’s Supper, that we may do and say what Christ did and said. And this was our command, when the Lord said: “This do in remembrance of me,”272 which must be referred to the words as well as the deeds. For the Lord did [213] not mean that when five words are pronounced, we should think that we have performed so great a mystery.

Morgan: He blessed the bread not yet consecrated, he broke the bread not yet consecrated, he gave the bread not yet consecrated; therefore he gave the bread before it was yet a symbol or sacrament.273

Martyr: This sacrament consists of all those things which the Lord Jesus did and said. And when he said, “Do these things,” he meant all things, not one or two alone, and made it a symbol by blessing, breaking, giving and adding the things that come after.

Morgan: It follows that since Christ gave bread before he had completed all the words, he gave bread that was not consecrated, since all the words are required for consecration. Therefore being a minister and repeating the words of Christ, when do I make the symbol?274

Martyr: By saying and doing those things Christ said and did, that is, when that action is completed as described. But I do not understand your intention or desire, except that many words are wasted in vain.

Morgan: I will speak more plainly. Ministers do everything that [49v] Christ did; otherwise they would fall short of proper usage; but ministers do not consecrate it as a symbol before all the words are spoken; therefore neither did Christ. But if he gave the bread before the words were finished, he gave common bread, not a symbol of his body.

Martyr: I have already answered that Christ gave no symbol before he had finished the action, nor before he had said and done those things that were to be done and said; when they were completed, he not only gave the substance of bread but with a condition joined to it which was clearly symbolic. First therefore he took bread; but if because of what he said and did he afterward added a sacramental or symbolic condition, it is not therefore false that he gave bread; for he gave both, bread and a sacrament. You need not quibble so much that Christ gave bread first before he spoke his words; for this could seem as if he only cared for the order of words in the narrative. But let us look again at the action and we will see that in giving, Christ completed the necessary words. Therefore what you argue so keenly is but a sophistical cavil; for after giving thanks, he broke and gave, saying at the same time: “This is my [214] body,” and so nothing was lacking for the sacrament.

Morgan: What did he give, common bread, or symbolic bread?

Martyr: He gave symbolic bread.275

Morgan276: Yet he gave it before he had pronounced these words, “This is my body”; therefore he did not give a symbol. For this reason I said these things, to show that we cannot be blamed when we say that Christ gave his body after the words were finished; and we affirm that the accusative “bread” must not be joined with the verb “gave” as was the case with what preceded.

Martyr: No one blames you in this, that you say the body of Christ is given after the rite is performed, except in that you exclude bread: [50r] for we must establish that both are given to us. The accusative is governed by all those verbs, according as the order and grammatical construction requires. Nor is your constant assumption true, that Christ had given it first, before he pronounced all the words, because in giving and distributing or breaking, he finished the words that served the purpose. We should not imagine some sort of charm here, as if everything were done by revealing {prolatione} one letter, syllable, or weak word.

Morgan: He gave to his disciples. What did he give? He gave his body rather than bread, for the word body is closer to those verbs than is this word bread.

Martyr: Grammatical sense requires that bread should remain; for all these verbs govern the accusative. Nor is nearness of place to be considered here. For although this particle “my body” seems to be the closer term, yet it is not governed by those words, “He broke, he gave, take and eat,” but by the substantive verb “is.” But whereas it is written that Christ first gave before he said “This is my body,” it is the familiar figure hysteron proteron,277 not literal; for it is necessary for the narrative, since these two things were done together, that he gave and that he spoke; there was no disagreement on this.

Morgan: If it is hysteron proteron278 then the word “body” is nearer the verb “gave” than is the accusative “bread”; in that case “body” can [215] be construed with the verb “gave” as well as is that word “bread.” And this makes as well for us as for you, and the case is equal on both sides: it appears that the answer given yesterday was good, that Christ gave his body rather than bread.

Martyr: Whatever you say about this phrase supporting you, the phrase itself plainly denies it, and clearly shows that bread is to be retained; so my argument stands. I don’t deny that the body of Christ is given in some way: what is given is both; namely [50v] bread and Christ’s body; but you have no reason to exclude bread, and the form279 of speech plainly counts against you.280 Therefore the case between us is not the same. As I have said, in a grammatical construction we must not look to the proximity of words but to the governing of verbs. And so yesterday it was not a good answer that the body of Christ is said to be given, as if the bread is removed, which we proved to remain by a necessary grammatical construction.

Morgan281: Theophylact says on Mark 14, “‘This is my body,’ this I say which you receive. For the bread is not some sort of figure and exemplar of the Lord’s body, but is changed into the very body of Christ,” namely bread.282 The Latin copies are false, where it reads “the body of Christ is changed into it.” The Greek has eis auto ekeino. Thus you can see that he says: Bread is not a figure, but is changed into the body of Christ.

Martyr: First of all about Theophylact, he is not of such an authority that if he were clearly against us we should care very much. For on the third chapter of John he said that the Latin church was quite wrong on the procession of the Holy Spirit; he seems to have lived in an unfortunate age.283 In the Latin books I have seen—I have [216] not encountered the Greek copies—it is written: “the body of Christ is changed into it.” But whether the Greek copies have it or not, I care but little, since I do admit some kind of change in the body of Christ. And whereas you say that it is not a figure or example, in Theophylact you have: “For it is not only a figure and exemplar,” which we grant to be true, since we do not take the bread as a bare sign and naked figure.284 Without any doubt, unless we had that same particle “only,” [51r] Theophylact alone could not stand against all the other Fathers, who acknowledge both a figure and an example, as do Tertullian, Basil, Augustine, Theodoret, and almost all the rest. Furthermore, I understand the conversion into Christ’s body to be sacramental, for it is made a sacrament of the body of Christ, which it was not before. As Augustine said to Boniface and as we have often cited, sacraments take their names from the things of which they are sacraments, so that the sacrament of the body of Christ, he says, is in a sense the body of Christ: the change is not such as throws out the former substance. We may gather from Theophylact himself that he understood it in this way, for he says on John chapter 6: “Whoever eats me will live because of me, while in a way he is joined with me and transelemented into me.”285 You hear him say that we are transelemented into Christ, and yet you see we retain our original substance. Why will you not understand that the same thing happens with bread?

Morgan: To the first, when you say that Theophylact was wrong on occasion, I answer: if he is not to be received for that reason, by the same token you could refute Augustine, who allowed the invocation of saints, images, and prayers for the dead; which are errors if we are to follow your opinion.286

Martyr: I did not say that he was on that account to be utterly rejected, but I meant to show that there are degrees among the Fathers, that you might understand that their authority is not all the same; it must be considered primarily according to the time and age in which they lived.287 His celebrated dissension from the Latin [217] church in the controversy about the Holy Spirit belongs to the argument that he found himself in during those later times, when there was sharp dissension between Greeks and Latins; this was the very time when the doctrine of transubstantiation began to sprout. [51v] But the case is quite different for Augustine and others like him, because they lived in purer times. The invocation of saints, or prayers for the dead, or how much or how he differs from us, will be handled in another place. Whether he allowed the worship of images, I do not know.

Morgan: Theophylact supports me completely when he says on John chapter 6: “The bread which I will give is not a figure of the flesh, but is my flesh; for by the mystical words the bread is transformed; although it seems bread to us, it is flesh,” etc.288 You see that he posits a change of bread into the flesh of Christ. He has almost the same words on Matthew, adding: “Thus bread appears, that there may be an accommodation to our weakness.”289 Let us put the case that he would have taught transubstantiation; what else could he have said? How could he have stated it in clearer terms? Again, on Mark 14 he said: “It keeps the form of bread and wine indeed, but is transelemented into the power of flesh and blood.”290

Martyr: We are not in any doubt about this change mentioned by Theophylact in chapter 14, for it is sacramental. As you cited just now on Mark, he says that bread and wine are changed into the power [in virtutem … transelementari] of flesh and blood; but he does not say “into flesh and blood.” We will grant this too, since sacraments have their names from things signified, and through them God confers on us his grace and Spirit, which is the power of the things signified. When he said that they are transelemented into the power of flesh and blood, he shows how we must understand bread to be changed into the body of Christ; namely that by these symbols and sacraments, the Holy Spirit may work in us the merits, fruit, and grace291 of Christ’s body crucified for us and his blood shed for us. As we have said, we allow Theophylact a sacramental [218] change. [52r] If he understands it absolutely when he says that the Lord did not say that the bread and wine are figures, he has all the Fathers against him. For Basil says that it is antitype, and Augustine a figure and sign. When he calls it the form of bread, it does not prejudice the true nature and substance, for among the Fathers this word species, as I showed earlier, signifies the true nature of things.

Morgan292: We may well say in similar manner that “virtue” may signify the body. The same Theophylact says on Matthew 26: “‘This is my body,’ shows that the bread sanctified on the altar is the very body of the Lord, and not a corresponding figure. For he did not say, ‘this is a figure,’ but ‘this is my body.’”293 Next, this verb “is transformed” relates to substance, not quality; he adds that “it is given us like this so that the bread may be seen, because we are weak and lest we should shrink from eating raw flesh.” But if we follow your opinion there would be no need of a change that is sacramental and unreal, for there would be no danger of any horror threatening us.

Martyr: I have given sufficient answer as to how figures are to be understood. Nevertheless, since you urge so keenly that Christ did not say it was a figure, no more did he say that the accidents are separated from the subject, or that bread is excluded, as you yourselves affirm. We admit Theophylact’s terms changing, transforming, and transelementing, because of the sacramental change. Where he affirms that the bread sanctified upon the altar is the body of Christ, we allow it. For it is proved by Augustine to Boniface that the sacrament of the body of Christ in a way both is and is called the body of Christ.294 Further, when it adds that it is transformed by an ineffable operation, this does not make against [52v] us; for we confess that this is no work of nature, as if something profane and common were made a sacrament. Doubtless it is the kind of inexpressible work that the Holy Spirit performs. But as to the form, whether it always belongs to the substance, you can think it over; it is clear that it is located in the predicate of quality, so there is no cause for you to object that to be transformed relates to substance.295 [219] And the fear that we will shrink from raw flesh is taken away by establishing the substance of bread and a sacramental signification. Theophlylact means nothing else than to show by his expression that a carnal eating would not have been suitable, because we would have recoiled from raw flesh; therefore a spiritual eating was given, in which the form, that is, the nature of bread, would be kept; yet we still have truly the body and flesh of Christ, namely in receiving them by faith. When you press the efficacy of Theophylact’s words so strongly, it moves me but little. For I know that he and the other Fathers were forceful and full of hyperbole, and therefore must be interpreted accordingly.296

Morgan: I asked before and now ask you again: if the Holy Spirit wished to establish transubstantiation by the Scriptures, in what words would he have done it?

Martyr: The Scriptures would not have asserted that bread is present, as we have shown that they plainly declare; nor have they proposed {proposuissent} to us any eating or breaking, matters that cannot agree with the body of Christ, that it should indeed be broken, crushed and ground with the teeth. When Scripture therefore attributes such things to bread, “The bread which we break,” and again, “Whoever eats this bread unworthily,”297 it shows plainly that it speaks of true bread and does not create any transubstantiation.

Morgan: But since in the 6th chapter of John the body of Christ is figuratively called bread, [53r] even so in the constitution of the Supper bread is mentioned by Paul,298 that it may retain the saying of Christ used in John 6.299

Martyr: It is a valid argument that in the Supper Christ speaks of the true natures of the symbols of bread and wine, for he said, “I will not hereafter drink of this fruit of the vine.”300 And a vine does not produce accidents. Moreover, Paul states plainly, “The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ?”301 Further, [220] Christ commanded us to eat, which (as I have said) cannot properly agree with the body of Christ, because it is not eaten unless it is ground with the teeth. Indeed, I acknowledge a metaphor in John 6, where Christ calls himself bread because he feeds us, just as natural bread does, and as the ancients in the wilderness fed on manna. But this passage cannot be metaphorical, since the bread he refers to is both broken and ground in eating. Moreover, the Fathers interpret it as meaning that this sacramental bread spoken of consists of many grains.302

Morgan:303: Why can’t it be taken metaphorically here too?

Martyr:304 Because, as I have already said twice, properties are spoken of here, namely breaking and eating, that do not agree with bread understood metaphorically, that is, the body of Christ.

Morgan: Those things attributed to sacraments are in another way attributed to the things of which they are sacraments. As Augustine said to Boniface: “sacraments take their names from the things.” But the bread, which is a sacrament, is truly and properly broken; therefore the body of Christ, which is the matter of the sacrament, is said to be broken through a trope. Besides, when it is said “Take, eat,” is the bread that is taken and eaten metaphorical bread? Also, are “take” and “eat” metaphors belonging to the body [53v] of Christ, or not?

Martyr: I answer: when we receive the sacrament faithfully there are two kinds of eatings and two kinds of bread. The reception of Christ’s body that we have by faith is called a metaphorical eating, just as the body of Christ we receive is metaphorical bread. We also have there an authentic eating of the symbols, just as bread is both true and natural. In John 6 mention is made only of metaphorical eating and metaphorical bread; but when he communicated with his friends in the Lord’s Supper, a proper eating was added and true bread was given for a symbol; so in the Supper both sorts of bread were given, natural and metaphorical, and both sorts of eating occur, namely a natural eating in symbols and another that is metaphorical, relating to the body of Christ which we receive by faith. [221] I am astonished that you take what agrees properly with the sacrament, that is, the sign, to be attributed to the things, and wish to say that the body of Christ is broken figuratively, because the bread is broken. For if you concede that the bread here is truly broken, why contend further? Once you allow bread, there is no longer transubstantiation. Moreover, when Scripture says that bread is broken and our sense perceives the breaking of bread, this should be determined first. Afterward, when Scripture says that the body of Christ is broken, if you will understand it through a metaphor and figure, namely that it is broken because its sacrament is broken, we agree. But first of all the basis of this figure must be granted, that it is bread that is actually broken, while sense itself knows this to be done. As for the words, “Take, eat,” I say that they must be understood as follows: as you receive this bread and eat it bodily, so receive my body by faith and with the mind, [54v] that you may be strengthened through it instead of food.

Morgan: It seems to me that the discussion is wandering; therefore I come closer to the topic. “Take, and eat,” are metaphors, and in this sense are well suited to the body of Christ. So the breaking may be attributed to metaphorical bread, that is, the body of Christ, for the breaking is similar.

Martyr: If the discussion wanders the fault is yours, because you construct no argument or reason. You object that just as eating may agree metaphorically with Christ’s body, so breaking may agree with it; I state a far different reason for both eating and breaking, in these scriptural words and form of speech we are considering: “Is not the bread which we break?” For I suppose you would take this term “to break” in such a way as refers metaphorically to the crucifixion. But you should ponder what Paul says, “The bread which we break,” where it is not proper to understand that we ourselves crucify Christ. We may well say that we eat him metaphorically because we feed on him, but that we crucify him is too strong and absurd.

Morgan: If we eat metaphorically, that is, by the Spirit and faith, why do we not also break him metaphorically? Especially since all eating has breaking within it.305

Martyr: So says Paul: “The bread which we break.” And if you will take [222] “to break” for “to crucify” we will be said to crucify Christ through a metaphor. Nevertheless, I grant that all natural eating has in itself (as you say) a breaking; but not all spiritual eating, because that eating has this meaning, that we should enjoy the thing received as food; but it is not stretched so far that we should break and crush what cannot be broken or crushed.306

Morgan: When we look at the unique pains Christ endured on the cross, [54v] we are said to break metaphorically. For the same correspondence that obtains between “to eat” and “to receive by faith” holds between “to break” and “to look” or “to know Christ’s suffering on the cross.”307

Martyr: I wonder why you say there is a correspondence between “to break,” that is, “to crucify Christ,” and “to behold or know his sufferings on the cross,” for we behold or see with the eyes, and we break with force and with the hands. I really think you know that metaphors should not be so far apart. You also double the metaphor because if we follow your mind, one says that “to break” signifies “to crucify,” and another, that you transfer this to knowledge. You who cannot let us affirm any trope in the words of the Lord, “This is my body,” employ many figures, and those both harsh and unusual. And in order not to grant the breaking of true bread in the Lord’s Supper, you rush into all sorts of things.

Morgan: “To break” is a fitting metaphor for “to contemplate,” and with the mind to remember the passion of Christ. For Paul says, “This is my body which is broken for you.” And Bucer, Against the Bishop of Avranches, grants that breaking may metaphorically be spoken of the body of Christ.308 This correspondence, that “to break” should be transferred to our knowing, is used in the English language, for we are said to “break problems” to our students.309

Martyr: This metaphor might perhaps be suitable elsewhere, yet it has [223] no place where Paul says, “The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” Here without doubt he meant the outward breaking and distribution of the Eucharist. Certainly I confess with Bucer that the body of Christ may be said to be broken, that is, to have suffered; but I do not admit that we can break, that is, [55r] crucify him. Furthermore, since I do not understand your language, I cannot show the reason for such an English metaphor, unless perhaps you mean that “to break” problems is like saying you solve them.310 But what I have said has been rendered according to the way the Greek and Latin tongues, in which we have the Scriptures of the New Testament, are accustomed to speak.

(B) THE VISITORS TRANSFERRED THE DISPUTATION TO DR. TRESHAM311

Tresham: I am compelled to omit those things I planned to say, since the disputation has progressed and time has passed. Therefore my plea is that the honorable Commissioners of his serene Majesty will follow today’s discussion as favorably as you followed those held the previous days, which you did so diligently. Now let us pray and then come to the subject.

DR. TRESHAM’S PRAYER

Most gracious Lord Jesus Christ, Bread of eternal life, who of your ineffable grace and mercy toward humankind descended from heaven, to take flesh of the Virgin’s flesh, and having assumed this, deigned to give it as food to us, that we should diligently eat the same in your memory, and by this participation be made all one body; grant unto your suppliants to feed and nourish us perpetually with that most pleasant food, which we believe to be your life-giving flesh, and that sweetest drink, which we confess to be your very blood; that your light and truth being spread over all the world, we may be of one mind in [56v] your house, speaking and thinking as one, and that there may be no schisms among us, but being perfect in the same mind and understanding, we may walk completely in the strength of this food, even unto your holy hill, and through your grace may be led to your tabernacles; who with the [224] Father and the Holy Spirit, livest and reignest, one and the same God, world without end. Amen.

I recall, Dr. Peter, when you debated with me the first day that in answering your arguments I introduced certain passages from the Fathers, which you promised to satisfy when you came to respond. Now the time has arrived for you to make good. I will begin with Cyprian, opposing martyr to Martyr, and argue as follows: Cyprian the martyr affirms transubstantiation; therefore, Peter Martyr should not deny it.

Martyr: This argument is as strong as if we were to reason from the reality to the name. For Cyprian was in truth a martyr, while I am only called Martyr. But let jokes go. I answer that Cyprian never asserts transubstantiation.

Tresham: In his sermon on the Lord’s Supper, he says: “This bread which the Lord offered his disciples, being changed not in form but in nature, is made flesh by the omnipotent power of the word.”312

Martyr: I deny that this place makes for transubstantiation.

Tresham: Erasmus noted in the margin that this passage should be understood in such a way.313

Martyr: Erasmus noted it in the margin because he knew that many gathered the idea from it. But how far Erasmus was persuaded about transubstantiation you may discover from his writings. 314

[225] Yet now you seem to exalt him whom elsewhere you handle quite unjustly. Sometimes you do not allow him, and everywhere you accuse him of error; but now you calmly introduce him.315

Tresham: You like to appeal to Erasmus [56r] in these marginal notes when he serves your purpose, but now when he disagrees you reject him. In fact he says that this common bread is changed.

Martyr: I never denied that the bread is changed in the sacrament. But I marvel that you, who introduced Cyprian at the beginning, now turn to Erasmus. I agree that I once cited Erasmus, accepting what he had noted in the margin of Augustine;316 but I did not attribute so much to him as not to confirm by other reasons what I thought should be proved; bring other reasons too, and I will answer them.

Tresham: When Erasmus serves your purpose you accept him, but when he is against you, you reject him. But I prove transubstantiation from Cyprian’s words, for he says in the same place: “This common bread is changed into flesh and blood, it brings life and increase to bodies”; but a change of bread into flesh is transubstantiation.

Martyr: It’s up to you to condemn and commend Erasmus as it suits you. Nevertheless, so that we won’t waste time, I will first discuss the passage in Cyprian which you have brought. “The bread that the Lord offered his disciples being changed, not in form but in nature, is made flesh by the omnipotence of the word.” These are his complete words, I do not twist them. And I reply that this establishes a sacramental change of the bread, which we affirm. We have some things in common with the transubstantiators here, and some things different. With you I hold that the form of bread remains and is not changed, as Cyprian said, but it is the nature of bread that is changed. It is this change about which we disagree: for we say that the nature of bread is changed, because it is made a sacrament of Christ’s body, [56v] even a sacrament of the mystical body, which it was not previously. Therefore this change is attributed to the nature and not the accidents of bread, since it is the nature of bread by which we are nourished and which consists of many grains. These are the reasons [rationes] on which the nature [226] [ratio] of this sacrament is based. Accordingly, when Cyprian says that the nature of bread is changed, it does not follow that it does not remain; for in natural changes, we retain what is changed, namely the subject. Moreover, if you should remove the subject itself, the change will not have anything to support it.317 In generation matter remains; in alteration, what is composed; in augmentation, what is nourished and increased; and in local motion, what is moved.318 Thus when Cyprian says that the nature of bread is changed, we have two things, both that it remains and that it is made a sacrament which it was not before.

Tresham:319 Now is Cyprian not Cyprian but Peter; there is no need of omnipotence, that we should bring to the bread something intentional, happening from outside. The image of Christ hanging on the cross counts as much.320

Martyr: I answer that the sacramental change is something great, which cannot be effected without the power of God; for to make sacraments is supernatural, and belongs to God’s work alone. In baptism, where you do not posit transubstantiation, a sacrament is not made from water to ingraft us into Christ without divine omnipotence. We learn well from Augustine that the power of the Holy Spirit is necessary in this matter; in book 3 of The Trinity he said: “When it is brought by the hands of men to that visible form, it is not sanctified, to become so great a sacrament, without the invisible operation of the Spirit of God.”321 So the image of Christ may perhaps be his sign, but not sacramental.

Tresham: If the bread is made flesh as Cyprian said, [57r] then is it flesh: the argument is quite clear. But we can never accept it as true that bread is flesh; it is as if you said that man is a stone.322

Martyr: We agree that bread is flesh in such a way that it is made flesh; but it is not made flesh through transubstantiation, but by a sacramental conversion. Therefore in this way we agree that bread is [227] flesh. If the antecedent is rightly understood, it infers no more than that bread is flesh sacramentally. But if you will understand the antecedent to mean that bread is really or transubstantially323 made flesh, we deny it. Afterward you add that the proposition must be true. That bread is flesh is most absurd. I say that you have not proved, and cannot prove, that all propositions consisting of the verb substantive est must be taken to be identical, because some may be predicated of subjects by a certain analogy or proportion, such as that circumcision is the covenant, where it is not necessary for the covenant and circumcision to be the same. Again, you see that in the same proposition where it is said, “The word was made flesh,” both remain, the word and flesh. Why then may not bread remain in the sacrament, where you attempt to prove that bread is made flesh?

Tresham:324 Chrysostom agrees with Cyprian; both of them were of one mind. So we have found another witness of the truth. Chrysostom clearly posits transubstantiation, for in The Lord’s Supper he has a sermon in which he states: “Do you see bread? Do you see wine? Does it like other meat pass on out? God forbid; do not think like that. For just as if wax is applied to fire it is made like it, nothing of the substance remains, nothing is spilled; so you should think that here likewise the mysteries are consumed by the substance of the body,” etc.325 [57v] Here you see that Chrysostom does exclude the bread and the wine, and denies that they are voided.

Martyr: I say that Chrysostom, along with the rest of the Fathers, used many extravagant and hyperbolic terms in order to speak more highly of this sacrament, by which he might draw the minds of his hearers away from symbols to embrace the substance of the sacrament.326 But if such hyperboles are examined in detail they can by no means stand; hence they require an appropriate interpretation. [228] You may see that often he and other Fathers deny absolutely something that should be denied only in certain respects.327 You can see this kind of speech in the holy Scriptures. Paul says, “Our wrestling is not against flesh and blood.” This disagrees with what he writes to the Galatians: “The flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh.”328 But he denied that our struggle is against flesh and blood, at least by comparison, when compared with what we have in the evils above us, that is, the devil and his spirits. The same apostle says: “In Christ there is neither male nor female,”329 yet Christianity does not remove properties from human nature. Rather, the apostle himself gave special commandments in Christ to both masters and servants, husbands and wives. He meant that male and female do not exist in Christ in terms of receiving redemption, grace, and salvation. The same apostle wrote that he was not sent to baptize but to preach the Gospel, yet Christ said as much to all the apostles, that they should not only preach, but also baptize. So he did not deny absolutely that he was sent to baptize, but in the sense that he meant to signify a comparison of the two offices, [58r] that preaching was chiefly committed to him, and that it excelled the office of baptizing so much that in a sense it could be said he was not sent for that purpose; he did baptize Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas.330 In this way also are the Fathers to be understood, that sometimes they deny bread and wine here, not absolutely but in comparison with the substance of the sacraments. For our part, we should attend to the substance of the sacraments as if we have no more regard for symbols than if they did not exist. So they show what we should seek in communion, not in fact bread and wine themselves, for we have such things at home, but the body and blood of Christ, as though in comparison of the reality to these, the bread and wine may be said not to exist in a certain sense. For we should draw our mind away from earthly elements to the body and blood of Christ in heaven. So we come to the words of Chrysostom when he says: “Do you see bread? Do you see wine?” At once he adds: “Do not think like that.” And after the simile of wax he writes, “Think the same here also.” [229] What follows shows the hyperbole sufficiently when he says, “Do not think that you receive a divine body from a man, but fire with the tongs of the very Seraphim.” These things cannot be understood according to the words, unless you wish to remove or transubstantiate the minister himself. He adds: “Reckon the blood of salvation to flow as it were out of the divine and immaculate side”; something you yourselves will not admit, nor can it happen that blood should now flow from the side of the impassible body of Christ.

Tresham: You have said a great deal; the Scriptures you have cited allow an alternative interpretation, and what you credit to Chrysostom does not agree with him. For in these words Chrysostom himself first established the truth of doctrine and of faith, [58v] then turned to morals in order to draw us to higher things. At first he only instructs and teaches, before he comes to figures; when he hands down doctrine and teaches, he brings the example of wax; afterward I admit (as you say) that he uses hyperbole.331 Now I ask: did Chrysostom speak the truth or not? If he did, I have what I sought; if not, he is found to be a false witness of God, according to what Paul has in chapter 15 of First Corinthians, where he confirms the resurrection. For he writes, “If it is not true that Christ arose, we are false witnesses.”332

Martyr: You say that Chrysostom first hands down and teaches doctrine and then when he comes to morals you acknowledge that he uses hyperboles and figurative speech, and wish to have it that the example of wax relates to the former. I answer: now we agree that here as in other places also Chrysostom is excessive, in order to admonish us not to fasten our eyes on symbols, but to raise ourselves towards heaven to Christ himself, and contemplate his death in our mind. I have proved these figures plainly enough by two or three passages; yet it must not be said that Chrysostom spoke falsely. For in truth Christ’s body is given us to be eaten, and his blood to be drunk; yet they are received with the mind and faith; and by them not only is the mind renewed but also the body.333 And because we should not be deceived in his tropes, he used verbs [230] (esteem, think, and consider). But your distinction of these things into doctrine and morals does not appear from the order of Chrysostom’s words. Much less does it hold that you wish the simile of wax to be understood properly, as though it were a matter of doctrine.334 For in book 4 of Cyril on John 17 we have the same simile, regarding our change [59r] into Christ. Here are Cyril’s words: “Just as if someone were to pour a different wax into melted wax, the one will be mixed with the other in the whole; just so if someone receives the flesh and blood of the Lord, he is so united with him that Christ is found in him, and he in Christ.”335 He has a similar saying in book 10, chapter 13, where he writes: “For just as someone mixes together wax melted in fire with other wax similarly melted, so that he sees one thing to be made from both, so by the communion of the body and blood of Christ, he is in us, and we in him.”336 This from Cyril, where you see that Christ and ourselves are compared with melted wax, and yet we would not say that Christ and we are transubstantiated. How then will you say this is done concerning bread because of that simile set down by Chrysostom? Rather if the matter is diligently examined, we ourselves are more joined to Christ than is bread, for Christ is joined in such a way as he is with bread in order that we should truly be united with him. And the words through which bread is called the body of Christ belong to us more than to something that by nature understands or believes nothing.337

Tresham: Chrysostom is the best interpreter of himself. On Matthew 26, homily 83, he shows that he does not speak hyperbolically, writing: “Let us believe that God is everywhere, and not contradict him, even though what he says seems absurd to our sense and reason.”338 And then: “For we cannot be deceived by his words, but our sense is easily deceived. These words, ‘This is my body,’ cannot deceive; let them lead us with no ambiguity, but let us believe,” etc. [231] Again: “What sunbeams will that hand not exceed, which handles this crown?”339 Here he begins to mix figures, giving doctrine first; you should not introduce figurative speech [59v] out of place.340

Martyr: Now as I said, you agree with me, first that Chrysostom occasionally speaks figuratively in this matter, since you cannot deny it; you oppose me only on the point that before those words, “what sunbeams will that hand not exceed?” there is no trope. The thing itself shows that it is different, for at the beginning you have: “It is not something sensible that is handed down to us by Christ”; and deny (if you can) that sensible symbols are instituted by him and given to us. Moreover he added: “Oh how many now say: I wish I had his form and shape! I wish I had his very garments! I wish I could see his shoes! You see him and touch him.”341 Won’t you acknowledge a trope here? Which of us sees and touches Christ in the Eucharist? A little later he reduces us (so to speak) into one mass with him; nor does he make us his body by faith only, but in reality. Here he touches on our change into Christ, which you cannot call transubstantiation. Again, in the same places as before, he compares baptism with the Eucharist, so that we may understand that the same analogy obtains in both sacraments. When you seize Chrysostom’s words for yourself, “Neither does he only by faith but in truth make us his body,” it does not help. For there he is not speaking of bread, but of Christ’s union with us, which I admit does not stand only on faith. For even if we embrace Christ in the sacrament by faith, yet our actual change into Christ follows it. For our mind is made lively and ready to show honor to God, and our body rendered more obedient to the Spirit; so a real change occurs, of both mind and body. In this way we are to understand that we are gathered into one whole in Christ, because we thus become conformable with him. So you see that by these words bread is not removed, nor does it follow that Christ is either really or [60r] substantially contained in it; here rather you have it from Chrysostom that they are intelligible things342 that are given to us. You would not allow a trope before the words you noted, but afterwards [232] figures are quite clearly present, such as when he says, “The tongue is made bloody or red,” that you dare not deny them. Therefore it follows that this whole speech is hyperbolic or figurative.

Tresham: I wish to God that you understood properly! It is the custom of the apostles and the Fathers first to teach faith and true doctrine, and then to establish morals.

Martyr: Yet in these places of Chrysostom, you do not distinguish doctrine and morals for me; tropes are spread everywhere.

Tresham: I have already shown you.343 But I will bring another Doctor against you, and will deal courteously with you. For I put someone to you who (as I take it) was your countryman, Thomas De Vio, Cajetan.344

Martyr: I do not allow him; he is a scholastic, a cardinal who lived in my own time; you yourself would not accept him in everything.

Tresham: Very well, I yield to your judgment; if you will not allow him, I will not introduce him.

(C) HERE THE REVEREND LORD BISHOP OF LINCOLN GAVE LEAVE TO MR. MORGAN TO RAISE OBJECTIONS AGAIN, IF HE WISHED.345

Morgan: All Doctors and Fathers are as one in rejecting every principle by which transubstantiation is taken away; therefore it must be postulated.

Martyr: I deny the antecedent, for if the Fathers are understood correctly, they did not remove our principles.

Morgan: They overthrow the principle that a human body cannot be in many places at once, and that a body with quantity cannot exist without a quantitative measure.

Martyr: I deny your assumption that the Fathers abolish these things so [233] as to remove them completely. Nor are you stating all the principles by which transubstantiation is repudiated. For even Luther and those who hold with him grant that the body is in many places at once, and that a body with quantity may exist without quantitative measure, yet they still deny transubstantiation. [60v] Therefore what you are rehearsing are not full and consistent principles through which we refute transubstantiation. For our first and chief principle is holy Scripture, which acknowledges that bread is present.

Morgan:346 That a body may exist without quantitative measure will be proved from Chrysostom on chapter 2 of John, homily 86,347 where it is written: “It may well be doubted how an incorruptible body showed the nailprints, and could be touched by a mortal hand. But do not let this disturb you, for this happened through condescension. For the body being so fine and light [tenue et leve] as to enter in when the doors were shut, was free of all density; but this marvel was shown so that the resurrection might be believed, also that people might know that it was the Crucified himself, and that no one else arose in his place. On this account he arose with the signs of the cross, and ate. The apostles everywhere made this a sign of resurrection, saying: ‘We ate and drank together with him.’348 Therefore just as when he walked on the waters before his passion349 we do not say that the body was different from our nature, even so after the resurrection, since it had nail prints, we must not therefore say that it was corruptible; he showed these things for the sake of the disciple.”350 You hear that it was done through condescension, that the wounds were shown so that the disciples might believe; and that the body of Christ was without all density, so fine and light that it could enter while the doors were shut. What do you say to Chrysostom?351

Martyr: First I answer that this does not tell me that the body of Christ [234] was in various places at once. As to its mass, I answer that the glorified body is not completely without it, otherwise it would not be a human body; yet it has it in a way that is mobile and light, and obeys the spirit.352 It does not therefore follow that Christ [61r] was without limits, which belong to quantitative measure; yet this did not mean that he could not reach his disciples through his divinity and glory. Briefly, I differentiate density so that you may understand Chrysostom to say that he did indeed possess it, yet not such as should hinder Christ from reaching his disciples; here I agree with him. Or else you think that he must be understood to mean that he lacked every sort of mass; I deny this, and Chrysostom’s words do not intend such an opinion. Clearly he is one with the Evangelist, that the marks of the nails and the cross were preserved in him. For how can it be that figures occur where there is no quantity in the substance? I readily grant that he suffered the scars on his body by permission, that he chose to be touched, and that he ate and drank with his apostles. For it was not necessary for these things to happen unless he himself wished. Meanwhile, I do not hear that it was by permission that he had quantity, or that he was in some one place, which I contended to be necessary for a body. Again, he affirms that that body was not of any other nature than ours. But it is certain that ours have quantity and quantitative measure; the only exception is the possibility of becoming corrupt. And he ascribes such lightness and fineness to him that he could enter in when the doors were shut. Only he takes away such mass as might hinder that entering in, though not completely.

Morgan: The body of Christ, according to your account, was stuck in the midst of the doors, his mass not hindering him, and so there were two bodies in one place.

Martyr:353 To this I give two answers. First, the holy Scriptures report this miracle; we freely acknowledge them. But they never teach that the body of Christ is present in many places substantially; rather they ascribe a certain place to the body of Christ: I mean heaven, at the right hand of the father, not in [61v] one place. Further, it is against the nature of a true human body, and therefore should not be admitted. The other point is that in this entrance of [235] Christ’s body to his disciples, the mass of the wall could yield because of the power of his divinity so that two bodies were not at once in the same place. I remember that Tertullian (because you like also to claim that the body of Christ came forth from the Virgin’s womb while being closed) in his book The Resurrection of the Flesh writes that in his birth Christ opened the womb of his mother. Cyprian also states this in his exposition of the creed. Jerome wrote to Eustochius that Christ came forth bloody from the Virgin’s womb.354 Some think that Christ came forth from the Virgin’s womb while it was completely closed and whole. Therefore, since all are not of one mind in this matter, I have given you a double answer. In one I grant that this penetration happened through a miracle, yet not so that as it passed through, the body of Christ lost all quantity, but by a similitude. I do not grant that the body of Christ is in many places, because Scripture does not teach this, but shows the contrary. The other answer is that by divine power the doors gave way, just as some say that the Virgin’s womb was opened.

Morgan: To your answer that it was through a miracle that the mass or quantity of the wall or door gave way to Christ who entered in, I ask you whether the apostles saw the doors give way.

Martyr: What if they did not see it? It does not matter whether they saw it or not; holy Scripture neither affirms nor denies it. But because it declares that it happened, it must be believed. But that the body of Christ may carnally or substantially be in many places at once, or lies under the accidents of bread or wine, it nowhere teaches.

Morgan: I have asked this question, because if they gave way and the apostles did not see it, Christ plainly [62r] deceived the senses and was a magician; you attack this when you deny that the body of Christ lies hidden under the form of bread, lest he should in fact be accounted a magician or illusionist of the senses. Still, Erasmus says on Luke 24 that the body of Christ is invisible as he wishes, and seen when he wants.355 But setting this aside, Augustine in sermon [236] number 159, entitled Dominica in octava pascha, sermon 3 ad competentes: “It is a miracle that our Lord Jesus Christ came to his disciples in true flesh, through closed doors. Perhaps you require a reason from me, and demand evidence. If it were true flesh, you say, that was resurrected, how did it enter among the disciples when the doors were shut? Give me a reason, he says. It is no wonder, O man, if you ask me for a reason. If an example is looked for it will not be unique. Do you believe that Christ the Lord walked with sure foot on the waters of the sea? I know you believe it; ask me then: if Christ entered through closed doors, where is the weight of his body? Let measure and weight depart for a while, this happened to him for whom nothing is impossible. Could not Christ, who brought out his flesh from the tomb, come to his disciples while the doors were shut?”356 And the same Augustine in the same work, sermon 4: “A great miracle, but you stop wondering when you consider that he is God. For it were a marvel if a mere man did this. Refer it to omnipotence, not a fantasy. He entered in when the doors were shut. I answer so that you might know that because he was true flesh, he showed his scars to be touched. But you say, just as it does not belong to bodily nature to enter through closed doors, so it does not belong to bodily nature to walk on the waves of the sea. He entered through closed doors. Answer me. Grant me the solid flesh. [62v] He walked on the water of the sea; grant also the weight of flesh. Are you willing to acknowledge that this also came from omnipotence? He gave it to Peter also, giving as he chose, and what was proper to himself he reserved. For being alive, he entered through closed doors, and in his birth he did not harm his mother’s wholeness.”357 See, you have heard that the weight and quantitative measure departed from Christ’s body.

[237] Martyr:358: Before you listed the places of Augustine, you objected that if the wall or door yielded to Christ when he entered and the apostles did not see it, then Christ plainly deluded the senses. I answer that this is not necessary. The apostles might see him standing in full view beside them, yet not know how he came in to them. You say that I am against the claim that the body of Christ is visible and invisible as he pleases, lest he should seem to be a magician and illusionist; I say you are deceived. I did not say this about the body of Christ, but about bread, because it might seem to be the part of a conjurer to show its properties, form, taste, color and quantity,359 but take its substance away. Nor does Erasmus, whom you cite, count against me. To answer Augustine, I stay with my former distinction and say that he does not mean that all measure of quantity and all weight left Christ’s body, for then it would not have been a body; he understands that only those things were rejected that might have impeded his entrance and penetration to his disciples.

Morgan: If a quantity and measure were permitted in Christ’s body in such a way that it would not hinder the penetration of doors, it follows that there were two bodies in one place.

Martyr: I deny the conclusion, because the passage could mean (as I have said) that the quantity and weight of the door gave way.

Morgan: If [63r] the quantity of the door had given way, Augustine did not need to say that the measure and weight were suspended for a time; he could have entered in with his own measure and weight when the quantity of the door or wall gave way. I could also meet your objection from Augustine to Dardanus. Again you say that the measure and weight of the body that impeded the entering in were withdrawn. But all quantitative measure hinders the body of Christ from entering through closed doors. Therefore all quantitative measure was removed from Christ’s body.360

Martyr: Your assumption that all quantity and measure impedes the body of Christ from passing through is not true. For through miracle [238] and divinity he could enter in to the apostles, even when the doors were shut, as has already been said, either because he opened the doors themselves when they were closed, or else because they yielded to him temporarily, returning afterward to their former state, or else by some other means that seems to us inconsistent with Scripture; for something similar, read chapter 5 of the Acts of the Apostles.361 Moreover, it’s clear that when all quantity is removed a human body cannot retain its own nature. But the body of Christ and the saints’ glorified bodies do not have such density; their bodies are light and agile, so that they obey the spirit and are moved as it wills. You say that in the same terms you can answer what is objected from the letter to Dardanus: if you frame an answer and explain it, I will say how it looks to me; but when you speak generally, it does not seem to be what you intend. As to your point that the quantity of the wall yielded so that there was no need to suspend the measure and weight of a body for a time, you are not seeing things correctly. The quantity of the wall could give way [63v] in the sense that there is still need of some subtlety and lightness or agility to the body of Christ as it passes through; just as when he walked on the waters, they sustained his body as it moved, but in a way that some weight left the body when he walked. Besides, as I said before, Scripture narrates this miracle, but it does not tell us how it happens in the Eucharist. This was my leading principle against transubstantiation.

Morgan: There is also Augustine in book 3 of De agone christiano, chapter 24: “Neither let us listen to those who deny that such a body of the Lord rose again, as was put in the tomb. For if it had not been such a body, he himself would not have said to his disciples after the resurrection: ‘Handle and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.’362 It is sacrilege to believe that our Lord, since he is himself the truth, lied in anything. Nor should it bother us that because it is written that he appeared suddenly to his disciples when the doors were shut, we should deny that it was a human body, because we see that he entered in by closed doors against the nature of this body; for all things are possible with God. For to walk on water is clearly against the nature of this body, yet not only did [239] the Lord himself walk before his passion but he made Peter walk too. Likewise after his resurrection he did what he wished with his body. For if before his passion he could glorify that body like the brilliance of the sun, why couldn’t he reduce it in a moment after his passion to whatever subtlety he would, that he might enter through closed doors?”363 You hear from Augustine that the body of Christ became subtle enough to enter through doors that were shut; [64r] therefore it follows that two bodies were together in one place, which is no less absurd for nature than if the same body were in many places at once.

Martyr: This passage contains three main points. First, that the body of Christ arose in the same form as was in the tomb, that is, a true human body; since it was true it could not exist without its quantity and measure. The second point is that after his resurrection, Christ did what he would with his body; I admit that freely. But it does not say that he wants his body to be without quantity, or found in many places at once. The third is that for a moment of time he could reduce it to so fine a mass364 as to enter through closed doors; by this way of speaking quantity is not removed but asserted. For subtlety is a quality of bodily substance and quantity; it requires quantity and some measure of it. It is also to be remembered that Christ said, “Handle and see,” etc. But who does not know that what is handled has both quantity and measure of quantity? Therefore by subtlety he understands agility, but not something that removes body. But as for what follows, I have already denied that two bodies were together, partly because the quantity of the wall could yield, while the subtlety of Christ’s body is still added. Perhaps the Fathers who affirm such a passage did not count it so great an absurdity in nature to have two bodies together in the same place as one body in many places at once. Finally, I have already said that Scripture narrates this coming of Christ to his apostles, while the doors were shut, but does not [64v] teach that the body of Christ is in many places at once, or without quantity. By this miracle nothing is taken away from the truth of Christ’s body, nor is his proper quantity removed.

Morgan: I do not agree with what you just said, that by subtlety Augustine [240] understands agility, because that belongs to the speed of motion, whereas the quality of which Augustine speaks refers to penetrating something that has density.365 I will now show that it is the gift of a glorified body to penetrate whenever it wishes through the densest bodies. For Ambrose says on Luke 24: “Thomas had reason to wonder, when with everything closed up he saw a body present among them, through ways impossible for bodies; the place remained unbroken and so it was a marvel how a bodily nature put itself in through an impassable body by an invisible entrance yet in visible appearance, easily touched and difficult to conceive. Finally, the disciples were troubled, thinking they saw a spirit; therefore to show us the form of his resurrection, the Lord said: ‘Touch and see, for a spirit has not flesh and bones, as you see that I have.’ Therefore it was not in a bodiless nature that he entered, by a way that was closed and unusable, but through the quality of the resurrected body. For what is touched is a body, what is felt is a body, and in a body we shall rise. For ‘it is sown a natural body, it will rise a spiritual body.’ But that will be more subtle, this is more dense, as something still composed of the quality of earthly corruption. For how could that not be a body in which there remained marks of wounds and traces of scars, which the Lord presented to the touch, in which he not only confirms faith, but inspires devotion? Because he chose to carry into heaven the wounds received for our sakes, he would not abolish them, so that he might show God the Father the price of our freedom.”366 [65r] On this point Ambrose affirms that all glorified bodies have the power to carry themselves through the densest material. He says that through the quality of his bodily resurrection he passed through places that were ordinarily impassable. So we conclude that it must be attributed to glorified bodies to be able to penetrate through the densest substance when they choose. You will note that he says the body came in when the doors were shut, without damaging anything that was joined in one.

Martyr: It does not serve my cause to discuss agility just now. Therefore so far as this is concerned I agree that by “subtlety” Augustine [241] understood “fineness” [tenuitatem]; we will not contest it. But I refer you to what I said a little before, that subtlety is a state of quantity, and necessarily supposes a measure of quantity.367 I answer further that this place of Ambrose doesn’t count against me at all. The substance of Christ that penetrated to his disciples he plainly called corporeal, and attributed the miracle solely to the quality of resurrection. He explicitly says that what is felt and touched is a body; and between our body that we have in the present form and the future, he puts this difference, that that is more subtle and this more dense. He would have Christ to possess a true body because of the marks of his wounds. Thus he does not take away its quantity or measure, but only shows what the quality of resurrection can do. In your argument two things should have been declared, which you did not demonstrate. One is that the density or mass of the door did not yield through a miracle. Secondly, that a human body can be at one time in many places. You took it upon yourself to clarify these matters, but did not prove them.

Morgan: I did indeed declare at first that quantity did not give place, because Ambrose says that Christ’s body [65v] entered without breaking anything solid.

Martyr:368 Here, says Ambrose, the body of Christ gained entrance and passage through what is impenetrable and impassible. I grant this too, because they cannot be penetrated without a miracle, which might be that the mass of the wall made way for the glorified body without injury to the wholeness of the body of Christ, or else the door, which was not broken or opened by force, easily and of its own accord made room and was restored to its own place, in such a way that there seemed neither violence nor harm. Moreover, and this is the chief necessity, you do not prove that anything like this happened. I have expounded the Fathers, who are perhaps drawn to your opinion, but I have plainly taught before out of the Scriptures what [quid] answer should be given.

[242] (D) HERE DR. TRESHAM WAS ORDERED TO RESUME369

Tresham: You370 know well that by nature substance precedes quantity; therefore it is not difficult for the divine power to be separated and found without quantity.

Martyr: I know that in metaphysical terms substance is separated from quantity, because there is a different reason and definition for the one than for the other.371 But if quantity is removed, it cannot be that a corporeal substance should exist, especially a true human body. Who does not know that although substance precedes quantity in nature, yet there is an immediate distinction between corporeal and incorporeal, while corporeal is divided into animate and inanimate; an animate body is said to be a means [organicum], and supplied with members, which is impossible without quantity; otherwise we could allow a human body without feet, without hands, without eyes, and so on.

Tresham: [66r] It is no hindrance to God that what is prior in nature may exist without what is to follow.

Martyr: In the antecedent you should have posited a physical and organic body, complete with all its members, such as was the body of Christ; in this sense it is not first in quantity in such a way that it could exist without it.

Tresham: God can effect whatever does not include a contradiction in terms.372 Again, in the previous discussion you affirmed that it is not a sign of itself in the same person; I deny this based on Luke chapter 2: “I bring you glad tidings of great joy, and this shall be a sign unto you: you shall find the babe swaddled, and laid in a manger.”373

Martyr: I answer firstly that it does imply contradiction for there to be an organic body perfectly equipped with members, and yet without quantity. Again, what you bring out of Luke is not conclusive, for the infant wrapped in clothes did not signify himself, but that [243] the angel spoke truthfully. The true words of the angel and of Christ do not refer to the same person. When I said this before, I said that the Son in Hebrews is not called the image of his Father’s substance unless it refers to his humanity. For through antonomasia this name is fitting for him above all others. When it is said, “Many and sundry ways God spoke to the fathers in old time in the prophets, but last of all in his Son,” the saying concerns him who is now incarnate.374 If all humans are images of God, yet much more is this attributed to the man Christ. I have explained the sense in which that place should be understood, namely according to the divinity; those things were handled along the way.

Tresham: I ask you: is the body of Christ passible and impassible? [66v]

Martyr: I answer as before, according to the opinion of Vigilius, that one nature does not receive such contraries together.

Tresham: I proved that the same body was both passible and impassible at one time, because as Scripture teaches, the body of Christ was passible, not by necessity but willingly. It is said in John: “I lay down my life and no one takes it from me,”375 and I add that no one could take it away. In Isaiah the prophet it is said, “He is offered up, because he himself would,”376 and therefore he was passible by his own will. He was also impassible because if Christ did not choose to, he would not have suffered; therefore the body of Christ was both things at once as he himself decided. So let this be the form of argument: that body is impassible whose life cannot be taken away unless he wills it himself; but the body of Christ was exactly that before his death, that no one could take his life from him unless he chose; therefore it was impassible.

Martyr: I distinguish the power of dying or of not dying. If you refer it to the will of Christ, both were present, because Christ could choose to suffer, and could choose not to suffer, just as he wished; therefore his body would have been either passible or impassible, yet he never willed them together and at the same time, but one part alone. Therefore that body was always either passible or impassible, and never both at the same time, in relation to this external principle of Christ’s will. Moreover, if you regard the conditions and [244] qualities of a body and speak of action, I say that when the body of Christ enjoyed passible qualities and conditions, of necessity it could not be subject to impassibility; it might be changed from the one to the other; but to retain both at once was impossible.377

[67r] THE SECOND QUESTION: WHETHER THE BODY OF CHRIST IS REALLY PRESENT IN THE EUCHARIST.

Tresham: The ancient author Irenaeus, in book 4 chapter 24 against the Valentinians who set aside the resurrection of the flesh and denied that Christ is the Son of God, Creator of all: “How will they know that the bread in which thanks are given is the body of the Lord, if they deny the very Son of the Creator?” And a little later: “But again, why do they say that the flesh becomes corrupt and does not receive life, when it is nourished with the body and blood of the Lord?”378 We can see here what sort of faith and doctrine concerning the Eucharist existed in the church at that time. I argue thus: anything through which something else is proved should be more certain than what is proved.379 Now the resurrection of our flesh is proved by the true presence of Christ’s body in the Eucharist; and Christ is proved to be truly the Son of the Creator of this world; therefore the body of Christ is really present there, and it should be more certain to us than those things it proves.

Martyr: Irenaeus’s argument is true, I do not deny it, but it does not make against me. For that bread is eucharistic bread, and it is also the body of Christ—but how? Sacramentally. As Irenaeus concluded against the heretics who denied that Christ was the Son of God, maker of this world, he assumed that since Christ took bread, which comes from God the creator of this world, Christ would have been using another creature. So for Irenaeus’s purpose it is enough to show that this kind of bread is created, and has a proper place in the sacrament, lest Christ might seem to make use of a strange creature, if he should be called the son of some other God than [67v] [245] the creator of this world. Now to appreciate the opinion of Irenaeus on the Eucharist, let us consider his claim that our bodies are fed, nourished, endure and increase by the Eucharist. What he says is so true that we may understand that two kinds of nourishment come to us from this sacrament. One is natural, from the symbols bread and wine, by whose use the human body is regularly sustained. Although this kind of nourishment is not to be spurned, Irenaeus and other Fathers do not make much of it. The other nourishment is this: while we receive the sacrament we embrace Christ’s body and blood by the mind and faith. Then in the first place our mind is filled with the Spirit and with grace, and secondly our body is renewed, that it may from day to day become an appropriate organ and instrument for spirit, and so made more capable of the blessed resurrection. Irenaeus expressed this clearly when he said: “When bread from the earth receives the calling of God, it is no longer ordinary bread, but is made the Eucharist, consisting of two things, earthly and heavenly, just as our bodies on receiving the Eucharist are no longer corruptible.”380 In this way he draws from the Eucharist a reason for our true resurrection in the future.

Tresham: You have not convinced me when you say that Irenaeus names bread here, and therefore means that both are in the Eucharist, it and the body of Christ, and that these things count more in confirming his argument against the Valentinians. For you see in what sense the Scriptures name bread in this sacrament: just so Irenaeus also speaks in this place. He states most clearly that the very body of Christ is in the Eucharist, and he calls it bread, either because it was bread, or else because it retained the form of bread.

Martyr: I admit that Irenaeus speaks of bread in the same sense [68r] as the Scriptures, and so in this way agrees with them that bread remains here. But you can never show by his words that he says that the body of Christ is in the bread as you have it. And I have already refuted often that it is named bread by Scripture in the sense you mean.

Tresham: Chrysostom in homily 61 to the people of Antioch, and on John, homily 45, writes: “I wished to be your brother, and have shared flesh and blood for your sake, and through them am I joined to you, and once again offer them to you.”381 Thus it appears again [246] that the flesh and blood through which he was made our kinsman are given in the Eucharist.

Martyr: I grant that the flesh of Christ is offered to communicants in the Eucharist; we dispute as to the mode, which I hold to be spiritual. But I do not therefore understand that we receive a fictitious flesh or false body, but in a sacrament and through faith we truly receive them and are one with them.

Tresham: When you say spiritually, this does not appear in the words of Chrysostom; also through faith we may receive even without the sacrament.

Martyr: Although in this passage Chrysostom does not actually write this word “spiritually,” yet he expresses it enough elsewhere when he says, “The matters given to us may be understood [intelligibilia].” I also accept your point that receiving Christ’s body through faith is also possible without the sacrament. For with or without symbols, while we recall to mind Christ crucified for us and his blood shed for us, and believe it, we are truly made partakers of him; but when symbols are added which the Holy Spirit uses as instruments to better impress faith in our minds, we are greatly assisted. For we are hesitant about divine things, and therefore require outward symbols.382

[247] FOURTH DAY

[68v] DISPUTATION OF THE FOURTH DAY, IN WHICH DR. WILLIAM CHEDSEY OPPOSED DR. PETER MARTYR, JUNE 1

(A) PREFACE OF DR. WILLIAM CHEDSEY

I find it to be true, being taught with certainty by experience, what Gregory Nazianzen (called the Theologian), states in book 3 On Theology: “It is no great matter to discredit another’s opinion, but quite easy for anyone; but on the contrary to prove his own is the mark of a godly and wise man.”383 For if the contention is about bare words it will happen as that acute logician said truly at Nicaea: “While they struggle over words, words are opposed to words, and what is spoken is subverted by the art of speaking.”384 But if the issue concerns meaning, Paul insisted: “The natural man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.”385 If one appeals to reason and solid wisdom, it will soon be said: “My speech and my preaching were not in the plausible words of human wisdom, but in the demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that our faith might not rest in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.”386 Therefore to debate such a difficult subject, and prove by reasons what should be held only by faith and belief, is dangerous, and given to no one without the singular gift of God. As Jerome said to Paulinus, this is especially so where there is a dispute between those who come to the holy Scriptures from secular literature, [69r] and by calculated speech delight the ears of the people.387 They hold that what they say is the law of God, and do not bother to know what prophets and apostles have thought, but fasten inappropriate meaning388 to their sense. As if such language is of great value and not the most vicious error, to [248] degrade opinions and bend any Scripture that stands against him to one’s own will; to acknowledge a figure where there is none; to devise a figure where there is a truth; to draw everything where feeling leads. What Augustine has in On Christian Doctrine book 3 chapter 10 agrees with this: “If an opinion of a certain error has possessed the mind, no matter how differently Scripture has declared, men take it to be figurative.”389 But is not this to serve the emotions? When Scripture says in plain words “This is my body,” to interpret it “This signifies my body”? When the Fathers affirm true flesh and true blood, to explain that the Fathers spoke spiritually or hyperbolically? When they teach that bread is not changed in form but in nature, to refer this only to a holy use? Do they bring in the Scriptures? No, they stretch them, as Tertullian says. And by their boldness they persuade some, and in argument weary even the strong; they seize the weak and send the indifferent away with doubts. Therefore we must labor diligently so that our eyes may be opened; we must succeed through prayer in having him who is the author of the Scriptures to be their interpreter also, that he will open their meaning so that we may understand the Scriptures. “He that speaks in a tongue should pray that he may be able to interpret.”390 And so, instead of words virtue will emerge; and faith instead of reason; that we are not carried away with every passing word, but that we may be rooted and grafted in that Word which has power to save our souls. That this may come to pass, you should pray along with me in my accustomed prayer to the Holy [69v] Spirit: “Come, Holy Spirit; God who teaches the hearts of the faithful.”391

(B) PREFACE AND PRAYER OF PETER MARTYR392

I will not try to show how little I agree with what you have now said so sharply in your prologue. I will simply warn you that I never twisted or falsified the holy Scriptures, nor have I imagined figures where they do not exist, nor have I introduced any new ones, but such as are familiar, and which in a way all the Fathers acknowledge. Yet I will not spend time in refuting these matters. For there are many things I must say to confirm my questions, as is the custom for those who are [249] to respond in disputations, lest they might seem to defend absurdities. Through them it will be made known also how little those things you said earlier belong to my opinion. Yesterday indeed I thought of doing so, but because it happened that I had to deal with another adversary than was arranged, I thought it best to finish sooner with him and to dispute with the regular appointee, to overlook these things and postpone them until today. So that our purpose may have a good outcome, I will, as I have done before, implore the help of God.393

Almighty God, we acknowledge the weakness of our mind, and so we dare not approach the contemplation and examination of your truth, unless first we call upon your name, as is proper. Therefore we beseech you with most fervent prayers, that of your special goodness you will enlighten our darkness, and by the benefit of your Spirit will make plain those doubts that will occur, so that the way of salvation may be made quite clear to those who believe, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

PETER MARTYR VS. WILLIAM CHEDSEY

(C) [70r] CONFIRMATION OF THE FIRST QUESTION394

[1]395 In order to confirm the first question, besides the reasons you heard in the debate of previous days, I will now add the following. In baptism Christ is truly given to us, as Paul declared to the Galatians when he wrote, “As many of you as are baptized have put on Christ.”396 And in the letter to the Romans he shows that through baptism we are ingrafted into Christ.397 In 1 Corinthians he joined these two sacraments together, saying: “We are baptized into one body and have drunk one spirit.”398 Yet no one holds that transubstantiation is necessary to receive Christ truly in baptism; hence it follows that it is equally superfluous to have it in the Eucharist. Nor can it be lightly said that Christ is given more excellently in the Eucharist than in baptism, since through baptism we [250] are regenerated by him, while through the Eucharist we are fed in him. No one doubts that greater substance is brought us through generation than nourishment. I let pass what Jerome wrote to Hedibia, that we eat the body and blood of Christ in baptism.399 Augustine says that through baptism we are made partakers of the body and blood of Christ, even before we eat the Lord’s bread and drink his cup.400

[2] Another reason: just as Christ said, “This is my body,” he also said through Paul’s mouth, “You are the body of Christ.”401 Yet transubstantiation is not required in order to make us the body of Christ. Then why will it not be true that bread is the body of Christ unless transubstantiation happens? Indeed, if one considers the matter well, the body of Christ is more joined to us than it is to bread, because what the bread has is so that through it Christ may be joined with us. [70v] Also the words through which bread is brought to become a sacrament belong more to us than to bread, which is completely without sense and faith.

[3] Again, it is dangerous to delude the senses through transubstantiation, because in that case the proof of Christ’s true resurrection perishes, which he showed to his apostles, saying, “Touch and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones.”402 Moreover it would have been easy for the Marcionites to say that Christ did not have a true human body, but only its accidents and figure, just as you say that bread is not bread even though it seems so in terms of its properties and outward form. The Fathers thought they had proved conclusively that Christ was true man, from the human affections and properties the Scriptures record of him, namely that he hungered, he thirsted, he was weary and sorrowed, he felt wonder, and things like that. These arguments could be denied by the example of your transubstantiation, and heretics could say: it does not follow that in the sacrament of the Eucharist there are properties of bread and wine; therefore the substance of bread and wine is truly there; it does not follow that in Christ there were human properties and affections; therefore he had true human substance; so a window will be opened to the gravest errors.

[251] [4] By their unnecessary transubstantiation they pervert the nature of things, since they take accidents away from their substance and proper subject, something far more than to separate substance from quantity—which in their insolence they have striven to do—since accident is posterior to substance. Nor have we heard the old Fathers make any mention of so marvellous a miracle. Since they were [71r] learned, and understood well how substance and accident are defined, they would not have passed over so great a matter in silence. Nazianzen sang in verse the miracles wrought by Christ, while Augustine is credited with the book of the miracles of holy Scripture, yet they make no mention of accidents separated from their subject.403

[5] Again, it must result that the eater and what he eats are the same; for Christ communicated with his apostles in the supper. Therefore as they will have it, he ate his own self really and through transubstantiation.

[6] Admit also that in that Supper which Christ first celebrated with the apostles, some fragments remained after the bread was transubstantiated and were reserved until the next day, when Christ was crucified and died. Would not the body in that bread have been deprived of soul and life? If you deny it, it must follow that the same body was both dead and living at the same time. But if you say that it also died in the bread, it follows that a change was made in it, a natural and real change; none of this could occur in that bread, that he should there be both crucified and wounded, since for such matters we require not only a quantity but also the mode of quantity, which, with great controversy, they remove from the body of Christ in the Eucharist.

[7] If much bread and a good supply of wine should be transubstantiated by those who sacrifice, those who would eat and drink these things would actually be filled and nourished, and their stomach distended; all these things do they attribute to accidents. If the Eucharist is burned, ashes appear; if it is putrefied, worms erupt; and so a substance comes from accidents. Yet they dare to say anything, imagining that God often creates new substances that succeed accidents, or [71v] revokes former substance by a miracle; [252] they heap miracles on miracles. If mice gnaw this sacrament that is kept over, what will they eat? Accidents, they say. But why not the body of Christ as well, since they bind it to the accidents as long as they remain sound? Once corrupted, they also have the body of Christ removed from them. But where does it go when it departs? Into heaven? But it is already there, and was before; then how can it go there? If it ceases to exist, it is destroyed and corrupted, which is far removed from a glorified body.

[8] Sometimes also vomiting happens after receiving communion, as Cyprian told about a certain girl.404 He said that the liquid consecrated into blood erupted from inside; what becomes of the blood of Christ in that case?

[9] When they say that the bread is transubstantiated into the body of Christ, and transubstantiated in such a way that it is not there locally, we ask them what fills or occupies the space or place left by the substance of the bread? For if this is not turned over to Christ’s body it will remain empty, and contain nothing solid. Besides having accidents without a proper subject, and so that no marvel may be lacking, they attribute to them various actions and passions, which they cannot deny; yet notwithstanding, between acting and being acted on an identity of the same material is required. Since breaking is plainly seen in this sacrament, they say they break accidents, something mathematicians dare not say of their abstract reasoning, that they can divide it in reality. Plato’s Ideas have less absurdity, according to Aristotle’s critique,405 than this pretense of transubstantiation brings with it. So what? They solve everything by miracles. Therefore it were an easy thing for anyone to play the theologian, if all arguments could be dissolved by miracles, [72r]406 especially when it is a theological doctrine that miracles must not be multiplied without necessity, which they could never demonstrate in this matter.407

[253] (D) CONFIRMATION OF THE SECOND QUESTION408

[1] The purpose of eating Christ and receiving this sacrament is that we should live, that we should have everlasting life, that we should not die, that Christ should dwell in us and we in him, as Christ declared in John chapter 6. Yet these benefits and goods may be obtained just as well by admitting a union of the body of Christ with bread and wine through sacramental signification, as by affirming that he lies hidden really or substantially in the symbols. That will bring us no grace, or Spirit, or renewal, which derive abundantly from Christ existing in heaven, through receiving him by faith. For he is no stronger lying hidden in symbols than reigning in heaven. Therefore {propterea}, the communion must not be thought to be superfluous because we can eat Christ without it; for even if it is lawful to do so wherever we can, yet considering our infirmity we are helped by the service and comfort of symbols; and we have the express command of Christ for receiving them.

[2] Next, we must reject that eating which Christ refuted, disproving a carnal eating of his body when he dealt with the Capernaites; therefore it must be set aside. Nor will it help if you say that the Capernaites were reproved because they thought that the body of Christ was to be torn and severed, as though in the way of wild beasts they should be invited to eat human flesh, which would be chopped up and distributed, as happens to meat in the market; this is what you usually pretend. It makes no difference to bringing in a carnal eating whether the entire body [72v] of Christ is eaten piecemeal or all together. Nor is it true that it is a spiritual eating if the whole body is eaten, but a carnal one if cut into pieces; for according to this distinction, the sea monster that devoured Jonah would have eaten him spiritually, because he swallowed him whole at one gulp. Christ clearly teaches that he understands spiritual eating differently, when he proposed to them his ascension into heaven; for by this he showed that he meant an eating in which we may eat by faith something that is absent as to place and substance. Just as he called Nicodemus back from outward and bodily generation to a spiritual one, which we obtain in the mind and inward man, and raised up the Samaritan woman from the corporeal and physical [254] water, to the drink by which our minds are refreshed, I mean the Holy Spirit, so Christ taught the Capernaites, who thought that his flesh could be eaten outwardly and carnally, that eating which we receive with the mind and embrace with faith.

[3] Moreover, we receive the body and blood of Christ no less in the Word of God than in this sacrament. What else are sacraments, by Augustine’s description, than “visible words”? That same Augustine, in De consecratione, distinction 2, in the chapter Interrogo vos, says: “The Eucharist is of no less account than the Word of God.”409 Jerome also, on Ecclesiastes, states that in the holy Scriptures we eat the flesh of the Lord and drink his blood.410 Origen wrote similarly on Matthew, treatise 25, homily 26. Chrysostom on John, homily 25, and Basil in letter 141.411 Reason itself also persuades us: for whatever fruit or grace bread has in the sacrament, it has it through the Word. Besides this, words both express [73r] and signify the nature of a sacrament more plainly than do symbols. Thus since it is not affirmed that the body of Christ clings corporeally and really to the words, why do we rather place it in bread or wine?

[4] What we have in John chapter 1 agrees with this, that we are cleansed and washed by the blood of Christ,412 which truly happens as often as we convert to him, and by faith and repentance return to him. Nevertheless it must not happen that as often as we are washed he is present with us really and corporeally; it is enough that he is grasped by a faithful mind. Thus the body of Christ may be eaten and his blood drunk when he is absent, since a real presence seems to be required as much for washing as for eating and drinking, if we understand these things to be done naturally and crassly. Still, we must take care when we say that the body and blood of the Lord are received by faith, not to take them to be completely absent;413 for by the power of faith and spiritually, they are [255] made present to us.414 Paul said to the Ephesians, “We are already set with Christ at the right hand of God in the heavenly places.” To the Romans he said, “We were saved by hope”; and to the Galatians, “Before whose eyes he was portrayed and crucified among you.”415

[5] Holy Scripture records for us two advents of Christ, the first in a lowly form for redemption, the other one in glorious form for judgment. But you imagine infinite advents singly and daily. For wherever Mass is said or the faithful communicate, you make Christ’s body to be present really and substantially. Yet you do not allow it a humble form nor yet a glorious one, but by a sort of middle way [medio quodam modo] you tie it to symbols sacramentally, something Scripture does not mention, nor is any convincing reason put forward.

[73v] [6] Again, since everyone agrees that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrament, and the definition of a sacrament is “A visible sign of invisible grace,”416 it is clear that we preserve its nature rather than you, for we believe that the body of Christ is joined with symbols through signification. You that insist on transubstantiation or bodily presence cannot escape the fact that both the wicked and unbelievers eat Christ. How absurd this is has been proved [Quod … demonstratum est].

[7] Lastly, when holy Scripture proposes something for us to believe universally, it usually requires that when something is to be chosen, we choose for ourselves the mode that is easier and clearer, one that does not call away, but rather leads us by the hand to faith; in this way less serious and fewer absurdities will follow, and miracles will not be multiplied. But you do not do this, you who have chosen for defense ways where infinite miracles are needed and absurdities pile up without any limits. I think this should do to confirm the two propositions that are in hand.

Yet before you proceed to object something to me, I will fulfil in good faith what I promised you when you began to oppose me in our other debate. In your preface you took on a certain subject that was not necessary for you, namely to show the solutions that [256] should have been applied to the arguments I brought against Doctor Tresham, with whom I had disputed the day before, and I had said were not answered. My argument from Cyprian was this: just as the humanity was seen in the person of Christ while his divinity lay hidden, so in the visible sacrament the divine essence entered in an ineffable way, and so on.417 I concluded: just as [74r] full humanity dwells in Christ, so true bread must be preserved in the sacrament. You attempted to answer that Cyprian’s comparison must not be understood about the integrity of the two natures in Christ, but as to what is hidden, namely that just as the divinity lay hidden in Christ’s manhood, so the body of Christ lies hidden in the accidents, that is, the show and form of bread. You think this solves the argument, but in fact it does not, because Cyprian’s aim in this comparison was not something hidden, as you pretend. He explains the matter clearly enough when he says: in religion there might be devotion about sacraments, and there might be opened a purer access to the truth, whose body the sacraments are.

Now consider how much his words support me. The divine essence, he says, entered the visible sacrament, but if it entered, its nature is not excluded as you imagine. It rather preserves it, for things instilled into something else are not destroyed. As for what lies hidden as you allege, I hold it also along with you. For the body of Christ signified in the sacrament is not seen in it but is latent, just as in Scripture the sense is said to lie hidden under the words. So I accept the hiddenness you claim, but you completely reject the integrity of the natures that Cyprian describes. As to what you bring afterward about Athanasius, my opinion agrees with your answer, that a simile need not hold on all points, but only in those that are stated. Therefore you see how Athanasius said plainly that Christ consists of two natures, taking his simile from man, who is likewise composed of two things. The likeness holds thus far [74v] and must not be extended further. So Cyprian declares that the divine essence enters into sacraments, just as in the person of Christ his humanity was seen while his divinity lay hidden. I say nothing that he has not said; I accept nothing that he did not offer; I bring nothing extraneous; only I say with him that two things are [257] in the Eucharist, namely the divine essence which is infused and the sacraments by which it is infused. But you introduce other matters here that are not apposite to the separation of the divinity. If the divine essence overthrows the natures and substances of the sacraments in which it is infused, then the simile about Christ has no place at all.

When I cited Gelasius you answered that he was in part a Nestorian, and in part he was not. You said: it does not follow that he was not completely Nestorian and therefore partly not, so you added that it was legitimate to deny him. Yet you imagined that when he writes, “that the substance or nature of bread and wine do not cease to exist,” an interpretation comes with them, for it is added: “yet they remain in their proper natures,” that is, in accidents having the power of nourishing and retaining the same taste, the same figure, color, etc. But this will not solve the argument. First you accuse Gelasius of Nestorian heresy, something novel to me and unheard of; he did not suffer from that infamy. Moreover, your exposition which judged that bread and wine remain in their proper natures, that is, in the accidents, is strange, for through a natural property he understands nothing else than a proper nature, which we call substance. I say this because if your interpretation were to be admitted, then Gelasius’s argument is quite worthless. He was speaking against Eutyches who [75r] supposed that Christ’s body did not remain, but was changed into divinity. The argument is from the nature of the sacrament of the Eucharist, which in his view consists of two parts, namely bread and wine, which are symbols, and the reality of the sacrament which is the body and blood of Christ. He reasons: if these two things remain whole in the sacrament, then there are also two complete natures in Christ. So when you remove bread through transubstantiation and put accidents in its place, you destroy the argument completely. Even Eutyches would have conceded that if the substance of Christ’s body were removed and changed into divinity, its accidents would remain, so that he might seem to be human, yet was not so in fact.

What you cite from Augustine is not contradictory either, that Christ will come in the same form and substance of flesh as he was seen to go into heaven; as if he understood substance there to mean properties and accidents, which is simply not true, but rather [258] makes against you. For in that place Augustine means that Christ will come with the very substance of human nature; nor did Gelasius understand that the substance of bread remains in any other way. Next is the place from a passage in Prosper: “Just as the person of Christ consists of God and man, since Christ himself is very God and very man, because everything contains in itself the nature and truth of those things of which it is made,” etc. You tried to evade this by saying that the sacrament is that outward thing which appears to the eye, while the matter of the sacrament is the body of Christ; for there Augustine calls it “himself, and not himself.” The answer is useless, because you have the same again in Augustine which you heard from Cyprian and Gelasius, that the same thing happened to this sacrament that happens to Christ, namely that it consists of this sacrament and Christ, that is of two actual natures. You must weigh diligently the words [75v] that say: everything contains the nature and truth of those things of which it is made. And who can deny that this sacrament is made of bread and wine? Therefore if it contains only the accidents of these things it will not contain their nature and truth, as Augustine holds.

Augustine’s letter to Dardanus said that the body of Christ should be in one certain place, by reason of the measure of a true body; you stated that it should be answered according to an invisible human form: as he is in the sacrament, so may he exist in many places. Here again you answer nothing, since you do not weigh as I do those words “because of the measure of a true body.” For a substance which lacks a bodily mode is not a true body, and so you will not keep the very body of Christ in the Eucharist. Again, you do not recite my argument in full out of the letter to Dardanus, for I said: since Augustine does not dare to attribute to the soul of Christ that it could be at the same time both in hell and in paradise, that is, in heaven with the thief, how shall we concede that the body is not spirit as well as soul? This was my argument, which still remains firm and unanswered.

As to Theodoret, you assert that he has the same meaning when he said that bread does not change its nature, which other Fathers believe when they say that the natures of bread and wine remain. For they mean properties, that is, accidents. But this adds nothing to the issue; I refer you to what we said about Gelasius. For they both worked against the same Eutyches, and they would have [259] reached no conclusion if they had taken accidents for the substance or nature of bread, which they say remains. This is how we expound Theodoret, since he agrees with all the other Fathers who without any doubt retained bread in [76r] the Eucharist.

After this you will admit that what Origen has in his fragments on Matthew 15 is valid, that even the material of this bread is voided. You said that he interprets himself, bidding us not to cling to the flesh and blood but to receive the sacrament of the Word. Thus you inferred that this symbol is turned into ashes for the wicked when the holiness passes away, as Cyprian says. I marvel that you draw a distinction here between the good and the evil, since Origen speaks generally about the material of this bread, intending to show that Christ’s words are true when he says: “Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what is taken into the belly and is voided.”418 He had indeed raised a question, how it might be true that the bread of the Lord is eliminated. His answer is that this should be understood about the material, not about sanctification. But you seem to affirm that this is to be understood only about the wicked, and propose a simile which Cyprian refers to a conversion into ashes. I ask you what it is that is turned into ashes? Not the body of Christ, for that would be blasphemy; not accidents, unless you will have them produce a substance. I know you will fly to miracles, that is, that God could create new material or make the old return. But Origen never imagined such things; you have already heard his full meaning from me. What you cite out of Cyprian was a miracle; it could properly be said from him that there was a conversion into ashes, because he retains bread which could be turned into ashes by a miracle. But when you remove the substance of bread, you have nothing which you can say is converted either into ashes or excrement. Therefore if you will have new material created, you should not make it a conversion but a creation. [76v] Finally, as I have said, the statement of Origen is universal, having regard to the good as well as the evil.

Irenaeus also, when he says: the bread in which there is thanksgiving is the Lord’s body. Again: who took what is bread from a creature, and giving thanks said, “This is my body,” and likewise the cup, which comes from a creature like ourselves, he confessed [260] to be his blood. You answered that all this must be referred to the bread before consecration, since at that point it is created like us; but that now, when the Word is added to that material, it is made the body of Christ, and the same creature does not remain as it was before. In your answer you make two mistakes. First, you do not satisfy the sense of the words. For Irenaeus states quite clearly concerning that over which thanks are offered, that it is both bread and the Lord’s body; when thanks are given it denotes a previous time, although he still calls it bread. Again, you pass over in silence that similitude I urged most of all: just as bread which receives its calling from the earth is no longer common bread, but has become the Eucharist, consisting of two things, earthly and heavenly, even so on receiving the Eucharist our bodies are no longer corruptible. I concluded that there is such a change of bread in the sacrament as there is of our bodies. On this you say nothing.

An objection was brought from Gregory in the Register, saying that while we take unleavened as well as leavened bread, we are made one body of the Lord our Savior. You reply that he meant nothing else than that the sacrament may be made of unleavened as well as leavened bread, not that he meant that bread remains. Here likewise you run to the usual trick of the bread before consecration, even though [77r] Gregory’s words forbid you to do so, for he says: “while we receive unleavened as well as leavened bread.” The verb in the present tense plainly denotes that in communion we receive either unleavened or leavened bread, for we receive the sacrament only after consecration. You chose to repeat at length the words of Epiphanius that I brought,419 as follows: “He arose during supper, and after giving thanks said, ‘This is mine, and this, and this.’ We see that it is not equal or alike, either to the image in the flesh or to the invisible deity, nor yet to the features of bodily members. For this is round in form and without the power of sense; through grace he would say: ‘This is mine, and this, and this’; and no one doubts his saying,” etc. You interpret this to mean that something round in form is without sense, and infer that it may be understood from this that whoever does not believe that Christ’s true body is present falls away from grace and salvation. My argument was intended to prove that the Lord spoke of the body of [261] Christ as meaning the bread, which my adversary denied, claiming it is absurd for the bread or the accidents to be called the body of Christ. Against him I brought these words of Epiphanius, in which he plainly states concerning the round form that it pleased Christ by his grace to say: both this and this is mine, that is, my body. And the round object itself, so that you may take it as bread, he calls powerless to affect the senses, which can in no way be understood of the body of Christ, for he adds: “But we know our Lord to be totally sense, and one that senses things completely,” etc. Again, when he says this has a round form, you cannot take it for accidents, since those are roundness itself, not round in form in the genitive case. [77v]420 It cannot be proved to be the body of Christ, because he does not have a round form. Therefore what I inferred from this remains firm, that according to Epiphanius the body of Christ is spoken of bread. I wonder that since you have taken it on yourself to solve arguments that were not in the least unsolved, you did not mention Basil, Didymus, Cyril, and Vigilius. Please understand me here, that I have said these things not only to keep my promises but also so that those matters I advanced in the first disputation might not be fruitless, for you said that you were afraid those who heard them would be seduced. So it was necessary for me to confirm what I had said in this way, not to seduce but to teach, so that they might fulfil their purpose. Now, so far as I am concerned, you are free to bring whatever objections you wish.

Chedsey: You have spent a good part of the time reviewing your points, when we might have been debating. Now you seem to handle the subject as if I should change my role, and instead of an opponent become a respondent. I did not acknowledge this at the start of the first disputation when I proposed those solutions that met your arguments. In fact I was the respondent. Now you have summarized them out of order, which you should not have done.

Martyr: I have done nothing wrong here, because for someone to confirm his questions before he debates and to support them with solid reasons is the usual method for all who debate. And since the time for opposing was short, I could not develop the principal reasons I had. Therefore lest I should seem to affirm false and ill-considered matters, they at least had to be explained at that point. [262] Indeed I promised then to bring a refutation of your solutions, which all those present both then and now can affirm. At that time [78r] I showed good cause why I refrained from treating the matter, in order that we should not waste our efforts, and that the audience might not be forced to hear nothing else that day except the arguments handled the day before.421 I was not happy that you would force me by such a device to debate with you according to your choice and not my own. For seeing it was then my turn to oppose, I wished to keep myself free to bring arguments that I had planned, and not to deal with those you had proposed. Nevertheless, if you had then urged me and insisted that we should pursue the matter, I would have submitted to you; since you did not mention it, I thought it good with your consent to defer it until today. It should not be such a problem for you if I now refer in like fashion to what you raised against me. In fact it is more just that I should defend my own matters, than for you to undertake to defend other people’s.

Chedsey: I did not force you to change your role, since you then opposed and I answered. But what shall I do now? Let another day be given us to dispute.

THE LORD VISITORS DENIED THAT THIS SHOULD BE DONE, ALTHOUGH I WOULD HAVE AGREED.

Chedsey: Since the roles must be altered, if it is agreeable, I will now come there, and you will come here, so that I may answer these things and that you may oppose.

Martyr: I will be content that you do what you wish. I would be glad if another day were given, but if that is impossible and you wish to continue now, it is all one to me; do what you will.

THE LORD VISITORS ONCE AGAIN PUT IT TO HIS CHOICE, TO DO AS HE WISHED.

[78v] Chedsey: In that case let us proceed. That the bread and wine are transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ, I prove as follows. In the sixth chapter of John five kinds of bread are mentioned. The first, by which the multitude was refreshed, when Christ said, “You seek me, because you ate the bread.”422 The [263] second bread is faith, of which it is said: “Work for the meat which does not perish, but which endures.” They said, “What shall we do?” and Christ answered, “This is the work of God, that you believe.” The third bread is manna, of which it is said: “Your fathers ate manna in the wilderness, and are dead.” The fourth bread is Christ, when he said: “I am the bread of life.” The fifth bread is not that which the Capernaites understood, that is, a visible body, but invisible, that is, sacramental bread, for they quarreled about the kind of bread. Therefore Christ answered: “The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” This is no different from what was later given by Christ in the Supper when he said, “This is my body,” and none other than that which hung on the cross. But if it is flesh, then it is not bread.

Martyr: That bread of which John 6 speaks and you now make an argument about is truly the flesh and body of Christ, and is called bread through a metaphor that is quite clear and elegant. The correspondence lies in this: just as bread nourishes and sustains us by nature, so when the flesh of Christ is eaten spiritually and by faith it nourishes us in both soul and body. And when you argue: in the Supper Christ gave his flesh which is called bread metaphorically; therefore the natural substance of bread must be taken away, I deny the conclusion. For besides that spiritual eating [79r] of the flesh of Christ, which he called bread metaphorically in John 6, this sacrament adds symbols and the outward eating of the true bread, that the same spiritual eating might be encouraged, and be more effectual. For what hinders the promise that in it the flesh of Christ is given for the life of the world, although not given later absolutely and nakedly, but with symbols of bread and wine joined with it?

Chedsey: What was given in the Supper is the bread Christ promised in John 6, yet that bread was his flesh. In case anyone doubts what kind of bread it might be, he adds: “Which I will give for the life of the world.” But what was given for the life of the world was not bread substantially; therefore what was given in the Supper was not in substance bread either.

Martyr: What was given in the Supper was not only the bread which is spoken of in John 6, as you take it in the antecedent. As I have said, it also had natural bread joined with it for a symbol, and that symbolic bread was the flesh of Christ, to be given unto death for our salvation. When you inquire how the bread which was offered was [264] flesh, I answer, not substantially, but as they say sacramentally, that is, through signification. And the meaning of John is that the flesh of Christ to be given on the cross for our salvation is bread; that is, spiritual food by which we are sustained through faith; and that food is offered us in the communion by the Word of God and by the symbols. Therefore if he had meant symbolic bread in John, since he did not give it at that time he would have said, the bread which I will give will be my flesh; but he said “is” in the present tense, as if to say, my flesh is bread metaphorically, which flesh of mine I will give, that is, to the cross for the life of the world.

Chedsey: In John 6 Christ said, “The bread which I will give is my flesh,” but in the Supper he gave that flesh which hung on the cross; therefore [79v] by testimony of the Scriptures he gave his flesh in reality in the Supper. For what he promised then he performed in the Supper in giving his body, which he would give for the life of the world. So then we acknowledge that symbols were used in the Supper, but we say that the substance of those symbols is the flesh of Christ, on account of the words spoken, “The bread which I will give is my flesh.” Hence transubstantiation is evident here.

Martyr: I have always affirmed that in the Supper he gave his very body, yet he joined with it symbols of bread and wine, as I have already said, and as I have just heard you admit. But in your argument you fall into equivocation, because you pass from metaphorical bread to true and natural bread. When Christ says, “The bread which I will give,” etc., by bread he does not mean a symbol, that is, giving natural bread in the Supper; he gives a metaphorical term for his flesh, because he would be in the place of bread for us, or like bread, so that we might learn from its property, understanding Christ’s flesh as bread allegorically. He would give us natural bread in the Supper, saying, “This is my body,” that is, if my body that will be given for you is eaten by you by faith and spiritually, it stands for bread, or is like bread to nourish and sustain you.

Chedsey: I speak of bread in the same way it is meant in the Gospel: that the fifth kind may be distinguished from the fourth, which is, “I am the bread of life.” Thus the fifth kind will not be allegorical bread but that of which the Lord said, “The bread which I will give is my flesh.” It cannot therefore be different bread, but my flesh, although under another form, in case you should be confused. He said this to confirm them beforehand, so that the apostles would [265] not dispute among themselves about eating the body. Otherwise Christ would have promised what he did not fulfill, and therefore he says “I will give.” [80r] For the time had not yet come. Nor is it for you to say that the future body or flesh of Christ would be like bread; for the promise made by Christ is not like that, but says simply that the bread to be given is flesh. Cyril confirms this when he says: “Do not doubt that this is true, since he plainly says, ‘This is my body,’ and so on, but receive the words of salvation in faith, even if sense does not teach it.”423

Martyr: Your argument is verbose; in order to meet it I reduce it to two heads, namely the saying of Christ contained in John 6, and the opinion of Cyril.424 As to the sixth chapter of the Evangelist, I do not deny that several kinds of bread are discussed in that place; but I do not admit that you distinguish them adequately, nor do I much care. But I agree that Christ spoke about eating himself, and promised that he would give himself to be eaten. For he said he would give bread, which is his flesh, to be given for the life of the world. You say: what bread is this? Christ answers, “my flesh.” He adds, “I will give it for the life of the world,” and once given like this, he is your bread, if you will receive him by faith. Thus he said that he would give his flesh on the cross, also to be eaten; and he called it bread metaphorically. In this way he taught the spiritual sense to the Jews who were arguing. In order to do this more clearly he added, “The words which I speak are spirit and life,” so that they might understand that the eating should not be carnal, but spiritual through faith. Afterward in the Last Supper, he joined symbols which he did not mention. But since he names bread he refers to his flesh, which is eaten spiritually by us while we communicate, for it is the chief thing [80v] that should be obtained in receiving the sacrament. Understanding this, in his Gospel where the sacrament is instituted, John described the Last Supper,425 but made no mention of it because he had spoken quite enough about it in this place. So I acknowledged that in the institution of the sacrament he did what he had spoken of before in the sixth chapter; for he gave his flesh to be eaten, yet along with symbols. When you object [266] that Christ did not say that his flesh would be like bread in the future, that does not matter, because in figures of this kind the sign of a similitude is not always expressed. In Scripture Christ is called a lamb, not like a lamb; God is said to be fire, but it is not added that he is like fire. But when it is said in the future tense “I will give,” it is because the flesh we eat in the sacrament was just like what suffered and was crucified, since they had not yet happened when Christ spoke these words, but lay in the future; yet they should always be before our eyes when we communicate. As to Cyril’s view, I answer that I do not doubt that the bread which is given us in the sacrament is the body of Christ, yet in the way that Scripture teaches.

Chedsey: In the Supper he stood by his promises; therefore what he gave then was his flesh, to be given for the life of the world, that I say, which hung on the cross; and as I have said, Cyril testifies to this.

Martyr: Christ stood by his promises, as you say, and gave his flesh, which in John is called bread metaphorically; yet in giving his body and his flesh, which were to be delivered to the cross so that they might be eaten spiritually, he gave with it true and natural bread. The statement of Cyril intends nothing else.426

Chedsey: So then you will grant this at least, that it was his true body and true flesh that he gave in the Supper, although as well as bread.

Martyr: It was true [81r] body and true flesh, but it was given by signification.

Chedsey: He gave his flesh, which hung on the cross, and that body which was crucified, but it did not hang spiritually on the cross, nor was natural bread crucified; therefore that bread in John is not taken metaphorically, but is to be understood as the real flesh of Christ.

Martyr: You wrap many things together which I must unravel, in order to deny the false and admit those that are true. I have already said and now repeat, that you allow an equivocation, because for metaphorical bread you always oppose me with the bread given by Christ in the Supper, which was true and natural, and a sign of this allegorical bread, that is, of Christ’s flesh. Yet I never conceded nor will I, that in John Christ promised symbolic bread, but such as taken metaphorically is the same as flesh. And in the Last Supper [267] he gave this allegorical bread, that is, his flesh to be eaten spiritually. Not only did he stand by his promises; he gave more than he promised, by adding symbols. What you assume in the argument, that the body of Christ did not hang on the cross spiritually, and that natural bread was not crucified or given for us, does not count, insofar as the words of Christ sufficiently witness that his body is otherwise eaten by us and was otherwise crucified, because the Lord would have this to be a spiritual eating, seeing that he called the Capernaites away from a carnal eating. Indeed, to hang upon the cross and to die were natural actions, so you are mistaken in the argument by proceeding from substance to quality, and from the reality to the mode. Thus do we grant that the body is eaten by the communicants, yet not in the same way that it hangs or is crucified. I marvel that you [81v] object to this, you who would not admit that Christ was crucified like this, that you place him to be enclosed within your forms.

Chedsey: The Lord promised that he would give the bread which was his flesh, that was to be given for the life of the world. But this bread, as the learned Doctor grants, he gave only in the Supper; therefore in the Supper he gave the true flesh to be given for the life of the world. And this proposition, the bread is the body of Christ, is impossible unless we understand it through a figure and signification; therefore it was proper that there should be transubstantiation, in order for him to give his true body.

Martyr: I acknowledged that in the Supper the Lord gave what he promised, but not that the Lord gave only this in the Supper. For as often as we believe that Christ is truly crucified for us we eat his flesh, which metaphorically is called bread. Now I admit that he did this in the Supper above all; but you must not suppose that I said it happens only there. What kind of argument is this: Christ gave his flesh to those who ate with him; that flesh is called bread metaphorically in John because to us it stands for bread; therefore he did not give true and natural bread as well? These things are not contrary in themselves, but rather agree very well, and both of them together are quite true. Nor is this proposition, the bread is the body of Christ, impossible, because it is meant through signification. And Augustine testified that sacraments are named from the reality, and that body which is offered unto us through signification is true and no fiction.

[268] Chedsey: What Christ promised and is given in the Supper was the true flesh of Christ; therefore he gave true flesh, not bread. The flesh given for the life of the world was not true flesh spiritually but carnally, and by no means [82r] natural; therefore transubstantiation is proved.427

Marty: He gave his very flesh just as he promised, but to be eaten spiritually, and with it he gave a symbol also. How often shall I tell you? He gave them both. What is this conclusion, that he gave this; therefore with this he did not also give that? Likewise I do not say that the flesh of Christ is flesh spiritually, but in truth, but I apply “spiritually” to our eating, and to the mode of our receiving.

Chedsey: Then you grant this: that Christ gave true flesh in the Supper.

Martyr: He gave true flesh, to be received by faith and eaten spiritually, but along with it he also gave symbols.

HERE THE ROYAL COMMISSIONERS SAID THAT THE SOLUTION OF THE ARGUMENT WHICH I GAVE WAS SUFFICIENTLY UNDERSTOOD; THEREFORE HE SHOULD PROCEED FURTHER.

Chedsey: Will you give credit to one or two witnesses to my position?

Martyr: Are they such that credit should not be given them? Why do you use this preamble? Name them; if they are worthy of credit I will believe them.

Chedsey: Ambrose proposes transubstantiation in his book Of those initiated into the mysteries, the ninth and last chapter. In the first part of the chapter he says it is not bread that nature has formed, but that blessing has consecrated. You cannot reply to this that the change is made in appearance;428 because afterwards he adds: a changed nature. And he teaches by an example, for the rod which Moses held was a nature turned into a serpent, and not only in appearance. These are his words: [82v] “Let us prove that this is not what nature formed but what the blessing consecrated; and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed. Moses was holding a rod, he cast it down and it became a serpent; again, he took hold of the serpent’s tail and it returned to the nature of a rod. You see therefore that by the prophetic office there were two changes, of the nature both of the [269] serpent and the rod. The streams of Egypt were running with a pure flow of water; suddenly from the veins of the sources blood began to burst forth. None could drink of the rivers; again, at the prophet’s prayer the blood from the rivers stopped.”429 Here you see that Ambrose indicates a change of the nature, that is, transubstantiation.

Martyr: Well done; I acknowledge the words of Ambrose, but go further.

Chedsey: The Hebrew people were enclosed on all sides; on one side walled in by the Egyptians, on the other shut in by the sea. Moses held up his rod, he divided the waters and made them as solid as walls; and between the waters a pathway appeared. The Jordan turning back against its own nature reverts to its original source. Is it not clear that the nature of the sea or the course of the river was changed? The people of the fathers’ time were thirsty; Moses struck the rock and water flowed from it. But did not grace work beyond nature so that the rock should gush out water, which was not its nature? Marah was a very bitter river, so that when the people were dry they could not drink it; Moses threw a branch into the water, and nature banished the bitterness of its waters, which were instantly sweetened by grace. Under Elisha the prophet, the iron of an axe fell from one of the sons of the prophets, and sank beneath the water. The one who lost the iron begged Elisha, who threw a piece of wood [83r] into the water, and the iron floated. We know this was also done against nature. For the material of iron is heavier than the liquid of water. So we see that grace is stronger than nature, and conclude that the grace of prophetic blessing still endures. If a human blessing was strong enough to change nature, what do we say of the divine consecration itself, where the very words of the Lord our Savior are at work? For this sacrament which you receive is made by Christ’s word. But if the word of Elijah were of such weight as to bring down fire from heaven,430 will not the word of Christ have the power to change the forms of elements? You have read about his works of the entire world: “He spoke and they were made; he commanded, and they were created.”431 Therefore cannot the word of Christ which could make out of nothing [270] what had not existed change those things that are into what they were not? For it is no less to give new natures to things than to change natures. It seems from this that Ambrose meant that natures are changed.

Martyr: Go further in your reading, and if you won’t I will myself. “It was the true flesh of Christ that was crucified and buried, and therefore the sacrament of his very flesh. Even the Lord Jesus himself declared, ‘This is my body.’ Before the blessing of the heavenly words, another kind is named; after consecration, the body of Christ is signified. He himself says it is his blood; before consecration it is called something else; after consecration it is called blood, and you say Amen.”

Chedsey: I will read it out to the end if you wish.

Martyr: At the end it is written as follows: “We cannot say how we are regenerated. Have we entered our mother’s womb again and been born again? I do not recognize the course of nature; here there is no order of nature, where there is the excellence of grace. Again, [83v] it is not always the course of nature that brings regeneration about.”432 So far Ambrose. You will gather by now that we do not despise him, although I know there are men of learning who are suspicious of these commentaries On Sacraments, and think they are not Ambrose’s work; this does not bother me; I will accept them freely. I am not ignorant that in order to show that these were truly Ambrose’s books, Rochester cited Augustine’s witness in the preface to his book On Christian doctrine because he says there that Ambrose wrote a book On Sacraments. But if one reads over the place cited he will find no such material.433

Chedsey: It is to be found in Augustine in the Retractations book 2, when he mentions the books On Christian doctrine, where he says that Ambrose wrote a book on the sacraments or on prophesy. That chapter usually precedes the preface to his books On Christian doctrine.434 But I do not undertake Rochester’s defense at this point.435

Martyr: I recall as well that Augustine says against Julian that Ambrose [271] wrote a book On Sacraments or Philosophy. Yet from what he said there it does not seem that he spoke about the books we are now examining. As I have already said, we will not dispute over this because I admit them as Ambrose’s books, and answer that he wished to prove nothing else than the change of bread which we call sacramental; he did not intend the nature of bread to be destroyed through it. That this was his opinion appears clearly enough from book 4 On Sacraments, chapter 4, where he writes: “If then there is such great power in the Word of the Lord Jesus, that things should begin to exist which were not, how much greater is that work that they should be the same as they were, yet be changed into something else?”436 Here he plainly sets down two things: first, that the symbols remain what they were, which should not be understood, as you claim, about accidents, but as to [84r] substance; for the relative “which” [quae] points it out to us. The other is that they are changed into something else, because from common bread it is made a sacrament. And this is no ordinary change, but one that goes beyond nature. As to what he said at the beginning of the chapter, that the nature is changed, I answer that it does not count against me, since I admit such changes of natures that they receive other conditions and rise to a new degree; for they become sacraments, which they were not before. As for the examples proposed here by Ambrose, I reply that they are many, and therefore reduce them to two kinds. He relates that the former nature is in a sense completely thrown out, as happened to Moses’ rod when it was turned into a serpent, and in the waters of Egypt, when they were changed into blood. There are others in which the original substance remains and only an accidental change is made. This kind includes dividing the Red Sea, turning back the river Jordan, healing the waters of Marah, the rock giving water, and the iron floating. Such a sacramental change may be proved by such similes. If you take them like this, in which the former nature was completely removed, you will have an argument from the greater.437 When it states that God made so great a change that he completely removed the natures and substances that existed before and introduced others, how can it be doubted [272] that he is able to make a most effectual sacrament from common bread and wine? But by other similes, where the prior substance continues and new qualities and conditions are brought in differently from what nature ordinarily allows, this same sacramental change is proved from things that are equal and of similar power. For there is no doubt that God, who has impressed such marvelous states and qualities beyond nature in the things [84v] we have reviewed, can bestow sacramental power while the natures of bread and wine remain. And the words which he has in this chapter must not be lightly passed over, when he says: “The true flesh was doubtless that of Christ, which was crucified and was buried, and therefore a sacrament of his very flesh.”438 It seems from this that against Marcion and Eutyches he proved that Christ had true flesh and a true body, which we also grant. Afterward he added that this is in truth the sacrament of his flesh, something that fully supports our opinion. We say that it is here both truly and effectually signified, and that it is truly but spiritually received by us through communion. We must not pass over what he writes a little later: “Before the blessing of the heavenly words a different kind is named, after consecration the body of Christ is signified.”439 When I say that the body of Christ is signified in the sacrament, I may seem to you to say what is strange and absurd, yet nevertheless you hear the same everywhere spoken by the Fathers. So when you ask what kind of change it is of which Ambrose speaks, or whoever he was who writes so much, I answer that it is the sort of change by which bread and wine are transformed440 from their natural order and common rank to a sacramental state and order, by the work of the Holy Spirit as well as by the institution of the Lord. It is not an extreme statement to say that the nature is changed when it gains other conditions, since it sustains and bears such a change. You urged what he wrote at the beginning, “this is not that which nature formed but which blessing has consecrated,” as if these words were completely opposite to our opinion, which is not true. For Ambrose deals with the sacrament and speaks of it formally, to put it like that. Who among us doubts that the condition of a sacrament does not come from nature [85r] but is brought through consecration? [273] He wished to make clear that the holy bread does not derive from nature that it is a sacrament, but obtains it through consecration.

Chedsey: But I have especially noted these matters in Ambrose. First as to what he said, tell me something: how can you assure me that I receive the body of Christ? That still remains for us to prove. Further, let us show that it is not something nature formed but which blessing consecrated, and that the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, since by blessing nature itself is changed. Moreover, in case you say that the change is sacramental so that bread may become a symbol, the examples that follow teach that the substance is changed into another nature; therefore Ambrose says that the nature is changed, which you deny.

Martyr: I do not deny but affirm that sacramentally it is changed, and I say also with Ambrose that a sacrament is not what it seems, if we speak of its better part, for since what is signified is not seen, the faithful look for it above all, nor is it either formed or fixed by nature in this sacrament, but added by blessing. He does not wish the change here to be such as will cast away the former nature; this has already been sufficiently explained by the examples brought from him.441

Chedsey: Ambrose says that this is not that which nature formed, but consecrated with blessing.

Martyr: I explained this before, for a sacrament is something heavenly that nature did not form, but through consecration comes to the bread, yet not so as to throw its own substance442 away. This should not seem to be different from the meaning of Ambrose, who, as I have cited him in book 4, chapter 4, On Sacraments, says: “how much greater an agent is the word of Christ, that these things should be what they were.”443 This speech shows sufficiently that he [85v] does not feel that the nature of symbols must be thrown out.

Chedsey: If they are what they were then they are not sacraments, because they were not sacraments at first. Besides, the said Ambrose in his book I alleged, Of those initiated into the mysteries, affirms that the forms of the elements are changed, for he writes: [274] “If the words of Elijah was of such power as to call down fire from heaven, will not the word of Christ be as powerful to change the forms of the elements?”444

Martyr: To your first objection, that if they are as they were then they are not sacraments. I deny the consequence, since either one may very well suit. For Ambrose adds: “And it is changed into something else, so that you may see that the nature of bread remains and is changed into a sacrament.” When you insist on the fact that he writes that the forms of the elements are changed, I draw a distinction: if by species you understand accidents, that is, form, figure, taste and color of bread and wine, they are not changed, as the senses show. But if by species you mean the natures and substances of the symbols, I acknowledge, as I have often said, that a spiritual and heavenly change happens to them. For while this holy rite is proceeding a sacramental dimension [ratio] is brought to the symbols through the institution and words of the Lord. That relation of signifying both the mystical body and Christ’s body itself is grounded not in the accidents of bread and wine but in their natures, through the coming of the Holy Spirit, who uses them as instruments.

Chedsey: Is the bread changed as to its substance or its accidents?

Martyr: Since an ambiguity as [ut] an equivocation occurs here, I will draw a distinction. If you understand change according to substance, so that the substance itself should either perish or be converted into another substance, I do not hold with such a change; but if you understand that the substance is changed in a way that receives another quality and [86r] condition than it had before, I grant that it is changed.

Chedsey: You speak of an accidental change made according to a new degree and condition, which is to be changed into a sacrament, with respect to its accidents. But Ambrose posits a change of the element and of nature. Therefore I ask you: what is it that is changed after consecration?

Martyr: I do not differ from Ambrose, but affirm with him that a change of the element and nature is made here, in the way explained. When you ask what it is that is changed after consecration, I answer as follows: the change of which we are speaking is [275] the same in those things that through consecration now sustain another quality and have obtained a greater dignity, namely a sacramental state, which they did not have before. And although you are quick to make light of such a change, yet is it not small or to be condemned, since the power and work of the Holy Spirit is added.

Chedsey: You still answer me about accidental change, but what is the change in the element?

Martyr: A great change no doubt, by which the element is made a sacrament, so that through this change the element is now called something else than it was before. In case you doubt what I mean by elements, I say that by them nothing else is signified than symbols, just as Paul calls the ceremonies and sacrifices of the ancients elements.445 It is the substance of these elements, that is, of the symbols, which carries and sustains this change brought in by consecration. I have often professed this very thing in both responding and explaining. If from black I am made white there is no need for my substance or nature to cease; so should you think of the bread when it is made a sacrament.

Chedsey: The condition that is added does not change the nature, yet Ambrose says it is changed. [86v] In book 4, chapter 4 On Sacraments: “Therefore who is the author of the sacraments except the Lord Jesus? The sacraments came from heaven, for all wisdom is from heaven. And indeed it is a great and divine miracle that God rained manna from heaven for the people, and the people did not have to labor but rather ate. Perhaps you will say that my bread is common bread, but this bread is bread before the words of the sacrament, and when consecration comes, from bread it becomes the flesh of Christ.”446 Therefore let us add: how can it be that what is bread should be the body of Christ by consecration? Again, in response to you, it was not the body of Christ before consecration, but I say that it is now the body of Christ: “He spoke the word and it was made; he commanded and it was created.”447

Martyr: Add what is put in between: how much greater a work is it that they are as they were, yet are changed into something else.

Chedsey: They do not count against me at all. Let them be, let them appear as they were, for they retain the same form, figure, and [276] properties.448 Ambrose’s meaning is explained as follows: If God could make all things out of nothing, how much more could he make one thing from another? If he could make something out of what does not exist, much more could he do it of what does exist. Therefore he says that they may be as they were, because first they were beings and existed, not because afterward they endured while identical in substance, but that they may be what they were in terms of being, and be changed into another in terms of substance. Briefly, he means that out of one nature another is made, and that is to be changed into something else. And from those words at the end of the chapter when he says, “Therefore you have learned that the body of Christ is made out of bread, and that wine and water is poured into the cup, but by consecration of the heavenly word it is made blood,”449 a transubstantiation is revealed, and the body of Christ is made from bread, [87r] and blood from wine.

Martyr: First I will answer those things you yourself cite from this chapter; then I will add what you have omitted, which confirms my opinion. First, I grant that the Lord is the author of the sacraments; second, I agree that before the words of the sacrament bread is common bread, but when consecration comes it is the body of Christ, sacramentally of course. This much I do not deny, nor have I ever denied it. But consider once again with me that he adds: “Therefore let us make this addition. How can what is bread be the body of Christ by consecration?”450 From this you see that he states two things about the symbol, that it is both bread and the body of Christ at once. He says that we must strive to have this made clear, and that it is done by consecration. Who doubts that consecration is sacramental? It appears from this that the symbol remained bread as to nature, but by consecration it is sacramentally the body of Christ. Ambrose interprets himself when he says, “they are things that were,” which you expound and interpret as follows: “they are, that is, they seem to be.” Yet Ambrose has “they are” [sint], a word that does not refer to the appearance but to the truth of something. Who cannot see that when it suits you, tropes please you greatly so that you use them whenever it seems appropriate, no matter how obscure they are? Previously in the Evangelist, [277] you wished the particle “which” to refer to a substance, and in Augustine to a quality, and here in Ambrose you interpret “they are” as “they seem to be.” Hence when Ambrose said that they remain, he added: “They are changed into something else,” that is, they are made sacraments.

These words show that I have made clear the authentic meaning of this Father. How sophistical is that other interpretation! You say they are what they were, that is, they first existed and were beings, as if he should say that they are [87v] as they were in terms of being, but are changed into something other as to nature; everyone understands and perceives that the meaning is very strange. To make it clearer, I don’t consider it a burden to repeat the words of Ambrose once more: “How much more effective is it that they remain as they were, and are changed into another? There was no heaven, there was no sea, no earth, but heard [David] saying: ‘He spoke the word, and they were made; he commanded, and they were created.’ Therefore to answer you, it was not the body of Christ before consecration, but after consecration it is the body of Christ. ‘He spoke and it was made; he commanded, and it was created.’ You yourself were, but you were an old creature; after you are consecrated and so on, you then began to be a new creature.”451 Now you hear by a simile that he declares a change of the nature {naturae} of bread, in such a way that the condition is not cast away but changed. In these words he produced two reasons to prove a sacramental change. The first was from the commandment of the Lord, because he declared it; the other is from the change made in us when we are regenerated; but there we do not give up our nature. Therefore it will not happen in the bread {in pane} that it loses its substance. In general an affirmative argument from minor to major does not hold, as if we could prove a greater change from a lesser.452 So when Ambrose compares these two he equates them. But we proceed to those words that are found at the end, where you read, “For just as you have received the likeness of his death, so likewise will you drink the likeness of his precious blood.”453 What could be said more clearly in these words to demonstrate a sacramental [278] condition or quality that stands in similitude and signification?

Chedsey454: In order to show the kind of change it was, after Ambrose had said: “This is not what nature formed but [88r] what the blessing consecrated,” he immediately added the examples of the rod and of the water changed into blood, where the former nature is cast out, and he placed examples that show only a change of qualities and properties further off.455 Why then should we refer the change of bread and wine to a change of property and condition, when the other kind of change is put first? Especially since Ambrose adds that the word of Christ is at work and says that something else is made. As to what you cite about the change in ourselves since we are made a new creation, I say that grace is required for it, and it is a spiritual change. But in this passage Ambrose is speaking of a change of element. Read Ambrose in chapter 5 of the same book, and the first chapter of the sixth book On Sacraments.

Martyr: The reason is clear why Ambrose puts first the change in which substance is cast out: because that change is greater than the other, and therefore is placed first. Next, where he argues two ways, partly from the greater and partly from what is similar or equal, he begins his argument, quite appropriately, from the greater. It is clear that the second kind of change serves the purpose, since in book 4 On Sacraments, where he sought to prove the same thing more briefly, he provided only those examples that show a change of property, and did not mention the first kind where nature is destroyed. I freely acknowledge that Christ’s word is effective, for by it the symbols are made something else, namely sacraments, while their nature remains. I accept your statement that our change is effected by grace and is spiritual, but deny that Ambrose does not speak of such change; it does not matter that he called it a change of elements, as [88v] I said before. For the element is the part of the sacrament that is perceived, and is properly said to be changed because it has and fulfils a different role than previously. What you say about chapter 5 of the first book, and the first of the sixth book, we will answer if you propose it. Now we have showed sufficiently that [279] nothing you have cited counts against us; rather, all of it confirms our position.

Chedsey: I wish you would read the chapters at home by yourself; you will see that they cannot be understood except in terms of transubstantiation.

(E) HERE THE COMMISSIONERS ORDERED US TO PROCEED TO THE SECOND QUESTION456

Chedsey: I argue that the true and real body of Christ is in the Eucharist as follows. Chrysostom in homily 17 on Hebrews: “Do we not offer every day? We do indeed; but we make a remembrance of his death, and the sacrifice is one and not many. How is it one, and not many? Because that sacrifice was offered once for all, and was brought into the holy of holies, but this sacrifice is its example. We always offer the same thing, not one lamb now and another tomorrow, but always the same, so that this sacrifice is one; otherwise, by this reasoning there are many Christs because it is offered in many places. God forbid! But Christ is one everywhere, being complete here, and one complete body there,” etc.457 From these words I argue: our oblation is the same as that which Christ offered, but Christ offered his true and real body; therefore we offer the same.

Martyr: I acknowledge that we have the same body in the Lord’s Supper that Christ offered on the cross, as to substance and the truth of nature; yet not in the same way, because we receive it spiritually, that is, by faith. [89r] But in a substantial and bodily presence it hung upon the cross. These two things that I affirm you may gather from Chrysostom. He says that we offer the same thing, namely as to the reality and body of Christ, but always he adds “remembrance” [recordationem], “example,” and “commemoration,” words that show a different mode. I will show my opinion clearly from the words of Bernard in sermon 33 on the Song of Songs: “However abundantly these things grow, not with the same delight is the bark of the sacrament received, and the fatness of the wheat; faith and form, memory and presence, eternity and time, the face and the mirror,” and so on.458 You see here how he places an antithesis between memory and presence. Therefore we confess [280] with Chrysostom that we have the same body that was offered on the cross; but because he always interweaves memory and remembrance he shows that it is not a way of receiving through bodily presence, but through the presence of faith, which can make absent things spiritually present, as Paul said to the Galatians, “Christ was crucified in them,” and “Abraham saw the day of the Lord and was glad.” And “God made us now to sit at the right hand in the heavenly places.”459 How was this? By carnal presence? No, by faith, which does not exclude the truth of the matter. Briefly, as to the argument, we have the same but not in the same way, that is, in the same kind of presence. And so it does not follow: Christ gave himself on the cross really and bodily; therefore we have him in the same way in communion.

Chedsey: Chrysostom says that we offer the same that he offered,460 though he is there in another way and under another form; and (as he says) we do not offer one lamb now and another tomorrow, but always [89v] the same. Otherwise we would confess that Christ offered himself for a price, and ourselves for mystery and memory.

Martyr: Those who share in the same Christ fully, that is, neither of his natures partial or diminished, receive him by faith, because faith neither corrupts nor defiles him, nor does it diminish him. Rather it allows him to be just as he is and to remain in his own place, yet spiritually embraces his very self full and whole.

Chedsey: Is the body of Christ in the sacrament or not?

Martyr: I do not deny that in the sacrament the true body of Christ is present sacramentally, that is, through an effectual signification, and I affirm with confidence that he is truly offered to us and received, but with the mind and faith; that is, spiritually or sacramentally, and that means truly present to our faith. The difference between us concerns the mode of presence. You imagine and pretend to yourselves a kind of hiding of Christ in the bread or forms of bread, which I deny. I agree that he is present to us in the way explained; and I have taught how he may be acknowledged to be in the sacrament.

Chedsey: Chrysostom says it is the same.

Martyr: He says it is the same, but adds: in memory and recollection; [281] which relate to the mind and faith, not bodily presence.

Chedsey: Is the body that is in the sacrament true and carnal, or is it spiritual?

Martyr: I have already granted that it is a true body, yet not (as I might put it) through a real presence.461 It is the same body as I have declared as to nature; but we receive it with the mind and faith, just as we receive its symbol with the hand and the mouth.

Chedsey: Chrysostom says it is the same.

Martyr: His two statements must be joined together, “it is the same,” and the addition, “through commemoration.”

Chedsey: When we receive the sacrament, if the same body is given which Christ offered, it follows that Christ is really and substantially in the sacrament.

Martyr: I deny [90r] the argument, for you pass from substance to accident, and make “what” [quid] into “how” [quale]. I have admitted almost a hundred times that it is the same body in nature, but it does not follow that in relation to the mode of bodily presence he is there or is received by us.

Chedsey: Is he not there?

Martyr: He is, but sacramentally and through signification; as meaning exists in speech or writing, namely that it is signified by them but does not lie hidden under them.

Chedsey: Is it not the true body?

Martyr: How often will I tell you? It is the true body, but it is there only through sacramental signification.

Chedsey: I ask what the substance is of that sacrifice offered day by day; you say that if I offer it with the mind and with faith, it is the very body of Christ. Chrysostom, having regard not to my faith but to the substance of the sacrifice, says that we offer not something different, but the same. So it is evident that we devise nothing that Chrysostom does not have.

Martyr: The substance of our sacrifice is thanksgiving for the body of Christ given on the cross. And because of this thanksgiving, faith, and confession, the Fathers said that Christ’s body is offered in the Supper. Thus as to what concerns substance, this body for which we give thanks is no different from the one that was crucified, but in order that it may be offered by us, it is not necessary for him [282] to be present bodily, or to be held substantially in the hands of communicants.

Chedsey: Chrysostom on John, homily 45: “Parents often entrust their children to others to feed, but I feed them with my flesh, I offer them myself. I befriend everyone, I give the greatest hope of the future to all. He who gives himself to us in this life, much more will he in the future. I have willed to become your brother, for your sake I shared in flesh and blood, and in turn I offer those things through which I become your kinsman.”462 Here Chrysostom shows that we are nourished by the true flesh of Christ. [90v] He that is nourished by his mother’s breasts is nourished by his mother’s flesh; Christ says that in similar fashion he nourishes us with his flesh; therefore he does not mean this by signification, for this would not be to nourish us by his flesh but by another’s. Therefore it follows that the flesh of Christ is really present.

Martyr: I grant that Christ gives himself to us and feeds and nourishes us by his flesh. But when you add that we cannot be fed unless his flesh is present bodily, I deny it, since this food and eating is accomplished by faith.

Chedsey: But he says that since he has now given himself, much more will be give himself in the future: therefore it is the same that is given now and which will be given hereafter.

Martyr: It is the same, but here it is only received through faith; signs and sacraments are given to us so that it may be received more effectually.

Chedsey: Therefore will those who are without faith not receive the body of Christ?

Martyr: They will not receive it, for they lack the instrument by which the body of Christ is received, as I have shown before.

Chedsey: But is it there, although it is not received by them?

Martyr: It is in the symbols through sacramental signification, because they signify, represent and offer us the body and blood of Christ; but they are not transubstantiated, and the body does not lie hidden in them substantially and really, or corporeally and carnally463—you seem to wish to drive me to say this by so many of your superfluous questions. When I affirm a sacramental signification, [283] you should understand what is effective for the faithful and may assist the communicants and inspire them to embrace Christ by faith, something that can have no place in those who are destitute of faith. For I showed that above when I opposed you, that unbelievers cannot receive the body of Christ.

Chedsey: What then [91r] is a sacrament?

Martyr: It is (as theologians define it, and is found in Augustine) the sign of a holy thing, or a visible sign of invisible grace.464 And the Holy Spirit uses sacraments in order to offer Christ to us spiritually, to be embraced with the mind and faith. Just as we are said to receive salvation through the words of God, not that salvation is concealed in those words, or exists in a real presence, but is contained through signification. Such comparison of divine words with the sacraments is appropriate, since in Augustine’s opinion sacraments are visible words. So this answer tells you what I understand by sacrament.

Chedsey: By such means anything may be a sign of the body of Christ.

Martyr: Since the Lord did not establish all things to this end, nor do all things have the Word of God which is the supreme part in sacraments; therefore all things cannot be called signs of the body of Christ, in such a way as we are taking true and effectual sacraments to be.

Chedsey: Augustine, in The Trinity book 3, chapter 4, is of my opinion. For when he speaks of the Eucharist he says: “It is not sanctified to be so great a sacrament unless the Spirit of God works invisibly.”465 See, here you have it that the Holy Spirit and the work of God are required to make a sacrament; but there would be no need of so many things to bring in a mere signification.

Martyr: I am surprised you cite that passage of Augustine, since he makes especially against you there. Let us see what he says. “The apostle Paul might have preached our Lord Jesus by signifying, one way by his tongue, another way by a letter, and another way through the sacrament of his body and blood.” Here you learn that the Lord Jesus Christ [91v] is signified by a sacrament of his body and blood, which you are trying to disprove. But let us proceed. “We do not in fact say that his speech, or paper or ink, or signifying [284] sounds spoken with the tongue, or alphabetical signs written on parchment, is the body and blood of Christ, but only that which we receive properly, being made from the fruits of the earth and consecrated by mystical prayers.” Here too you hear that what we receive from the earth’s fruit is called the Lord’s body. So it follows that bread remains there unless you would say that the earth brings forth accidents. When you object that the work of God and the Holy Spirit are necessary to make this a sacrament, I agree; but that the signification of the body of Christ is not so great a matter as to need those things, I deny. You have heard often already that we do not set down here any common signification, but a sacramental, powerful, and effectual signification, by which believers are incorporated into Christ.

Chedsey: Bread nourishes through its substance; therefore it may signify the body of Christ before consecration; also it is gathered, and consists of many grains beforehand; therefore it may signify the union of the church. Yet it is not Augustine’s opinion that through signification anything may be called the body and blood of Christ, but only this, that being taken from the fruits of the earth and consecrated by mystical prayer, we receive it for salvation. Nor does he mean that the bread taken from the earth’s fruits remains the same, but in the way that Ambrose says, what nature has made is changed by blessing.

Martyr: As to the first: you cannot rightly say that wherever water is, even outside baptism, it signifies the washing of the soul. But does it therefore follow that such signification is sacramental, when the Word of the Lord is absent, nor is [92r] the institution of Christ exercised in it? We speak here, as we have often said already, of the power and effectual signification of sacraments which they obtain by the word and institution of God. As to the other, Augustine said most clearly that by those three, that is, speech, paper (that is, writings), and through the sacrament, the body of Christ is signified, and there follows what you state, that it is received to salvation. A change is not mentioned at all, that is, a casting away of that substance gathered from the earth’s fruits. I have already declared how Ambrose should be understood.

Chedsey: In homily 45 on John, chapter 6, Chrysostom writes as follows: “This blood poured forth would cleanse the whole world. Paul expounded many things about this to the Hebrews. This [285] blood purges the secret places and the holy of holies. But if its type had such great power in the temple of the Hebrews, and when smeared on the doorposts in Egypt, much more the reality. This blood marked466 the golden altar; without it the high priest dared not enter into the secret place. This blood consecrated priests, this blood purged sins in its figure. If it had such great power in its type, if death so shuddered at the shadow, tell me how much it will dread the very reality?” etc.467 He compares the sacraments of the Old Testament with the sacraments of the New Testament, as shadow and figure with the truth; and he calls our mysteries wondrous and dreadful. If then, as he says, the old fathers had the shadows and we the truth, it follows that in the sacrament of the Eucharist the actual body of Christ is present; otherwise, if we had him there by signification alone no more could be attributed to our sacraments than to the sacraments of the Old Law.

Martyr: I accept Chrysostom when he says that if the sacraments of the ancients are compared to ours [92v] they are shadows and figures. Yet we should understand that there were shadows and figures because the advent of Christ was still expected. Again, the significations of those sacraments were more obscure, which agrees with figures and shadows; for figures were shining before the Christ who was to come, while shadows lack the fullness of light. By these means Christ was signified in the sacraments of the ancients, and was given to be received by believers through faith. But now he is offered to us in the new sacraments as the one who has already come, who has fulfilled his promises, and who is crucified for us in actual fact. Besides, the words we have in our sacraments are far more clear and lucid than were the words of the old sacraments in the Law. But you understand “truth” as if it should mean real presence; therefore you infer that the body of Christ is present with us corporeally and substantially. But the Fathers understand truth to be in our sacraments as compared to the old, because they represent something now fulfilled, even that the kingdom of heaven is opened and that with all clarity and certainty, the benefit of our redemption is already completed and made perfect, and bestowed on us as though it were placed before the eyes of faith.

[286] Chedsey: But the sacraments of the fathers were as true as ours; the same power was in them that is in ours, they too believed that Christ would come, as we believe that he has come. For by the testimony of Paul, “All our fathers drank of the same spiritual rock, and ate the same spiritual food.”468

Martyr: It is true that regarding the reality, the old fathers had the same sacraments as ours, which were signs that Christ was to come, and offered him to believers; the difference (as I said) was that [93r] Christ has now in fact paid the price of our salvation; then he was still to do it. And something already done, if compared even with itself still to be done, is more secure and may be called a truth; but it is said to bear a shadow and figure when not yet performed. Again, no one doubts that Christ and his death are expressed to us with words that are more plain and evident. By these things you may gather that (as Paul testifies) as to the reality we have the same sacraments with the fathers, but there are many differences between them as to the present reality, which I have reviewed.

Chedsey: The sacraments of the fathers promised grace but ours convey it; in your lectures you interpreted this, that they signify grace bestowed.469 Therefore if they signified something to be given, and ours signify what has been given, the significance is the same for both, and our sacraments will have no more than those of the fathers. And against what you bring, that the sacraments of the ancients were more obscure, I will prove that they had a clearer signification. For the blood of the lamb sacrificed represented the body and death of Christ more clearly than the bread and wine, if bread and wine are present here in this way.

Martyr: I will answer each point in order. I affirm what you object against me, that the sacraments of the Old Law signified grace that was to be given, and ours the same already given and offered, that is, Christ now incarnate, having suffered death. While I was speaking, among many other things that I discussed on the subject I remember that I also said this, because I did not want to concede that the sacraments of either ours or the ancients confer grace by themselves. For whatever grace we have we obtain by faith, and not (as you imagine and declare) because of the act performed.470 We [287] do not for this reason belittle sacraments, [93v] since we hold that when received properly they help, confirm and increase faith, through which alone are we justified. For as the Holy Spirit uses words of God and Scripture like instruments to change and to save us, so also it uses the sacraments. You see therefore how I take the sacraments of the Law as signifying that grace is given, and how ours signify that it is given already. To this you may add that faith is helped more by our sacraments than by those of the elders, in part because the words are clearer, and that our highest good, which is redemption through Christ, is more evidently set forth to us in them. And since faith is obtained through the word, the more evident the word, the more strongly is faith stirred up, and the more it grasps the thing signified; and in part because I easily agree that a more abundant spirit is granted through our sacraments than was given by the sacraments of the ancients. What I said before remains unshakable, that when something that is to be done is compared with what is already done, it may be called both shadow and figure. Again, when you insist that the lamb and the sacrifice of victims represented Christ and his death more clearly, I reply: the evidence and clarity of the sacraments are to be seen chiefly in the words. For if you compare words with symbols, the words are their life; and such explicit and fitting testimony about Christ and his death as we have today in our sacraments was not given to the early fathers. It is said: “This is my body, which is given for you,” and: “This is my blood, which is shed for you for the remission of sins.”471 What could be said more plainly and evidently than such words?

Chedsey: Where faith is more abundant, there the sacrament is more excellent. But [94r] Abraham’s faith was greater than ours. Therefore he enjoyed a more excellent sacrament. So it would follow that the old sacraments were better than ours.

Martyr: The first proposition you submit is quite false. It is not necessary that where faith is more abundant the sacrament should be superior. For Abraham both believed and was justified before he [288] had the sacrament of circumcision. There may be faith, and it should be present before receiving the sacraments. We have indeed acknowledged that it is helped and confirmed by those sacraments, but not that it should be given only through them. If you had said that those sacraments through which faith is more confirmed and increased in believers should be considered superior, you would have spoken the truth; but what you add about Abraham does not meet the point, unless you had shown that he obtained his faith through the sacrament, which is not true. Again, when you said that Abraham had greater faith than we, it is not well put, because to reach the conclusion you sought, you should have proved that Abraham had greater faith than is present in the New Testament; in that case you would assume what is doubtful. For how do you know that Paul, Peter, and many of the apostles and martyrs did not have faith equal to Abraham? Therefore both the major and minor propositions of your syllogism admit exceptions, and you accept more in the conclusion than can be found in the entire antecedent.472

[94v] HERE THE LORD VISITORS BROUGHT THE DISPUTATIONS TO AN END, WHEN THEY HAD HEARD ELEVEN O’CLOCK STRIKE.

(F) DR. RICHARD COX, ROYAL COMMISSIONER AND CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD, GAVE THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS.

Men of Oxford, we have devoted four half-days in examining two questions, concerning transubstantiation and the real presence of the body of Christ in the sacrament. This disputation has pleased us greatly, and I wish that time would have permitted us to hear all those things that could have been said on the subject. What we hoped for happened, that the disputation was peaceful. Since the hearers are now calm, I hope they will be eager to learn the truth. Those who pursued the debate and were of different sides have performed their part most diligently, and are not to be denied the praise they deserve. Men of England and Oxford, besides having performed the task their conscience urged on them, they have brought no little honor to this Academy; for they have not avoided a subject of such moment, but wished [289] to witness publicly, according to the measure of their learning and the gift granted them by the benefit of God, not only what thoughts they held in these controversies, but also by what reasons and authorities they were driven to them; most elegantly indeed did they take up the charge committed to them.

Yet other [95r] learned men, who, I know not why, have kept quiet in such great matters, by their silence have in a way marked themselves with the sign of denial. But Peter (who is worthily called Peter for the firmness of his stance), Martyr (and worthily called Martyr for the countless witnesses to the truth that he regularly produces) deserves great thanks at this time, from us and from all the faithful. First, because he has accepted heavy labors in sustaining the burden of disputation. For if not “Hercules against two,”473 what say we of Peter alone against all? Again, in undertaking to debate he curbed the vain sayings of vain men, who spread envious and odious things against him, namely that he would not or dared not defend himself. Finally, he has met extremely well the expectation of the leading magistrates and of His Majesty the King. Not only has he delivered to the university the doctrine of Christ out of those living fountains of God, but (so far as lay in him) has allowed no one to disturb or to block the fountains. We have listened to this Christian encounter, which was taken up in order to search out and to examine the truth. In every debate this same way of proceeding should always be the only goal to which all turn their faces. Everyone having sincere religion at heart should search this out. For what else is meant by the saying, “Search the Scriptures,” than to hunt down the truth from the Scriptures?

We are not inclined to give an opinion on these controversies just now, and settle the strife completely. It will be determined when it seems good to his Majesty the King, and the leaders of the Church of England.474 Nevertheless, if I, whom in your courtesy you have elected as your Chancellor, were not just now taking the place of another [95v] (for the king’s authority has now otherwise appointed me), I would most willingly render an account of my faith in these controversies.475 For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, nor yet of the truth which shines on all from his Word: I will be quite ready to do this at some other [290] time, when opportunity is given. In the meantime, if there are any strangers and foreigners here now, I exhort you to return to your own home. I would not have you continually wandering in the Fathers and Councils as if in your homeland. Do not take them for your first principles. I would not have you deceived by the probable words of human wisdom. What principles did the Fathers have? Or the Councils? How shamefully did the Fathers fall in many things? How badly did Councils err? I will not recall their errors here, I will not stir up this bog. Yet for all this, should Fathers and Councils be grounds for disputations? There have been heretics before now who denied either part of Scripture or the whole. And today there are Libertines who suffer from the same madness; they deny and trample the chief principles of our Christianity, we who place the Word of God in the highest watchtower [specula], and hold it in the greatest reverence, seeking life and salvation from it alone, holding the firmest of principles, most sound and holy. Meanwhile we do not reject the most wholesome testimonies of the church and the holy Fathers, but rather embrace and honor them as beams of the Holy Spirit that in a way enlighten the darkness of our eyes.

Therefore I beseech you for your salvation’s sake and for the mercy of God, young as well as old, that you would wish to accomplish two things: first, that you will now at last put away those controversies which have troubled and torn the church of Christ these many ages, concerning transubstantiation and I know not what carnal presence. There is no end of quarreling, these are the devil’s snares in which he continually binds us and [96r] hinders us from true piety. But we who are faithful Christians are chiefly and generally constrained to regard what Christ did and what he has commanded us to do. Let us consider that they are the most holy and awesome mysteries of Christ; let us use them regularly for our salvation; let us approach them with fear and trembling, lest at any time we come unworthily and receive them to our judgment and condemnation. Secondly, that you keep fast to the study of God’s Word. Aim all your darts at this mark and refer all your studies, whether logic, philosophy, mathematics or medicine or whatever else they may be—let them be like handmaids of this queen. Seek your whole faith from here, from here let your religion be made stable and firm. “Heaven and earth shall pass, but the Word of the Lord will endure to eternity.”476 Let all controversies be examined and defined [291] by this as by a touchstone [Lydio lapide].

There is one more thing about which we must warn you all: namely, that bidding farewell to all papistical trivia [nugis papisticis], superstitious and false worship of God, you may devote diligent labor to draw out the truth; or at least that you not become an obstacle to those who desire the truth, that they may proceed in the work of godliness. For we know and are convinced that there are some who are restless and troublemakers, driven by a perverse zeal, who would block the progress of the truth. We know there are some who wantonly follow the example of their father, while they spread the seed of discord everywhere and invent lies.477 We know that false and odious rumors are being circulated. We know that vain men work by harmful talk when they cannot further their cause by honest means, for an evil custom is easily made to work against the truth.

But to conclude: if you are endowed with any love of the truth, seek it out with calm minds; claim it from Almighty God with fervent prayers, gain it by a positive and impartial analysis [collatione]. [96v] Let Christian charity inflame you. Befriend whoever is weak in faith. For the stronger, says Paul, should sustain the frailties of the weak and not please themselves; let everyone please his neighbor in wholesome instruction.478 Beware the wiles of Satan, who waits to trap you so that you will not submit to the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, but stray into questions and disputes over terminology, from which come envies, contentions, blasphemies, evil suspicion, and so on. By our authority we could command you, threatening the obstinate with due punishment; but we would prefer to coax and exhort you for the love we bear you. Therefore, if there is any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the spirit, if any affection and sympathy, complete our joy.479 Our joy is that we see many in this university increase remarkably in good learning and piety. Our joy is that we see you so modest and ready to obey. Therefore complete our joy, that is, search the truth, which has now for many ages lain hidden, as if in a dark dungeon;480 when you have discovered it, receive it with a sincere faith; and after receiving it, adorn it with good manners. So will your light [292] shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven,481 to whom be all glory, for ever and ever. Amen.

ENDNOTES

1 hoson ophthalmoi ôtôn: Thales of Miletus (Magnesia is a village nearby), fl. 500 b.c., first of the Ionian physicists and one of the classical Seven Sages. Anecdotes were ascribed to him by Diogenes Laërtius and others in the doxographic tradition.

2 Isa. 28:15.

3 Acts 6:8 ff.

4 A difficult sentence, with hoc put in error for nos: (hoc) nos nominis nostri integritate in vadimonium.…

5 John Jewel acted as his secretary; see AL, 1:lxxvii ff. on the various accounts.

6 Eccl. 7:29, printed in Hebrew and Latin.

7 [I] In sacramentum Eucharistiae, non est panis et vini transubstantiatio in corpus & sanguinem christi. [II] Corpus & sanguis christi non est carnaliter aut corporaliter in pane & vino, nec ut alij dicunt, sub speciebus panis & vini. [III] Corpus & sanguis christi uniuntur pani & vino sacramentaliter. Cf. MSa: “Prima: In sacramento Eucharistiae non panis sit et vini transubstantiatio in corpus et sanguis Christi. Secunda: Corpus et sanguis Christi non fuit corporale aut carnale in pane et vino cum quod et dicunt sub speciebus panis et vini” (AL, 2:iii). See introduction, pp. xxv–xxvii above, concerning Martyr on formal questions before debating, and the omission of the third proposition. Compare the three propositions debated by Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley against Weston in Oxford, 1554; see C. W. Dugmore, The Mass and the English Reformers (New York: Macmillan and St. Martin’s, 1958), 197.

8 See introduction, p. xxviii–xxix above, for the Royal Visitors.

9 Rubrics in square brackets indicate material from Anthony Marten’s English version of 1583 (CP, app. pp. 173–250.) See introduction, p. xxviii–xxix, nn. 44– above, for the persons named.

10 Section numbers and letters are editorial insertions.

11 See John Foxe, The Acts and Monuments of the Church (London: Chatto & Windus, 1875), 2:919A–924B.

12 Phil. 2:2.

13 MSa places this preface before any other items are recorded; its marginalium has: “Hoc oratio inserta est antequam signum” (AL, 2:iv).

14 Acts 15:6 ff.

15 Acts 19:28.

16 See TR, §§65–77 (p. 106–119 above) on the alternative positions of Lutherans and Zwinglians).

17 See introduction for the mob scene that helped precipitate this Disputation. A chief point in Martyr’s diffidence was his familiarity with the formal debates requiring established theses.

18 an aliquid sit, postea, quia, quid & propter quid. See Aristotle, An. Post.. II.1, 89b34, “when we have ascertained the thing’s existence, we inquire as to its nature.”

19 These first two sentences seem to contradict the claim that the parties agreed to omit the third question, on Tresham’s urging. See introduction, “The Academic Debate” regarding the insertion in MSa (AL, 2:iii).

20 Cf. Dugmore, The Mass, 184 ff. on the difference between Cranmer and Gardiner concerning corporaliter.

21 Chedsey omits “Valentinians … heretic” (MSa; AL, 2:vi).

22 E.g. COR, fols. 261ff. (on 1 Cor. 10:17), the lectures preceding the (Treatise lectures and) Disputation; cf. EW, 5, 83–84, regarding the debates of his student days in Padua, and the theses for debate he prepared for his students at Strasbourg, 1543.

23 Luke 21:14–15.

24 Chedsey: “fuit in sacramento corporale, carnale, aut reale in panis et vino” (MSa; AL, 2:vii). The fact that Tresham records only two propositions supports the view that the third had been withdrawn.

25 See introduction, “The Academic Debate,” p. xxviii–xxix above, for the role of Richard Smith, Martyr’s predecessor as regius professor, in precipitating the debate.

26 Councils of Vercelli (1050) and Rome (1059 and 1079); decree de Consecratio 2.c.xlii.16, Ego Berengarius (PL 187.1750), and Peter Lombard, Sent. 4 (PL 148.811), against Berengar of Tours (c. 1000–1088); Council of Constance (1414–18) against John Hus (1372–1415) and John Wyclif (ca. 1330–84); cf. TR, §§4, 28, 41, 58–59 (pp. 26, 54, 74, 96–97) above, and Dugmore, The Mass, 24 ff., on “eucharistic theology in the medieval western church.”

27 See Chancellor Cox’s opening speech above concerning royal authority.

28 MSa inserts: Prima conclusio Petri Martyri sive quaestio (ut ipse vocat) in disputationibus fore Oxonii 22, Maii Anno Domini 1549. In Eucharistia non est panis et vini transubstantiatio in corpus et sanguis Christi (AL, 2:viii).

29 Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:17–18.

30 Chedsey: “quinquies meminit eodem loco panis” (MSa; AL, 2:ix). Cf. [78v] (p. 262) below, where Chedsey has John 6 mentioning bread five times.

31 Matt. 26:26.

32 Augustine, Enarratio in Ps. 73.2 (PL 36.931).

33 Chedsey omits the first two sentences, and has instead: “Ego mihi respondeo ad secundum caput tuum, servabitur illud …” (MSa; AL, 2:x).

34 Cyprian, Sermo de Coena Domini et Prima Institutione consummatis omnia sacramenta in Erasmus, ed., Divi Caecilii Cypriani (Basel: Froben, 1536), fol. 445. The work is not among Cyprian’s authentic writings. See TR, 26 n. 20 above, and CRA, II.323.

35 Chedsey has a different sentence: “Expando Cyprianum posuisse mutationem vero panis. Et est verisimile quod Cyprianus non contradicebat sibi, non erat oblitus sui” (MSa; AL, 2:x).

36 Gelasius (pope 492–96), Ep. prima and Ep. tertia (PL 59.17d, 23c).

37 Chedsey adds: “et Nestorium” (MSa; AL, 2:xi).

38 Gratian, De consecratione, dist. II, c. 48 (PL 187.1754). Chedsey adds “id est corpus Christi” (MSa; AL, 2:xi).

39 Chedsey: “unam naturam veram tantum esse in Christo. Et eum non nisi species [nil] corporis” (MSa; AL, 2:xi).

40 Theodoret of Cyrus or Cyrrhus (393–466), Dialogus: Eranistes seu Polymorphus I (Immutabilis) 26 (PG 83.55). See TR, §29 (p. 58) above for this extended quotation, with notations.

41 Chedsey: “in tertio” (MSa; AL, 2:xii).

42 Dialogus II (Inconfusus) 126 (PG 83.167). See TR, §30, for the extended quotation.

43 Martyr adds: “Igitur non habet locum transubstantiatio” (MSb; AL, 2:xiii).

44 Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 758–828), theologian and historian; see MAN, 6:643 ff. Theodoret was condemned by the “Robber Synod” (Latrocinium) of Ephesus in 449, where he defended Nestorius; at Chalcedon in 451 he was persuaded to condemn Nestorius and was formally reinstated to the episcopate; see DIAL, xxiii, 52n143, on the role of Theodoret in the Reformed-Lutheran debates.

45 Chedsey condenses this lengthy speech and has a different order for the exchange about Theodoret (MSa; AL, 2: xiv).

46 E.g. Theodoret, Ep. LXXXIII, CL (PG 83.1266 ff., 1414).

47 John Bessarion (1403–72), spokesman for the Greek Church at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438–39) on the filioque clause. See MAN, 31A, 911 ff. Cf. C. Singer, “The Council of Florence and Its Consequences for the Patristic Revival,” RCF, 488 ff.

48 Prov. 27:2.

49 See “Response and Critique” (introduction, p. xxx ff. above) regarding the significance of this work which Martyr brought to England, introducing it to Cranmer. Cf. TR, p. 64 n. 169 above.

50 Origen, Frag. Comm. Orig. in Ev. Matt. (15:11), XI,14 (PG 13.950–51); cf. TR, §57 (p. 94) above.

51 Erasmus, Fragmentum Commentariorum Orig. in Ev. Matt. (1536) Cap. XV, fol. 19B (Frag. BBBB iiij). See PG 13.949–50 for Huetio’s editorial comment.

52 “Ubi bene, nemo melius, ubi male, nemo peius.” Cassiodorus, Inst. I.i.8 (my thanks to Henry Chadwick for this reference).

53 Chrysostom, De Poenit. IX (PG 49.345).

54 Chedsey adds Augustine (MSa; AL, 2:xv).

55 Jewel’s original notes omit this sentence (MSb: AL, 2:xv).

56 Irenaeus, Contra Haereses IV.17.5 (PG 7.1023). Chedsey cites “libro secundo, capite tricesimo secundo” (MSa; AL, 2:xiv).

57 Irenaeus, Contra Haereses IV.18.5 (PG 7.1028–29). Chedsey defines the passage as “in libro secundo, capite tricesimo secundo” and adds: “Et feste Aristotele, vadus argumentandi per similitudinem debissimus est” (MSa; AL, 2:xvi).

58 MSa adds: Et feste Aristotele, vadus argumentandi per similitudinem debissismus est (AL, 2:xvi).

59 Cyprian, Sermo de Coena fol. 445. See p. 141 n. 34 above.

60 2 Cor. 3:18.

61 Chedsey: “argumentum meum” (MSa; AL, 2:xvii).

62 CP omits this sentence

63 Chedsey: “et duo id, quod tu hic assimis contra apertam esse philosophiam. Nam mixta et elementes constat. Verumtamen non manet in misto formalem elementam. Ad aliud dico argumentum in simili invalidum esse” (MSa; AL, 2:xvii).

64 in actu, in potentia; see Aristotle, Meta IX.6.1048a25 ff.

65 John 17:11.

66 Hilary, De Trinitate VIII.50 (PL 10.273–74; cf. IV.18 (PL 10.111); see TR, §52 (p. 88 above). Chedsey: “Similitudo satis quadrat: Quemadmodum probat Hilarius de Trinitate” (MSa; AL, 2:xviii).

67 Chedsey adds: “Bucerum in opere contra Roffensem abrin consemum” (MSa; AL, 2: xvii), a mistake for “Contra Abrincensem.” See n. 308 below, and VWG, App. C: “Bucer, Calvin, and Martyr,” esp. 272–73.

68 Hilary, De Trin. VIII.25–26 (PL 10.254–55).

69 See TR, §78 above.

70 See Martyr on the natural union through the Incarnation, ROM, 8:14, VWG, 142 ff. On the bodily renewal see S. Corda, Veritas Sacramenti (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag Zurich, 1975), 176 ff., “Redundatio ad corpus.”

71 CP has “bread.”

72 Gregory, Register VIII.1 (PL 148.573).

73 1 Cor. 5:8.

74 Augustine, Ep. XCIII.3 (PL 33.325–26).

75 Chedsey: “Aliter dici potest quam loquitur Gregorius de materia panis quae ante consecrationem extitit” (MSa; AL, 2:xix).

76 Chedsey adds: “Hoc etiam vidi [sic] Scotus” (MSa; AL, 2:xx).

77 Chedsey: “Redeo ad primum argumentum” (MSa; AL, 2:xx).

78 MSa: “nisi voluerit tropizare proprietate sermonis seposita” (AL, 2:xxi).

79 Epiphanius, Ancoratus LVII (60) (PG 43.118). Cf. fol. 27v (p. 175) below.

80 servator; MSb has “salvator” (AL, 2:xxi).

81 Hoc meum est, et hoc, et hoc; Epiphanius has: Hoc meum est hoc.

82 See A. Rabil Jr., Erasmus and the New Testament (San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1972), 42 ff., 104 ff., 115 ff., e.g. “let him compare these ancient theologians Origen, Basil, Chrysostom, and Jerome with these more recent ones. He will see a certain golden river flowing in the former, certain shallow streams echoing back, and these neither very pure nor flowing from their own sources” (104). Cf. J. den Boeft, “Erasmus and the Church Fathers,” RCF, 537 ff.

83 Sentence omitted from MSa (AL, 2:xxi).

84 Sentence omitted from MSa (AL, 2:xxi).

85 verbum Dei; MSa has “Sacramentum” (AL, 2:xxi).

86 non sermoni res, sed rei est sermo subjectus: Hilary, De Trin. 4.14 (PL 10.107).

87 Matt. 26:26.

88 2 Pet. 1:20.

89 MSb omits the rest of this sentence (AL, 2:xxii).

90 MSb: “authoritas” (AL, 2:xxii).

91 John 6:51.

92 The remainder of this speech is omitted from MSa (AL, 2:xxiii).

93 Chrysostom, In Epist. I Cor., Hom. XXVII.4 (PG 61.230): sicut enim in pane et in calice dixit Christus.

94 Sentence omitted from CP.

95 Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Ev. XII (on 21:13) (PG 74.747).

96 MSa: “Contra: tu tergiversaris in termino idcirco dici panem quod ante fuerit panis” (AL, 2:xxiv).

97 Chrysostom, In Matt., Hom. 82 (al. 83) 1 (PG 58.739).

98 MSa inserts: “Non nego mutari a ligno modo in pane in sacramento, sed panem non manere, nego” (AL, 2:xxiv).

99 Chedsey inserts: “folio 331,pagina secunda” (AL, 2:xxiv).

100 Ambrose, De Myst. IX, 52 (PL 16, 406). From this point MSa has the two last speeches broken into four, rearranging the words (AL, 2:xxiv).

101 Augustine, In Joann., Tract. 26.12 (PL 35.1612).

102 Augustine, De catechizandis rudibus I.26.50 (PL 40.344).

103 “Doctoro Petro Martyro mandatum est, ut in secunda questione disserveret” (AL, 2:xxiv). The Domini Visitatores refer to question 2 of the agenda: “The body and blood of Christ are not carnally or corporeally in the bread and wine, nor as others say, under the forms of bread and wine.” See p. 133 n. 7 above.

104 Mark 16:19; Matt. 26:11.

105 John 16:28; Mark 13:21.

106 Acts 3:21; Col. 3:1.

107 For a detailed discussion of the ubiquity of the body of Christ, see DIAL, Martyr’s 1561 reply to the position of John Brenz.

108 Chedsey: “Primum nego minorem…” (MSa; AL, 2:xxv).

109 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8.

110 Acts 9:4–5, 17, 27.

111 Chedsey inserts: “Contra negas minorem, sed nondum satisfecisti argumento. Et dicis quod corpus Christi potest esse in diversis locis” (MSa; AL, 2:xxv).

112 Acts 9:4. Augustine, En. in Pss. 54 (55) (PL 36.629). See TR §73 (p. 114) above.

113 2 Cor. 12.

114 The problem of space posed by the doctrine of Ascension remained in contention between Martyr and Bucer also; see VWG, 275 ff.

115 E.g. caeli nidos, Matt. 8:20 (Vulg.).

116 Augustine, Ep. ad Dard. (PL 35.839): “Take away from bodies the space of their location and they will be nowhere”; see DIAL 14n30.

117 Augustine, En. in Pss. 54 (55) vs. Donatists (PL 36.628 ff.).

118 Luke 4:30; 9:29. Cf. n. 210 below.

119 Duns Scotus, Opera Omnia XVIII (Civ. Vat., 1982) 166 ff.: Sent. II, lect. II, dist. 2, pars 2, Qu. 2: Quomodo Angelus est in Loco.

120 That God cannot do things that imply logical contradiction: see TR, §60 (p. 98) above, and “Resurrection,” PW §19, p. 64.

121 1 Cor. 15:46.

122 MSb: “in” (AL, 2:xxvii).

123 Augustine, Ep. CCV, I.9 (PL 33.946): animale … animatibus … spirituale … cum spiritu.

124 De civ. Dei XIII, 20 (PL 41.393); cf. TR §62 (p. 102) above.

125 MSb omits “mysticum” (AL, 2:xviii).

126 MSa inserts: “Augustinus ad Dardanum: Dominus Iesus ubique per id quod Dominus est, in coelo autem per id quod homo” (AL, 2:xviii).

127 John 20:21.

128 Matt. 28:20; Acts 1:8.

129 Didymus, De spiritu sancto 6 (PG 39.1037–38).

130 Ps. 139:7.

131 Haggai 2:5.

132 Basil, De spiritu sancto 22 (53)-23 (54) (PG 32.167ff.); see DIAL 18–19 for the same passage, including scriptural references.

133 Syllogism: A is B; C is not B; therefore C is not A.

134 MSb replaces these two sentences with: treshamus. Imo Christus est Deus. martyr. Sed Corpus eius non est deitas, imo natura. treshamus. Iesus… (AL, 2:xxix).

135 MSb omits “omnipotens, aut” (AL, 2:xxx).

136 Cyril of Alexandria, De sancta et consub. Trin. II.453 (PG 75.762 ff.). Martyr repeats this argument in DIAL 21 and “Resurrection,” PW 119. MSa has “Cyrillum dialogo secunda pagina, vicesimo quarta vel 263 de Trinitate” (AL, 2:xxx).

137 Major: no earthly body can be everywhere; minor: Christ’s body is circumscribed; therefore it cannot be everywhere, QED.

138 MSb omits this sentence (AL, 2:xxx).

139 See Aristotle on quality and accident: Meta. V.14, 1020a33 ff., V.30, 1025a13 ff. MSa: Martyr refers to Didymus again, adding: “Omnia creata … cicumscribi Hieronymus interpres Didymi, sed corpus Christi est creatura, ergo circumscripta” (AL, 2:xxxi).

140 Cf. DIAL, 143–44, and n. 244 below.

141 Hugh of St. Victor (1096–1141), De Sacramentis I.5.16 (PL 176.253). MSa has instead: “Praeterea tres sunt veritates theologicae a doctoribus contra recepto. Prima quae Christus natus est clauso virginis utero. Secunda quae resurrexit clauso tumulo. Tertia quae intravit ad discipulos foribus clausis. Hugo de Sancte Victore parte nona capiti tertio dicit: Corpus Christi fuisse passibilii, et impassibili fuisse, non tamen necessitate, sed per eius voluntate.” (AL, 2:xxxi).

142 The argument seems mixed here, as Martyr joins angelic with creaturely properties; elsewhere he clearly teaches the ubiquity of angels—see LC I.13.3 ff.

143 MSa: “Basilius vicesimo secundo capiti, de Spiritu Sancto,” but omits Didymus (AL, 2:xxxii).

144 MSb adds: “finis primae actionis. Tô Theô doxa” (AL, 2:xxxii).

145 John 6:63. Cf. Augustine: “Believe, and you will understand”; In Joann. Ev., Tract. XXVII.9 (PL 35.1619).

146 John 6:68; 14:6. Chedsey begins shrewdly by citing two texts favored by the Reformers, one patristic and one biblical, although he mistakes the disciples’ response for that of the Capernaites, and expands Peter’s statement to include one credited to Jesus.

147 Matt. 26:26.

148 John 16:12; 6:51.

149 ”Veni sancte spiritus reple …” and “Deus qui corda fidelium …” from the Missae Votivae: Missa de sancto spiritu, Sarum Missal, ed. J. W. Legg (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969) 385.

150 Chedsey numbers his arguments, primo to octavo (MSa; AL, 2:xxxv ff.).

151 MSa: “id est, sub specie panis et vini visibili; latenter et ineffabiliter infunditur divina essentia” (AL, 2:xxxiv).

152 Reading “27” for “72.”

153 Chedsey expands this material on Gelasius: “Secundo, in loco venit Gelasius, certo (inquit) sacramenta quam sumimus corporis Christi divina res sunt, et propterea per illa participes facti sumus divina natura. Et tamen non desinit substantia vel natura panis, et vini ergo Gelasio testo, manet substantia vel natura panis et vini. Respondeo…” (AL, 2:xxxv).

154 Augustine, Ep. ad Dard. III.10 (PL 33.835).

155 MSa inserts: “Quam ergo Eucharistia constat ex pane et vino, et corpore Christi addent hoc vere manere” (AL, 2:xxxv).

156 See TR, §43 above.

157 Origen, In Matt., Comm. Series 85 (PG 13.1734–35); cf. TR §80.

158 Cyprian, De Lapsis, Tract. III.26 (PG 43.118): when a defiled person opened the box containing the reserved host, he “found a cinder in his hands … the Lord withdraws when he is denied.”

159 Cf. TR, §31 (p. 61) above.

160 Epiphanius, Ancoratus LVII (60) (PG 43.118); see fol. 15v (pp. 154 ff.) above.

161 Cicero, Epist. V.117; see Select Letters, ed. A. Watson (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1891), 54. “Id quod homologian Stoici nos appelemus convenientam, si placet” (AL, 1:237).

162 Augustine, De catechizandis rudibus XXVI.50 (PL40.345); Ep. ad Bonifac. XCVIII.9 (PL 33.303–304).

163 Chedsey adds: “Quid itaque Eucharistia habeat pro re corpus Christi, et corpus mysticum, vos si detrahitis panem et vinum quo nutrintur corpus subtrahitites analogiam Chrysostomus habet: Quemadmodum corpus pane et vino alitur ita pascitur animae corpore Christi” (MSa; AL, 2:xxxvii).

164 Major: There is a likeness between sacrament (bread) and substance (Christ’s body); minor: remove the bread and the likeness falls; therefore bread must remain (QED).

165 Augustine, In Joann. Ev., Tract. 80,3 (PL 35, 1810).

166 MSa: “quales fuerunt Wycleff et Lutherus” (AL, 2:xxxix).

167 The Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, under Innocent III, officially approved the term transubstantiatio; canon 1: “Exposition of the Catholic Faith and of the Dogma of Transubstantiation” (MAN, 32, 982); cf. TR §5 (p. 28 above).

168 MSa: “primam” (AL, 2:xl).

169 MSa includes two short speeches to the same effect (AL, 2:xl).

170 MSa inserts: “Ut in Baptismo manet aqua, ita in Eucharistia manet panis. Ex aliquo certo fit, ex re scilione et signo” (AL, 2:xli).

171 1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27.

172 MSb: isto sacramento (AL, 2:xli).

173 Matt. 4:4.

174 MSa: Dei agitur … factum (AL, 2:xlii).

175 Matt. 26:26; John 6:51.

176 MSa: “Cheadzeus. ‘Hoc est corpus meum,’ refertur ad ‘utrunque.’ Et est dissolutum argumentum.” The following speech of Martyr is phrased differently (AL, 2:xliii).

177 1 Cor. 10:4; John 6:70; Gen. 17:10.

178 Matt. 11:14; John 20:22, 15:1.

179 Gen. 37:27.

180 Eph. 2:14; 1 Cor. 12:27.

181 Rom. 9:33.

182 Rom. 1:16; Pss 110:7, 119:86, and 142.

183 1 Cor. 1:18.

184 Gen. 41:26; 1 Kgs. 11:30.

185 1 Cor. 11:11.

186 Lev. 6:26.

187 I Cor. 5:7.

188 MSa adds: Et quid longimini adducitis ambigua (AL, 2:xliii).

189 MSa: Adducimus duplici ratione ad statuendum tropum (AL, 2:xliv).

190 I Cor. 11:24 ff.

191 Cf. Aristotle, An. Post. II.1, 89b34; see n. 18 above.

192 John 6:62–63

193 MSa: usque ad abominationem desolationis (AL, 2:xliv).

194 MSa adds: De scholasticis, qui interpretantur est pro fit, aut transubstantiatur. Pro more interpretur facint qui non solum docent factum sed et modum facti (AL, 2:xlv).

195 1 Cor. 10:17.

196 The contrast is between terms functioning either figuratively (tropice) or simply, absolutely (simpliciter).

197 Tertullian, Adv. Marcion IV, 40 (PL 2.491); cf. TR, §23, 40.

198 Augustine, En. in Ps. 3, 1 (PL 36.73); Contra Adim. 1.12.1 (PL 42.143–44).

199 MSa omits Augustine: Marcion haereticus in causa erat Tertullianus sic verba hic interpretatur (AL, 2:xlvi).

200 Heb. 1:3.

201 Augustine, De doctrina christiana III.9 (PL 34.70–71).

202 Heb. 1:1.

203 tês hypostasês auton (Heb. 1:3): MSa omits the Greek text (AL, 2:xlvii).

204 The Nicene-Constantinopolitan theology of the Trinity held “three persons in one substance,” distinguishing among the three without ontological separation.

205 John 3:13.

206 1 Cor. 2:8.

207 Tertullian was combating Monarchianism; aware of the Stoic teaching that “the immaterial is simply the nonexistent,” he stressed substantia in a quasi-material sense, while also meaning character or nature: see H. Chadwick, The Early Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 89.

208 MSb: Tolle divinitatem a Christo, et aeque reliquis hominibus conveniet atque Christo … (AL, 2:xlviii).

209 MSa puts it more starkly: Nunc autem docebo sacramentum signum esse absentis rei (AL, 2:xlviii).

210 Ambrose, De Sac. 4.4.20 (PL 16.443).

211 Iactas Ambrosium totum esse tuum. MSa has: Respondeo: Gaudere se quod tantum tribuam Ambrosio … (AL, 2:xlix).

212 This is one statement of Martyr’s that would have upset Bucer; see, “Response and Critique” (introduction, p. xxx ff.) above

213 Augustine, Cont. Adim. I.12.1 (PL 42.143–44).

214 MSa omits the proper name (AL, 2:xlix).

215 Deut. 12:22–23; Matt. 10:28.

216 Deut. 12:23.

217 MSa: Quaestio secunda: An in Eucharistia sit corpore Christi realiter? MSb omits “et carnaliter” and has “et an sit cum” crossed out (AL, 2:li).

218 Augustine, En. in Ps. 98:5, 9 (PL 37.1265).

219 In the Square of Opposition of formal logic, contraries share the same modality of universal or particular, whereas contradictories do not.

220 Aristotle, Meta V.15, 1021a27ff.: relative terms are such “because their very essence includes in its nature a reference to something else”; V.14, 1020b2 ff.: qualities are “the differentia of the essence.”

221 MSa: in Christi verbi (AL, 2:lii).

222 Vigilius Tapsensis, Lib. ad Eut. 4 (PL 62.98–99); see TR §74 and DIAL 161.

223 MSa adds: sicut fatebatur Eutyches, sed rationem specierum sub quibus continentur corpus Christi (AL, 2:liii).

224 See Aristotle on “nature,” Meta. V.5, 1014b30 ff.

225 MSa adds: In sacramento cum non habeat corpus quodtum, id est per modum quanti, nihil repugnat in multis esse locis (AL, 2:liv).

226 organicum: Martyr adopts Aristotle’s thesis that the body is the instrument of the soul; see “The Image of God,” PW, 37 ff.

227 Reading 42 for 38.

228 Luke 24:39.

229 Aristotle’s predicables or predicates: essence (substance), quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, state, activity, passivity: Topics I.9, 103b20 ff.

230 Nicholas Cartwright, Master of the Hospital of St. John, near Banbury, a supporter of Martyr. See introduction, p. xxix n. 48 above. MSa marginalium has: Nicholaus Cartwryght, Oxonice in schola Theologiae, incepit anno Domini 1536, Regnum I.p.17.a Junii decima, A 28, Henrici Octavi (AL, 2:lvi).

231 Isa. 63:3.

232 Major: if A then B; minor: but not-B; therefore not-A (QED).

233 John 6:56.

234 Augustine, In Joann. Ev., Tract. XXVI.6.18 (PL 35.1614).

235 1 Cor. 11:29; corrected from “2” in ERR, 43v.

236 John 9:2.

237 Reading 44 for 40.

238 MSa adds a question put by Martyr: Et hoc in signis evidentissime demonstrat? (AL, 2:lvii).

239 John 16:7.

240 Name omitted from original.

241 John 1:32.

242 CP omits Chedsey’s statement, and adds the second part to Cartwright’s.

243 Stated in both MSS (AL, 2:lviii).

244 Cyprian, Sermo de Coena, fols. 446–50. See p. 142 n. 34 above.

245 1 Cor. 6:15.

246 John 6:56.

247 Augustine, De civitate Dei 21.25, 2, 4 (PL 41.741–42).

248 Augustine, In Joann. Ev., Tract. XXVI.19 (PL 35.1615).

249 Matt. 25:12.

250 Mark 16:16; Acts 2:21.

251 Augustine, Contra Litt. Petil. II.55, 126 (PL 43.302).

252 Matt. 7:22; Luke 13:26.

253 Augustine, Ep. 98.9 (PL 33.303–4).

254 Augustine, In Joann. Ev., Tract. XXVI.15 (PL 35.1614).

255 MSa concludes: Cheadzeus. Sed necessario colliguntur ex patribus, et ex collatione locorum necessario oriuntur. / Hic iubebant visitatores Regii, finem esse disputationem huius diei (AL, 2:lx).

256 MSa adds: Ultimo Maii Anno Domini 1549 … (AL, 2:lx).

257 Philip Morgan, Principal of St. Mary’s Hall; see introduction, p. xxix n. above.

258 In the most striking and the lengthiest difference from Martyr’s MS, Chedsey (MSa) includes a lengthy exchange among the bishop of Lincoln, Chancellor Cox, Morgan, and Martyr. Morgan fares badly; twice his attempts to mount arguments are disputed by Martyr and denied by the legates. The first is an appeal to 1 Cor. 10: “veteres habuerunt eadem sacramenta quae nos. … Sed veterum sacramenta non transubstantiantur, ergo neque nostra. Istud argumentum est viciosum, et multis imposturis repletum. Quod luculentisse demonstrabo.” To this Martyr reacts with some heat: “Hoc argumentum ego non adduxi. Ego non sum usus hoc argumento. Ego non sum usus hoc argumento!” The second picks up the previous exchange with Chedsey as to whether Christ’s body must have quantity. Morgan rejects Martyr’s claim that to deny this is absurd. Martyr replies: “Non debes repetere quae acta sunt, et notariis supra excepta.” The legates support Martyr and instruct Morgan to offer other arguments of his own (AL, 2:lxii–xiii).

259 For the criterion (a term which Martyr regularly puts in Greek), see COR, Praef. (LC, I.6). MSb reads simply “criterion by which…” (AL, 2:lxiii).

260 In this catalogue of opinions, Chedsey’s MS identifies each by name: ut Catholici … Lutherani … Anabaptistae … Zwingliani … quidam Anglis (AL, 2:lxiv).

261 MSb omits “de praesentia Christi” (AL, 2:lxiv).

262 ut quendam iuvenem Anglum ego novi. Perhaps Joachim Vadian, whom Cranmer rebuked for the memorialist views of his 1535–36 treatise on the Eucharist: see OER; or perhaps John Lambert (Nicholson?) burned in 1538 “for gret eryse”; see Dugmore, The Mass 94–95, 177ff.

263 Augustine, De Consensu Evangelistarum III.1.2 (PL 34.1158).

264 Matt. 26:26; 1 Cor. 10:16, 11:26.

265 1 Cor. 11:25.

266 MSa inserts: Omnes secte commemorate videbant istas scripturas et inter se conferebant … (AL, 2:lxv).

267 2 Tim. 3:16.

268 MSb expands this speech, e.g.: idem dico de Apollinaxi Nestoreo, et Euthycho ac pestibus huius generi … (AL, 2:lxv).

269 In particular, Martin Luther (1483–1546) and Huldrych Zwingli (1484–1531). See TR, §§ 66–75, and 76–77 for Martyr’s evaluation of each.

270 MSb: Quomodo (AL, 2:lxv).

271 The contemporary debate regarding the words of consecration was whether the phrase “Hoc est corpus meum” constitutes the consecrating formula, or whether it requires the whole action of the Supper. The epiclesis or prayer to the Holy Spirit to consecrate, familiar in Eastern liturgies, was espoused by the Reformed in turn. See VWG 31 ff.

272 Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24.

273 MSa adds: Dic in quibus verbis consecratio sacramenti collocatur? (AL, 2:lxvi).

274 MSa expands this speech with reference to ministerial blessing (AL, 2:lxvii).

275 MSa records a longer speech: Erat panis communis antequam verba preferebantur, sed post consummatum verborum prolationis erat symbolum ac sacramentum (AL, 2:lxviii).

276 MSa expands: Christus itaque non consecravit priusquam nam verba ad actionis pertinenta pronuntiabantur … (AL, 2:lxviii).

277 A figure of speech in which the order of words or phrases is inverted (Aristotle, Meta. V.11, 1018b8 ff.).

278 MSb gives the Greek; MSa transliterates: Est hysteron proteron, sed in figura quae … (AL, 2:lxviii).

279 MSb: sermo (AL, 2:xlix).

280 MSb inserts: MORGANUS. Est utrique causa aequalitas? MARTYR. Non est nullam enim rationem nos habetis, per quam in hoc sacramento depellatur panis (AL, 2:lxix).

281 MSa begins: Dedit ergo corpus. Ergo corpus copulari debet cum verbo ‘dedit.’ Haec ergo dixi ut intelligant auditores doctissimum, doctorem Cheadseum, virum bene respondisse superiorius disputationis quando dixit Christum accepisse panem, fregisse panem … (AL, 2:lxix).

282 Theophylact of Ochryda (ca. 1050–1108), Enarratio in Ev. Marci XIV.249 (PG 123.649–50).

283 Theophylact, En. in Ev. Joann. III.547 (PG 123.1218).

284 Theophylact, En. in Ev. Joann. VI.594 (PG 123.1307).

285 Theophylact, En. in Ev. Joann. VI.596 (PG 123.1311).

286 MSa enlarges the speech: Repraehenditur a Latina ecclesia, Theophylactus quod una cum caeteris Graecis in processione Spiritur Sancti erraverit, sed a nemo in negotio sacramenti repraehenditur … (AL, 2: lxx).

287 See TR §§43f above, and VWG 267 ff., “Peter Martyr’s Patristic Sources.”

288 Theophylact, En. in Ev. Joann. VI.594 (PG 123.1307).

289 Theophylact, En. in Ev. Matt. XXVI.146 (PG 123.443).

290 Theophylact, En. in Ev. Marci XIV.250 (PG 123.651). MSa enlarges the quotation: Et Dominus dicit ‘Panem quem ego dabo, caro mea est.’ (Non dicit ‘figura est carnis mea,’ sed ‘caro mea est’) … (AL, 2:lxx).

291 MSb omits “et gratiam” (AL, 2:lxxi).

292 MSa expands this speech: Responde mihi, vir doctissime. Quod si scriptura ipsa recipe velit transubstantiationis …. (AL, 2:lxxi).

293 Theophylact, En. in Ev. Matt. XXVI.146 (PG 123.443).

294 Augustine, Ep. ad Bonif. 98, 9 (PL 33.303–4). MSa adds a reference to Augustine’s ad Vicentium (AL, 2:lxxii).

295 Cf. Aristotle’s lexicon on “substance,” with “quality” as its modification: Meta. V.8,14.

296 Cf. TR, Preface, on the “hyperbolae patrum,” p. 16 above.

297 1 Cor. 10:16; 11:27.

298 MSb adds: et ab Evangelistis (AL, 2:lxxiii).

299 MSa differs: Dicis scripturam si recipisset transubstantiationis, nunquam mentionis futuram panis … (AL, 2:lxxii–lxxiii).

300 Mt. 26:29.

301 1 Cor. 10:16.

302 E.g. Chrysostom, 1 Cor., Hom. XXIV, 2 (PG 61.200). Cf. TR §11 [7] (p. 36 above).

303 MSa expands considerably: Probo corpus Christi fractum fuisse. Nam fractio carnis non est aliud quam dissolutio continuitatis in carne … (AL, 2:lxxiii).

304 MSa: Respondeo: Christus dicit ‘panem de coelo’ per metaphoram, sed non dicitur ‘panis quem frangimus’ per metaphoram … (AL, 2:lxxiii).

305 MSb omits the second sentence. MSa expands: Ergo corpus Christi, et ‘panis quem frangimus’ bene consentiunt in scripturis… (AL, 2:lxxiv).

306 MSa adds: Nego corpus Christi per metaphoram posse frangi (A: L II.lxxiv).

307 MSa inserts another exchange: Martyr. Nego corpus Christi ulla ratione frangi. Morganus. Probo manducare est metaphora satis… (AL, 2:lxxv).

308 Contra Abrincensem episcopum: Martin Bucer, Defensio adversus axioma Catholicum … Roberti Episcopi Abrincensis 1534, fol. I, 4v. My thanks to Dr. Ian Hazlett of Glasgow University for identifying this reference. Tresham used the passage against Cranmer in the 1555 Oxford Disputation: Writings, 410.

309 MSb omits the first two sentences. MSa: lingua Britannica in obscurioribus disciplinarum locis discutiendis retinet haec metaphoram. At hoc grammaticae unus est differere quae sit lex metaphorae … (AL, 2:lxxv).

310 MSb omits “Anglicana” (AL, 2:lxxv).

311 MSb omits this rubric; MSa has: Tum Cancellarius praecepit Morgano silentium. Et Doctor Treshamus in disputationis sua ingressus est. Ut sequitur: (AL, 2:lxxvi).

312 Cyprian, Sermo de Coena Domini—Erasmus, Divi Caec. Cypriani (Basel: Froben, 1519), fol. 445. Cf. TR §24, CRA II.11, 74. Cyprian’s text is: Panis est communis in carnem et sanguinem mutatus, procurat vitam.…

313 Erasmus, Divi Caec. Cypriani, fol. 445.

314 Erasmus stressed the spiritual in all things including eucharistic participation, particularly in his earlier years: e.g. in a 1525 letter to Pellican he wishes sacramental reception modo quodam ineffabili; later he observed: “now by various arguments I could waver to both sides, unless the authority of the Church confirmed me” (Opera Omnia X, 1563C, cited by John B. Payne, Erasmus: his Theology of the Sacraments (Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1970)) 143, 299n98. He discusses his attraction to the Reformed interpretation in correspondence: “The opinion of Oecolampadius would not displease me, except that the consensus of the Church goes against it” (Payne, 153). The reference is to Oecolampadius, De genuina verborum Domini ‘Hoc est corpus meum’ iuxta authores expositione liber, Strasbourg 1525.

315 MSa adds: Erasmus ipse quid senserit nescio. Quomodo vos tractatis eum scio alias non admittis. Nunc libenter obtenditis attulisti Cyprianum, nunc te convertis ad Erasmum (AL, 2:lxxvii).

316 Erasmus, D. Aur. Augustinini … (Basel: Froben, 1569), tom. III, fol. 289; see TR, §26, p. 165 124 above.

317 MSa inserts: In quaris [sic] mutationem vel apud physicos, manet id quod ante fuit, ut constat ex Aristotele in generatione fieri, et alteratione (AL, 2:lxxvii–lxxviii).

318 See Aristotle on substance in Meta. VII, esp. 7, 1032a12 ff.

319 MSa inserts: Quod tu hic asseris in generationem manere id quod ante fuit falsum esse palam est … (AL, 2:lxxviii).

320 MSa adds: quam tunc panis Eucharisticus si non secus quam tu [ …] mutetur (AL, 2:lxxviii).

321 Augustine, De Trinitate III.4.10 (PL 42.874).

322 MSb omits the last sentence (AL, 2:lxxviii).

323 MSb: substantialiter (AL, 2:lxxix).

324 MSa begins: Fatemur verbum factum esse, et hoc, et hanc manere, et verbum esse carnem. Non tame [sic] panem esse carnem dicimus, sed nec utrumque manere. Unde similitudo tua non quadrat (AL, 2:lxxix).

325 Chrysostom, De Poenit. IX (PG 49.435).

326 MSb inserts another exchange: Treshamus: Hilarius in eandem sententiam verba facit, ambo habuere Spiritum Sanctum, ergo aliis inventus testis veritatis. Martyr: Quod Hilarius habet deinde per olium indras [sic] nunc, da mihi spatium declarandi ea quae protulisti ex Chrysostomo qui ut caeteram dicere, multis et magnis utitur hyperbolae, quae … (AL, 2:lxxix).

327 See TR §4 (p. 26 above).

328 Eph. 6:12; Gal. 5:17.

329 Gal. 3:28.

330 1 Cor. 1:14–16.

331 MSa records a lengthy speech: Domine Petre, scripturas quasdem citando et easdem interpretando. Ut ad tu institutum accomodaces… (AL, 2:lxxxi).

332 1 Cor. 15:15.

333 See p. 153 n. 70 above.

334 MSa is more expansive: Ubi etiam fluere sanguinem e latere Christi affirmat, non ex calice… (AL, 2:lxxxi).

335 Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Ev. IV, 365 (PG 73.583); cf. TR, §48.

336 Cyril, In Joannis Ev. X.2 (PG 74.342).

337 On referring the words of institution to us rather than the elements, see Martyr, Censura libri Communium Precum (Strype, Mem. Cran. App. LXI) and VWG 30.

338 Chrysostom, In Matt., Hom. 82 (al. 83), 4: Credamus itaque ubique deo; Chrysostom has: Deo igitur ubique obsequamur…“let us submit to God in everything” (PG 58.743).

339 Chrysostom, In Matt., Hom. 82 (al. 83), 4 (PG 58.743). Tresham has: quae haec coronam pertractat; Chrysostom: quae hunc carnem secat.

340 MSa records lengthier versions of this exchange: Ergo quod modo dicunt vellem est formam, et speciem eius … (AL, 2:lxxxii).

341 Chrysostom, In Matt., Hom. 82 (al. 83), 4 (PG 58.743).

342 intelligibilia; MSb: intelligenda (AL, 2:lxxxiii); CP has “sensible things which are delivered to all.”

343 MSb omits Martyr’s previous speech and Tresham’s to this point (AL, 2:lxxxiii).

344 Tommaso de Vio (1470–1534), an Italian Dominican who as cardinal adopted the name Cajetan from his birthplace; famous for his Analogy of Names (1498). He became papal legate and was distrusted by Luther (whom he debated at Augsburg in 1518): “He is an Italian, and that is what he remains” (Martin Luther, Werke I.209; reference supplied by F. A. James III).

345 Morgan’s intervention is ignored by Chedsey: Hic Morganus instanter petiit iterum disputandi veniam; he proceeds directly to Tresham’s second round of argument. MSb includes an exchange between the legates and Martyr’s two adversaries (AL, 2:lxxxiv).

346 MSa inserts: Satis erit in quo patres e principiis istis quibus tu [initeris?] nunquam aliquod statuisset contra transubstantiationem … [AL, 2:lxxxv).

347 MSa has “Homil. 66” (AL, 2:lxxxv).

348 Acts 10:41.

349 MSa omits “ante passionem” (AL, 2:lxxxv).

350 Chrysostom, In Johannem, Hom. 87 (al. 86), 1 (PG 59.474).

351 MSa adds another exchange: martyr: Negamus patres habere aliquid quod veris principiis repugnandum neque probandum est ex patribus quod corpus Christi expers sit omnis crassitudinis. Morganus: Sed quis respondes Chrysostomo? (AL, 2:lxxxvi).

352 agile et leve: on the qualities of glorified bodies see “Resurrection” §§56 ff. (PW, 107 ff.).

353 Name omitted in original.

354 Tertullian, De carne Christi (PL 2.836); Cyprian, Comm. in Symbol. Apost., assigned to Rufinus, 9 (PL 21.349); Jerome Ad Eustochium ep. XXII, 39 (PL 22.423). See DIAL, 145 where Martyr cites Origen, Tertullian, Ambrose, and Jerome on the same point. Elsewhere Martyr has: “the explanation of the Creed which may be read in the books of Cyprian, even if the title is given elsewhere as the Explanation of Rufinus” (DIAL, 165).

355 Erasmus, Paraphrasis in omnes epistolas apostolicas, Luke 24:39: “When my will is I am seen, and when my will is I am invisible” (Basel, 1524; Durham, N.C.: Duke University Library, Scholars’ Facsimiles & Reprints, 1975), fol. cxciiB; GAN, 409: In Novum Testamentum Annotationes (Basel: Froben, 1540).

356 Augustine, Sermo CCVI (Ad competentes) (PL 38.1076 ff.).

357 Augustine, Sermo CCXLVII, 2 (PL 38.1157). MSa adds material from sermon 156 (AL, 2:lxxxvii).

358 MSa inserts: Respondeo ad me priorem distinctionem, et praesto in mea priori responsione. Fateor quantitate, ademptam, sed non dicens, sed eam quae ingressum impediret. Modus et pondus recedunt; fateor quantum impedire possint istum ingressum (AL, 2:lxxxviii).

359 CP has “quality.”

360 MSa includes an additional exchange: MARTYR: Subduxit fateor Christus de corpore suo omnis quantitatem quae eius ingressum per clausas ianuas impedibat. MORGANUS: Accipio quo dicis … (AL, 2:lxxxviii).

361 Acts 5:19; an angel opened the prison to release the apostles.

362 Luke 24:39.

363 Augustine, De agone christiano XXIV.26 (PL 40.304).

364 ad quantam vellet subtilitatem; for the quality of subtlety see “Resurrection” §59 (PW, 110–11).

365 MSa expands this reference to Augustine: Recipis Christum posse facere de corpore suo quod voluerit … Deinde subtilitatem corpus per agilitatem interpretans … (AL, 2:xc).

366 Ambrose, Exp. Ev. Sac. Luc X, 168–70 (PL 15.1845–46).

367 affectionem esse quanti, et supponere necessario modum quantitatis. See Aristotle, Top. I.9, 103b20ff.; Meta. V.21, 1022b15 ff.

368 MSa omits this speech (AL, 2:xci).

369 MSa: Hic visitatores silentium Morgano imposuerunt, et praecuperunt Doctore Treshamo et in disputatione sua pergrederetur. Sui disputationis Morgani cum Petro Martyre: Tria videbantur impedimenta transubstantionis et praesentiam corporis Christi in Eucharistia… (AL, 2:xci–xcii).

370 MSa: Insignissime domine Petre… (AL, 2:xcii).

371 Cf. Aristotle, De Anima II.1.412a7 ff.

372 See p. 164 n. 120 above.

373 Luke 2:10–12.

374 Heb. 1:1–2.

375 John 10:18.

376 Isa. 53:7.

377 MSa: Hic Morganus instanter petiit iterum disputandi vernam a Treshamo, quam obtulit non solum a Treshamo, venentiam a legatis Regiis modo et forma expositis in proxima pagina iam sequenti (AL, 2:xciv).

378 Paraphrase of Irenaeus, Contra Haer. V.3.2 (PG 7.1129 ff.).

379 Aristotle, An. Post. I.3, 72b25–26: “demonstration must be based on premisses prior to and better known than the conclusion.”

380 Paraphrase of Irenaeus, Contra Haer. V.2.2 (PG 7.1124–25).

381 For the Ad pop. Antioch. see TR, p. 26 n. 22 above. For In Joann. Hom. see Jenkyns’ “Authorities,” CRA IV.423f.

382 MSa: Visitatores Regii iam satis utrinque disputatum esse consuerunt. Et ideo hic finem imposuerunt disputationis huius diei. MSb: Finis tertiae actionis (AL, 2:xcvii).

383 Gregory Nazianzen, Oratio XXIX, Theol. III.1 (PG 36.73). The quotation is given in Greek as well as Latin.

384 Perhaps Athanasius, De decretis Nic. Syn. (PG 25.415).

385 I Cor. 2:14.

386 I Cor. 2:4–5.

387 Jerome, Ad Paulinum, Ep. 53.7 (PL 22.544).

388 testimonia; MSa: exempla (AL, 2:xcviii).

389 Augustine, De doctrina christiana III.10.15 (PL 34.71).

390 1 Cor. 14:13.

391 Deus qui corda fidelium: Missa de Sancto spiritu; see p. 174 n. 149 above.

392 Insertion in MSa: Praefatio Petri Martyris in suis responsionibus [followed by omission to 79a] (AL, 2:xcix).

393 MSb: sempiterne Deus (AL, 2:xcix).

394 Proposition 1: In sacramentum Eucharistiae, non est panis et vini transubstantiatio in corpus et sanguinem Christi. (There is discrepancy between the two MSS for the next few pages) (AL, 2:xcix–xcx).

395 Arguments supporting the two questions are numbered in the margins.

396 Gal. 3:27.

397 Rom. 6:3 ff.

398 See 1 Cor. 12:13.

399 Jerome, Ep. 120.2 (PL 22.986).

400 Augustine, De Baptismo XII.18 (PL 43.119).

401 1 Cor. 12:27.

402 Luke 24:39.

403 Nazianzen, Carmina I. Poemata Theol., 1: Dogmatica 20–23 (PG 37.487 ff.); Augustine: the De mirabilibus sacrae is spurious (PL 35.2149 ff.). Cf. TR, §60.

404 Cyprian, De Lapsis 25 (PL 4.485).

405 Aristotle, Meta. I.9.990b ff.

406 Reading 72 for 68; some pages within 70–75 and 93–96 are numbered incorrectly.

407 Reading the two final sentences as one. Non esse multiplicanda miracula absque necessitatem; cf. William of Occam’s “Razor”: Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate. Although this formulation is not found in Occam’s writings, it sums up his principle of sufficient reason; see P. Boehner, introduction to William of Ockam: Philosophical Writings (Indianapolis: Library of Liberal Arts, 1964), xx.

408 Proposition 2: Corpus et sanguinis Christi non est carnaliter aut corporaliter in pane et vino, nec ut alij dicunt, sub speciebus panis & vini.

409 Gratian, Dec. Sec., causa 1, Qu. 1, 94: quid vobis plus esse videtur, verbum Dei an corpus Christi? (PL 187.52).

410 Jerome, Comm. in Eccl. 9:7 (PL 23.1084): servemus mandata, et panem et vinum spiritualia invenire poterimus.

411 Origen, Comm. in Matt. X, 25 (PG 13.902–3); Chrysostom, In Joann. Hom. XXV, 2 (PG 59, 149); Basil, Epist. CL II, 141, 204.5 (PG 32.590, 751). Cf. TR, §23.

412 I John 1:7.

413 non ponere omnino abesse.

414 See introduction, “Response and Critique,” xxx above, for Bucer’s concern that Martyr was teaching a “real absence” theory.

415 Eph. 2:6; Rom. 8:24; Gal. 3:1.

416 Lombard, Sent. IV, dist. 1.2 (PL 192.839): invisibilis gratiae visibilis forma.

417 ineffabiliter; CP has: “the divine essence did visibly infuse iself.” The patristic arguments were introduced on the first day of the Disputation: see above 134.

418 Matt. 15:11.

419 See fols. 15v and 27v above.

420 MSa resumes its account (broken off at 70r) at this point (AL, 2:civ).

421 See II(C), fol. 28r above.

422 The passage under discussion is John 6:26–51.

423 MSa: confirmat Cyrillus in sexto Ioannis, conferens hanc promissionem … (AL, 2:cviii). See TR, p. 55 n. 138, on textual problems in Cyril.

424 MSb: in Ioanni a Cyrillo (AL, 2:cix).

425 I.e., John 13.

426 MSb omits the last sentence and the next two speeches (AL, 2:cix).

427 MSb omits the last sentence (AL, 2:cxi).

428 Reading visum for usum, following CP.

429 Ambrose, De Myst. IX.50–51 (PG 16.405–6).

430 1 Kings 18:38.

431 Ps. 148:5.

432 Ambrose, De Myst. IX.59 (PL 16.409–10).

433 John Fisher, De veritate cor. lib. V, cap. 21A; for Augustine see De doc. christiana, Prol. (PL 34.15–20). Cf. TR, §46, p. 81 n. 245, on the question.

434 Augustine, Retract. 4.4 (PL 32.632).

435 MSa: Satis est mihi a te probari Ambrosium, Neque ego Roffensem defendam; tamen a falsa citatione Augustini, possum eum liberare … (AL, 2:cxii).

436 Ambrose, De Sac. IV.4.15 (PL 16.440–41). Cf. TR, §§4, 26.

437 I.e. a maiori ad minorem, a valid form of argument.

438 Ambrose, De Myst. IX.53 (PL 16.407).

439 Ambrose, De Myst. IX.54 (PL 16.407).

440 transferuntur; MSb: transformatur (AL, 2:cxiii).

441 MSb includes another exchange between Chedsey and Martyr (AL, 2:cxiv).

442 MSb: naturam (AL, 2:cxiv).

443 Ambrose, De Sac. IV.4.15 (PL 16.440–41).

444 Ambrose, De Myst. IX.52 (PL 16.406).

445 Col. 2:8.

446 Ambrose, De Sac. IV.4.13 (PL 16.439).

447 Ps. 33:9.

448 MSSa,b add: sed post consecrationem (AL, 2:cxv).

449 Ambrose, De Sac. IV.4,19 (PL 16.442); also in Gratian (PL 187.1758).

450 Ambrose, De Sac. IV.4,19 (PL 16.442).

451 Ambrose, De Sac. IV.15–16 (PL 16.440–41).

452 a minore ad maiorem.

453 Ambrose, De Sac. IV.4, 20 (PL 16.443).

454 MSa has a longer speech, involving reference to Eusebius Emissenus, De Consecratione dist. 2 (AL, 2:cxvii–cxviii).

455 Ambrose, De Myst. IX.50 (PL 16.405).

456 MSa adds: An sit in Eucharistia verum et reale corpus Christi? (AL, 2:cxix).

457 Chrysostom, In Heb., Hom. 17.3 (PG 63.131).

458 Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermones in Cantica, XXXIII.4 (PL 183.952).

459 Gal. 3:1; John 1:56; Eph. 1:20.

460 exhiberi, a key term for Calvin and Bucer; see “Response and Critique” (introduction, p. xxx ff.), and VWG, app. C, 272 ff.

461 MSb: existentiam (AL, 2:cxx).

462 Chrysostom, In Joann., Hom. XLVI al XLV.3 (PL 59.261). Cf. n. 381 above.

463 These were the terms agreed on reluctantly by Martyr; see 4v above.

464 sacrae rei signum, aut visibile signum invisibilis gratia; see Augustine, De civ. Dei X.19 (PL 41.297); cf. Peter Lombard, Sent. IV, dist. 1, 2 (PL 192.839).

465 Augustine, De Trin. III.4.10 (PL 42.874); see TR p. 74 n. 225 above.

466 signavit; Chrysostom has sacravit.

467 Chrysostom, In Joann., Hom. XLVI al XLV, 3 (PG 59.261).

468 1 Cor. 10:3–4.

469 A reference to Martyr’s course of lectures on 1 Corinthians: see COR, fol. 238r (on 1 Cor. 10:2).

470 ex opere operato: “If anyone says that by the said sacrament of the New Law, grace is not confirmed by the act performed, but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace, let him be anathema.” Council of Trent (3 March 1547), sess. vii.c.8.

471 Matt. 26:26–27.

472 I.e. arguing from inconclusive premises. The record of MSb concludes here (AL, 2:cxxv).

473 ”Not even Hercules could contend against two,” Greek proverb, quoted e.g. by Aulus Gellius (ca. 125–75 c.e.).

474 See introduction, n. 34.

475 oppositionibus: CP has “propositions.”

476 Matt. 24:35.

477 John 8:44: “the devil … the father of lies.”

478 Rom. 15:1–2.

479 Phil. 2:1–2.

480 in specu Trophonij: a Boeotian oracular god; after receiving an oracle the inquirer was snatched away underground.

481 Matt. 5:16.