The Peter Martyr Library

Volume Seven
The
Oxford Treatise and
Disputation on the
Eucharist, 1549
 Editors of the Peter Martyr Library, Series One

General Editors
John Patrick Donnelly, S. J., Frank A. James III, Joseph C. McLelland

Editorial Committee
W. J. Torrance Kirby, Paula Presley, Robert V. Schnucker

Editorial Board

Irena Backus Alister E. McGrath

Institut d’histoire de la Réformation Wycliffe Hall
Université de Genève Oxford University

Peter S. Bietenholz John McIntyre

University of Saskatchewan University of Edinburgh

Fritz Büsser H. Wayne Pipkin

Institut für Schweizer Associated Mennonite Biblical
Reformationsgeschichte, Zurich Seminaries, Elkhart, Indiana

Richard C. Gamble Jill Raitt

Reformed Theological Seminary University of Missouri, Columbia

Robert M. Kingdon Donna R. Runnalls

Institute for Research in the Humanities McGill University, Montreal
University of Wisconsin-Madison

William Klempa Pamela D. Stewart

The Presbyterian College, Montreal McGill University, Montreal

John H. Leith John Tedeschi

Union Theological Seminary of Virginia University of Wisconsin-Madison

Michael Percival-Maxwell Thomas F. Torrance

McGill University, Montreal University of Edinburgh

Cesare Vasoli
Università di Firenze
 The original edition of this book was brought to
publication with the generous support of
The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

Hardcover originally published in 2000

by The Truman State University Press, Kirksville, Misssouri, U.S.A.
The Peter Martyr Library, Series One, vol. 7
Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies, vol. 55

Copyright transferred to The Davenant Institute, 2018

Paperback edition published 2018

Moscow, ID
The Davenant Press
All rights reserved.

ISBN-13: 978-1-949716-96-2

Cover design by Rachel Rosales, Orange Peal Design

 In memory of
Marvin W. Anderson
12 January 1933 — 26 June 1999
 Contents

Abbreviations Used in This Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

General Editors’ Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xiii
Translator’s Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
Translator’s Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii

PART ONE ! TREATISE ON THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST

Peter Martyr’s Prefaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Treatise on the Sacrament of the Eucharist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Transubstantiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Arguments for Transubstantiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Arguments against Transubstantiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Patristic Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Refutation of Arguments for Transubstantiation . . . . . . . . . . 62
Rules for Patristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Analysis of the Patristic Evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Alternatives to Transubstantiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
The Lutheran Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
The Zwinglian Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121

PART TWO ! A DISPUTATION ON THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST

Letter from the Royal Legates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Questions Proposed For Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

First Day
(A) Chancellor Cox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
(B) Peter Martyr’s Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
viii Contents

(C) Prayer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

(D) William Tresham’s Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
(E) The Disputation Begins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
(F) Second Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

Second Day
(A) Dr. Peter Martyr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
(B) Preface of William Chedsey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
(C) Peter Martyr vs. William Chedsey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
(D) Second Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .195
(E) Nicholas Cartwright vs. William Chedsey . . . . . . . . . . . 201
(F) Peter Martyr vs. William Chedsey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

Third Day
(A) Peter Martyr vs. Philip Morgan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
(B) Peter Martyr vs. Tresham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
(C) Peter Martyr vs. Philip Morgan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
(D) Peter Martyr vs. William Tresham. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .242

Fourth Day
(A) Preface of William Chedsey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
(B) Preface and Prayer of Peter Martyr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
(C) Peter Martyr vs. William Chedsey: Confirmation
of the First Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
(D) Confirmation of the Second Question. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
(E) Second Question Resumed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
(F) Summation by Chancellor Cox. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
 Contents ix

About the Translator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293

Scripture References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
Index of Names, Including Classical and Patristic References. . . . . . 297
General Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
 Abbreviations Used in This Volume

Latin Works of Peter Martyr Vermigli

COR In Selectissimam D. Pauli Priorem ad Corinth. epistolam Commentarii.
Zurich: C. Froschauer, 1551.
DEF Defensio Doctrinae veteris & Apostolicae de ss Euch. … adv. Stephani Gardi-
neri. Zurich: C. Froschauer, 1559.
DIA Dialogus de utraque in Christo Natura. Zurich: C. Froschauer, 1561.
ERR Errata, TRD (q.v.) 1549 preface.
ETH In primum, secundum, et initium tertii libri Ethicorum Aristotelis ad Nico-
machum … Commentarius doctissimus. Zurich: C. Froschauer, 1563.
GEN In Primum Librum Mosis Qui Vulgo Genesis Dicitur Commentarii. Zurich:
C. Froschauer, 1569.
IUD In Librum Iudicum … Commentarij doctissimi. Zurich: C. Froschauer,
1561.
LAM In Lamentationes Sanctissimi Ieremiae Prophetae Commentarium. Zurich:
Jacob Bodmer, 1629.
LC Loci Communes … quatuor classes distributi. London: R. Masson, 1576;
Basle: P. Perna, 1580–82 (3 vols.).
PR Preces Sacrae ex Psalmis Davidis desumptae.… Zurich: C. Froschauer,
1564.
REG Melachim Id Est, Regum Libri Duo Posteriores cum Commentariis. Zurich:
C. Froschauer, 1566.
ROM In Epistolam S. Pauli Apostoli ad Romanos commentarij doctissimi. Basel:
P. Perna, 1558.
SAM In Duos Libros Samuelis Prophetae … Commentarii. Zurich: C.
Froschauer, 1564.
TRD Tractatio de sacramento eucharistiae, habita in universitate Oxoniensi. Ad
hec. Disputatio habita MD XLIX. London [R. Wolfe], 1549.
VOT Defensio … vs Riccardi Smythaei … duos libellos de Coelibatu sacerdotum &
Votis monasticis. Basel: P. Perna, 1559.

English Translations
CP Common Places of Peter Martyr Vermigli. “Translated and partly gath-
ered” by A. Marten. London, 1583.
 Abbreviations xi

DIAL Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ. Trans. and ed. J. P. Donnelly, S.J.
PML 2. Kirksville, Mo.: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers [Tru-
man State University Press], 1995.
DIS Disputation on the Sacrament of the Eucharist, Oxford 1549, in PML 7.
Trans. and ed. J. C. McLelland. This volume.
DM The Life, Early Letters and Eucharistic Writings of Peter Martyr. Trans. G.
E. Duffield and J. C. McLelland. Oxford: Sutton Courtenay Press,
1989.
EW Early Writings: Creed, Scripture, Church. Trans. Mario Di Gangi and J. C.
McLelland. Ed. J. C. McLelland. PML 1. Kirksville, Mo.: Sixteenth
Century Journal Publishers [Truman State University Press], 1994.
LLS Life, Letters and Sermons. Trans. J.P. Donnelly. PML 5. Kirksville, Mo.:
Thomas Jefferson University Press [Truman State University Press],
1998.
PPS Prayers from the Psalms, trans. and ed. by J. P. Donnelly, S.J. PML 3.
Kirksville, Mo.: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers [Truman State
University Press], 1996.
RDR The Peter Martyr Reader. Ed. J.P. Donnelly, F. A. James, J. C. McLelland.
Kirksville, Mo.: Truman State University Press, 1999.
TR Treatise on the Sacrament of the Eucharist, Oxford 1549, in PML 7. Trans.
and ed. J. C. McLelland. This volume.

Secondary Sources
AL Andreas Löwe, “Peter Martyr Vermigli, Disputatio de Euch. Sacramento.” 2
vols. M. Phil. thesis in Ecclesiastical History. Oxford University, 1997.
Unpublished.
BIB A Bibliography of the Writings of Peter Martyr Vermigli. J. P. Donnelly
and Robert M. Kingdon, with M. W. Anderson. Kirksville, Mo.: Six-
teenth Century Journal Publishers [Truman State University Press],
1990.
CR Corpus Reformatorum. Ed. K. G. Bretschneider and H. E. Bindseil. Halle,
1834– .
CRA The Remains of Thomas Cranmer. 4 vols. Ed. H. Jenkyns. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1833.
CS Calvinism and Scholasticism in Vermigli’s Doctrine of Man and Grace. J. P.
Donnelly, S.J. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976.
GAN La Bibliothèque de l’Académie de Calvin. A. Ganoczy. Geneva: Librairie
Droz, 1969. “La Bibliothèque de Pierre Martyr,” 19–27.
INST Institutes of the Christian Religion. John Calvin. Ed. J. T. McNeill and
F. L. Battles. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.
MAN Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio. 60 vols. J. D. Mansi.
Graz, Akademie Druk 1960–61.
xii Abbreviations

OER The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation. 4 vols. Ed. Hans Hiller-
brand. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
OL Original Letters Relative to the English Reformation. 2 vols. Trans. and ed.
H. Robinson. Cambridge University Press: Parker Society, 1846–47.
PG Patrologiae cursus completus: Series Graeca. 161 vols. Ed. J. P. Migne.
Paris, 1857–96. Indices 1912.
PL Patrologiae cursus completus: Series Latina. 221 vols. Ed. J. P. Migne,
Paris, 1844–64. Supplements 1–5. Paris, 1958–74.
PMIR Peter Martyr Vermigli and Italian Reform. Ed. J. C. McLelland. Waterloo,
Ont.: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1980.
PML The Peter Martyr Library. Ed. J. P. Donnelly, S.J., F. A. James III, and J. C.
McLelland. Kirksville, Mo.: Truman State University Press, 1994– .
PMRE Peter Martyr: A Reformer in Exile (1542–1562): A Chronology of Biblical
Writings in England and Europe. M. W. Anderson. Nieuwkoop: B. De
Graaf, 1975.
RCF The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West from the Carolingians to
the Maurists. 2 vols. Ed. I. Backus. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997.
VS Veritas Sacramenti: A Study in Vermigli’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. S.
Corda. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag Zurich, 1975.
VWG The Visible Words of God: An Exposition of the Sacramental Theology of
Peter Martyr Vermigli. J. C. McLelland. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd,
1957; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1965
 General Editors’ Preface

THIS VOLUME OF THE PETER MARTYR LIBRARY represents Vermigli’s first

public theological debate as a Protestant theologian and the first in our
series devoted exclusively to his Eucharistic theology—one of the major
doctrinal preoccupations of his career. It was during his tenure as Regius
Professor of Divinity at Oxford (1548–53) that Peter Martyr’s theological
reputation was made, and it was a reputation first established at the
famous Eucharistic debate of May 1549 when he single-handedly
defended the Protestant understanding of the Lord’s Supper against
three Catholic opponents. This virtuoso performance was a tour de force
and propelled him into the position of a leading apologist for the
Reformed understanding of the Eucharist. It is principally for this reason
that S. L. Greenslade concluded that of the early holders of the Regius
chair in theology, “Peter Martyr was unquestionably the most learned.”
Vermigli came to England at a time which some scholars have
described as the “mid-Tudor crisis”—that is, a period of economic
inflation, trade deficits, poor harvests, and an expensive war with Scot-
land, all of which were juxtaposed with intensive religious and politi-
cal upheaval. With Henry’s death in 1547 the future of England was
somewhat uncertain. Archbishop Cranmer seized the opportunity,
and with the support of Edward Seymour, duke of Somerset, set out to
reform the Church of England despite devout opposition and eco-
nomic turmoil. Vermigli, as it turned out, was one of Cranmer’s secret
weapons. As Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, Vermigli occupied
a strategic position not merely in the academic realm, but in the
church as well. It would be his responsibility to persuade and train an
army of Protestant clergy who would go into the parishes and teach the
people in the pews. To that end, Vermigli decided to begin his lectures in
March 1548 with a careful study of Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians.
In his dedication to King Edward VI, Vermigli explains why he chose this
epistle of Paul: “Nowhere else are such varied and many subjects treated,
that relate to the controversies of our times.” The lectures included the
Pauline teaching on the Lord’s Supper and so provided a flash point for
a controversy that would dominate English religion for decades. In
bringing a new translation of Vermigli’s Oxford Disputation and Trea-
tise, we are presenting one of the early benchmarks in the history of the
English church.

xiii
xiv Oxford Treatise & Disputation

Not only was the Eucharist a preoccupation of Vermigli, it has

become something of a preoccupation for Joseph McLelland. Ever
since his years as a doctoral student at the University of Edinburgh
under the tutelage of T. F. Torrance, McLelland has become the preemi-
nent interpreter of Vermigli’s Eucharistic theology. The Peter Martyr
Library is pleased to make available this new translation of one of the
early pivotal events of the English reformation.
John Patrick Donnelly, S.J.
Frank A. James III
 Translator’s Preface

T HE TWIN TEXTS presented here are part of the turbulent period in

England during the times of Edward VI and Archbishop Thomas Cran-
mer. In 1549 the Book of Common Prayer was published and debate on
the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist was at its height. That same
year Peter Martyr was Regius Professor of Divinity in Oxford. Martyr’s
lectures on 1 Corinthians caused not only resentment but a near riot,
precipitating a public debate in May 1549.
Along with the Disputation on the Eucharist, his account of the
public debate, Martyr published the Treatise on the Sacrament of the
Eucharist that provides systematic treatment of the arguments, biblical
and patristic in source, with transubstantiation the target. The work is
probably a special lecture series following the exegesis of the Corin-
thian letter. It is among the most polemical of Martyr’s works, largely
negative and often repetitive. Yet taken with the Disputation there is
offered a wealth of information about the state of the realm, the choice
of patristic authorities, the nature of Martyr’s objections to the tradi-
tional doctrine, and his proposed alternative.
This is the third time I have worked with this material. The first
was almost fifty years ago while pursuing doctoral research in Edin-
burgh; it was crucial in understanding Martyr’s sacramental theology.
Thirty years later I provided a translation, with introduction, of the
Treatise for the Sutton Courtenay Library of Reformation Classics. Now
I offer a fresh translation of both texts, along with full annotations.
Along the way I have been helped by many, particularly my edito-
rial partner John Patrick Donnelly, who once again served as reader to
make my translation more authentic and readable. Gerald Bray, Frank
James, and Diarmaid MacCulloch read the introduction. A special
word of acknowledgment is in order for the contribution of the late
Marvin Anderson. Since Martyr’s English period was his specialty,
Marvin was most helpful on several points; it is therefore appropriate
that this volume is dedicated to him. Mr. Löwe kindly supplied copies
of his master’s thesis on the Disputation as well as papers on Martyr and
Richard Smyth. None of these scholars is responsible for any errors in
the book, or opinions that are mine alone.
Joseph C. McLelland

xv
xvi Oxford Treatise & Disputation
 Oxford Treatise and Disputation on the Eucharist, 1549
by Peter Martyr Vermigli

Translator’s Introduction
PROGRESS OF THE ENGLISH REFORMATION
Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499–1562) had attained high rank in the
Augustinian Order before leaving his native Italy in 1542 one step
ahead of the Inquisition. For the next twenty years he occupied teach-
ing positions in three centers of Reform: Strasbourg on two occasions,
Oxford in between, and Zurich at the end. By 1547 Strasbourg was
becoming hostile towards his theology and polity, and he gladly
accepted the invitation of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, with the con-
sent of the young King Edward VI and Somerset, Lord Protector. Ber-
nardino Ochino, who had escaped Italy with Martyr five years before,
again joined Martyr in going to a new land.1 Cranmer invited several
“foreign divines” to join in his grand plan for the reform of the Ecclesia
Anglicana. They were also to combat the conservative scholarship still
flourishing in English universities.2
If it seems surprising that Cranmer should have invited someone
only five years within the Reformed camp, we should remember that
even by 1547 Martyr had gained the respect of Bucer, Calvin, and Bul-
linger, while the situation in Strasbourg was becoming difficult
through Lutheran party politics: Bucer himself would choose to join
Martyr in England the following year.

1 The first biography was Josiah Simler’s funeral oration of 12 November 1562,

expanded and published three months later. J. P. Donnelly has a modern translation in
LLS 9–62. See also P. McNair’s biographical introduction to PML, vol. 1 (EW, 3–14). Ber-
nardino Ochino (1534–64) became a pilgrim and refugee after Mary’s accession, was per-
secuted for his antitrinitarianism, and died in Moravia, in exile and poverty. See VWG,
15ff.
2See C. Schmidt, Peter Martyr Vermigli, Leben und ausgewählte Schriften (Elberfeld:

Friderichs, 1858), 75: “noch das Unwesen mittelalterlicher Scholastik und Barbarei.”

xvii
xviii Oxford Treatise & Disputation

It was this plan and invitation that brought Martyr and Ochino to
England on 20 December 1547. Ochino was appointed canon of Can-
terbury, while Martyr stayed at Lambeth until taking up his appoint-
ment as Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford. Martyr’s name appears
in the battels book of Christ Church for January 1548, and in February
he was incorporated Doctor of Divinity (his first appointment had
been Padua 1526). 3 He lived in Christ Church and lectured in the
Divinity School. He replaced Richard Smith, the first incumbent of the
Regius Chair and Martyr’s first English adversary, who precipitated the
Oxford Disputation.4 Martyr had with him a letter to Cranmer from
Bucer which expounded the Strasbourg teaching on the Eucharist.
Bucer acknowledges that the elements do not change in nature but
become signs, while Christ does not descend from heaven to be joined
with the symbols. Christ “remains in the heavens until he will show
himself openly to all as judge”; only the faithful receive Christ. A cru-
cial point concerns whether Christ’s “local” presence in heaven pre-
cludes presence elsewhere; Bucer remains cautious here, although
Cranmer “was soon to move beyond.”5
During 1548 the eucharistic debate had engaged Parliament. It
was most intense in the House of Lords, which rejected Cranmer’s draft
Service of Communion. But Somerset and the king’s council assured
speedy passage in the Commons, and the Uniformity Bill was passed
by both houses in January 1549. Royal assent was granted in March,
allowing Cranmer’s Prayer Book to come into general use on Whitsun-

3Andreas Löwe discovered this entry, correcting Philip McNair’s estimate of “late
February”; see AL, 1:xxx. (See also n. 15 below.) The definitive treatment of this period is
Philip M. J. McNair, “Peter Martyr in England,” PMIR, 85–105. McNair’s research for a
volume of that title, to complement his Peter Martyr in Italy, has now been turned over to
Frank A. James for completion. For Martyr’s Paduan D.D., see Philip M. J. McNair, Peter
Martyr in Italy, Anatomy of Apostasy (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), 116 ff.
4Richard Smith (Smyth) was the subject of strong negative opinion, summed up

by Diarmaid MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996),
489: “Smith was a curious combination of great talent, time-serving, deep conservative
convictions and large sexual appetites.” Cf. John Strype, Ecclesiastical Memorials (Lon-
don, 1816), 2:62–71. Andreas Löwe, “Richard Smyth: Stations in a Life of Opposition”
(unpublished paper), observes, however, that “Smyth was a popular target” for such alle-
gations, which appear to reflect evangelical polemics rather than historical fact. Smith
took up a professorship at the University of Louvain, and in 1551 was incorporated at St.
Andrews where he lectured in theology at St. Mary’s College. (Löwe uses Smyth’s own
spelling of his name).
5Dated 28 November 1547; see MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer, 381–82.
 Translator’s Introduction xix

day, 9 June.6 Martyr commented on the situation to Bucer: “Transub-

stantiation, I think, is now exploded, and difficulty respecting the
presence is at this time the most prominent point of dispute.”7
Related to these events are a brief tract by Martyr on “The Sacra-
ment of Thanksgiving” prepared for Lord Somerset’s use in 1548, and
the two longer texts from 1549 translated here. The situation in Oxford
was complex. That indefatigable student John ab Ulmis reflects the
“Swiss party” view promulgated by Bullinger’s disciples. His letters
report most diligently the affairs of Oxford and London, and the state
of his own efforts to attract patrons.8 We learn that by Ascension Day
1548, Peter Martyr
has also maintained in like manner [i.e. from orthodox
Fathers and Scripture] the cause of the Eucharist and holy
Supper of the Lord, namely, that it is a remembrance of
Christ and a solemn setting forth of his death, and not a sac-
rifice. Meanwhile, however, he speaks with caution and pru-
dence (if indeed it can be called such) with respect to the real
presence, so as not to seem to incline either to your opinion,
or to that of Luther.9

The new regius professor chose to begin his tenure with First
Corinthians. Philip McNair calls this “a cool and courageous thing to
do,” because of the “flash points” of disputed doctrine ignited by Paul’s
letter.10 This was in March 1548, presumably on Lady Day as the new
term began. We know that he began Romans in March 1550.11 What
was he lecturing on in his second year, particularly the spring of 1549,
when the eucharistic debate was precipitated? One possibility is that

6G. J. Cuming, A History of Anglican Liturgy (London: Macmillan, 1969), 66. Arch-

bishop Cranmer’s committee had been established on 9 September 1548. See MacCul-
loch, Thomas Cranmer 395ff. for the progress of Cranmer’s liturgical reform.
726 December 1548: OL, 2:225, 470.
8 OL, 2:84–219, 377–460. See also C. H. Smyth, Cranmer and the Reformation

Under Edward VI (London: SPCK, 1973), 133–38, “Swiss Students at Oxford.”

9OL, 2:184, 378.
10McNair, “Peter Martyr in England,” 99. See COR, dedicatory preface to Edward

VI, fol. a4r: “The main reason for my purpose was that nowhere else are such various and
numerous subjects treated, that bear on the controversies of our time. In truth, if the
teaching of this letter were used with skill and prudence, we could easily heal completely
all the faults by which the soundness of the church is corrupted.” Martyr had
expounded the same letter while in Naples, 1537–40.
11John ab Ulmis to Henry Bullinger, 25 March 1550; OL, 2:192, 401.
xx Oxford Treatise & Disputation

he took two years to cover the Corinthian letter. Martyr’s own account
of the events leading to the Disputation states: “in explaining chapter
X of the same letter.”12 This seems to mean his lectures on the book, as
Philip McNair thinks, citing Richard Smith’s explicit dating: “nunc,
hoc est Anno D 1549 mense Martio Oxoniae in Anglis enarrat episto-
lam ad Corinthis priorem.”13 On the other hand, it could refer to the
Treatise, given as a separate lecture series after completing the Corin-
thian exposition. Both R. Masson and A. Marten, the editors of Mar-
tyr’s commonplaces, identify the Treatise as “given publicly when he
had completed the interpretation of the xi. chapter.”14 John Strype
accepted this at face value: “These lectures he printed soon after in
London.”15 The inclusion of a special set of lectures would explain the
apparent undue length of the Corinthians series, although Martyr’s
own witness remains ambiguous.

“THAT GREAT RABBIN PETER MARTYR HIM SELFE”

Peter Martyr’s first year apparently repeated the pattern he had
established at his academy in Lucca eight years before: he instructed
disciples in private, but in public spoke about the real presence “with
caution and prudence.”16 This gave the impression that at Oxford he
was in the beginning, in Rastell’s words, “a Lutheran only, but perceiv-
ing afterwards, the Superiour powers to fansie an other way, he fol-
lowed also them with all the wit he had, and became an open

12Prefatory letter to his Defensio against Smith (VOT); see n. 20 below. The com-
mentary was published in the first quarter of 1551, within two years of the Disputation.
Its exegesis of 1 Cor. 10:16 is more than ten pages (fols. 255v–261r), covering ground sim-
ilar to both, arguing against transubstantiation on grounds grammatical and historical,
with the familiar quotations from Tertullian, Augustine, Chrysostom, Ambrose, etc.
13McNair, “Peter Martyr in England,” 103. Smith’s words are a marginal note in his

Defensio against Martyr, 82A.

14Tractatio … cum jam absolvit interpretationem xi capitis prioris Epistolae ad Corin-

thios (LC/CP, 4:10).

15J. Strype, Cranmer (London, 1649), 279; Löwe, AL, 1:lxxvii, agrees: “About the

time of the formal authorization of the Uniformity Bill, Vermigli began another series of
lectures on the Eucharist, which also stemmed from his first Oxford exposition of the
letter to the Corinthians. In this lecture series, later published as Tractatio de Sacramento
Eucharistiae, the reformer set out his sacramental theology in greater detail.” See also
MacCulloch, address at the Peter Martyr Vermigli Symposium (Zurich, 1999): “A version
of his Oxford lectures on the Eucharist was warmly dedicated to the archbishop.”
16See McNair, “Peter Martyr in England,” 101: “Ever since his time in Naples, he

seems to have been operating on two fronts, one public and the other private”; cf. John
Strype’s similar judgment in Ecc. Mem., 2:336.
 Translator’s Introduction xxi

Zwinglian.” As Richard Smith nicely phrased it, he “sange an other

songe.” Thomas Harding would later taunt John Jewel with the incon-
stancy of his heroes, including “that great Rabbin Peter Martyr him
selfe.”17 Marvin Anderson adds material from the “recusant rhetoric”
of the Jesuit Robert Parsons, in 1604: “At his first coming into England,
the good cheere of Oxford, togeather with the company of his women,
and other libertyes and dissolutions of that tyme, made him iump of
the English states Religion.”18 Such portrait hardly befits the retiring
foreigner who was married, spoke no English, and was so studious in
nature!
Martyr’s caution was in part a strategy for the times and in part
the result of his own diffident nature. But when he expounded 1 Cor.
10:16 he openly declared his eucharistic doctrine. John ab Ulmis pin-
points the exact time, writing on 2 march 1549 to Bullinger:
Peter Martyr has openly declared to us all, on this very day
on which I write this letter, what was his opinion upon this
subject; and he seemed to all of us not to depart even a nail’s
breadth from that entertained by yourself. Nay more, he has
defended that most worthy man, Zwingle, by the testimony
of your opinion, and taken part with him against his adver-
saries, who falsely object to him that he makes the sacra-
ment a mere sign.19

A decade later, Martyr himself recalls the day in a letter of August

1559 to Richard Cox: Smith was “present in the Schools, indeed con-
stantly.” He took notes of Martyr’s lectures, taking exception “when in
explaining Chapter X of the same Letter I taught concerning the mys-
tery of the Eucharist those things which I believed to be the more true
and sincere.” Soon after, Smith staged a confrontation: “On a day
when I was not suspecting it, a certain man in the lecture room itself
urged with a very great disturbance of his making, that at the hour
when I was daily accustomed to engage in my teaching function, I
should go down unexpectedly and suddenly with an arranged escort to

17McNair, “Peter Martyr in England,” 103, quoting Rastell, Smith, and Harding.
For modern estimates of Martyr see S. Corda, VS, 179ff.
18Marvin W. Anderson, “Rhetoric and Reality: Peter Martyr and the English Refor-

mation,” Sixteenth Century Journal 19 (1988): 451–69; here 451.

19OL, 2:388.
xxii Oxford Treatise & Disputation

a sacred Disputation.”20
Martyr’s written commentary on 1 Corinthians, published
within two years of the Disputation, does not mention the event, even
in its preface to Edward VI. The relevant passage, 1 Cor. 10:16, reflect-
ing the eucharistic flashpoint, is quite subdued when compared with
the Treatise and Disputation, and lacks the scholium one would have
expected for such a crucial issue. Martyr’s commentary on the verse
first notes the context, namely Paul’s warning against idolatry, and
proceeds to contrast false mysteries such as the Eleusinian with the
true sacraments instituted by Christ. In the latter, symbols are trans-
formed by Christ’s word and institution into “signs and mysteries of
our salvation.” Martyr compares the ratio of sacrifice, human offerings
to God, with that of sacrament, thanksgiving for the divine offering.
Citing patristic evidence, he takes the hypostatic union of two natures
in Christ as archetypal for the two natures in the sacramental elements.
Thus “the visible word” becomes “a potent and efficacious sign.”21

THE RELATION BETWEEN DISPUTATION AND TREATISE

Whatever its original provenance, the Tractatio clearly belongs
with the Disputation as its formal explication. Whether or not a sepa-
rate lecture series, its notes were in hand before the formal debate, so
that Martyr prepared his material on the three propositions with these
before him. An important source is the brief tract prepared (1 Decem-
ber 1548) for Somerset’s use in the debate on the Act of Uniformity (15–
18 December): Of the Sacrament of Thanksgiving: A Short Treatise of Peter
Martyr’s Making.22 Its unknown translator provided a summary: (1)

20Letter to Cox prefacing VOT; see McNair, “Peter Martyr in England,” 104. M.

Young, The Life and Times of Aonio Paleario (London, 1860), 1:428; R. W. Dixon, History of
the Church of England (London, 1902), 3:113, thought that the Disputation followed the
interpretation of 1 Cor. 11.
21COR, fols. 255v ff.
22Copies in the British Library (B. Mus. Royal. MS 17 C.V., fols. 2–69), and Cam-

bridge University Library (MS Ff V 14, fols. 13–39 v); Latin original unknown. See F. A.
Gasquet and E. Bishop, Edward VI and the Book of Common Prayer (London, 1891), 158ff.,
and DM, 142–43. A copy of this manuscript was loaned to me by David G. Selwyn some
years ago. See David G. Selwyn, “A New Version of a Mid-Sixteenth Century Vernacular
Tract on the Eucharist: A Document of the Early Edwardian Reformation?” Journal of
Ecclesiastical History 39 (1988): 217–29. “It would appear more than probable that this
manuscript was actually designed for Somerset’s help and guidance in the management
of the [eucharistic] business” (Gasquet and Bishop, Edward VI, 315). MacCulloch, 1999
symposium address, notes: “Strikingly, in the debate which followed Cranmer did not
XXX
 Translator’s Introduction xxiii

“Christ is in the Holy Supper to them that do come to his table, and he
doth verily feed the faithful with his body and blood”; (2) there is no
transubstantiation; (3) there is no intermixture of the natures or sub-
stances of bread and wine with body and blood; but (4) the two are so
united that as often as one is faithfully received so is the other; (5) “The
presence of Christ … doth belong more nighly and properly to the
receivers than to the tokens,” that is, “those receivers that do rightly
and faithfully come to the communion”; (6) “The presence of Christ …
is not at any time, but in the use of the supper”; (7) only the good
receive the body and blood, while the wicked “receive nothing but the
tokens of bread and wine”; (8) in receiving the sacraments the faithful
should worship “in their mind Christ himself and not the tokens”; (9)
“the residue of this sacrament, after the communion is done, ought
not to be kept as we see it used now in popish churches.”
Was this tract intended as a scholium for the written commen-
tary?23 If so, it expanded into a full-blown treatise, a solid scholarly
companion to his account of the Disputation. Its biblical and patristic
citations, even the choice of words, are the same throughout. We have
put the Treatise first, as Peter Martyr intended in his dedication, “in the
Disputation, and in the Treatise prefixed to it,” and as it is in most edi-
tions.

PETER MARTYR’S EUCHARISTIC THEOLOGY

The Oxford Treatise, which Salvatore Corda regards as “the mani-
festo of Vermigli’s eucharistic doctrine,” represents a theologian
caught in high controversy, quite opposed to the concept of transub-
stantiation, but trying to do justice to two sides of the Reformed posi-
tion. As explained below, the Disputation debated only the two
negative propositions, setting aside the third, which would have
expounded Martyr’s emphasis on a “sacramental” relation of signifier
and signified: tertium modum constituo, nimirum per sacramentalem signi-
ficationem.24 The Treatise, however, is able to develop this positive pole.
23

differ from the line taken in this tract.” Cf. AL 1.xxviii–iv; also VS, 65–66, and PMRE, 95–
96.
23A lengthy exposition of 1 Cor. 10:17 (COR, fols. 263r–271v), included without a

break in the text, was extracted by Masson for his LC and given the title An in Commu-
nione liceat Una Tantum Species Uti (LC/CP, 4:11), but it is not a condensed treatise.
24Martyr’s preface to the Disputation, fol. 4v.
xxiv Oxford Treatise & Disputation

Despite its similar concentration on arguments for and against tran-

substantiation, it manages to develop Martyr’s favorite ideas of the
Christological analogy: just as two natures exist in one person, so two
“substances” exist in the Eucharist.25 He distinguishes this from “con-
substantiation” by resisting analogies from coinherence: not a second
hypostatic union, but a derivative and dynamic union through the
Holy Spirit.
Martyr draws on scriptural and patristic passages familiar since
the famous tenth-century debate between the monks of Corbie.26
There are preferred texts such as John 6 and I Corinthians 10 and 11, as
well as Cyprian, Augustine, Chrysostom, and other fathers, some col-
lected in Gratian’s decree de Consecratio. 27 Indeed, this arsenal of
patristic texts is wearing; in Martyr’s own “Dialogue on the Two
Natures in Christ” he is open enough to have his opponent, Pantachus,
remark: “I’ve had my fill of patristic quotations.”28 Already in the dedi-
catory letter to Cranmer the theme of duplex manducatio is explicit, and
a “median position” invoked against “the hyperboles of the fathers and
the contempt of Anabaptists.” The “head and sum of all contention”
consists in thinking that Christ’s body is enclosed in the elements or
sub species. Finally, there is no sacrament without use: in using it “we
grasp Christ’s body and blood by faith alone.”
The three Propositions of the Disputation form the agenda of the
Treatise (§1). After defining transubstantiation, Martyr states argu-
ments for (§§3–5) and against (§§6–22), turning to patristic evidence
(§§23–31) and so to refutation (§§32–42). An excursus on “Rules for
Patristics” (§§43–44) introduces an analysis of the patristic evidence
(§§45–64); this lengthy section illustrates the question of authority at

25In fact Martyr had introduced the idea early in the Disputation: “I insist on the

comparison [collationem] between Christ himself and the Eucharist, for the sacrament
must correspond with him … the substance of bread does not go away because of the cor-
relation [convenientiam] the sacrament has with Christ, in whom both humanity and
divinity remain whole” (DIS 9r–10r). Löwe, AL, 1:lvi ff., holds that Martyr’s conclusiones
presented on the fourth day constitute a summary of his constructive theology.
26See xxxii, n. 58 below.
27 See “Text and Translation” p. xl below, and Jenkyn’s “Authorities,” CRA,

4:436 ff. Irena Backus, RCF, xiii, observes: “Throughout the Middle Ages the Fathers were
auctoritates on which the Church founded its doctrine or its law regardless of the time in
which they wrote. This ahistorical method partly explains the other title of Decree of Gra-
tian, Concordia discordantium canonum (harmony of conflicting canons or norms)”; see D.
Rutherford’s chapter on the Decretum, 513 ff.
28DIAL, 125.
 Translator’s Introduction xxv

the heart of the Disputation also. He now turns to the final section,
“Alternatives to Transubstantiation” (§§66–82). Here he examines
Lutheran and Zwinglian teaching, warning that he understands “that
Luther regards this matter not so crassly, while Zwingli thought not so
lightly of the sacraments” (§65). Seeking a golden mean between the
two, in his Conclusion (§§78–82) he rejects the Lutheran manducatio
impiorum as well as the Zwinglian failure to stress the sacramental
mutation. He thinks the Zwinglians underestimate the power ascribed
to sacraments; he spends much more time on this error than that of
Lutherans. Thus he answers the critique of Bucer, showing his differ-
ence from the “Swiss party” on his left. The positive finale to the Trea-
tise offers a balanced view over that of the polemical stance of the
Disputation, serving as exegetical key to a proper reading of the debate.
Interpretations of Martyr’s eucharistic teaching have varied from
regarding him as Lutheran, Bucerian, or Zwinglian, and positing a dra-
matic shift while in England, chiefly for political reasons.29 We hope to
show that he was closest to both Cranmer and Bullinger, the Zurich
antistes who made common ground with Calvin in the 1549 Consensus
Tigurinus. When Martyr finally returned to Zurich in 1556, renewing
friendships begun with his initial brief stopover in 1542 on leaving
Italy, his inaugural address referred to the “labors and dangers”
encountered in England “in defending the orthodox teaching on the
Eucharist which you men of Zurich too have steadfastly defended as its
first and somehow its unique patrons.”30 His final years spent in Zurich
witness to this unity of heart and doctrine.

THE ACADEMIC DEBATE

The debate must have presented quite a scene.31 After the fateful
lecture, Richard Smith led the clamor for public debate; notices adver-
tising a debate were posted in the Oxford churches; Smith’s servant

29See n. 17 above. E.g. C. W. Dugmore, The Mass and the English Reformers (Lon-

don: Macmillan, 1958), 144 (following Smyth, Cranmer and the Reformation, 125): “Peter
Martyr, who was a Bucerian when he arrived in England”; Cf. AL, 1:xvii ff.
30Oration, LLS, 324.
31McNair, “Peter Martyr in England,” 105, observes: “The basic facts of the Dispu-

tation which [Smith] provoked but did not attend, held in the Divinity School at Oxford
from May 28 to June 1, 1549, have been established for centuries, and are recounted by
Simler, Foxe, Schlosser, Schmidt, Young, Smyth, McLelland, and Anderson, to say noth-
ing of Wood, Strype, Burnet, and many of the historians who have described the Refor-
mation in England.”
 xxvi Oxford Treatise & Disputation

handed Martyr a note on his way to lecture the following day. Martyr
informed his class that he was there “not to debate but to lecture.”32 As
soon as he finished the lecture a cry for debate was raised, and a mob
scene threatened. Vice Chancellor Wright escorted Martyr and Smith
through the crowd to his own house to discuss the matter.33 Martyr
insisted on royal permission to debate such a sensitive topic,34 for
proper judges, moderators, and recorders,35 and for questions to be
prepared beforehand and acceptable to both parties. Such agenda
reflect his experience with formal debates at Padua, where “our Floren-
tine” was already famous for his debating skill, and at Strasbourg,
where he prepared formal theses for his students.36 Oxford had used
the debating method as early as 1340. Students took the role of oppo-
nens or respondens, with a praelector presiding and summing up. An ini-
tial proposition (aporia) was described through conflicting opinions
(doxae), resolved and redefined in the conclusiones.37 John ab Ulmis
described the custom to Rodolph Gualter:
On Mondays and Wednesdays the masters [of arts] hold dis-
putations; and on Thursdays the students in divinity, physic,
and law dispute among themselves in regular and alternate
turns.… Every disputation has a fixed moderator of its own
to preside over it. In theology Peter Martyr presides.38

32
32Simler (LLS 34); Strype, Ecc. Mem., 2:336ff., PMRE 101.
33Simler (LLS 35); Schmidt, Leben, 89–106, provides a detailed account and assess-

ment. See also DM, 113 ff. Strype treats the Disputation in Ecc. Mem., 2:325ff., including
Bucer’s response. John Foxe, Acts and Monuments (London, 1563), 2:920 ff., provides a
summary of Martyr’s arguments.
34An Act of Parliament of December 1548 forbade public debate about the sacra-

ment until the king, on the advice of his council and clergy, “should set forth an open
doctrine thereof, and what terms and words may justly be spoken thereby”; Strype, Ecc.
Mem., 2:130–31. An earlier decree forbade public criticism of the sacrament after 1 May
1548 (Burnet, History, 1:47).
35John Jewel was appointed Martyr’s notary; see Humphrey, Vita Iuelli, 44; Tre-

sham’s and Chedsey’s remain anonymous. John Ab Ulmis states: “I constantly took
notes of that Disputation, and presented a copy to the marquis of Dorset”; see OL, 2: 391.
36See McNair, Peter Martyr in Italy, 109; Dixon, History, 3:113–18. For the “Theses for

Debate” see EW, 85ff.

37Statuta antiqua universitatis Oxoniensis, ed. Gibson (Oxford, 1931), 32–33, 346,

quoted in AL, 1:xxxiv. Cf. Frank A. James III, Peter Martyr and Predestination (Oxford: Clar-
endon Press, 1998), 110–11.
38OL, 2:419–20. Ab Ulmis was admitted B.A. to Christ Church in 1549, M.A. 1552.

Robert Parsons, S.J., extols the benefits of disputation as “a good meanes and profitable
XXX
 Translator’s Introduction xxvii

Three propositions were agreed upon, after discussion of termi-

nology. Martyr refused the scholastic materia and substantia, preferring
the adverbs carnaliter and corporaliter derived from biblical nouns.39
The theses reflect his own position, with two negations clearing the
way for the final statement.
(1) In the sacrament of the Eucharist there is no transubstan-
tiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of
Christ.

(2) The body and blood of Christ are not carnally and corpo-
really in the bread and wine, nor, as others say, under the
species of bread and wine.

(3) The body and blood of Christ are joined with the bread
and wine sacramentally.

In fact only the first two propositions were debated. The third was set
aside when the commissioners accepted William Tresham’s request
that it be considered superflua et inutilis.40 Thus we lack explicit exege-
sis of the third proposition, what Martyr means by “sacramentally
united with the bread and wine,” and how he solves “the difficulty
respecting the presence” as noted above. This lack seems curious in
light of Martyr’s own statement in the Disputation: “I open with my
three questions.… I prove a third mode, namely a sacramental signifi-
cation” (preface, 1B). Presumably he thought he had indeed included
the substance of the third proposition along the way. But in his con-
cluding speech Chancellor Cox referred to the “two questions” that
were examined (94v).
The date was set for 4 May, by which time the royal visitors had

39

instrument, to examine and try out truth … laying forth the difficultyes on both sides”;
see idem, Re-view of Ten publike Disputations (1604) 3, 20, quoted by AL, 1:xxxiii. Later (1
June 1550) Martyr would complain to Bullinger that new rules increased his burden,
since he had to preside at the “public disputations upon theological subjects” held on
alternate weeks, as well as at the weekly debate in Christ Church. Because of the public
nature of these debates, the result is “a continual struggle with my adversaries, who are
indeed most obstinate”; OL, 2:481.
39See letter of dedication (5), and DIS 1(B) (135) below.
40According to the gloss that Löwe discovered—Chedsey MS 2b, d. (see AL, 2:iii).

Parsons, Re-view, 37, sees a “manifest fraud” in the order of the Propositions, since the
first (on transubstantiation) depends on the second (real presence); quoted in AL, 1:xiv.
 xxviii Oxford Treatise & Disputation

arrived41 and Smith had departed for Louvain.42 On 17 May Martyr

posted a notice on the door of St. Mary’s Church:
Doctor Smith had challenged me to a disputation, as the
whole university knows; I had agreed to that; we had come
to an agreement about the points that should be discussed;
but he is said to have absented himself from the appointed
day and from this place, telling his friends at the same time
that many would be pleased if I kept my appointment with
him; so I offer publicly, for the edification of pious minds, to
debate the same points which we planned to treat, with him
or any other who will appear in his place. I take it upon me
with God’s help to defend and prove my propositions. The
royal commissioners and visitors have appointed the 28th
day of May as the day of disputation, and given their full per-
mission to proceed.43
The debate took place on 28, 29, and 31 May (30 May was Pente-
cost) and 1 June. Three scholars took up the challenge. William Tre-
sham, D.D., a fellow canon of Christ Church,44 debated with Martyr
on the first and third days, William Chedsey, D.D., fellow of Corpus
Christi College,45 on the second and fourth days, with two interven-

41Two royal visitations were established to visit Oxford and Cambridge; see Mac-
Culloch, Thomas Cranmer 425–26). Their investigations were much resented by tradi-
tionalists; see Anthony à Wood, Historia et Antiquitates, 1:94.
42Dixon, History, 3:116, reports a prison sentence for creating a disturbance; see

McNair, “Peter Martyr in England,” 104–5, and n. 4 above. See VWG, 20 n. 44, regarding
Smith’s continuing literary debate with Martyr on justification, celibacy, and vows.
Martyr answered with the Defensio … ad Ricc. Smythaei … duos libellos de Coelibatu sacerdo-
tum & Votis monasticis (Basel: P. Perna, 1559).
43Text in Chedsey’s MS (see AL, 2:iii), and F. C. Schlosser, Leben des Peter Martyr Ver-

mili (Heidelberg: Mohr und Zimmer, 1809), 427.

44Dr. William Tresham (d. 1569), was commissary (vice chancellor) of the univer-

sity 1534–46, and member of the 1540 royal commission on worship. Later he engaged in
debates with Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer. After reading Martyr’s, he published his own
account of the Disputation: Disputatio de Eucharistiae Sacramento contra Petrum Martyrem
(BL Harley MS 422). Its prefatory letter calls Martyr “a doting old man, subverted, impu-
dent, and famous master of errors,” who fled from Germany because of lust and adultery,
a pseudomartyr (Senex quidam delirus est, subversus, impudens, errorum magister insig-
nis.… Pseudomartyr); text in J. Strype, Memorials of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Can-
terbury (London, 1694), vol. 2, appendix XLV; cf. Schmidt, Leben, 105. See Gervase
Duffield’s notes on the various figures in DM, 65–67.
45William Chedsey (or Cheadsey), fellow of Corpus Christi College 1533–51, later

archdeacon of Middlesex and chaplain to Edmund Bonner, bishop of London. In 1554

XXXX
 Translator’s Introduction xxix

tions by Philip Morgan of St. Mary’s Hall on the third day.46 Tresham
and Chedsey proved worthy opponents; Morgan less so. When Tre-
sham’s books failed to arrive for the day’s debate, Morgan stepped in;
Schmidt remarks: “It was a good thing for Morgan that Tresham had
meanwhile received his books and could enter the discussion.”47 Dr.
Nicholas Cartwright relieved Martyr briefly on the second day.48 Refer-
ees were drawn from the royal visitors: Henry Holbeach, Simon
Haynes, Sir Richard Morison, and Christopher Nevison.49 They would
sign Martyr’s subsequent written account of the debate to declare that
he had made no alteration.50 Since one of the disputants was a univer-
sity praelector, the moderator was Richard Cox, dean of Christ Church
and chancellor of the university.51

46

he participated in the Oxford Disputation against Cranmer and Ridley, and in 1559 was
chosen one of nine debaters, against Cox, Jewel and seven others, in the public debates
sponsored by Elizabeth I. He was finally sent to the Tower for recusancy (Foxe, Acts and
Monuments, 2:1024ff.). His “Relation of the Disputation” was never published: Library of
Corpus Christi, Oxford, and a copy in the British Library, Harley MSS. It is the source of
one set of glosses (MSa) in AL, vol. 2.
46Appointed principal of St. Mary’s Hall 1545–46, he resigned in 1550 to take up

various livings in his native Pembrokeshire. He “became so quick and understanding a

disputant that he was called ‘Morgan the sophister’”; A. Wood, Athenae, 1:432; cf. C.
Schmidt: “Morgan Philipps, Vorsteher der Aula B. Mariae, wegen seiner scholastischen
Gewandheit unter dem Namen Morgan der Sophist bekannt,” Leben, 92. Strype, Mem.
Cran. 2:286–87, calls him Henry.
47Schmidt, Leben, 97.
48Nicholas Cartwright, then an admirer of Martyr, was “Master of the Hospital of

St. John near Banbury, and had preferment also in the Diocese of Lichfield”; see Sermons
and Remains of Hugh Latimer (Cambridge: Parker Society, 1845), 250n. In 1554 he joined
Richard Smith in debating with Cranmer.
49Henry Holbeach, bishop of Lincoln 1547–52, member of the royal commission

for the 1548 Book of Common Prayer, and a royal legate. In 1550 he was appointed a
commissioner for the trial of Stephen Gardiner. Dr. Simon Haynes was prebendary of
Christ Church, Master of Queens’ College, Cambridge, and compiler of the English lit-
urgy. Sir Richard Morison (d. 1556), ambassador to Italy and the Hanse towns and a
patron of Martyr in Oxford, withdrew to Strasbourg during the Marian reign where he
studied with Martyr. Christopher Nevinson (or Newinson; d. 1551), doctor of civil law,
was a royal visitor to the churches of Westminster, London, Norwich, and Ely, and one of
the “honorable umpires” at the Oxford Disputation (Strype, Ecc. Mem., 2:286).
50Text in De Sacramento eucharistiae … Disputatio … in Anglia, ed. Gesner and Wyt-

tenbach (Zurich, 1552), fols. A3 v–A6 v, which we translate as a preface to the Disputation
below.
51Richard Cox (c. 1500–81), chancellor 1547–52 and first dean of Christ Church,

1547–53. He was a royal chaplain, a member of the two prayer book commissions, and
later bishop of Ely (1559); see OER. For Martyr’s own appreciation see COR, Praef. a3 v: ob
XXX
 xxx Oxford Treatise & Disputation

As the text shows, the central point of controversy was transub-

stantiation. While this is explicitly the burden of the first thesis, the
entire debate moves slowly around the point, first with Tresham and
then with Chedsey. At one point, despite agreeing to turn to the
second question, Chedsey leads off with a “confirmation of the first
question” (70 r), then requests a fifth day of debate (78v). The visitors
deny it, and Chedsey proceeds: “That the bread and wine may be tran-
substantiated.…” Soon they interrupt again to state that Martyr’s solu-
tion to the argument is sufficiently understood, so that Chedsey
“should proceed further” (82 r). At last the visitors break in, ordering
them “to proceed to the second question” (88v). Even here the remain-
ing exchanges do not much advance things: the manner of bodily pres-
ence in the sacrament remains unresolved. The fourth day is tedious,
and the visitors call a halt to debate at 11 A.M.
Chancellor Cox summed up the debate, making it clear whom he
considered the winner: “Peter, who is worthily called Peter for the firm-
ness 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.” [95 r] Cox acknowledges his own reforming position in
exhorting the students to study the Word of God, and commends
those who “increase in good learning and piety.” He would “pro-
nounce no decision,” however, since the dispute was postponed rather
than ended, according to the royal will.52

RESPONSE AND CRITIQUE

Reactions to the Disputation soon came in; we will examine those
of Cranmer, Bucer, and Gardiner. Theodore Beza was also a positive
reader, while John Calvin’s assessment may be conjectured through
later remarks.53

52

suas agregias virtutes et piam doctrinam. Anderson, PMRE, 106, calls him “Somerset’s
agent for change in Oxford.” His zeal in altering statutes and destroying books won him
the ambiguous title “cancellor” of the university; Wood, Hist. et Ant., 270.
52Cf John ab Ulmis’s letter to Bullinger (7 August 1549; OL, 2:391): “[T]here has

been a sharp disputation at Oxford respecting the Eucharist, where the subject was made
so clear and easy of comprehension, in the very presence of the king’s commissioners,
that any person of ordinary capacity might easily understand on which side the truth
lay, and detect the absurdity of our opponents.”
53For Beza, see Anderson, PMRE, 321. As for Calvin, a direct response to the Dispu-

tation seems lacking. Later correspondence indicates his endorsement of Martyr. In par-
XXX
 Translator’s Introduction xxxi

THOMAS CRANMER has sparked much debate about his own eucha-
ristic theology. Basil Hall argues that even after Martyr’s stay at Lam-
beth, Cranmer “showed no marked change in his beliefs on the subject
after 1548,” while because of his polemical style Martyr uses “terms
inevitably more negative than sufficiently positive,” so that his posi-
tion is “difficult to define in its positive aspect.” Hall takes some sen-
tences from Martyr’s prefatory letter to Cranmer as evidence for
division between the two, questioning my own reading of their “near
identity.” But at that point in his dedication Martyr is not addressing
Cranmer (or even Bucer), rather the supporters of transubstantiation of
the preceding paragraph.54
As for Cranmer, C. H. Smyth reviews the evidence for his “conver-
sion” from the Roman theory of transubstantiation, concluding that
he moved directly to Bucer’s “Suvermerian” position, through Ridley’s
influence. Cranmer’s 1548 translation of Justus Jonas’s catechism even
led F. A. Gasquet and E. Bishop to conclude that he held a “Real
Absence” view.55 Philip Hughes remarks that “the only one of these
Reformers who, in the crucial year 1548, had anything like the entrée

54

ticular, after reading Martyr’s Defensio adv. Gardinerum, Calvin stated: “The whole was
crowned by Peter Martyr, who has left nothing to be desired”; see “True Partaking,”
Tracts, 2:535. Examining the internal evidence, Jean Cadier’s masterful study of Calvinist
doctrine examines Martyr’s Tractatio, comparing its teaching with essential elements in
Calvin. Cadier concludes: “Sa pensée est essentiellement calviniste,” adding that Martyr
“insiste peut être plus que Calvin sur un bienfait de la Cène, qui est d’établir un lien entre
les croyants, membres du même corps, grains formant un même pain.” He considers
Martyr’s Poissy statement (DM, 329ff.) to agree completely with Calvin, hence “On peut
considérer Pierre Martyr comme pleinement d’accord avec Calvin dans sa doctrine sur la
Sainte Cène”; see Jean Cadier, La doctrine calviniste de la Sainte-Cène (Paris, 1951), 112, 115.
54 Basil Hall, “Cranmer, the Eucharist and the Foreign Divines in the Reign of

Edward VI” in Thomas Cranmer: Churchman and Scholar, ed. P. Ayris and D. Selwyn (Wood-
bridge: Boydell Press, 1993), 228 ff. The sentences are: “But concerning Christ’s body,
which I deny to be present, as you complain so much, I wish to say something openly to
explain myself. If I should ask you why one should assert any such presence as you imag-
ine for yourself…” (see below, p. 15, fol. aiiiv). The context shows that Martyr is using a
rhetorical device to continue his debate with the supporters of transubstantiation men-
tioned in the preceding paragraph; there are no paragraph breaks in the original.
55Smyth, Cranmer, 49 ff., explains: “What men desired was a via media between

Luther’s doctrine, which retained too much, and Zwingli’s, which retained too little.…
Suvermerianism was the name given by the Lutherans in derision to the doctrine of
Martin Bucer and the Strassburg school” (23); cf. p. 51, on the charge of Gasquet and
Bishop, Edward VI, 130–31, that Cranmer held to a “Real Absence.” Cf. E. Carpenter:
“There was ambiguity in Cranmer, and something of this has remained in the Church of
XXXX
xxxii Oxford Treatise & Disputation

to Cranmer was Peter Martyr—and from him we have no direct

information.”56
In 1551 Cranmer stated in opposition to Gardiner: “Of M. Peter
Martyr’s opinion and judgment in this matter, no man can better tes-
tify than I; forasmuch as he lodged within my house long before he
came to Oxford, and I had with him many conferences in that matter,
and know that he was then of the same mind that he is now, and as he
defended openly in Oxford, and hath written in his book.”57 The two
friends had shared their research during this period; Cranmer’s collec-
tion De re sacramentaria resembles Martyr’s biblical and patristic
sources in the Treatise. While Diarmaid MacCulloch considers it “date-
able to autumn 1547 at the earliest,” K. J. Walsh argues that this flori-
legium was composed by Cranmer after Martyr’s visit.58 Martyr had
brought with him from the Continent two new texts, which proved
most significant in defining the eucharistic theology of both men in
the fateful years from 1548 on. One was his own manuscript copy of
Chrysostom’s Ad Caesarium monachum, which he presented to the
archbishop—Gardiner called this Cranmer’s “secret copye.”59 The
other consisted of excerpts from Theodoret’s first two Dialogues, which

56

England ever since”; quoted in P. N. Brooks, Cranmer in Conflict (Minneapolis: Fortress

Press, 1989), 127.
56P. Hughes, The Reformation in England (London: Hollis and Carter, 1953), 145.

Hughes also notes the apparent change that Cranmer showed by the time of the Novem-
ber 1548 debate in the House of Lords. Cf. Brooks, Cranmer in Conflict, “Defence and Con-
troversy,” 69 ff., and B. Gerrish in OER, 2:78–79. Marvin Anderson, “Rhetoric and
Reality,” 468–69, argues cogently for Martyr’s influence on Cranmer.
57Thomas Cranmer, An Answer unto a crafty and sophistical cavillation devised by

Stephen Gardiner … against the true and godly doctrine of the most holy sacrament (London:
John Day, 1551), Writings and Disputations of Thomas Cranmer … Lord’s Supper, ed. J. E. Cox
(Cambridge: Parker Society, 1894), 374. See CRA, 4:xxx–xxxi, for a list of Cranmer’s writ-
ings.
58MacCulloch, Cranmer, 468; K. J. Walsh, “Cranmer and the Fathers, Especially in

the Defence,” Journal of Religious History 2 (1980): 240–41, cited by Anderson, “Rhetoric
and Reality,” 457. The document itself is in the Corpus Christi library, Cambridge (CCCC
102), and was summarized by Strype, Mem. Cran., 269. See CRA, 2:291. The patristic quo-
tations and related propositions coincide with Martyr’s closely, as our footnotes to Mar-
tyr’s Treatise show. They include theses concerning the figurative interpretaion of the
scriptural passages involved, that the wicked do not eat Christ’s body and blood, that the
Old Testament fathers ate and drank Christ, and standard arguments against transub-
stantiation, particularly the Capernaite interpretation (accidents remaining without a
subject), that hoc does not refer to the bread, etc.
59Anderson, “Rhetoric and Reality,” 458.
 Translator’s Introduction xxxiii

reinforced the same Christological analogy for the sacramental rela-

tion as did Chrysostom. Cranmer makes use of both texts in his 1550
Defence.60
A footnote to this reaction concerns Nicholas Udall’s English
translation of the Treatise, published 1550. Micronius wrote to Bullin-
ger in May of that year that “the English translation of Peter Martyr’s
book was not to be allowed to be printed owing to the bishops, and
those too gospellers.” Basil Hall adds: “When the English version was
published there were omissions of parts of the Latin translated by
Udall—perhaps this compromise allowed publication.”61 But my own
scrutiny of Udall shows that he expands on Martyr’s text but nowhere
seems to omit anything of substance. His preface states: “In som places
I haue either altered or leaft ye scoole termnes whych otherwise would
have made the thing more darke … or els haue added suche circum-
staunce of other woordes, as might declare it & make it plaine.”62
Yet the question remains: just how “negative” is Peter Martyr’s
eucharistic teaching? His obsession with refuting transubstantiation
complicates a clear answer. He never tires of the familiar arguments
from biblical, patristic, and medieval sources, which one can find in
his works from the 1549 Treatise to the 1561 Epitome.63 Moreover, his
scholastic method in refuting mass and transubstantiation (“sophisti-
cally with their own weapons” in Scaliger’s phrase) features negative
argumentation at the cost of positive statement. He considers himself
one with Bullinger, whose response to the Disputatio was most positive,
confirming Martyr’s reformed position.64 But his unity with Cranmer

60 See PMRE, 90–91, VWG, 268 ff., and MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer, 382–83,

462 ff. MacCulloch, 467, 490–91, notes that Cranmer “drew on Peter Martyr’s previous
use of the Dialogues of Theodoret” and also calls attention to “the partisan unreliability
of the fifth-century Nestorian sympathizer Theodoret of Cyrrhus.” See also Anderson,
“Rhetoric and Reality,” 457–63.
61Micronius, OL, 2:561 (20 May 1550); Hall, “Cranmer,” 238.
62Nicholas Udall, Discourse, Praef. sig. *3 v. I note Udall’s interjections below at

§§29, 60, and 61. G. A. Starr, “Antedatings from Nichols Udall’s Translation of Peter Mar-
tyr’s ‘Discourse,’” Notes and Queries, n.s. 12 (1966): 9–12, analyzes Udall’s translation to
identify terms first used therein, or their antedatings. He lists many: bluntish for instance,
i.e. dull (sig. G3), “gloser of the decrees” (X2), and offre: “signifie offre and represente the
bodye and bloud” sig. Y1. Löwe, AL, vol. 2, presents Udall’s text.
63“Epitome of the Book against Gardiner,” in RDR, 153–60.
64See the material in Corda, VS, 76 ff., esp. 78: “He should be placed, if this termi-

nology is permissible, between Bucer and Bullinger, perhaps closer to the former in his
positive, and to the latter in his negative, formulations.”
xxxiv Oxford Treatise & Disputation

is equally clear, as MacCulloch argues convincingly.65

The relation between Martyr’s 1549 Oxford texts and Cranmer’s
1550 Defence may serve as a reliable source to compare the two. Because
of their closeness in time and location, we have footnoted parallels to
Cranmer throughout the Treatise; parallels to Calvin and others simi-
larly could have been noted. A chief point of difference is that Cranmer
begins with “the true and catholic doctrine and use of the sacrament,”
locating his critique of transubstantiation within this positive theol-
ogy.66 Just over a quarter of the book concerns the kind of rebuttal
which Martyr had made the centerpiece of both Treatise and Disputa-
tion. To be fair to Martyr, the public debate was largely controlled by his
three opponents, who kept returning to their arguments for transub-
stantiation and were reluctant to let Martyr proceed to the matter of
real presence. Nevertheless, he indicates his positive doctrine in such
things as use of the crucial term exhibere, accompanied by stress on the
mutation of the elements and the feeding of believers. Salvatore
Corda’s thorough study reinforces this judgment, based on Martyr’s
emphasis on the unio Christi as the definition of faith, the efficacy of
the signs, and the actual reception of Christ by believers in the sacra-
mental action.67
STEPHEN GARDINER presents a significant case study in the affairs of
England.68 He had been Cranmer’s ally in the 1531–32 discussion of
grounds for Henry’s divorce. At that period, in MacCulloch’s descrip-
tion, they were “apparently both conservative-minded Cambridge
humanists,” but soon “definitely parted ideological company.”69 The

65 MacCulloch, 1999 Zurich symposium: “[I]n the nuances of his stance, he

showed himself closer to Martyr than he was to Bucer.”
66Cranmer, A Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body

and Blood of Our Saviour Christ (CRA, 2:275–463). Its five books concern: (1) the true and
catholic doctrine and use of the sacrament; (2) against the error of transubstantiation;
(3) how Christ is present in his holy supper; (4) the eating and drinking of the body and
blood; (5) the oblation and sacrifice of our Savior Christ.
67VS, pt. 2: “Systematic Exposition of Vermigli’s Eucharistic Doctrine,” esp. 116 ff.

on the sacramental mutation, 138 ff. on “The manducatio sacramenti,” and 165 ff.
“Effectus.”
68See Foxe, Acts and Monuments, 2:820–96, for Gardiner’s career during the reign of

Edward VI.
69MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer, 67 ff. Stephen Gardiner (1497–1555) clashed with

other Reformers too: his A Detection of the Devil’s Sophistry (1546) was rebutted by
Anthony Gilby in 1547, and by John Hooper, An Answer unto my lord of winchesters booke.
… (Zurich, 1547). See also C. W. Dugmore, “Cranmer and Gardiner” in The Mass and the
English Reformers (London: Macmillan, 1958), 176–201.
 Translator’s Introduction xxxv

bishop of Winchester was quick to criticize Martyr, complaining of his

cunning in a letter of 1549/50, later attached to his tract against Mar-
tyr’s account of the Disputation. “You discuss the Eucharist in a wicked
and shameful way; with subtlety and shrewdness you cunningly twist
certain considerations to your purpose, and openly and forcibly distort
certain others; you treat nothing with honesty and integrity.70 His
treatise rehearses Martyr’s arguments and subjoins his own, “that
everything may be perfectly clear to the reader.” This response pre-
sented Martyr with a powerful adversary in subsequent writings, and at
greater length in his 1559 reply, the Defensio … adversus Stephani Gar-
dineri.
In 1551 Gardiner produced an Explication and Assertion of the True
Catholic Faith attacking Cranmer’s A Defence of the true and catholike
Doctrine, which he charged “doth but as it were translate Peter Mar-
tyr.”71 This occasioned Cranmer’s immediate rebuttal, An Answer …
Unto a craftie and Sophisticall cavillation. In the latter, Cranmer’s quota-
tions from Gardiner show the antipathy to Martyr (matching Cran-
mer’s to Gardiner), whom he accuses of employing “as many shifts and
lies as he may impugn” in the Treatise; again, “Peter Martyr wrote in
Latin, and rejoiceth not, I think, to have his lies in English.”72 In turn,
Gardiner replies with the Confutatio Cavillationum (1552 and 1554).
During the Marian exile, Martyr accepted the urging (and financing) of
friends and students to fulfil Cranmer’s last wish to issue a rebuttal of
Gardiner’s work on transubstantiation.73 The result was the longest
monograph on the sacrament of the entire Reformation, the 1559

70Gardiner, In Petrum Martyrem florentinum malae tractacionis querela Sanctissimae

Eucharistiae … (264 folio pages—British Library’s MS Arundel 100). See Anderson, PMRE,
106–7: “Vermigli never rejects Gardiner’s repeated appeal to the Thomist principle
according to which ‘gratia non tollit naturam, sed perficit.’ On the contrary, specifically
because of this principle he is bound to reject transubstantiation as a doctrine according
to which grace would destroy nature” (184). Anderson, “Rhetoric and Reality,” 461, notes
that “Gardiner saw the central issue in Martyr’s use of Theodoret.”
71Cranmer, Answer; Writings, 195; see also Brooks, Cranmer in Conflict, 70, extr. 1.
72Cranmer, Answer; Writings, 20, 222.
73MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer, 573, notes Cranmer’s last letter (from the Tower:

OL, 1:29–30) to Martyr, who was once again at Strasbourg: “he finally regretted that his
lack of books and freedom prevented him from writing the definitive version of the
Answer, promised long before in his 1553 preface to the Defence, so that the ‘subtleties
and juggling tricks and ravings’ of Stephen Gardiner (under his pen name of Marcus
Antonius) could finally be routed.” So the drama that entangled the three men played its
final scene. Cf. Anderson, “Rhetoric and Reality,” 464.
xxxvi Oxford Treatise & Disputation

Defensio.74 The latter draws explicitly on the Treatise: Part 2 is headed:

“Certain examples noted which the author formerly set forth in his
Treatise on the Eucharist.”75
MARTIN BUCER had arrived from Strasbourg in April to serve as
regius professor at Cambridge, and was still at Lambeth when Martyr
sent his famulus Julius Santerenziano to deliver a copy of the Disputa-
tion, with covering letter dated 15 June.76 Martyr expresses worry that
his doctrine might seem not to square with his friend’s; he expands cer-
tain points to show that he “does not differ at all” from Bucer.
I acknowledge that we truly receive the res sacramenti, that is
the body and blood of Christ; but I say that it is accom-
plished by soul and faith, meanwhile granting that the Holy
Spirit is effective in the sacraments, by the power of the
Spirit and the institution of the Lord. I try to hold this par-
ticularly against superstitions, lest the body and blood of
Christ be mixed with bread and wine themselves, carnally
and through a corporeal presence. But that we ourselves are
truly joined to him I do not question, nor would I have the
sacramental symbols to be without honor and dignity.…
Only one thing remains by which you might be offended—I
claim that it does not agree with Christ’s body, so greatly
glorified, to be in many places.77

Bucer replied to Martyr’s covering letter just five days later, stating
his agreement in substance with Martyr’s report, but giving sugges-
tions for change in the last two of the three propositions—apparently
he was not informed that the last had been dropped. The second
(Corpus et sanguis Christi non est carnaliter aut corporaliter in pane et
vino, nec ut alij dicunt, sub speciebus panis et vini) should be replaced

74 Defensio Doctrinae veteris et Apostolicae de ss. Eucharistiae Sacramento … adv.

Stephani Gardineri librum (Zurich: C. Froschauer), 821 folio pages; prefatory letters from
Martyr to Queen Elizabeth and to the reader, dated 1 March 1559. See BIB, 32–35. Martyr
also published an Epitome of the work (see n. 63 above). See Strype, Ecc. Mem., 2:2, 37.
75Defensio Doctrinae, 189. The 1562 edition (Zurich: C. Froschauer) includes the

Tractatio (620–61) and Disputatio (662–775).

76Strype, Cranmer, 287; see also Anderson, PMRE, 106, and Corda, VS, 75. Martyr

had urged Bucer to leave Strasbourg for England in letters of 26 December 1548 and 22
January 1549 (OL, 2:225–26, 468–77).
77Mart. Buc. Scripta Anglicana (Basel, 1577), 545 ff. See VWG, appendix C, “Bucer,

Calvin and Martyr,” and DM, “Bucer’s Reaction to the Treatise,” 129 ff.
 Translator’s Introduction xxxvii

by these or similar words: “Corpus Christi non continetur localiter in

pane et vino: nec iis rebus affixum aut adiunctum est ulla huius mundi
ratione.” The third (Corpus et sanguis Christi uniuntur pani et vino
sacramentaliter) should continue: “Ita ut credentibus Christus hic vere
exhibetur: fide tamen, nullo vel sensu vel ratione huius seculi intuen-
dus, recipiendus, fruendus.” The changes involve two terms on which
Bucer was always sensitive, the denial of “local” presence, and the
explicit use of exhibere and cognates.78
Bucer also expresses concern that Martyr’s tenor in “the whole
Disputation” will convince readers “that you maintain that Christ is
absent altogether from the Supper, and that whatsoever is done in it
has no further results than that faith, excited concerning Christ truly
absent, is increased through the Spirit of Christ, by his benefits
brought to mind and by meditation,” even though “I know that you
acknowledge that Christ exhibits himself present to faith.” Bucer’s
concern and suggested changes reflect his conviction that while he
and Martyr agree on essentials, the latter places a dangerous emphasis
on Christ’s presence in heaven localiter, combined with the movement
sursum corda of faith in sacramental participation. Bucer wrote to John
Brenz: “I am as sorry for master Martyr’s book as anyone can be; but
that Disputation took place, and the propositions were agreed upon,
before I arrived in England. At my advice he has inserted many things
in the preface whereby to express more fully his belief in the presence
of Christ.” He adds that Martyr was surely influenced by “powerful”
men who “confine [Christ] to a certain limited place in heaven, and
talk so vapidly about His exhibition and presence in the supper (indeed
some of them cannot even endure these words), that they appear to
believe that nothing else but the bread and wine is there distrib-
uted.”79 Bucer writes in similar fashion to Niger:
[Martyr] acknowledges the presence and exhibition of
Christ; but, since the Zurich people have here many and
great followers, this excellent man was drawn, I hardly know
how, to consent to use the word “signification,” although he
added “efficacious,” by which he understands the exhibi-

78Script. Ang., 546–50. See D. F. Wright, “Use of ‘exhibere,’” pp. 99–100 in “Infant

Baptism and the Christian Community,” Martin Bucer: Reforming Church and Community,
ed. D. F. Wright (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).
7915 May 1550, OL, 2:252, 544.
xxxviii Oxford Treatise & Disputation

tion of Christ, as he himself explains in the Preface to his

Disputations, in which by my advice he added many observa-
tions to his own, and withdrew some; for he is most desirous
of a pious concord.80

Is Bucer misreading his friend’s meaning on this point?81 Near

the end of the Treatise Martyr discusses the Zwinglian position as an
alternative to both transubstantiation and the Lutheran view. He
writes that Christ’s words “‘do this in memory of me’ seem to them to
imply the absence of the body of Christ. But I have warned elsewhere
that this argument is not very firm, unless they mean it concerning the
body of Christ really and corporeally and naturally present.… For he is
eaten spiritually, and is truly joined to us.”82 Of course, Bucer’s posi-
tion in the fragile compromise reached in Strasbourg with the Luther-
ans is different from Martyr’s adversarial position in England. Bucer
shares Calvin’s concern for signa exhibitiva83 and a presence not fic-
tional but real. To these he adds negations, notably the denial of pres-
ence localiter or huius mundi, eirenic tools that serve him better than
Martyr’s polemics.84 But is he not taking too much credit for influenc-
ing Martyr’s preface? Surely the latter reflects the content of both Dis-
putation and Treatise, which remained substantially unchanged?
Bucer’s feeling for language is welcome, but his constant search for the
mediating term at times prove harmful: Bossuet called him “the great
master of subtleties.” 85 As for Martyr, his first published work had

80Quoted in C. Hopf, Martin Bucer and the English Reformation (Oxford, 1946), 79.
81 Their correspondence about the Disputation is found in Martin Bucer: Scripta
Anglicana (Basel, 1577), 545 ff. C. Hopf, Martin Bucer, makes much of Bucer’s critique of
Martyr’s position in the Disputation; see also Anderson’s analysis, PMRE, 101ff.
82 See §77, (p. 119) below; the “elsewhere” refers to Martyr’s lectures on 1 Cor.

11:24.
83 Bucer and Melanchthon had used the phrase in the Wittenberg Concord of

1534: “The bread and wine are signs, signa exhibitiva, which being proferred and taken,
the body of Christ is proferred and taken at the same time.” Bullinger’s First Helvetic
Confession (1536) has: “symbols by which the true communication of his body and
blood is present (exhibeatur) by the Lord himself” (German gereicht und angeboten werde,
Art. 23). In 1540 Melanchthon’s revision of the Augsburg Confession inserted exhibean-
tur in Art. 10. See B. Gerrish and D. Wright, OER, 2:75 ff., 99–100.
84See Bucer’s fifty-four sentences on the Lord’s Supper in Strype, Mem. Cran, vol. 2,

no. XLVI, pp. 855–69.

85Quoted in C. H. Smyth, Cranmer, 175. One example is his use of the term substan-

tia, to which Stephen Gardiner appealed on behalf of transubstantiation; see Martyr’s

reply in DEF, 634.
 Translator’s Introduction xxxix

already described the sacraments as verba visibilia and “effective.”86

Of relevance to this moot point is Bucer’s own shifting theory of
the Lord’s Supper. C. H. Smyth sees a distinct change from the doctrine
he held on arrival in England in May 1549, expressed in the above cri-
tique of Martyr’s role in the Disputation. In July 1550 Bucer visited
Martyr in Oxford, and in September received John Laski (John à Lasco),
with whom he began correspondence. Smyth sees these contacts as
confirming Bucer’s position from “Suvermerian” to “Sacramentarian,”
imitating Cranmer’s shift from Roman to Suvermerian.87 It seems to
me that there is little difference between the two views, since both
stress the presence of two realities through sacramental relation. Both
attempt a via media between Lutheran and Zwinglian extremes; this
was ever Bucer’s “Sisyphean” burden as he termed it in the critical
letter to Martyr. Martyr answered with clear testimony on the crucial
points, the “double eating” of the faithful, duplex os fidelium and their
union with Christ. The complexity of views concerning the Supper are
not easily solved by labels, and perhaps Bucer himself best reflects the
wisdom of avoiding positives where negation will make do: “not of this
world” rather than make “a new article of faith concerning the certain
place of heaven in which the body of Christ is contained.”88

AN “ALTERNATIVE VIEW”?
M. A. Overell has proffered “an alternative view” of Peter Martyr
in England.89 She notes that most recent writers agree with an earlier
judgment: “As Strype put it, ‘he was very rudely treated there by a
popish party’; in short, that he was a good man in a bad situation.”
And further: “This sympathetic interpretation is commonly extended
not just to Martyr’s miseries in Oxford but to the whole of his English
exile.”90 Among modern scholars who “have tended to buttress the tra-

86Catechism of 1544, §42 (EW, 66).

87Smyth, Cranmer, 166 ff. The entire chapter, “Cambridge and Bucer,” 139–77, is

relevant to the issue. As to Martyr and Bucer, Smyth identifies John à Lasco as “the chief
agent of their conversion” (180).
88Bucer to Calvin regarding the 1549 Consensus Tigurinus (Ioan. Cal. Op. 13, CR,

41:350 ff.).
89M. A. Overell, “Peter Martyr in England 1547–1553: An Alternative View” in Six-

teenth Century Journal 15 (1984): 87–104. Anderson, “Rhetoric and Reality,” provides a cri-
tique of her view.
90Overell, “Peter Martyr in England,” 87; the reference is to John Strype, Ecc. Mem.

(London, 1816), 2:336.

xl Oxford Treatise & Disputation

ditional highly sympathetic view” are the authors associated with the
Peter Martyr Library. Overell is concerned with “the Italian’s social and
personal impact” rather than areas of theology and liturgy. She con-
cludes that “the colorful story of Martyr’s controversy with the Oxford
Catholic group needs careful examination.”
After a brief look at the Oxford Disputation, Overell contends
that Martyr’s apparent “courage and triumph on this occasion” require
qualification. She reminds us that Martyr was a government employee,
disputing before royal visitors and “propounding the official line,” and
yet the outcome was far from certain. She states: “In his public sum-
mary Dr. Cox praised both parties and decided for neither,” an impor-
tant point “often overlooked by Protestant historians.” Now in this
judgment she is quite mistaken, for both the prefatory letter introduc-
ing the Disputation and the chancellor’s speech at its conclusion praise
Martyr in high terms. The royal commissioners, while asking readers to
judge for themselves, make it clear that in their opinion Martyr is the
clear winner. Chancellor Cox declares: “Peter alone against all,” who
accepted heavy labors, curbed the vain sayings of vain men, refuted
“papistical trivia,” and “delivered to the university the doctrine of
Christ, out of those living fountains of God.”91
Overell is correct, however, in observing that “Martyr himself
seems to have been disappointed and somewhat chastened by the epi-
sode, and he never repeated the experiment.”92 This reflects Martyr’s
realistic sense of the divided mood of the English church, that the offi-
cial line was not necessarily the favorite one. There is truth also in
Overell’s contention that “the evidence suggests that he was not
immune from the uncertainty and wavering which marked the intel-
lectual history of so many others.… As a relatively inexperienced Prot-
estant he was still struggling to find his own balance in the whirlpool
of contemporary theology.” Like Erasmus with Archbishop Warham
not long before, Martyr found himself a “lonely exile” dependent on
patronage. He entertained mostly like-minded foreigners in his home;
if Harding’s memory is to be trusted, “the Italian became progressively

91See DIS below, concluding speech, fols. 94 v–96 v in the original. Cf. Martyr’s
dedicatory letter to Cox, nominating him as “the patron of my labors,” and commend-
ing “your many public accomplishments while you were teaching at Oxford”; Def. ad
Ricc. Smythaei … de Caelibatu sac. & Votis Mon. (Basel: P. Perna, 1559).
92Overell, “Peter Martyr in England,”91.
 Translator’s Introduction xli

more isolated as his exile wore on.”93

This alternative view draws heavily on Martin Bucer, relating to
the familiar controversy as to whether Martyr’s mind had changed
during his English sojourn. 94 “Bucer clearly thought Martyr had
changed, and changed moreover to suit the prevalent English mood.”
Now on this point we argued above that the Bucer–Martyr disagree-
ment concerned terms rather than substance. Martyr found himself in
a time and place whose mood was different from either Italy or Stras-
bourg. Not only were king and archbishop responsible for his being
there; he also had received the warmest welcome from Cranmer, and in
their discussions had discovered strong mutual interests, notably in the
patristic support for their common struggle against transubstantiation.
Overell concludes that despite Martyr’s “profound influence on
the official documents of the Edwardian Reformation,” his impact at
“more social and personal levels” reveals one who “had neither the set-
tled opinions nor the straightforwardness in delivering them required
in a theological adviser to a contentious Reformation.” Therefore “the
English exile of the most famous of all the Italian Evangelicals was
more of a failure, or at least less of a success, than has generally been
believed.”95
This dissident voice urges restraint in taking our pair of texts as
examples of a clear–cut victory in the eucharistic struggle in Cranmer’s
England. Her argument, however, remains ambiguous on the crucial
question of how these “social and personal levels” relate to the aca-
demic, theological, and ecclesiastical milieux in which Martyr moved.
Nor does it explain Martyr’s subsequent influence over the Marian ref-
ugees, who persuaded him to complete Cranmer’s task of a final reply
to Gardiner, and invitations to return to England under a new mon-
arch and archbishop. The Overell thesis relies on recusant literature,
but it does sound a warning not to relapse into an older “heroic” view
of the Reformation.96 Perhaps she has in mind R. W. Dixon’s comment

93Overell, “Peter Martyr in England,” 99–100, quoting Thomas Harding, A Rejoin-

dre to M. Jewel’s Reply (Antwerp, 1566).

94See J. C. McLelland, “The Second Book of Common Prayer,” VWG, 28–40.
95Overell, “Peter Martyr in England,”103.
96See Parsons, Re-view, on the relative success of the Oxbridge disputations, and N.

Sander, The Rise and Growth of the Anglican Schism (London, 1877), 2:196. Marvin Ander-
son, “Rhetoric and Reality,” 469, counters Overell’s thesis with the judgment of Patrick
Collinson, International Calvinism 1541–1715, ed. M. Prestwick (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1985), 214: “But if we were to identify one author and one book which represented the
XXX
xlii Oxford Treatise & Disputation

about Foxe: “A still more partial historian, to whom, chiefly, several

generations have looked for the knowledge of the Reformation, so far
improved upon Peter himself as to omit all the arguments of Peter’s
adversaries, preserving Peter only.”97

CONSEQUENCES
The effect of Martyr’s efforts in behalf of the reformation of sacra-
mental theology may be judged by the 1552 revision of the 1549 Book
of Common Prayer. Cranmer sought the opinion of the foreign divines
then in England about the proposed revision. Bucer added his own
Censura of the book to Martyr’s.98 Martyr reports to Bullinger: “every-
thing that could have fostered superstition has been removed from it.
The main reason why the other things that were being proposed did
not prevail was because the sacramentarian question blocked the
way—not indeed as regards transubstantiation or the real presence (if I
may speak that way) either in the bread or in the wine since, thanks be
to God, there seems to be no controversy about them among those
who profess the Gospel, but many people wavered over whether the
sacraments confer grace.” Martyr also mentions the opposite party,
who held that “nothing more should be attributed to the sacraments
than to the external Word of God.”99
The question of whether the sacraments confer grace continued
to bother the Church of England. The nineteenth-century debates saw
William Goode and G. C. Gorham in particular appeal to Martyr.100
The memory of Peter Martyr remains ambivalent in England. Like
Bucer, and Cranmer himself, he fell victim to the continuing debate
about the relation between continental and English reformations, and
the roots of Puritanism. In particular there are scholars who insist that

97

centre of theological gravity of the Elizabethan Church it would not be Calvin’s Institutes
but the Common Places of Peter Martyr.”
97R. W. Dixon, History of the Church of England, 118, referring to Foxe, Acts and Mon-

uments, 2:1024ff.
98The text of Martyr’s annotations or censura is given in VWG, 29–30.
99Peter Martyr to Henry Bullinger, 14 June 1552 (LLS, 123–24).
100“An Unpublished Letter of Peter Martyr, Reg. Div. Prof. Oxford, to Henry Bullin-

ger; written from Oxford just after the completion of the Second Prayer Book of Edward
VI; edited, with remarks, by Wm Goode” (London, 1850), and The Nature of Christ’s Pres-
ence in the Eucharist (London, 1856); G. C. Gorham, Gleanings of a Few Scattered Ears during
the Reformation in England (London, 1857). See VWG, 33–34, DM, 148ff., BIB, 150–51.
 Translator’s Introduction xliii

Martyr was clearly a “Zwinglian” on arriving in England, influencing

Cranmer in this direction.101
Despite this ambiguity, during Martyr’s stay in England his place
seemed clear. On Mary’s accession, Martyr joined Thomas Cranmer at
Lambeth; the archbishop issued a bold challenge on 5 September 1553:
I with Peter Martyr and four or five others of my choosing
[will] prove to all that not only the common prayers Ecclesi-
astical, the Holy Administration, with the rest of the rites
and ceremonies, but also the whole doctrine and religious
order established by our supreme King and Lord, Edward the
Sixth, are more pure and more agreeable to the Word of God
than what has been in England for the past thousand
years.102

At the Elizabethan settlement Martyr’s friends and pupils hurried

home to assist in the work of renewing the Reformed face of the
church.103 John Jewel wrote to his mentor Martyr on 28 April 1559,
“The queen both speaks and thinks most honorably of you; she lately
told lord Russell that she was desirous of inviting you to England, a
measure which is urged both by himself and others, as far as they are
able”; in November, “nothing is at this time more talked about, than
t hat Peter Mar tyr is invited, and daily expected to ar r ive in
England.”104 While Martyr did not return, his influence did, through
his writings and his students, many now in high places, in particular
through Bishop Jewel’s Apology for the Church of England.105
Some would place Martyr’s works among the “normative docu-
101See n. 29 above
102Purgatio Reverendissimi … D. Thomae Arch. Cant.; text in G. Burnet, History of the
Reformation of the Church of England (London, 1681), vol. 2, app. 2:8; Smyth, Cranmer and
the Reformation, 122, calls the statement “magnificent.” Hall, “Cranmer,” 231, on the
other hand, thinks that I take this to mean too much, since it reflects less an identity of
views, particularly eucharistic, and more a tribute to Martyr’s debating skills; besides,
Bucer (whom Hall places close to Cranmer) was no longer available.
103For this paragraph, see VWG, 55ff., “The Affairs of England.”
104See Jewel’s six letters of 1559 to Martyr, Zurich Letters 1558–1579 (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1882), 6–25.

105“When clergy in Elizabeth I’s Church looked for a reliable and authoritative

theological guide, they were likely to turn to Martyr’s Common Places …”; D. MacCulloch,
The Later Reformation in England 1547–1603 (London: Macmillan, 1990), 71. Anthony
Marten, The Common Places of … Peter Martyr (London, 1583), has a prefatory letter to
Queen Elizabeth. It is an expanded edition of Masson’s Loci Communes and includes the
“Disputation” in its appended material.
xliv Oxford Treatise & Disputation

ments for the doctrine and government of the Church of England.”

One such was John Pym, majority leader in Parliament in 1629. Warn-
ing against current developments under Archbishop Laud, he argued
that heading the list of those documents giving evidence of “what is
the established religion of the realm” are the 1552 Articles, King
Edward VI’s catechism, and the writings of Martin Bucer and Peter
Martyr, along with the professions of Cranmer and Ridley.106

TEXT AND TRANSLATION

It will be obvious that Martyr states his case twice, repeating his
arguments and their patristic sources in roughly the same order in the
Treatise and the Disputation. Since the Treatise comes first, its annota-
tions will serve for both texts, as indicated where relevant in the Dispu-
tation’s notes. It will also be obvious that Martyr’s catena of passages
from the church fathers relies partly on his own solid research, but also
on collections of material. Frequent reference to the De Consecratio is a
case in point: the material gathered by Gratian (PL 187.1731 ff.) pro-
vides Martyr with such relevant texts as the Berengarius affair and pas-
sages from Ambrose and Jerome. Gratian also employs the older
designation “Eusebius Emmissenus” for Emisenus, as well as “Lib. II,
epist. 2, Caecilio fratri salutem” for Cyprian’s Ad Caecilium de Sacra-
mento Domini calcidi, now known as epistle 63.107 As we will see, Mar-
tyr’s references to such texts sometimes mention Gratian explicitly and
sometimes identify the original source, mostly quite familiar to him, as
the extent of his personal library shows.108 Moreover, his introduction
of Theodoret’s Dialogues and Chrysostom’s Ad Caesarium Monachum,
one of which was controversial and the other novel, illustrates his stat-
ure as patristic scholar.109
The text used for this translation of both works is the first edition:

106Quoted by James C. Spalding, ed., The Reformation of the Ecclesiastical Laws of

England, 1552, Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies, 19 (Kirksville, Mo., 1992), 56.
107 Martyr’s own text of Cyprian is edited by Erasmus, Divi Cypriani … (Basel:

Froben, 1543), in which it appears as Lib. II, ep. 3, fols. 51–58. Peter Lombard, Sent. IV,
dist. 8–13 (PL, 192.856–68), also supplies a collection of texts and arguments on which
Martyr draws.
108See CSV, “Peter Martyr’s Library,” 208–17, and PMRE, chap. 8, “Peter Martyr’s

Library and Lectures”; both draw on the research of Gardy (1919) and Ganozcy (1969).
109See “Peter Martyr’s Patristic Sources,” VWG, App. B, 267–71. Martyr showed

Cranmer these two texts while staying at Lambeth on his arrival in England. See §31 (61)
below for Cyprian, and §28 (54) below, for Theodoret.
 Translator’s Introduction xlv

Tractatio de sacramento eucharistiae, habita in celeberrima Universitate

Oxoniensi. Ad hec Disputatio de eadem Universitate habita M.D. XLIX.
London: [R. Wolfe], 1549, 4•, ca. 13.5:19 cm, fols. 1–67, for the Treatise,
and fols. 2r–94v for Disputation.110 This edition contains Martyr’s pref-
atory letter to Cranmer and Cox’s concluding oration. We reproduce
the title page and sample pages in the present volume. The copy of the
Disputation in the British Library has notes in the handwriting of King
Edward VI at fols. 8 and 10 through 13.111 Nicholas Udall translated the
Treatise the following year: A Discourse or traictise of Petur Martyr Vermill
a Florentine … wherin he openly declares his … iudgemente concernynge the
sacrament of the Lordes supper (London: Robert Stoughton, 1550). It has
a prefatory letter to Sir William Parr, earl of Essex.112 In 1552 a Zurich
edition appeared: De Sacramento eucharistiae in celeberrima Angliae
schola Oxoniensi habita tractatio, edited by A. Gesner and R. Wyssen-
bach, with prefatory letter from John Wolf to John Butler as well as a
summary of the eucharistic views of the pope, Luther, and Zwingli,
Martyr’s letter to Cranmer, and significantly, Augustine’s letter to Dar-
danus. Bound with the Treatise is Disputatio de eucharistiae sacramento
habita in celeberr. Universitate Oxonien. in Anglia. This edition includes
the letter of the presiding ten legates (A3v–A6v). A second Gesner edi-
tion appeared in 1557. There were also French translations of 1557
(Geneva) and 1562 (Lyon), and an Italian (Geneva) in 1557.113 The Trea-
tise is in Masson’s Loci Communes of 1576 and Marten’s Common Places
as IV.10, with the Disputation in the latter’s appendices. I have cor-
rected the text according to the list of errata (ERR), noting changes
either in braces { } in the text, or in footnotes.
Special mention should be made of help received from Andreas
Löwe’s master’s thesis on the Disputation.114 Besides his introductory
material using relatively neglected sources for the history of the debate,
he presents Jewel’s manuscript on which Martyr’s original edition was
110Donnelly has “fols. 2–90” for Disputatio because the last page is misnumbered

90 instead of 94.
111See BIB, 1–10, for details and printings.
112See BIB, 3.
113See BIB, 4–10, for details and facsimiles of title pages. Schmidt, Leben 105n.,

identifies the 1562 French translation (BIB, no. 7, p. 10) as published by Claude Ravot,
Lyon.
114Andreas Löwe, “Peter Martyr Vermigli, Disputatio De Eucharistiae Sacramento

… 1549”; AL, vol. 1, contains an introduction of eighty-five pages and the 1550 English
translation of the Disputation by Nicolas Udall, some five hundred pages. Vol. 2 consists
of two glosses, MSa, which is Chedsey’s secretary’s notes (Corpus Christi College, Oxford
XXX
xlvi Oxford Treatise & Disputation

based, collated with that of William Chedsey’s secretary.115 The latter is

preferred over Tresham’s more antagonistic tone. Löwe’s careful analy-
sis of the “two conflicting manuscript sources” (AL, 1:lxxvii) shows
little substantive alteration by either, although Chedsey at times pre-
sents the opponents’ arguments in greater detail than does Martyr, and
also records moderatorial interjections at greater length. I have taken
note of the more important glosses, although the vast majority are
either juxtapositions, synonyms, or more expanded ways of expressing
the same idea.

115

MSCCC 255, 161–203), and MSb (Corpus Christi College, Cambridge MS 495 [SP53]),
which is John Jewel’s account that “clearly forms the basis for the printed edition of
1549" (see AL, 1:lxxviiff., “Bibliographical and Editorial Notes”).
115Löwe, AL 1:lxxvii, notes that the Disputation is “among the few writings of Peter

Martyr’s which survives in its original manuscript form” while “a wealth of manuscripts
of the Oxford Disputatio is still extant.” John Jewel’s transcript survives as MS 495 (SP53)
in the Parker Collection of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, and forms the basis for
the printed edition of 1549. Tresham’s account, by an anonymous notary, is in the Brit-
ish Library (Harleian MS 422, fols. 4–31b). It was published in 1549, with an English
translation in 1568, but no copies of either are extant. Two versions by Chedsey’s name-
less secretary exist, and do not correspond exactly; Brian Twyne collection, Corpus
Christi College, Oxford MS cclv.155, fols. 161–203. A. Löwe, “Bibliographical and Edito-
rial Notes,” AL, 1:lxxvii ff.
 Part One

Treatise
on the
Sacrament
of the
Eucharist
 Peter Martyr’s Prefaces

To the Christian Reader

TWO REASONS HAVE MOVED ME TO WRITE about the Eucharist: the slanders
of evil men and the desires of my friends. To slight the one would be a
matter of discourtesy, to neglect the other a lack of faith, since it is clear
that no small hindrance to the religion of God hangs on it. If my own
cause alone were under discussion, I would easily have ignored it,
because I do not count my own judgment so great as to think I should
be moved by the slanders of adversaries and the empty rumors of ene-
mies. I know it is the part of wisdom to ignore many things, especially
of this sort, and I know that Christian charity endures all things, that it
seeks not its own but the things that are of Jesus Christ.1 But it is
Christ’s cause and not my own that is present here; not my name but
the Word of God is being mocked. For the authority of the ministry is
so joined to the Word of God that the danger extends to it also. We see
how good and godly affairs, no matter how faithfully and wisely han-
dled, proceed with little or no fruit if the one who treats them lacks
authority, particularly if he is marred or disgraced by some reproach.
I will not speak of what their insolence has circulated about the
disputation I had at Oxford last summer, and how they slandered me to
all sorts of men—princes, nobles, commoners, in city and country. For
they have done nothing in secret, but every corner, street, house, shop,
and tavern still resounds with their lies and boastings and conquests.
Nor do I doubt that these evil reports have even reached other lands.2
Here then was one reason to encourage me to set forth these disputa-
tions. Another, as I said at the beginning, is the requests of friends,
which I have denied until now. This was as much because I knew there
were enough books available on the matter to instruct every devout
person sufficiently, as because no one knows my own actions better
than myself. I judge them in such a way that I would not have them

11 Cor. 13:5, 7.
2 Those who influenced “other lands” include William Tresham, through his
account of the Disputation, and Richard Smith in person; see “Response and Critique,”
(introduction, p. xxx above).

3
4 Treatise on the Eucharist

prevent you (dear reader) from reading better books. But now these
friends of mine are greatly disturbed by the false reports of wicked men,
and have urged me so much that I yielded at last, acceding to the
requests of some and being compelled by the authority of others. What
could I refuse the most reverend archbishop of Canterbury, to whom I
owe most of all? Or the king’s visitors, who not only were present at
these disputations but also presided?3
Therefore I deliver this Disputation to you, along with a Treatise on
the same matter for its clearer explanation. I have written them all in
simple terms, and without style as it were, but faithfully. As to the Dis-
putation, I compared my own with the examples of the opponent. 4
After reading them diligently, I saw that important items had been
omitted, and tried to restore them from their writings, within the limits
of truth. On other points I saw that they had expanded their arguments
and had handled them more precisely in writing than when speaking
during the discussion; therefore I also expounded at greater length,
though retaining the truth of the matter—but this seldom happened.
So far as I know, I have not changed anything that might wrong
those who debated with me as to the effect, the chief points and sub-
stance of the arguments, and the rebuttals or answers. Indeed as often
as I could, I made sure that the same words are set down that were used
by either side when we debated, so far as my memory serves me or the
notes of recorders gave me to understand.5 Whoever was present at our
disputation will see for himself that no argument is omitted or added,
and will understand that nowhere have I shied away from the sum and
sense of what was said. If those who are contrary by nature complain
that I have omitted or twisted anything, let them put it in writing and
not deal with me by words which are worthless when spent so freely.
Let them act through written reasons, which one may both read and
ponder, so that this kind of debate will not be fruitless. For as Homer
said, words are only wind; but what is put in writing cannot be so easily
misrepresented.6 If they do so, I shall prepare myself to answer their
writing, just as I was once bold in meeting them with living voice.
Meanwhile, farewell, and take this in good part.

3See introduction, n. 49, for the royal visitors.

4Both Tresham and Chedsey published accounts: see introduction, above.
5John Jewel was Martyr’s notary.
6A variant of the Latin saying “Verba volant, scripta manent,” probably not Hom-

eric in origin.
 Dedication to Thomas Cranmer 5

Dedication to Thomas Cranmer7

PETER MARTYR VERMIGLI , FLORENTINE , PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY , sends

greetings to the Reverend Lord, Dr. Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of
Canterbury, Primate of all England, and his most respected Lord.
Esteemed prelate, those who publish books are accustomed by a
public and very ancient practice to choose for themselves leading men
in the state, to whose distinguished and famous names they dedicate
their books; by that act they gain some remuneration and much profit.
First (in their judgment), they gain for themselves a solid and strong
defender against detractors and flatterers. Second, since they seek to
have those of that rank confer many benefits on them, they try to
declare by this sort of service (since they cannot do otherwise) what a
warm and caring heart they have toward them. Besides, in the letter
which they call a letter of dedication they usually celebrate not only
their book’s patron by heaping up his praises, but as far as possible also
explain clearly the argument they have undertaken to deal with and
show its dignity and usefulness. Likewise, they insert some things
which they think will help clarify and greatly commend it, so that it
may be read more avidly by those who desire sound teaching, and that
the less learned may understand more easily what is going to be said.
Those who publish books, I admit, can dedicate them to powerful and
famous men for many other reasons beyond these, but I have reviewed
the more honorable ones and those which should move me so that I
might offer this book of mine, such as it is, to your most reverend dig-
nity.
Who else could I have chosen beside yourself as my protector of
the gospel truth and this sacrament of the Eucharist? Who is more
holy and learned, more steadfast than you? Surely no one. In the
patron of any cause what is needed above all is that he has both care-
fully studied and specially examined the matter he has undertaken to
defend. How can anyone defend what he knows [aij-v] very little about?
Secondly, skill, industry and a plan of action are required; without
these we are sometimes likely to fail even in the best causes. Finally, the

7Fol. aij–r; LC and CP omit the first pages (which are no doubt excessive in their
praise) and begin at the middle of aiii -v: “I have decided…”; see 9 below. The also omit
the final paragraph.
6 Treatise on the Eucharist
 Dedication to Thomas Cranmer 7

situation demands that the patron have both complete faith in and a
special commitment to the things for whose defense he provides a ref-
uge. Sometimes we never carry to a happy conclusion what we under-
take with either diffidence or a faint heart. But I know for certain that
Your Excellency has such great expertise in this controversy that it
would be difficult for anyone to find its equal in any other person.
Indeed, there is not one of the Fathers that you have not carefully
examined. There is no book by an author old or new in which with
these eyes of mine I have not seen annotations in your own hand about
all that pertains to this whole disputation. You yourself with intense
labor have digested under the main headings the councils, canons, and
papal decrees which pertain to this question so that, unless I had wit-
nessed these things with my own eyes, I would never have given a
ready belief to other people who related this.8
You have committed this sort of work, devotion, and labor not
just to this question of the Eucharist; I have observed that you have also
done the same regarding almost all other doctrines most subject to
controversy in this age of ours. For this reason I need not have shown
this little book of mine to you so that you might learn something new
from it (since I rather have drawn the greater part of my teaching from
your labors); rather, the only reason I send this writing of mine to Your
Excellency is so that by your critique [censura] (for you are legally and
rightly primate of all England) you might determine and note down in
it whatever is seen to have dissented from a right and orthodox mean-
ing. Also that you might protect, guard, and defend with your author-
ity (which is such that it ought to enjoy the highest position) those
things which you will have judged to be in accord with the divine let-
ters and to agree well with the edicts of His Royal Majesty.9
I pass over in silence many reasons for which I needed a patronage
as great as yours in this cause. You therefore have a good hold on the
business, as I said. Your Excellency does not fall short of skill, planning,
and industry in protecting what you have embraced. From this we can
learn that most often, when harassed by adversaries both publicly and
privately, you secured freedom from the thorny and intricate quibbles
of the sophists for what you knew to be true through the marvelous

8On first arriving at Lambeth, Martyr had seen Cranmer’s personal florilegium De

Re Sacramentaria; see CRA, 2:291, and “Response and Critique,” xxx above.
9See introduction, n. 34, above, for the matter of royal permission for public dis-

cussion of the Eucharist.

8 Treatise on the Eucharist

force of your learning, the sharpness of your talent and your dexterity
of action. All godly persons know quite well that there is no lack of
will—indeed you have a soul most attentive to defending sound and
Christian doctrines. They have seen how you are aflame with such [aiii-
r] zeal for establishing religion that you have incurred most bitter hos-
tilities for this reason alone, and have passed by many pleasures of this
life and undergone severe dangers.
Indeed, when I considered these things within myself and saw
that I have performed some works of very strong defense,10 I sought
refuge in the authority of your name, under which I might be protected
from those who seem never to make an end of pulling down, lacerat-
ing, and mocking my name everywhere with impudent lies. Never
would I have thought (unless I had been caught in the act) that there
would be some people who would be so enraged11 and proceed with
such sly tricks, deceitful arts, and bitter whips against a man who had
merited no harm from them and who had injured none of them by
word or deed. But let the cursed tongue of those rascals look out for
itself because (as is said in the Psalms) the arrows of the warrior have
been prepared against her, with glowing coals from the juniper tree.12
For just as the poisonous tongue bitterly scourges the innocent, so at
last will the tongue of divine judgment dig deep and tear apart and
wound with its sharp points. Just as the tongue tries to inflame every-
thing and set afire with its painful words, so in the end it will be burnt
in eternal flames.
Thus, eminent prelate, you have the reason that first moved me to
decide to dedicate this slender writing of mine to Your Excellency.
Therefore I now bring forward another reason for this decision of mine:
Just as others (as I said at the outset) are led to dedicate their books to
outstanding men, so I have been persuaded to offer this work of mine
to you. For such are the kindness and humanity, the merits and gener-
osity with which you have treated me that if I wished to give proper
thanks for them and extol them as they deserve, I would have nothing
else to say. However much I should proclaim them, the greatness of the
subject would always surpass my eloquence. Therefore I decided it was
better to say nothing rather than something unworthy and feeble.
Everybody already knows how kindly you welcomed not just me but
10Hyperaspisou, as corrected in ERR.
11Reading saevirent for sevirent.
12Ps. 120:4.
 Dedication to Thomas Cranmer 9

many other foreigners of my sort, and treated those you received as

warmly as possible.
I therefore cease treating these subjects any further, since they are
well known. I know very well that my testimony about your piety, pru-
dence, trustworthiness, and lofty virtues is not being waited for in this
kingdom since they are all well attested to everybody. Plato said about
Isocrates “He is someone to whom an understanding of philosophy is
present by nature.”13 He thus indicated that the philosophy of Iso-
crates (which was usually acquired by teaching and study) came forth
from nature. I then recognized that Your Excellency has been so
adorned by both grace and the favor of Christ that, although we are all
by nature [aiii-v] sons of wrath like everyone else, still your piety, theol-
ogy, and the rest of your virtues can seem to be inborn naturally and
ingrafted, so deep are the roots they have sunk into your soul. Hence
often have I hoped and yearned for God to give me as great a benefit, so
that as much as I possess might have a grateful heart toward Your Excel-
lency, and that I might be able to progress as closely as possible to your
virtues (which I admire in you as gifts from God).
No more on these things, even though my will is reluctantly torn
from this and the dignity of subject calls my pen back to it with great
force.14 But it is better to spare your ears than to pursue these words
with which I am almost forced to keep on extolling your praises. I know
that you can find nothing so hard to bear as hearing about your gifts
and virtues. Therefore, because I will be more safely engaged, I will go
over with you somewhat more at length in a future place the argument
which I have undertaken to treat. There it will be less dangerous, lest I
give you offense, even though I know that I should always use brevity
with Your Excellency in order to take account of the many and various
tasks, as regards both the state and the church, by which you are preoc-
cupied.
I have decided to explain certain matters in a few words,15 lest by
keeping silent I might be held unwise, an innovator, a bold, rash and
ungodly man; as though I robbed the sacrament of the Eucharist of its

13The quotation is in the original Greek, from Phaedrus 279a–b. Jowett has: “For he

has an element of philosophy in his nature”; Dialogues of Plato, trans. B. Jowett (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1924) 1.489.
14Reading revocet for reuccet.
15Both R. Masson and A. Marten, editors of the commonplace books (LC and CP),

begin at this point.

10 Treatise on the Eucharist

honor and dignity, or thrust the holy Supper on the church without
Christ, or encouraged such other things as tend to impiety and the
neglect of religion. I should rather die, or be nothing at all, or suffer the
greatest grief, than disseminate such doctrine. For my part, I attribute
so much to this sacrament as to say that through its use the faithful
obtain the greatest benefits to be hoped for from God in this life, if they
themselves are not hindered through vice or faithlessness.
I hold that all people earnestly desire three sorts of good. First, to
continue their life received at birth as long as possible. Second, they
wish God to be reconciled to them, and gracious. For the wise live most
miserably, knowing that they are never faultless, and that by divine jus-
tice a certain punishment is due for every fault, unless they have a sure
expiation to hand. Last, the prudent wish to live with one another in
justice and goodwill, in happiness and peace; for without these we live
most miserably and unhappily. Such are in substance the things uni-
versally desired by all who act wisely. And the chief and principal point
of these three is, that life may be sustained a long span of time, [aiv-r]
which we obtain by a beneficial and wholesome kind of diet. We have
this most clearly in the holy Supper. Just as the bread and wine (which
feed the body) are given outwardly to the communicants, so is it truly
granted to their minds that by faith they eat the body and blood of
Christ, given for our redemption, so that the whole person, both
inward and outward, is restored to the greatest happiness. This is the
only way that Scripture allows and knows of eating the body and drink-
ing the blood of the Lord, namely when we apprehend by a constant
and firm faith that Jesus the Son of God our Savior and Lord gave his
own body on the cross and shed his blood for us, and that he has so
embraced us who are given to him by the Father, and so joined and
incorporated us to himself, that he is our head, and we flesh of his flesh
and bone of his bones, while he dwells in us and we in him. In this
stands the whole power and reason of this meat and drink, to which
our faith is stirred up and kindled by the threefold Word: sometimes
inwardly, while the Holy Spirit, by his secret yet mighty power, clearly
incites our souls to renew these things in ourselves, that they may be
embraced with lively and willing faith; to the same end we are often
moved by the help of God’s words, piercing us by outward sound or by
writing; and finally, to provide every help for our infirmity, Christ
added bread and wine in the Supper as signs. By his words and institu-
tion they become sacraments, that is instruments by which the Holy
 Dedication to Thomas Cranmer 11

Spirit excites faith in our minds, so that we may be spiritually yet truly
fed and sustained by his body and blood.
What more could there be to lead the faithful to life than this
kind of food? Do we not by such eating dwell in Christ and Christ in
us? Can we ask for so great a good to be more clearly promised us than
when he himself said, “Who eats me shall live by me?”16
Moreover, in John 6 the Lord taught this simple, unadorned, yet
true and genuine, eating of his body and drinking of his blood. After-
ward the Lord desired that this should be helped by means of the out-
ward word and the sensation of bread and wine, when we come to the
holy table. Therefore whoever does not reject a holy life (I mean life
eternal and most happy), must he not cherish the Eucharist above all
things? Will he not embrace it as a sweet pledge of his salvation? Will
he not use it in the congregation of the saints as often as it is given?
Indeed he will, if he ponders these matters earnestly within himself.
Next to life, [aiv-v] which all wish to lead happily, for the most
part men desire to have God well pleased with them. If we are unsure of
this, our mind is anxious, our thoughts troublesome, our conscience
tormenting, creatures terrify us as avengers and harsh servants of God,
nothing is quiet inside us or out, we fear both heaven and hell alike,
showing the same hatred to God as to the devil, for the one we fear as
an executioner and the other as a judge. In this condition the holy
Scriptures help us, teaching that the heavenly Father is at peace with
humankind by no other means than by the sacrifice of his only begot-
ten Son. Through this sacrifice God has made an everlasting covenant
with his people, has forgiven our sins, has adopted those who believe
as his children, has committed them to his first begotten Son for salva-
tion, and has incorporated them and made them heirs of his heavenly
kingdom.
Now in receiving the sacrament of the Eucharist, the memory of
the Lord’s death and of the whole mystery of our redemption through
the incarnate Word of God is reopened, the acknowledgment of God’s
testament is renewed, and the blessed communion of Christ and remis-
sion of sins through his sacrifice given on the altar of the cross is
offered. So in this sacrament, if received rightly and with faith, not by
any power of the work [vi operis] but by the free benefit of Christ which
we apprehend in believing, we acknowledge that our sins are forgiven,

16John 6:51.
12 Treatise on the Eucharist

the covenant between God and ourselves confirmed, and God’s very
Son, who possesses life in himself through the Father, is received in
such a way that whoever partakes of his flesh and blood in true faith
lives through him, so that the heavenly inheritance is possessed by the
faithful, as far as the state of this life permits.
Therefore we claim not only life, but a life safe and calm in face of
divine wrath. What joy and delights and honest pleasures are lacking
to us who have God merciful and favorable towards us, and the Son of
God dwelling in us? None of them whatever, if we seek those things
that are true and solid, not fantasies and shadows. In the institution of
this sacrament, when he gave his body and blood to be eaten and
drunk by faith, Christ referred to the sustenance and nourishment of
life through faith. For in the Gospel of Luke he said, “Do this in remem-
brance of me.” Paul expressed this more plainly, saying: “For as often as
you eat this bread and drink this cup, you declare the Lord’s death till
he come.” Finally, it is said by both Luke and Paul, “This cup is the new
testament through my blood [ti-r] which shall be shed for you.” 17
Therefore, in regard to reconciliation with God, the forgiveness of sins,
and the confirmation of the testament, I have imagined nothing,
devised nothing, invented nothing which is not from holy Scripture.
Lastly, because man is not made for solitude, but desires social and
civil life; therefore when once convinced that he has the gracious
divine will through Christ, and that through him his sins are forgiven,
nothing else is required for his perfect and absolute life while he abides
here, except to live with others (called in Scripture neighbors) not only
in harmony but with the greatest justice and charity. Now this sacra-
ment teaches us this most effectively and earnestly. For in the mysteries
we become sharers in one table [homotrapezoi]:18 What else should we
have in mind than that we are one body, members one of another
under Christ our head? And one bread, united among ourselves just as
almost innumerable grains of wheat coalesce in that bread which we
take? 19 Those who are not persuaded by such reasons to maintain
mutual concord and charity among brethren have without doubt
hardened their hearts like stone and iron, and will be considered more
savage and brutish than tigers and the cruelest beasts. For, knowing
that the Son of God gave his life for his enemies, they themselves are
17Luke 22:19–20; 1 Cor. 11: 25–26.
18Italics signify transliteration of Greek words.
19Cf. Cyprian, §24; see also 49, n. 103, below.
 Dedication to Thomas Cranmer 13

not moved to do good, so far as they are able, to their brothers and
neighbors for whom Christ died.
If a secular table reconciles men to one another when they meet
together, why should not the table of Christ effect this the more? Since
the wildest beasts are tamed by food, why are men not made gentle by
this heavenly food? If treaties and covenants are usually sealed by food
and drink, why do not the children of God establish peace and friend-
ship among themselves by communicating together?
We are directed to such things by this divine rite, and by the word
of holy Scripture recited in it. In view of our obstinacy, opposed as we
are to just, honest, and holy things, even if the admonition seem feeble
or ineffectual, yet on condition that faith is not absent, the power of
the Holy Spirit seizes our hearts by the sacraments and words of God.
This always stimulates harmony, peace, and mutual love, so that while
we communicate together not only do we use an outward occasion, but
our minds also experience the inward moving of divine inspiration. So
you see, most great leader [amplissime Praesul], what notable and
excellent goods which I show are given us through the Eucharist. Let
those who would scourge Martyr20 complain as much as they please
that I violate the sacrament [ti-v] of the Lord’s Supper. Let them step
forward and demonstrate what they have accomplished more than I by
their transubstantiations, their marvels and wonders [teratologiais],
what more solid fruit and genuine profit they have brought by this sac-
rament either to communicants or to churches. Will they speak of the
benefit of our dwelling in Christ and Christ in us? So will I. Will they
speak of obtaining a holy life and heavenly blessedness? I propose that
too. Will they speak of receiving the body and blood of Christ? No less
do I, yet such as is had by faith and the soul. Will they object to the
remission of sins, the confirmation of the covenant, the remembrance
of the cross and Christ’s death that is effected? I think not, for I have
often taught all of this to large gatherings. Will they oppose the incor-
poration, so to speak, which in communicating we obtain by faith,
both with Christ and among ourselves his members? They cannot, for
this also have I constantly emphasized. What then do they say, since
besides these nothing else is taught about the Eucharist in Scripture? I
know what they will say now: You take away transubstantiation—cor-
poreal, carnal, real, and substantial presence—this we deplore, this we

20Reading Martyromastiges: apparently a Greek neologism of Martyr’s.

14 Treatise on the Eucharist

affirm more fully than you; in this we dissent from you. I hear them
quite well, but have decided to make no reply just now, because tran-
substantiation is an empty thing, and because I have dealt with it
enough in both the Disputation and the Treatise prefixed to it.
Now concerning Christ’s body, which I deny to be present—as
you complain so much—I wish to say something openly to explain
myself.21 If I should ask you why one should assert such a presence as
you imagine for yourself, I think you will answer: In order that the
body and blood of Christ may be joined to us. But since the whole work
of this union is heavenly and spiritual, this presence of yours so zeal-
ously argued, relating to locality, is not required at all. What need is
there either of physical contact or of nearness of places? Tell me this:
since holy Scripture declares not only that we are united with Christ
but also that we are members together with our brethren, being made
one body, will you not agree that the faithful in Spain, Italy, Germany,
and France are so joined with us as to be (as Paul says) members
together with us?22 I know you will not deny that. Therefore if [tij-r]
separation of places and physical contact, which are impossibilities, do
not hinder this unity by which we are joined together in one through
Christ, why do you deny that we are truly joined to him without any
real and corporeal presence? And if you do not deny it, why do you
insist on promoting such a presence?
To use a plainer and more expressive simile: as you know, in holy
Scripture, man and wife both are and are called one flesh. For Adam, or
God through Adam, said: “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of
my flesh; for this cause a man shall leave father and mother, and cleave
to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.”23 So appropriate is this
likeness to the matter at hand that in Ephesians Paul takes the Church
as the body of Christ in the same manner as the wife is the bone and
flesh of her husband.24 If it sometimes happens that a man stays in
London while his wife remains at Cambridge or Oxford, this union of
flesh between husband and wife is not prevented. Their separation and

21See introduction, “Response and Critique,” xxx, for Basil Hall’s interpretation of

this passage as addressed to Cranmer. I take it rather as clearly continuing his rhetorical
device of addressing the “adversaries” of the preceding paragraphs.
221 Cor. 10:17.
23Gen. 2:23–24.
24Eph. 5:21ff.
 Dedication to Thomas Cranmer 15

lack of physical contact which cannot then exist shows only that wife
and husband themselves remain one and the same flesh.
Thus in order to enter into union with Christ, there is no need for
you to attempt to tie his body and blood, or as you say to hide them,
under the appearance [sub speciebus] of bread and wine. We are truly
joined to Christ without these wonders. Apart from such fancied
devices, the Eucharist is a whole and perfect sacrament; nor are Christ’s
words diminished without these delusions when he said “This is my
body,” delivering bread to his apostles, as the following Treatise will
declare more fully. Thus in order to establish and confirm all these
things, the church needs no corporeal or substantial presence of the
body of Christ.
Yet I would not have it thought, on account of these similes I
bring, that I regard lightly or depreciate the union we have and daily
enter into with Christ. For I well know that in order to demonstrate its
closeness, Scripture is accustomed to declare that we are not only
endowed with the Spirit, merit, and intercession of Jesus, and act and
live by his inspiration and Spirit, but also that he himself is with us and
dwells in our hearts by faith: he is our head, he dwells in us and we in
him, we are born again in him, his flesh is both given and received to be
eaten and drunk. But I understand statements of this kind to be meta-
phorical, since proper speech cannot easily be found for these things—
words signify this or that as they are appointed to serve human ends.
Therefore when it comes to heavenly and divine things, the natural
man who does not understand such great secrets, cannot as much as
name them.25
[tij-v] In this way the Holy Spirit attends to our weakness: having
granted us light and understanding beyond our nature, he also hum-
bled himself to these metaphors, namely abiding, dwelling, eating, and
drinking, so that in a certain sense he may make known to us this
divine and heavenly union which we have with Christ. Since these
forms of speech consist of two things, the highest efficacy and a signifi-
cance not proper but transferred, they must not be interpreted rashly
but with prudent and spiritual caution. This is observed if we do not
extend their sense more than is fitting nor attribute too much to them,
especially when applied to sacraments. The hyperboles of the Fathers

25For Martyr’s doctrine of natural knowledge of God, see PW 18–20 (“Nature and

Grace” §§1–2) and PW 138–40 (“Visions” §§1–2)

16 Treatise on the Eucharist

and contempt of Anabaptists greatly confused the sacraments (particu-

larly this one with which we are dealing). The latter judge it only a
token of mutual love, a cold and bare sign of Christ’s death; the former
attribute everything divine to it, by which they step arrogantly into
dreadful idolatry.
The median position we hold can be retained in no other way
than by interpreting the phrases we have mentioned according to the
analogy or convenience of holy Scripture. This requires us not to tear
asunder the hypostatic union of Christ (as they call it), on account of
which the properties of the two natures, divine and human, communi-
cate with each other; yet also to distinguish with sound understanding
exactly what we have communicated by alternation of the properties
[idiômatôn], so that the divinity is not made subject to human infirmi-
ties, nor the humanity so deified that it leave the bounds of its own
nature and be destroyed.26 Therefore by a spiritual wisdom, such as
only holy Scripture provides, we must discern what is agreeable to
Christ in respect of one nature and the other. In this regard, the pres-
ence of the body of Christ which I remove from the Eucharist is that by
which it is everywhere diffused, or else in many places at once, so that
it frees itself from the quantity and limitation necessary to a human
body.
Thus if by presence someone understands the perception of faith
by which we ourselves ascend to heaven, by mind and spirit embracing
Christ in his majesty and glory, I willingly consent to him. But I totally
reject their opinion who contend that the body is enclosed and cov-
ered in the bread and wine, and affirm [tiij-r] that it is under their forms
[sub species], so that they should worship and adore him there; in
brief, they have set up an idol. This is the head, origin, and source of all
contention; here in general the state of all the present controversy
rests. Therefore if we do not resolve this point sincerely, well, and
clearly, our adversaries will continue to have some means of making a
fair show of maintaining and defending their superstitions and idola-
tries (which they force on the church) through sophistical arguments
decked out with painted face.
To cover the whole matter in few words, I heartily affirm these
two things. One, that this sacrament of the holy Supper is nothing

26For an exposition of the communicatio idiomatum see DIAL, 50 –51, 102–4, and

VWG, 103–4, 190 ff.

 Dedication to Thomas Cranmer 17

without use.27 How true this is other sacraments testify. The other
point is that when we make use of it we grasp Christ’s body and blood
by faith alone. Those who teach otherwise speak what they do not
understand themselves, nor are they understood by others; they fling
themselves by choice into obscurities and labyrinths where the Scrip-
tures do not lead. And this is the basis, the strength and foundation of
the opinion I have declared, namely that it belongs properly only to
the divine nature to be by substance everywhere and to fill all things;
while conversely the state and condition of human nature is to be con-
tained in a definite place, measurable and spatial, unable to spread
itself over many places or everywhere at the same time. Our senses wit-
ness to this fact, confirmed by human reason, nor does any divine
Scripture prove it to be otherwise; the Fathers asserted it in many
places. If this is reversed and the opposite taught, as many do, we
derive no profit, since we already have as much when we hold our
opinion, just expressed.28
Let those who cry against me that I teach a reception of the Lord’s
Supper without Christ, that is without his body and blood, take this for
an answer: If they desire the presence of the body of Christ as an appre-
hension through faith, offered to us by signification of words and signs
and exhibited by the Lord’s kindness, I gladly and willingly admit it, as
I have said. For just as light, color, sound, and so on can exist in a
remote place yet are said to be present to our senses while we perceive
them, so the body of Christ may be termed present, in this meaning of
presence, because we grasp it by faith. And if this is understood with
right and sound judgment in the way we have explained, one may say
that the body of Christ is much more present to those who believe,
than are those qualities which are distant in place yet received by the
senses. For apprehension by faith is more certain; more firmly [tiij-v] do
we adhere to what we believe than do the senses or reason to what they
comprehend by its natural power.
I may seem to have expressed my opinion sufficiently about this
presence of the body of Christ, unless Your Excellency wonders (being
of keen judgment, and loving purity and simplicity of speech, espe-
cially in theological matters) why, in the questions of these disputa-
tions I used the words really, substantially, bodily, and carnally
27For the Reformed principle nulla sacramentum extra usum see §§19 and 51, and
EW, 66.
28For arguments against ubiquity see DIAL, passim.
18 Treatise on the Eucharist

[realiter, substantialiter, corporaliter et carnaliter], since they are for-

eign words, entirely alien to the phraseology of holy Scripture. I
thought so too, Reverend Bishop, and had I been allowed to speak my
own will would have abstained completely from them, as being strange
and even barbarous and ambiguous.29 But I am forced to use them
partly by the familiar usage of the schools, and partly by the insistence
of the adversaries. In order to hinder me even more, as they thought,
the latter flaunted me before the people and baser kind of priests, as
though I overthrew the foundation of the sacrament of the Eucharist.
By these grosser words they zealously affirmed the presence of Christ
under the species, as they say, of bread and wine. They also broadcast as
effectively as they could the charge that I denied them quite hereti-
cally. Meanwhile those who happened to be present and favored my
doctrine and opinion, took its defense on themselves; and since the
argument between us and our opponents repeatedly arose over these
very words, they urged me to set forth at once, fully and clearly, my
opinion as to what is necessary concerning the presence of the body of
Christ, in terms of the meaning of these words.
This happened since I sometimes used these adverbs in class.
Therefore these little flowers regard the scholastic theologians as the
best authors, for they used these terms (however barbaric) as appropri-
ate and most suitable to give precise expression [emphatikôteros]. But
lest we remain in doubt, it is best to declare my understanding of them.
When I deny that the body of Christ is present locally, substantially,
bodily, and carnally, it must not be inferred that we eat Christ’s body
falsely, in pretense or imagination [ficte, simulate seu phantastice]. For
if they understand by these words the reality of the thing itself, I will
not deny that the body of Christ is truly received by us. What we com-
prehend by faith must not be considered false or feigned, counterfeit or
a phantom. Otherwise, [tiv-r] Christ’s death and resurrection in which
we believe would be pretense and fantasy, since they are past and not
now present. Moreover, in times past the fathers who received Christ
and had the same meat and spiritual drink that we enjoy, would be
judged to have had them falsely, through illusion and deceit; for they
could not possess his body and blood “really and corporeally” present
with them, since the Son of God had not yet assumed them, but ate

29 See introduction, “The Academic Debate,” xxv ff., for the circumstances sur-

rounding the choice of terms.

 Dedication to Thomas Cranmer 19

and drank by faith. All this would be most absurd, since faith is noth-
ing less than a sure power and faculty granted our minds by God, by
which we assent to things quite true and certain; therefore faith cannot
grasp things that are false or spurious.
If they contend by these expressions, as they do indeed, that the
body of Christ is extended in many different places at once, I deny this
meaning and stand against them, and would have my readers know
that I reject it completely. I also add that, to anyone of sound judg-
ment, these words “bodily” and “carnally” signify receiving by the
senses; since the body of Christ is received neither by sense nor by rea-
son, I refuse those words more readily. Thus it happened that when I
was to reach an agreement with the opponents about these questions, I
offered only these two words, “bodily” and “carnally,” in which mode I
denied Christ’s body and blood to be present. As I have indicated, I was
constrained to use them, not willingly or gladly. In fact when we were
at last ready to dispute and to expound the questions, the antagonists
feared that I might hide some subtlety or device in the adverbs “corpo-
really” and “carnally”; and to set forth the matter more plainly, as they
thought, they wished to add two more adverbs, “really” and “substan-
tially.”
Any offense committed in this respect; therefore, is not my choice
but the fault of others. To this I have as my witness the Reverend Dr.
Cox, His Royal Majesty’s teacher, and chancellor of the University of
Oxford. This is not the place to speak of his wisdom, learning, and
piety; yet they are so notable in him as to be known far and wide, in
college and church and court. When my opponents cavilled about the
questions, as I stated, he was not only present but because of his office
was moderator of the Disputation. The Reverend Lord Visitors also
knew this, being excellent men and well adorned with all kinds of vir-
tues; [tiv-v] before them the adversaries debated with me most hotly
regarding the ambiguity which they suspected in the proposed ques-
tions. The only way there could be agreement between us was for me to
grant that “corporeally and carnally” should be taken for the same as
“really and substantially.”
I wished to write to you, Reverend Lordship, about this at greater
length, since I think that many are offended by these words. I under-
stand that some—excellent men in godliness and learning—would not
willingly have allowed them. Perhaps they will be more friendly toward
me when they understand why I used them, as well as in what sense I
20 Treatise on the Eucharist

affirm or deny the body and blood of the Lord to be present in the Sup-
per.30 In order to make this clear again in the fewest words, I declare
that they are truly given and offered to us, by both words and symbols,
which signify them powerfully and most effectively. We truly receive in
communicating when with full and solid assent of faith we grasp those
things offered by the signification of words and signs. It follows that we
are most closely joined to Christ; and whom we have obtained in bap-
tism by the benefit of regeneration, him we put on still more and more
by the sacrament of food, since nature provides that we are nourished
by the same things of which we consist. If we wish to be saved, we
should always take care that Christ dwell in us and we in him, until we
are wholly converted into him, and so changed that nothing of ours
remains, of inborn death I mean, or corruption and sin.
Now it remains for me, most excellent leader [Praesul], to ask
pardon for two faults in writing which I freely admit. One is, it often
happens in this Treatise that the same thing is repeated two or three
times. This upsets those who are wise and learned, who without prod-
ding see many things for themselves, and consider it superfluous to
have everything set forth for them, unwillingly suffering the repetition
of the same matter. Yet we should remember that although this is a
bore to the learned, at times repetition and double treatment are not
without profit. For in this unhappy time, the notion of transubstantia-
tion and the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist has lodged so
deeply in men’s minds, and is taken so seriously by them [tv-r] and held
so dear, that they are greatly disturbed, and their minds distracted from
hearing our arguments and truth to believe otherwise. Just as one or
two calls are not enough to awaken those who are fast asleep, so to state
the fact once is not sufficient to recall these men from their former
error. Therefore I shall think a great deal is accomplished if I do much
with this superstitious sort of folk by repeating the same thing. So may
charity towards the wayward persuade learned and sound readers not
to be put out on this point.
I further ask your forgiveness for my rough and unskilled writing.
Unhappily from my youth I was not trained sufficiently in the fine arts
(as happens to the young at times through the fault of teachers); now it
is difficult for me to speak and write plainly, simply, and easily. In this
30Martin Bucer is chief among the men who “excelled in godliness and learning”
that objected to Martyr’s terminology. See introduction, “Response and Critique,” and
VWG, 273ff., for his influence on Martyr, resulting in the tone of the preface.
 Dedication to Thomas Cranmer 21

regard, people should recall, along with Your Excellency, that all those
into whose hands such things come will not be required to do every-
thing. Indeed I offer what I can, nor had I wished to dull your learned
ears by my nightlong studies. But the result is that this situation is not
made by myself alone, but forced on me by the corruption of the spite-
ful. So I submit to Your Excellency, through that kindness by which
you are used to foster both literature and religion, that you will deign to
accept what I offer with a good spirit. What may be seen in them that is
of less worth, frankly condemn; on the contrary, what you discover to
be orthodox and sound, note with your firm authority and good favor.
May Almighty God keep Your Excellency in safety for many years,
along with the king and the church. Amen.
 Treatise
On the Sacrament of the Eucharist

1. The controversies arising from the sacrament of the Eucha-

rist doubtless have as their goal how to understand the mode of union
of the Lord’s body and blood with the symbols of bread and wine or, as
others call them, the sacramental species.1 Since it is clear to all that
this is called the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord, it fol-
lows that they are somehow contained in this sacrament. But in our
investigation we will not consider everything proposed on both sides,
lest what is obscure enough in itself become more involved, and the
treatise expand to infinity. Rather, the order and disposition of the doc-
trine will be reduced to four heads.
First we shall deal with that union through which, as they gener-
ally state, the bread and wine are transubstantiated into the body and
blood of Christ; this seems to be a complete joining [summa copulatio]
of the sacrament with the reality.2 Next we shall examine another
opinion, which holds that the bread and wine are retained in the sac-
rament in their complete and true nature, so as to have the true body
and blood of Christ joined to them naturally, corporeally, and really
(as they put it).3 Thirdly we shall consider what still others say, that
they are joined together in no other way than sacramentally; this is by
signification and representation.4 Finally the investigation will pro-
ceed to draw from the opinions of the second and third points what-
ever seems to make for true religion in this matter of the sacrament.5

1Numbered sections follow LC/CP, 4.10. Headings in S MALL CAPS are added by the

translator, usually from the marginalia.

2This first point reflects proposition 1 of the Disputation. Transubstantiation is the

concern of almost the whole Treatise, §§2–65.

3See proposition 2 of the Disputation.
4See proposition 3 of the Disputation.
5The Lutheran view occupies §§66–75, the Zwinglian view §§76–77, and Martyr’s

“Conclusion,” §§78–82.

22
 Transubstantiation 23

Transubstantiation6
2. It is best to begin with the opinion of transubstantiation, since
it is both grosser and more recent, and since the other two views refute
it with equal enthusiasm. The Master of the Sentences writes of it in
the fourth book, distinctions 8, 9, 10, and 11.7 We may summarize as
follows. When the minister ordained for this purpose utters the words
instituted by the Lord over the proper and appointed material, that is,
bread and wine, providing he has an intention (as they call it) to do
this, the substance of bread and wine is converted into the substance of
the body and blood of Christ, and so converted that the accidents of
the changed or destroyed substance remain apart from a subject,
although some would have it that they are supported by the subse-
quent body of Christ. But this is false, because the body of Christ is not
really endowed with such accidents. Others try to make a natural foun-
dation out of air. But since this cannot be proved, almost all who spon-
sor this opinion agree they are left hanging in air, and remain without
a subject.
They want these accidents that are seen and felt to signify the true
body of Christ, which they carry within them veiled and hidden. From
here they proceed by saying that this body of Christ lying hidden
under accidents is a sign of the very body of Christ that hung on the
cross, and of the mystical body, that is, the society of the elect and the
predestined. Thus the Master of the Sentences states that only a sign is
here, which he takes to be the visible forms, and something else which
is both substance [res] and sign, namely the body of Christ hidden
under accidents. For it is substance if you refer to the visible form, and
sign if you regard the mystical body. According to him, the mystical
body is something else you should not call sign but substance, since it
is signified in such a way that it no longer exists as the sign of anything.
The things afterwards joined in the action of these mysteries are not,
he says, necessities like the giving of thanks or the various prayers.8
If you ask them how so great a body can be contained in so little
bread, they say that it is not by way of quantity or locally, or “within
limits” [definite], but by way of substance, or “sacramentally.” Nor do
6The original has only two section headings: De transubstantiatione here and Argu-
menta contra transubstantiatione at §6. The other headings are inserted by the translator,
usually from marginalia.
7Peter Lombard, Sent. IV, dists. 8–11 (PL 192.855–64).
8Lombard, Sent. IV, dist. 8, Tria in hoc (PL 192.1095).
24 Treatise on the Eucharist

they consider it absurd that in this sacrament two bodies are contained
in the same place, because they are forced to it, since a quantity or
bodily measure obtains between the accidents of bread. They do not
shrink from a body that exists truly in many places, and concede that a
man of full stature and height such as Christ was on the cross or as he
will come to judge, is contained truly but invisibly not only in a little
bread, but even in its smallest part. Many other things about this opin-
ion could be reported, but I consider this sufficient for our Treatise.
Whoever wishes more may consult the Master of the Sentences in the
passage cited, with his innumerable interpreters.9 However, concern-
ing the conversion or transubstantiation, they bring the following
arguments.

Arguments for Transubstantiation

3.[1]10 First, holy Scripture proposes it. For in John 6 the Lord
promised to give his flesh not only for the life of the world, but also to
be eaten, and added: “Unless a man will eat my flesh and drink my
blood, he will not have life.” Again he said that he was bread from
heaven, even living bread which the Father had given. Here is a clear
promise to give himself to be eaten according to the likeness of bread.
And he fulfilled what he promised in good faith at the Last Supper, as
the Evangelist testified.11 Moreover, Paul declares that what is given is
the Lord’s body when he says: “Whoever eats and drinks unworthily
will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” Again: “He eats and
drinks judgment to himself, not judging the Lord’s body.”12 They hold
that the whole strength of the argument consists in those words, “This
is my body,” which they claim to be clear, needing no exposition. They
speak in support of the reverence we owe to the Word of God; the evan-
gelists agree that they should be believed on this point —Matthew,
Mark, and Luke, as well as the apostle Paul in I Corinthians. If this
matter were not of great moment, or to be taken simpliciter, as it sounds,
the apostles would not have agreed with each other in such harmony.

9Cf. Thomas Aquinas: “quod corpus Christi est in hoc sacramento per modum
substantiae et non per modum quantitatis” (ST III, q 76 ad 1).
10The arguments are numbered from 1 to 20 in the margins.
11John 6:33, 53; Matt. 26:26.
121 Cor. 11:27–29.
 Arguments for Transubstantiation 25

But if it is permissible to evade by figures of speech,13 nothing (they

say) will be safe from heretics.
[2] Again, propositions of this kind, that is, Hoc est corpus meum,
must be taken as having subject and predicate representing and refer-
ring to the same thing. They are propositions of identity (as the Scho-
lastics put it), unless anything is found in the context of the words
either before or after which forces us to a trope or allegory; no such
thing is found in this place. But if you consider properly what follows,
it recalls us to a simple proposition, for it says, “which is given for you.”
And it is clear that the very body of Christ was given for us.
[3] Moreover, things distinct in nature and kind, commonly
called “disparates” by logicians—such as a man, a horse, and a stone—
are such that they cannot be mutually predicated of one another.14 For
it will never be true that a man is a stone, or the opposite. Surely no one
doubts that the body of Christ and bread are to be taken in this sense,
so that it will never be true to say that bread is the body of Christ. Espe-
cially since when the Lord declared, “This is my body,” the substance of
bread must disappear.
[4] They add15 that Christ did not use the verb substantive of the
present tense carelessly when he said, “This is my body.” He could have
said plainly this signifies my body, this represents my body, this is a
figure of my body, or a sign of my body, or else this bread is my body.
Since he avoided all these, the dictum is to be taken simply, as he spoke
it. [5] Besides, if the substance of bread remains there would be two sub-
stances at once, and both corporeal, penetrating each other; this is
avoided by accepting transubstantiation. [6] A danger threatens that
people may fall into idolatry. For since the body of Christ is to be wor-
shipped, bread will also be worshipped if it remains there. [7] Nor does
it seem proper to the dignity of Christ’s body to be joined in this way
13Tropus will be rendered sometimes as “figure,” sometimes as “trope.” Usually

Martyr identifies the critical trope in eucharistic doctrine as “either Synecdoche or

Metonymy” (COR, 10:4).
14Disparates have no common ground or genus (unlike contraries and disjuncts).

The concept was introduced by Cicero, De Iuv. Rhet. 29.42, and was prominent in Occam-
ist logic. Martyr expands on it in DEF, 44ff., 386; cf. VWG, 186ff. He examines the con-
cept of analogy in ETH, 1.6 and 2.6. In the 1554 debate at Cambridge, Cole countered
Cranmer by stating: “This argument holdeth, à disparatis: It is bread, ergo it is not the
body; and it is such an argument or reason as cannot be dissolved”; Writings 402; Foxe,
Acts & Monuments 2:1029a.
15“They” are Martyr’s debating partners in the Disputation, although the Treatise

does not follow its chronological order.

26 Treatise on the Eucharist

with bread or wine. [8] They also argue from the nature [ratio] of sacri-
fice. If the body of Christ is offered by the minister, he must hold it and
stand there before God, unless we wish to say that he offers something
merely signified and foreshadowed.
4. [9] Further, they proclaim that all the Fathers stand with
them.16 First they cite Irenaeus, who says in the fifth book, “When the
mixed cup and broken bread receive the Word of God, it becomes the
Eucharist of the blood and body of Christ”; in the fourth book he says
practically the same thing.17 And Tertullian in the fourth book says
that Christ, taking bread and distributing to his disciples, made it his
body.18 Origen, writing on Matthew 26 says, “This bread, which God
the Word confesses to be his body” and so on.19 Cyprian, in his sermon
on the Lord’s Supper: “This common bread, changed into flesh and
blood, procures life.” And again in the same sermon, “This bread
which the Lord gave to his disciples, changed not in form but in
nature, by the power of the Word is made flesh.”20
Ambrose in the fourth book, On the Sacraments: “It is bread before
the words of the sacraments; when consecration comes, bread becomes
the flesh of Christ”; and he has many other like sayings in his book on
the sacraments.21 In the same line of thought, Chrysostom, homily 60
on the Eucharist, contained in the sixth volume, says: this sacrament is
like wax put into fire, where none of the substance remains, but all
becomes like the fire; even so, he says, the bread and wine are con-
sumed by this substance of Christ’s body.22 In the prologue to Psalm 23

16The Patristic sources were debated in the Disputation, passim.

17On the first day of debate with Tresham, Martyr introduced Irenaeus, Contra

Haereses IV.17.5, 18.5 (PG 7.1023, 1028–29); on the third day Tresham cited Irenaeus,
Contra Haer. V.3.2 (PG, 7.1129ff.).
18Tertullian, Adv. Marcion IV.40 (PL 2.491); cf. §§23 and 40 below.
19Origen, Comm. in Matt. XI, 14 (PG 13.954).
20The Sermo De Coena Domini et Prima Institutione consummantis omnia sacramenta

was influential in Martyr’s eucharistic theology, as the notations in his own copy show:
Erasmus, Divi Caecilii Cypriani ep. Carth. et Martyris Opera (Basel: Hervagrius, 1530), where
the text appears in fols. 443–51. But “Martyr knew from his copy of Melanchthon’s works
that the Cyprian authorship of the De Coena was suspect, as in Sententiae Veterum”
(PMRE, 277, 421). The work is in fact by the twelfth-century Arnoldus Carnotensis, abbot
of Bonneval: De cardinalibus Christi operibus—De coena Domini (PL 189.1643ff.). See GAN,
22, 62/2. Cranmer cites Gardiner’s Detection of the Devil’s Sophistry (1546) as his source;
see DEF, 10; CRA, II:339.
21Ambrose, De Sac. IV.4.15 (PL 16.440–41).
22Chrysostom, De Poenit. IX (PG 49.345). “‘Homily 60 ad populum Antiochum’

refers to a text not in modern editions but printed in the Basel 1530 edition of Chrysos-
XXX
 Arguments for Transubstantiation 27

Augustine says that Christ carried himself in his hands when he insti-
tuted the sacraments in the Supper.23 And in Psalm 98, expounding
that sentence “Worship his footstool,” he affirms that the flesh of
Christ is to be worshipped in the sacrament, an inconsistency if bread
remains.24 Again in On the Trinity book 3, he says, “There can be no sac-
rament except by the power of the Holy Spirit cooperating.”25
In his On the Trinity 8, Hilary says: “Christ is in us by the reality of
nature and not only by an agreement of will; he states that in the
dominical food we truly take the word as flesh.”26 Bishop Leo of Rome,
in his twenty-second letter to the clergy and people of Constantinople:
“Receiving the strength of the heavenly food, we pass into his flesh who
was made flesh for us.”27 They add that Damascene stands completely
with them. 28 Also Theophylact is introduced by them, who quite
clearly mentions a changing of the elements [transelementatio].29 And
regarding Anselm and Hugh of St. Victor, who were of later time, there
is no doubt that they support transubstantiation.30 Therefore they
hold that the Fathers both old and new support their opinion.
They also cite councils, namely Ephesus against Nestorius, where
Cyril presided. He has much to say on this point, especially that partic-

23

tom’s works, IV.581”; J. E. Cox, Writings and Disputations of Thomas Cranmer on the Lord’s
Supper (Cambridge University Press: Parker Society, 1844), 182, 402n. In earlier editions
the nine sermons de Poenitentia were bound with the twenty-one Ad pop. Ant. H. Jenkyns
notes that references to the two homilies 60 and 61 are “in fact to one only.” In earlier
editions the sermons are entitled Ad Populum Antiochenum, “being, with the exception of
the first twenty-five, mere compilations from his other works” (CRA, II:417n.); cf. Jen-
kyns “Authorities,” CRA, IV.xlv.422, and the comments of Henry Savile (1612 edition) in
PG 49.277, 826ff.
23Augustine, En. in Ps. 33 [sic], Sermo 10 (PL 36.306), and in Gratian (PL 187.1780):

David ferebatur manis suis. Cf. §§17, 49.

24Augustine, En. in Ps. 98.9, Adorate scabellum pedum eius (Vulg.) (PL 36.1264);

cf. §49 below.

25Augustine, De Trin. III.4.10 (PL 42.874).
26Hilary, De Trin. VIII.50 (PL 10.273–74. Cranmer (Def., 3:15; CRA, 2.406n) copied

the passage from Gardiner’s Detection of the Devil’s Sophistry.

27Leo I (440–461), Ep. LIX.2 (PL 54.868), and in Gratian (PL 187.1748). The text has

“10,” corrected to “22” in ERR.

28John of Damascus, De Fide Orth. IV.13 (PG 94.1139).
29Theophylact of Ochydra (ca. 1050–1108), En. in Ev. Marci XIV.250 (PG 123.651).

Cf. §54 below.

30Anselm, De corpore et sang. Dom. 2.c.12 (PL 159.255–56); Hugh of St. Victor, De

sacramentis, 2.8.9 (PL 176.468); CRAN, I.12, 20. Both condemn the doctrine of Berengar
as heretical.
28 Treatise on the Eucharist

ipating in the complete holy body and precious blood of Christ, we do

not receive common flesh nor that of a sanctified man, but in fact that
which sanctifies, even made peculiarly the Word himself.31 They cite
the Council of Vercelli under Leo IX, where Berengar was condemned,
whose recantation is recorded in the decrees de Consecratio, part 2, and
in the Sentences, 4.32 Again, they cite the Roman Lateran Council
under Innocent III, who mentioned transubstantiation in the decretals
de summa Trinitate, chapter Firmiter, and de celebratione Missarum, chap-
ter Cum Martha.33 Also the Council of Constance, which condemned
Wyclif, who denied this transubstantiation.34 [11] They claim that on
their side they have the consent of the whole church, which moved
Scotus so much that (in the fourth book) when transubstantiation
could not be firmly proved by Scripture and arguments, he still yielded,
lest he oppose the consent of the church.35
5. [12] Moreover, they deduce an extravagant and extreme argu-
ment from the power of God, because he can perform far greater things
than these. 36 [13] They introduce many miracles which were per-

31Cyril of Alexandria, Ep. XVII (PG 77.114–15). See DIS, 1(D), for Tresham’s intro-

ductory speech on the councils.

32 Council of Vercelli (1050), decree De Consecratio 2.c.xliii, 16: Ego Berengarius

(Gratian, PL 187.1750); Lombard, Sent. 4, dist. XII (PL 192.805). The ninth century con-
troversy between Paschasius Radbertus and Ratramnus (Bertramnus) of Corbie was
revived when Berengar (d. 1088) took up Ratramnus’s argument. Berengan was forced by
Pope Nicholas II (d. 1061) to affirm (in a Confessio imposed by Humbert) that in the sacra-
ment he crushed the true body of Christ with his teeth: manibus sacerdotum tractari,
frangi et fidelium dentibus atteri. Despite Luther’s problems with the medieval exegesis of
“This is my body,” he approved the formula as correcting a purely symbolic view: Martin
Luther, Confession on the Lord’s Supper (1528); see J. Pelikan, Luther the Expositor (St. Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 1959), 143–44. But Calvin, Inst. IV.17.12, agrees with Mar-
tyr: “such a presence in the Sacrament as the craftsmen of the Roman court have fash-
ioned.” Also Zwingli, Eine klare Unterrichtung vom Abendmahl Christi, 1526 (Samtliche
Werke IV in CR, XCI), 801ff. See also CRA, I.17, 31–32, and DEF, Obj. 15, VWG, 105–6. Cf.
§58 below.
33Fourth Lateran Council (1215) IV, cap. i (MAN, XXI.981). While the Ego Beren-

garius speaks of “substantialiter converti,” the first use of the term itself is by Peter
Damian or Hilebert of Tours (eleventh century); the official use was sanctioned by the
Council of Trent, 1551, sess. xii, cap. iv. See L. Hödl, “Der Transubstantiationsbegriff in
der scholastischen Theologie des 12. Jahrhunderts,” Recherches de Théologie ancienne et
médiévale 31 (1964): 235ff.
34Council of Constance (1414–18); John Wyclif (ca. 1330–84).
35Duns Scotus, Sentiarum, Lib. IV, Dist. XI. Qu. 3, Op. Omn., vol. 17 (Paris, 1894;

reprinted Gregg Inter. Pub., 1969), 350ff. Cf. Cranmer, Def., II.6; CRA, II.333.
36See Martyr on divine omnipotence: ”Miracles,” PW, 173, 197–214.
 Arguments for Transubstantiation 29

formed as a witness to this truth—such as that in Gregory’s hands and

by his prayer this sacrament was turned into a finger of flesh; one time
a little boy appeared in it; again, when the sacrament was pierced with
lancets it discharged blood.37
[14] They have much to say about the glorified body of Christ,
which Paul in 1 Corinthians called spiritual, in order to show that it
was quite permissible for Christ to convey his body veiled and covered
in accidents. [15] They suggest that the Greek does not state simply,
“This is my body,” but adds the article, so that it is not “body” but “my
body” [to sôma mou]. The Greeks use articles when they want to make
language precise and significant.
[16] They add that Christ promised to the apostles, “I will be with
you until the end of the age.”38 This should be understood not only
concerning the divinity, which they knew in this way; but since they
were saddened on account of his bodily departure, he assured them
that he would be with them in the body too. [17] Moreover, if transub-
stantiation is set aside and bread remains only a sign would be left,
since it cannot be the body of Christ, and the new sacrament would
have nothing that is not found in the old. For those also signified
Christ; indeed in respect of the outward form they prefigured him
better than bread and wine. In them dumb animals were slain and
their blood shed, which does not happen with bread and wine.
[18] Since Christ promised in Peter that the faith of the church
should not fail, and since she is Christ’s dear bride, they wonder why
he has forsaken her so long in this idolatry, nor shown her the truth
against such abuse. [19] They also argue that if the substance of bread
and wine is preserved the reality cannot be present; we must conclude
that no more is obtained in the sacrament than in common food and
banquets. For there also the faithful will perceive a signification of
bread and wine, and so the dignity of the sacraments will perish.
[20] Finally, they say that the Word of God must keep its force and
power, which are removed if transubstantiation falls. Ambrose says in
On the Sacraments: “Through the operation of the Word of God the
bread and wine remain what they are, yet are changed into something

37Gregory the Great is reported to have taken eucharistic bread from a woman
who smiled incredulously when it was called the Body of Christ; when he laid it on the
altar it turned into a bloodstained finger; see Blunt, Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical
Theology, “Transubstantiation,” 762b.
38Matt. 28:20.
30 Treatise on the Eucharist

else”39 The recent writer Alger interprets this, in his first book on this
sacrament, chapter 7, that bread and wine remain in terms of acci-
dents, but are changed into something other or better as to sub-
stance.40

Arguments against Transubstantiation41

6. Now we must look at the contrary arguments by which this
opinion is overthrown.
[1] First, holy Scripture lays down that this is bread; therefore it is
not true that its substance is changed. The evangelists say that Christ
took bread, broke it, and gave it to his disciples. Paul mentions bread
five times: “Is not the bread which we break a participation in the body
of Christ?” “We who are many are one bread, and one body, who par-
ticipate in one bread.” “As often as you eat this bread you announce the
Lord’s death till he come.” “Whoever eats this bread and drinks this
cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the
Lord.” Finally, “Let a man prove himself, and so eat that bread and
drink that cup.”42 Since these things are clear and open, if an angel
from heaven should preach otherwise let him be accursed. I could also
propose what is often said about the breaking of bread, but I see that it
might be understood otherwise, as if it is spoken of common food, as in
Isaiah 58, “Break your bread to the hungry,” and by Jeremiah in Lam-
entations 4, “The little ones beg for their bread, but no one breaks it for
them.”43 Therefore I will restrain myself, and advance only what is
firm. Since the passages cited are quite clear, they ought to be taken as
they stand.
Some cavil that it is called bread because of the natures which are
exchanged; to speak in their style, they say that the name is a terminus a
quo, and offer examples. When a serpent was made from Aaron’s rod it
devoured the serpents of the magicians, which they had also made

39Ambrose, De Sac. IV.4.15 (PL 16.440–41).

40 Alger of Liége (d. 1132), De sacramentis corporis et sanguinis Domini, I.7 (PL
180.756); Alger also taught that when the body of Christ is taken spiritually by faith it is
spirituale … et incorruptible, nec tamen minus substantiale (PL 180.771–72).
41 Cf. Calvin, Inst. IV.17.14–25; P. E. Hughes, “Why Transubstantiation Was

Rejected,” Theology of the English Reformers (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1965),
216ff.
421 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:26–28. Cf. §38 below. ERR corrects the second quotation

from “omnes” to “multi.”

43Isa. 58:7, Lam. 4:4.
 Arguments against Transubstantiation 31

from their rods; it is said the rod of Aaron devoured the serpents of the
magicians.44 Again, in the sacred writings man is often called earth,
since his body was made from it. Woman also was called by Adam bone
of his bones and flesh of his flesh, because she was formed from them
by God.45 But these are empty objections, because Scripture clearly
takes note of these changes, so that the necessity of history and of the
words forces us to these tropes, and we admit them. First let them show
us in Scripture that this change was made (namely of bread and wine
into the body and blood of Christ) and we will also grant them the
tropes; that is, the bread is called not what it is now but what it was
before. By the same token they might say: if someone gives me wine
which at once turns sour, and I put the vinegar in a pot, I might well
say, this is your wine. Not that it was then wine, but because it was wine
before. But here one’s sense judges the change of wine into vinegar,
which does not occur in the Eucharist. For in that case, neither sense
nor reason nor holy Scripture drives us to admit such a change.
7. They object a passage in John, chapter 2, “when the governor
of the feast had tasted the water made into wine,” by which they wish
to show that the wine just produced by the miracle of Christ still
retains the name of water. 46 But the Evangelist did not simply say
water, but “made into wine.” Nor will they find in holy Scripture this
declaration that bread is said to be turned into the body of Christ. They
jump to John, chapter 6, and say that here the apostle calls bread not
ordinary wheat bread but the Lord’s body; as in the sixth of John it is
called bread when Christ said, “I am the bread of life.”47 And what Paul
said counts against them: “The bread which we break, is it not the com-
munion of the body of Christ?” 48 since it cannot suit the body of
Christ to be broken—as it is written, “Not a bone of him will be bro-
ken.”49
Where will these sharp wits who find in John 6 that Christ called
himself bread, find that he called himself wine? For in this Supper the
other symbol is called wine, in fact in those words of the Evangelist, “I
shall not drink hereafter of this fruit of the vine.”50 But without doubt

44Ex. 7:12.
45Gen. 2:23.
46John 2:9.
47John 6:35.
48I Cor. 10:16.
49Ps. 34:20, John 19:36.
32 Treatise on the Eucharist

vines do not produce accidents, but wine. Nor is it of consequence that

the Fathers say with such agreement that the mystical body is signified
by the symbols of this sacrament, bread being made of many grains
and wine pressed out of many grapes; such things do not possess reality
through accidents. We really marvel at these men who, when they hear
us bringing similes (the rock was Christ; the lamb or victim is the pass-
over; circumcision is the covenant), claim that these allegories do not
apply, while they themselves pile up tropes and allegories everywhere.
They also say that bread is taken for everything that can be eaten, as in
the Hebrew tongue Lehem is taken for all kinds of food. But the evange-
lists are against them, for they restrict this kind of food to bread. Others
imagine that bread signifies the accidents and form of bread; they beg
the question, and take as already proved what is in dispute, namely
that accidents are present without a subject, which they should have
proved first. Nor should miracles be multiplied without some necessity.
8. [2] Another argument is that the ancients had the same sacra-
ments as we, yet had no need of transubstantiation. Neither the rock,
nor the water flowing out of the rock, nor manna was transubstanti-
ated, for this was impossible; therefore, it is not required for our sacra-
ments. We read the first proposition in Paul: “The fathers and we had
the same food.”51 Our opponents deny this and would have our sacra-
ments completely distinguished from the mysteries of the ancients in
many ways. We grant this, too, as to different symbols and also differ-
ent times as well as other properties. But concerning the reality of the
sacraments, which was received by the holy patriarchs, we hold that it
was the very same meat and drink that form the substance of our sacra-
ments. Augustine writes to Marcellinus about the difference between
these sacraments: “For an astute man it is enough that Christ’s future
coming was foretold by some sacraments; and that after his coming
others should proclaim this.”52 Here Augustine seems to regard only
the difference in time. And in his little work On the usefulness of true
penance he states quite clearly that when the ancients had manna they
ate the very same thing we eat: “For they ate the same spiritual food.”53
What is “the same” but what we also have here? And because to some it

50Matt. 26:29.
51See 1 Cor. 10:3.
52 Augustine, Ep. ad Marc. CXXXVIII.I.8 (PL 33.528). Reading two corrections
noted in ERR, 7r, and three on 7v.
53Augustine, Sermo, 352, “De utilitate agendae poenitentiae” II (PL 39.1551).
 Arguments against Transubstantiation 33

might seem unworthy that we have no more than the Jews, he stresses
Paul’s testimony. Paul, he says, thought it not enough to say that the
ancients had spiritual food, and added “the very same,” that by this
“same” we might understand that in their manna they ate what we do.
Nor is it a serious objection of some that he spoke of spiritual eating,
that is, the patriarchs believed in the Christ that was to come. First,
they cannot confirm their own carnal eating of Christ; second, the
fathers not only believed with the mind but also received a symbol of
the object of faith, that is, manna or water. So the reality did not exist
only in faith, and Augustine’s saying stands, that the food of the
fathers was not only spiritual but “the very same.”
9. It matters little if one brings from the same Augustine the pro-
logue to Psalm 73, where he considers three differences between the
new and old sacraments.54 First, the Savior is promised there but given
here. Second, our sacraments are easier, fewer, nobler, and felicitous.
Lastly, theirs were like toys in the hands of children, whereas in ours
there is something more profitable and solid. The first of these should
be understood concerning the promise of Christ’s coming, even
though he had not yet taken actual flesh; still, in the food he was given
spiritually to the fathers who believed in the promise. But ours are said
to give Christ, since they testify that he has come and is no longer
expected.
Next, it is certain that our sacraments are fewer and easier, for
they signify in a more powerful way, since their words are clearer than
in the Old Testament. Moreover, the joy is greater, for we are free from
the yoke of ceremonies and live in the last hour and have advanced all
the nearer to Christ’s kingdom. More plentiful also is the Spirit, and
the church more extensive than at that time, when many kings and
prophets desired to see the things you see.55 Again, the sacraments of
the Law were like toys in the hands of children, because it suited the
age of the fathers to be like children busy with many ceremonies, vari-
ous first principles and numerous instructions. But all these do not
prove that the sacraments of the ancients lacked what makes for reality
in a mystery, the same as ours.
Cyprian states in the second book, epistle 3: “Our Lord Jesus
Christ offered the very same thing as Melchizedek,” that is, “bread and

54Augustine, En. in Ps. 73.1 (PL 36.930).

55Luke 10:24.
34 Treatise on the Eucharist

wine, namely his body and blood.”56 Augustine wrote against Faustus,
book 19, chapter 16: “What error do they embrace who think that
when the signs and sacraments are changed, the things themselves are
different.” In the same work, book 20, chapter 21: “Before Christ’s
advent the flesh and blood of this sacrifice was promised through the
likeness of sacrificial victims; in Christ’s passion, it was represented
through the truth itself; after Christ’s ascension it is celebrated
through the sacrament of remembrance.”57 On John, tract 26: “Those
sacraments differed in the signs, but were equal in the thing signified.”
Later he adds: “Therefore it was the same food and drink, to those who
understood and believed; but to those who understood not the one was
only manna, the other water, and to believers the same as now.”58 For
then Christ was to come, now Christ has come; venturus and venit are
different words, but it is the same Christ.
More recently, Bertram writes: “Now St. Paul affirms that our
fathers ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink.
Perhaps you ask what ‘same’? Just this: the same which the faithful in
the Church eat and drink today. For it is not proper to suppose a differ-
ence, since it is one and the same Christ who not only fed the people
with his flesh and gave them drink with his blood when they were in
the desert, in the cloud and baptized in the sea, but also in the church
now feeds believers with the bread of his body and gives them drink
with the water of his blood.” 59 He adds: “Here is surely a wonder,
incomprehensible and matchless: he had not yet assumed manhood,
nor yet tasted death for the salvation of the world, nor yet redeemed us
with his blood, but our fathers in the desert already ate his body and
drank his blood by a spiritual food and invisible drink; as the apostle
testifies saying ‘The same spiritual meat.’” Again: “For this very one
who in the church converts bread and wine into the flesh of his body
and the water of his blood spiritually by his omnipotence, in those
days by an invisible operation gave manna from heaven as his body
and water coming down from heaven as his blood.”60

56Cyprian, Ad Caec., Ep. 63.4 (PL 4.376); the work appears in the Erasmus edition
as Lib. II, Ep. 3, fol. 51–58. Johannes Quasten, Patrology, 11.365, observes: “Epistle 63
amounts to a treatise.” (Reading “panem et vinum” as in ERR.)
57Augustine, Contra Faustum Man. XIX.16 (PL 42.356), XX–XXI (PL 42.385).
58Augustine, In Johann., Tract. XXVI.11–12 (PL 35.1611ff.).
59Ratramnus (“Bertram”), De Corp. et Sang. Dom., XXII–XXIII (PL 121.137–38).
60Ratramnus, De Corp. et Sang. Dom. XXV (PL 121.138–39).
 Arguments against Transubstantiation 35

10. [3] Moreover, we see that in the sacrament of baptism the

Holy Spirit and the remission of sins are conferred, yet we do not say
that they lie concealed in the water. In fact we put on Christ, yet no
one holds that the water is transubstantiated. [They say that] Christ is
in the Eucharist in one way and in baptism in another; I do not deny it,
so long as they agree to his presence in baptism. As to the mode, I con-
fess that in baptism Christ is given to us as mediator, reconciler; to
speak more properly, as regenerator. Here he is given to us truly as food
and nourishment.
[4] Further, with their transubstantiation they come close to the
Marcionite trope, for they say: It seems to be bread, but is not. This is
the very thing Marcion said about Christ’s flesh and body, that it was
not true flesh, but only an appearance.
[5] Christ is no conjurer, nor does he delude our senses; indeed he
proved his resurrection by the senses: “Touch and see, because a spirit
has not flesh and bones.”61 The apostles might have said, “We touch
and see, it appears to be flesh and body, but is not.” Thus it would be an
empty proof by which Christ established that he was no fantasy but
had a true body. He showed that he had received his own and not
another by the nail wounds and by the opening in his side. His argu-
ment would be of no strength if room is given for these tricks.
[6] The Fathers also argue from the properties and qualities of
human nature: Christ was truly man because he hungered, slept, was
surprised and saddened, wept and suffered. Such arguments are lost if
substance is not demonstrated by these qualities, so that one could no
longer say: it is the form, the same taste, the same color as bread; there-
fore it is really bread. For heretics will confess that Christ hungered,
slept, showed surprise, wept and suffered; but when you infer from this
that he was therefore truly man, they deny the conclusion. They hold
that these properties can be present in Christ without their reality,
namely human nature. As to Marcion’s argument, they say that per-
haps he took his error from the Gospel, where it is written that Christ
walked on the water with dry feet, that he ascended to heaven, and
escaped from the hands of the Jews so that they did not see him; but
that such things from the Gospel should not be used because of this
Marcionite peril. To this we reply that in the Gospels Christ is described
as once or twice doing these miracles, while you treat them as constant.

61Luke 24:40.
36 Treatise on the Eucharist

And since we have not invented what is in Scripture, we ought not to be

accused of providing excuses. Where we invent, expound and theolo-
gize without the express Word of God, we must beware lest we open a
window to heretics.
11. [7] Further, this corrupts the nature of the sacrament. Augus-
tine states (on John): “The word comes to the element and is made a
sacrament.”62 Its nature is to be composed of these two things; but
they would remove the elements, bread and wine. Then Augustine
should not have said the word comes to the element, but rather it
destroys or removes the element.
[8] When they remove the natures of the elements, the analogy of
signification is lost. Bread signifies the body of Christ because it feeds,
strengthens, and sustains, and this we cannot attribute to accidents. It
is also a signification of many grains gathered into one, representing
the mystical body, and that cannot be attributed to accidents. Paul has
said, “We many are one bread and one body, who participate in one
bread.”63 In baptism, water is said to be the fountain of regeneration,
and since its substance is preserved that is quite fitting, for the acci-
dents of water are not suitable.
[9] In removing the substance of bread and wine in the proposi-
tion Hoc est corpus meum they abuse the verb substantive est, for it is
transubstantiated, converted, or transmuted. For when [cum] they
utter those words of the Lord the bread is not yet the body of Christ; if
they accept “is” in its true meaning they state a falsehood. This is why
some of the Scholastics hold that the verb “is” ought to be taken for: to
be made, to be changed or transformed.64
[10] They attribute this power of efficacy to those few words of the
Lord, which make this change whenever used; yet in the Scripture they
have not a word about such a thing. If some relate those words of Paul,
Matthew, Mark, or Luke, they do not think of consecration, for the
whole power is ascribed to their own canon.65 We know that the sacra-
ment is present when we do what Christ did and commanded to be
done. Not only did he say those words; he gave thanks, broke bread,
ate, and gave others to eat. Since many things are here, all concur with

62Augustine, In Joann. Ev., Tract. 80.3 (PL 35.1810).

63I Cor. 10:17.
64pro fieri, mutari, aut converti: see Lombard, Sent. IV, dist. 11, De conversione (PL
192.1096).
65See DEF, Obj. 84, 805ff., and VWG, 194ff., on the words of consecration.
 Arguments against Transubstantiation 37

the truth of the sacrament, nor should any be neglected. I overlook

their ignorance of whether consecration is in Christ’s words or in the
prayers.
[11] They expose themselves to great danger, for an evil priest and
impostor could refrain from those words, could change or invert them.
[12] Since an intention (as they say) is required of him that is to conse-
crate, it could happen that when doing these things he has no thought
of consecration, or even rejects it.
12. [13] They fall into many absurdities and perplexities; for they
hold that a body may be in infinite places at one and the same time.
They claim that this is no problem, since if the body of Christ is there it
is not in a quantitative manner. Here is a wonder, how they can have a
body, a quantum, truly present and yet not by way of quantity! Since
they affirm his presence truly, corporeally, and carnally, as they say, yet
not locally, who cannot see that these arguments are invented to
deceive? They object that this was permitted to the body of St.
Ambrose, who while in Milan was present at the funeral of St. Martin in
Tours and was seen there. They ask why what was granted to Ambrose
should not be allowed the body of Christ even more? But they assume
what we do not; for it could have been revealed to Ambrose and have
seemed to him that he was present at those rites, and perhaps he was
represented to the people’s vision by the work of angels; but that his
body was in both places we do not allow. Besides, we can leave the
truth of the reported miracle to the mind of its author.66
[14] Another objection concerns souls. Although they are crea-
tures, yet each is in the head and all the members of our body. But this
is rash, to compare spirit with body, and allow to bodies what we grant
spirits. Christ said plainly: “A spirit has not flesh and bones,” thus put-
ting a great distance between them.67 Even if we allow to the body
what is proper to our soul, it does not follow that the body of Christ can
be in many places, just because our spirits and angels can be in various
places at one and the same time. For they are creatures, and therefore of
limited and finite power.
13. [15] Many other disasters follow, for if mice nibble the sacred
bread they say they have eaten accidents; if they are filled and satisfied,
this is the work of accidents. If a priest happens to utter those words
66Sourceunknown; see Sozomen, Eccl. Hist., VII.25, on “the records of his numer-
ous magnanimous deeds.”
67Luke 36:39.
38 Treatise on the Eucharist

over a cask of wine and a chest of bread, both full to the top, and you
ask what fills the cask and the chest—as well as the bellies of those who
eat and drink—they will reply: accidents. And since those who eat are
nourished, some of them dare to claim that God creates in the bellies of
those who eat and drink either phlegm or some other humor,68 which
can be changed into blood, whence they are nourished. [16] But if that
sacrament is burned, as happened in the time of Hesychius, as he testi-
fied on Leviticus, and Origen also on the same book, ashes will surely
remain, and so a substance will be created out of accidents.69 Worms
may breed in the consecrated bread, and here too they say that sub-
stance is produced from accidents. The more daring of them pretend
that the former substance is restored by a miracle so that such things
may occur. But if one can add and invent miracles like this, any theolo-
gian can easily escape. For no matter how difficult the problem he will
apply a miracle and thus solve all arguments that may be brought
against him.
[17] They affirm these things not only by miracles but by sophist-
ries, just as Scotus was urged to tell us what is demonstrated in the sub-
ject of the proposition, when uttering those words Hoc est corpus meum.
At length he replied: what is demonstrated is something singular or
individual of a more general substance,70 which with the predicate
refers to the same thing, or as they say is made the subject of the same
thing; no difference exists between those things signified by the sub-
ject and the predicate, except by different ways of conceiving.
See where they rush, yet still do not escape. For they have not yet
replied as to what is described when one says, “This is my body.” Roch-
ester says that in these propositions when one thing is changed into

68Pituita, one of the four humors in classical biology. See “Dreams,” PW, 156n4.
69Hesychius, perhaps In Lev. II.9:24 (PG 93.894–95); Origen, In Lev. Hom. IX.9 (PG
12.522).
70Demonstrari aliquod singulare sive individuum generalioris substantiae; see Duns

Scotus, Lect. in Lib. Sec. Sent., dist. 3 (De principio individuationis), pars 1 Q 6: Utrum sub-
stantia materialis sit individua per entitatem… (vs. Boethius); Op. Omnia XVIII (Civ. Vat.
1982), 273ff. Gardiner had introduced the Scotist concept of individuum vagum to explain
the type of predication (or its object) implied in the words of institution; see CRA, II.375–
76. It became a favorite target for Cranmer, Martyr, and later John Jewel. Martyr takes it
to represent ens unum in substantia (DEF, obj. 14–15; cf. VWG, 188–89). Etienne Gilson,
History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages (New York: Random House, 1955), 462,
states: “The famous ‘hecceity’ of the Scotists is the ultimate act which restricts the form
of a species to the singularity of its individuals.”
 Arguments against Transubstantiation 39

another it is not absurd that one describe what went before.71 Thus he
admits that in “This is my body” the former bread is demonstrated, and
is changed into the body of Christ while those words are spoken. In
that case I maintain that the proposition is not properly formed, for it
should have been: this becomes my body or this is changed into my
body; otherwise to say “This is my body” is improper speech.
14. [18] Those who hold that the body of Christ is really joined to
the symbols while the natures of bread and wine are preserved, argue
against transubstantiation as follows. What dignity or privilege do acci-
dents have, that they can be joined with Christ’s body, while this is
denied to the substance and nature of bread? And if accidents can
remain, why not also the substance of bread? Indeed many Fathers sup-
posed that this was done, and used a likeness, showing that in Christ
the human and divine natures truly remain, in such a way that one
does not pass into the other; these opinions we shall introduce in their
place.
[19] They fall into another absurdity: when they break the sacra-
ment, what is broken, we ask? On this they hedge; some have said,
according to the Master of the Sentences in book 4, that the essence or
substance of the body of Christ is broken.72 But he refutes this opinion,
since the body of Christ is immortal and therefore not affected by such
things or new events. Others have said that it is not a true fraction, but
only looks like it, for so our senses take it. This is also rejected, lest we
establish a permanent illusion. At las t they say that accidents are bro-
ken, positing a sort of mathematical quantity, separated from matter,
so that if it is divided it is so only by the power of mind and the capac-
ity of intellect. They divide reality, so that the separated parts are
readily visible.
[20] We read in Jeremiah, “Let us send wood into his bread”—a
place cited by Tertullian and Lactantius.73 They interpret it to mean
putting the wood of the cross on the body of Christ, and assume that
bread is mentioned because through bread Christ was to give himself
to us. They take the prophet’s words as a figure of the sacramental

71John Fisher (1469–1535), bishop of Rochester, De veritate corporis et sanguinis

Christi in eucharistia adversus Iohannem Oecolampadium (Cologne, 1527), lib. II, cap. 20;
Cranmer, Def., II.8 (CRA, II.335), uses the same passage.
72Peter Lombard, Sent. IV, dist. XII.2 (PL 192.864–65).
73mittamus lignum in panem; Jer. 11:19 (Vulgate); Tertullian, Adv. Judaeos X (PL

2.668–69), Adv. Marc. III.19; IV.40 (PL 2.376, 492); Lactantius, Div. Inst. IV.18 (PL 6.508).
40 Treatise on the Eucharist

bread. But since these others remove it, leaving us only a figure, they
therefore assert a figure of a figure, so that nothing solid remains. This
c a n b e i n fe r re d f ro m t h e Fa t h e r s’ f a m i l i a r st a t e m e n t a b o u t
Melchizedek, who brought bread and wine: the analogy [typos] is not
observed by these men when they remove bread and wine. The same
result occurs in relation to the showbread.
15. [21] Let us submit an argument from baptism. Just above we
held that the truth of that sacrament does not require that water is
transubstantiated. Now let us reason from those who are themselves
baptized, of whom Scripture clearly says that they put away the old
man and are born again.74 No transubstantiation is imagined in them,
even though generation is defined as a motion by which new sub-
stance is acquired.75 Little wonder that Nicodemus balked at the words
of the Lord, announcing that he must be born anew. He hesitated, con-
sidering the new beginning proclaimed to someone already existing
and advanced in years.76 But if we interpret that beginning to be new
and the nativity spiritual, why refuse the same thing in the Eucharist?
And why not refer everything to spiritual eating? I gladly link these two
sacraments, baptism and Eucharist, because Paul does so in this letter,
chapter 12: “We were all by one Spirit baptized into one body, and all
made to drink of one Spirit.”77 Nor is it valid to say that we are baptized
into one body in terms of a mystical body, since Christ is not absent
from the mystical body, being its head. Elsewhere Paul says clearly, “In
baptism we put on Christ.”78
[22] We see also that Christian authors draw much from John
chapter 6 concerning the sacrament of the Eucharist; no Father inter-
prets that chapter without writing copiously about the Eucharist.
Therefore we conclude: what is said there either applies to this sacra-
ment or not; if not, why is it cited, or the Eucharist discussed in that
context? If it does apply, it means a spiritual eating only, that is,
through faith, by which the true body and blood of Christ are received.
Why is it necessary to introduce another new reception there, and to
imagine a carnal eating by which the same thing is received again? For
they must admit that if someone who is pious and faithful comes, he

74Eph. 4:22.
75Aristotle, On Generation and Corruption, 319b32ff.
76John 3:4.
77l Cor. 12:13.
78Gal. 3:27.
 Arguments against Transubstantiation 41

eats Christ’s body twice, first by a spiritual eating through faith, after-
ward in their carnal eating, which they have never proved. So you see
that they block their own way, since they cannot truly cite those testi-
monies concerning the Eucharist from John 6. [23] When they affirm
transubstantiation, they are branded with the same error as the Caper-
naites.79 These also had in mind who knows not what corporeal eating
of the flesh of Christ. Christ called them back from this idea immedi-
ately, by saying that his words were spirit and life, the flesh profiting
nothing. And he introduces the thought of his ascension into heaven:
“What if you see the Son of Man ascending into heaven where he was
before?” But these men say they are not of the same opinion as the
Capernaites. They hold that the latter thought Christ’s flesh should be
cut in pieces and torn with the teeth, which they abhor. Whatever the
special fantasy of the Capernaites was one cannot say, but probably it
was a carnal sense, so that they were disturbed by the mention of
ascension into heaven. Why do these men who dare to say that Christ
is eaten both carnally and corporeally not learn from this example?
What is the difference whether you receive him in parts or swallow him
whole?
16. [24] What Christ said to his apostles at the end of his life is rel-
evant here, that he would leave the world and depart from them. This
would not be true if he were with us through transubstantiation, as
they wish. They usually reply that Christ left the world as to the condi-
tions of mortality, of intimacy and human conversation. This may be
subtle but it misses the point. For when Christ spoke the words in ques-
tion, Philip replied, “Behold now you speak plainly and without para-
bles.”80 But if it had been taken in their sense, it would have been an
obscure and parabolic utterance. Moreover, if Christ remains with us
corporeally in the Eucharist, by the same token he might remain in our
hearts and lives. Thus after his ascension he could still rule the church
in person and be present in the apostles. But he said that he would give
a substitute [vicarius] in his place, namely the Holy Spirit, who would
not be necessary if the whole Christ in divinity and humanity were
present, as they have it. For since according to their doctrine his flesh
and body is in each of us through communicating, and his divinity is
present, he could act in person without the Holy Spirit as counselor.

79John 6:24, 65.

80John 16:29, “His disciples said.…”
42 Treatise on the Eucharist

[25] When Mary the Lord’s mother, the most blessed Virgin,
heard from the angel that the Word of God would take flesh and that
she was chosen to conceive and bear the Son of God, she considered
them new and wonderful things, asked how they were possible, and so
on.81 But since this transmuting of bread into Christ’s body is not less
than the mystery of incarnation and nativity from a virgin, it is aston-
ishing that one finds in Scripture neither wonder nor questioning
about it. Nor is such faith in transubstantiation, although of such great
moment, commended to us in the writings of the evangelists or apos-
tles. We do not bother about those who say that in John’s sixth chapter
a question had been asked, for they wish to transfer the answer given
there concerning spiritual eating to this sacramental eating, holding it
to be distinct. That question and answer therefore serves our purpose,
but is little help to those who imagine this eating now being discussed,
another beside the spiritual.
17. [26] Such fabrications lead to other improprieties and absurdi-
ties. Christ said “I will that where I am, there my servant shall be also,”
and made the same statement to the apostles.82 In Revelation we read
of certain martyrs, “They follow him wherever he shall go.”83 From
this we should conclude that in the Eucharist transubstantiation is not
only into the body of Christ but into all the saints! If they do not like it,
let them leave Christ in heaven with his saints, or else they will follow
him as attendants. They say, we also grant that he is in heaven, visible
and in his majesty and glory, but we claim that in the sacrament he is
invisible.84 The objection about the company of saints and martyrs is
true when applied to Christ, since he is visible in his glory and majesty
in heaven. Their answer rests on ground already destroyed, for it allows
the body of Christ to be present in many places at once, which the
Fathers deny. It grants that Christ is with us as body and flesh, whereas
he said that he would send another in his place, the Holy Spirit.
[27] They cannot avoid giving Christ two bodies: when he took
bread in his hands at the Supper, if it had been transubstantiated into
his body then [tum] he would have carried his body with his body.
Then one must say the body that carried and the body that was carried
are one, whereas you cannot have active and passive in regard to the

81Luke 1:26ff.
82John 12:26, 14:3.
83Rev. 14:4.
84The margin has “concomitantia.”
 Arguments against Transubstantiation 43

same thing at the same time. You can see into what absurdities they
throw themselves.
They like to bring in Augustine on the Psalms, who states that
Christ carried himself in his own hands. But if the passage on Psalm 73
is considered, that in one sense he carried himself in his own hands we
will grant it, because he carried in his hands the sacrament of his body,
but not really and properly his body.85 You could add that it follows
from Christ’s eating with his apostles that he ate himself! Invariably
they reply that these matters are exercises of our faith. But we have
many statements of Scripture in which our faith may occupy itself
other than in human inventions. We believe that the Son of God was
incarnate, born of a virgin, suffered and died for us, was raised from the
dead and ascended to heaven, and many similar things, in which our
faith is sufficiently exercised.
[28] Because sense does not apprehend this transubstantiation,
nor can reason understand it or experience teach it, how can it be
known? I’m sure you will say: through faith. But if it is a question of
acting in faith, this cannot happen without the Word of God; and of
that you are quite destitute.
18. [29] Since Christ made this sacrament of two parts, body and
blood, it is clear enough that the reality cannot be received through
transubstantiation, because they are not divided in the real and carnal
body of Christ. They take refuge by stating that both are contained in
one part or another. We hear them well enough, but the words of Scrip-
ture do not teach it, for regarding bread only the body is mentioned
and regarding the cup, blood alone is commemorated. They answer
that by the power of the words, transubstantiation makes bread prop-
erly and in itself into the body of Christ or the flesh of Christ, while the
blood and soul and divinity follow through concomitance.86 Similarly,
by the efficacy of the words, transubstantiation makes the cup first and
properly into blood, and through concomitance you have also the
body, soul, and divinity. By their subtleties they make Christ less boun-
tiful, since he gave no more in the two parts than is contained in the

85Augustine, En. in Ps. 72:24 (PL 36.926–27; 33, Sermo 1, 10 (PL 36.306); Gratian,

Dec. III, dist. 2, XCII (PL 187.1780). Cf. §§4, 49.

86On concomitance, see Aquinas, Summa theologica, III.lxxvi.1,2; Lombard, Sent.

IV, dist. 10D; cf. Calvin, Inst. IV.17.35, 45, 47. The Council of Basle (1437) confirmed the
doctrine (against the Hussite demand for communion sub utraque forma); see MAN, 29,
158).
44 Treatise on the Eucharist

one alone. This fiction results in their dividing the sacrament and
giving the laity only one part, persuading them that they have as much
as if they received both. We might add that by this fantasy they open a
window to many false teachings, since by concomitance you can add
anything you like to a doctrine. It would also follow, as we said above,
that all saints are present in this sacrament, since they always accom-
pany Christ. Yet the only argument we need to defeat them is that they
teach it while Scripture does not.
19. [30] Another false and senseless dogma has followed transub-
stantiation: they think that after the sacrament is received another sac-
rament remains, that the bread or appearance of bread really and truly
contains in itself the body of Christ. We show that this is not the case
from other sacraments, where everything consists in action.87 When
that is done there is no longer a sacrament. Clearly in baptism, after
someone has been dipped or sprinkled with water by the words of the
Lord, it stops being a sacrament. It was the same in circumcision, for
that sacrament also consisted of action. I will even accept those which
some call sacraments: confirmation, extreme unction, penance and so
on; all of them may be seen to consist of action alone. Now they hold
that this sacrament of the Eucharist is an exception. How logically our
adversaries speak is easily grasped. If every part of the inductive argu-
ment is granted and even one instance of the matter in question set
aside, obviously this is false, an evasion of argument. For it is like
admitting the premises and denying the conclusion.
[31] Because of these unheard-of marvels of metamorphosis, the
central thing is shut out, the purpose of Christ’s command to us in
Scripture, that is, the commemoration of Christ and of his death. For
their whole mind and will is concentrated on believing in transubstan-
tiation. You may even see some priests at communion urging and
demanding that this alone is to be believed, to the neglect of more nec-
essary things. And through this fiction, men resort to communion less
frequently. Their persuasion makes them think that if Christ is con-
cealed there in body and flesh under accidents, surely we go to church
to see, adore, invoke, light candles, and so on—by this they think they
can please Christ. If they had not imagined things like this but had
grasped the truth, that it is only a sacrament, they would understand
that there is no profit unless they communicate. Then their minds

87nulla sacramentum nisi usum; see §51 below.

 Arguments against Transubstantiation 45

would be drawn to communion and so the institution of Christ would

be truly satisfied.
20. [32]88 We should remember that the time of Christ’s humility
and descent is over. Now he reigns in the heavens and bears a name
which is above every name. Therefore what is right about sending him
down again bodily through transubstantiation, into our throats and
bellies? I know they point out that he is not harmed, nor does he con-
tract any impurity. I agree; yet it is indecent for him to be so long
detained under these accidents which are complete in themselves, so
that when they dissolve, Christ’s body flies away. This means that they
regularly compel him to fly down and fly away [devolare et avolare]—
every day, especially before noon. They insist that we should ignore
such thoughts, all the while suggesting them by their carnal transub-
stantiation. If they could agree that everything is to be done spiritually,
no such thoughts would arise.
[33] Do they appoint his natural and carnal body to be present in
order that it may penetrate our soul, or that it may enter our body? It
cannot be the soul, since it receives nothing carnal or corporeal. If it is
the body they wish Christ to enter like this, we must ask why he does it.
They reply, so that we might be sanctified. But sanctification properly
begins with the soul, not the body. [34] They claim that a certain power
and efficacy is stamped on us through water, the soul is made better
and the body strengthened. So far as power is concerned, transubstan-
tiation is unnecessary, since one could have it without that.
[35] When the Fathers taught the nature of this sacrament, they
said that a bloodless victim is sacrificed; we contradict them if we
establish true and corporeal blood. Nor will it do for them to maintain
that it is a bloodless victim since Christ is not killed here, or his blood
shed by force. Although that does not happen, still their low imagina-
tion thinks the thing is not done without blood. The Fathers seem to
speak like this because they want only a memory of the true victim and
his spiritual reception, accomplished through faith. [36] They are
accustomed to saying also that Christ’s body and blood are covered and
hidden by the accidents of bread and wine, lest we seem to eat real flesh
or drink real blood. However they paint or color it, I don’t think they
will say that even if transubstantiation is true we eat real flesh. No
matter how it is presented, no reason is given by them, or by Scripture.

88The marginal numeration is inconsistent in these sections.

46 Treatise on the Eucharist

In fact it is written of the paschal lamb, which was a likeness of this sac-
rament, that no part of it should be eaten raw.89
21. [37] It is evident that Christ instituted a sacrament in the
Eucharist so that everything done there should be taken sacramentally.
In sacraments it is not necessary for more to be given or to be expected
than the sacramental relationship [sacramentalis ratio] requires. If we
set out clearly what Christ did in that Last Supper, it is easily shown
that he gave his own body. If we ask further what kind of body he gave,
they cannot explain. [38] Some seem to say that he gave just what he
had, a passible and mortal body. But such a body existing under these
conditions could not be contained in the flesh (as they dream) in small
pieces of bread. [39] Others who consider themselves wiser say that
Christ himself had a mortal and passible body, but in the bread gave a
glorified and spiritual body. But then the Lord’s words count against
them, “This is my body which is given for you, and my blood which is
shed for you.” Here he plainly limits his words to the body he had then
and the blood possessed at that hour. He did not receive the glorified
and impassible form until after the resurrection. [40] Even admitting
their position, we argue that passible and glorified conditions of the
body are opposites, so that they cannot exist together in the same sub-
ject at the same time. Therefore if you want to put them in Christ’s
body at one time you will make twin bodies of Christ.
[41] Experience and history teach us not to allow transubstantia-
tion, since it is written that Pope Victor of Rome died drinking poison
from the chalice, and Emperor Henry took poison from the bread in
the Eucharist.90 But how are such things possible, if everything is tran-
substantiated and only accidents remain? We know that sacraments
consist of matter and form, as the adversaries themselves say. They
define matter as the symbols or elements, and form as that which is
added by the word. [42] What is composed of both must not so destroy
the other that nothing is left except accidents, or else you lose the
nature of composition and combination. We therefore conclude that
the substances of bread and wine remain. Before they know it, the body
of Christ is robbed of quantity, place, and variety of parts so that his
entire body is shrunk into a tiny particle of bread.

89Ex. 12:9.
90Victor I (d. 198); Henry II (972–1024), whose memory became surrounded by
legends.
 Arguments against Transubstantiation 47

22. [43] The Eucharist is called not only the sacrament of the body
of Christ our Savior, but also of the mystical body. Paul says in I Corin-
thians, “You are the body of Christ,” and “We who are many are one
bread and one body, who share in one loaf.”91 Augustine, City of God,
book 22, chapter 10, says that Christians do not sacrifice to martyrs.92
The sacrifice is the body of Christ, not offered to martyrs because they
themselves are the body of Christ. Since this sacrament is of both bod-
ies, and since they do not hold that the bread is transubstantiated into
the mystical body; therefore it is not proved that it is converted truly
and properly into the body of the Lord; for it is declared to be the sacra-
ment of the one body just as much as the other.
[44] It would follow from this opinion that both the faithful and
the unfaithful receive the Lord’s body. I have refuted this elsewhere93
by two arguments. First, since Christ’s body is not divorced from his
Spirit, it follows that the wicked receive the Spirit of Christ. Second,
since the unfaithful are dead in their inner self, they completely lack
the means by which spiritual things are received. Now Augustine states
clearly that no one eats the body of Christ except those who are of his
body.94 Jerome also, book 4 on Jeremiah 22: when he infers that they
shall not eat and drink, he means the body and blood of the Savior; but
he was speaking of the heretics. Again on Isaiah 66: they are not holy in
body and spirit, nor eat the flesh of Jesus, nor drink his blood.95 Many
such places are found in the Fathers.
[45] So many miracles are paraded so often before us that we
should not give credence too easily to a miracle, unless they are new
and wonderful things by whose extraordinary occurrence weight is
added to the Word of God. Then men may be seized with admiration,
and easily led to embrace Christ’s teaching. But nothing visible is
changed here, and nothing to excite admiration; they seem to seek the
help of miracles in vain. The Virgin indeed conceived through the
Holy Spirit, but she perceived it by sense. Whenever men are converted
to Christ by a miracle, they can see that their mind and life is changed
from former ways. But here, no part of those miracles which they imag-

911 Cor. 10:17, 12:27.

92Augustine, De civit. Dei 22.10: “we make no gods of our martyrs” (PL 41.772).
93DIS, 2(C), against Chedsey; cf. COR, 10:17.
94Augustine, In Joann. Ev., Tract. XXVI.6.18 (PL 35.1614).
95 Jerome, Comm. in Jer. Proph. IV.22:15 (PL 24.815); Comm. in Isa. Proph.

XVIII.66:17 (PL 24.666).

48 Treatise on the Eucharist

ine can be seen. They are announced but cannot be proved by reason or
by experience or by Scripture.
[46] To this we can add that the breaking of bread is related to the
death and passion of Christ in the same way that bread is related to the
body of Christ. Yet they themselves hold that the fraction is a sacra-
ment and symbol of Christ’s passion, which needs no transubstantia-
tion to be truly and really present. Therefore neither does the bread
need to be so changed into the body as to make it present in the flesh.
Thus since this opinion breeds only a war of words [logomachias] and
escape-proof labyrinths, it does not make for piety.

Patristic Evidence
23. [47] Now let us examine the Fathers as to whether they think
like this. Against the Valentinian heretics, Irenaeus says that earthly
bread receives a calling from the Word of God and is no longer
common bread but is made the Eucharist, consisting of two things,
earthly and heavenly.96 At first he does not deny that the Eucharist is
bread, unless you make it common. Afterwards he says that it consists
of two things, one being earthly, that is, bread, and the other heavenly,
the body of Christ. And as the truth is retained in one part, in regard to
the Lord’s body, so it should be preserved in the other, in regard to
bread. He adds that similarly, when our bodies receive the sacrament,
they are no longer corruptible.
In the first book against Marcion, Tertullian says that God did not
throw away his creation, bread, because through it he represented his
body. And in the fourth book against Marcion: “Taking bread and dis-
tributing to his disciples, he made it his body saying ‘This is my body,’
that is, a figure of my body.” But it was not a figure unless a true body
was present.97
Origen on Numbers, homily 16: “We are said to drink the blood of
Christ, not only by the sacramental rite, but also when we receive his
word.” Jerome once wrote the same thing on Ecclesiastes chapter 3.98
Origen on Matthew 26: “This bread, which God the word admitted to
be his body, is a term for the nourishment of souls.”99 On Leviticus,

96Irenaeus, Contra Haer. V.2.2 (PG 7.1124–25).

97 Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IV,40 (PL 2.491). Migne adds an interesting footnote:

“Haec verba intelligenda sunt ut volunt Calvinisticae.”

98Origen, In Num. Hom. XVI.9 (PG 12.701); Jerome, Comm. in Ecc. 9,7 (PL 23.1084).
99Origen, Comm. in Matt. X.25 (PG 13.902–3.
 Patristic Evidence 49

homily 7: “In the Gospel too there is a letter which kills, not only in the
Old Testament, if you follow literally what is said, ‘Unless you eat my
flesh,’” and so on. In the same book, homily 9: “Do not cling to the
blood of the flesh, but rather learn the blood of the word, and hear him
speaking to you, “So there is my blood, which is shed for you.’”100
Origen on Matthew 15: “The sanctified bread, as that which has sub-
stance, passes into the stomach and so is cast out.” And then, “What
profits him that eats worthily to the Lord is not the substance of bread
but the word spoken over it.” 101 The same against Celsus, book 8:
“When we have given thanks for the benefits bestowed on us, we eat
the loaves that are offered.”102
24. Cyprian says, in the sixth Letter of the first book Ad Magnum:
“The Lord calls the bread made of many grains joined together, his
body, and the wine pressed from clusters of many grapes, his blood.”
When he interprets the Lord’s prayer, he calls bread the body of the
Lord.103 In his sermon On the Lord’s Supper he says: “We do not sharpen
our teeth, but with sincere faith only we break and eat bread.”104 In the
sermon On chrism he states clearly that sacraments have the names of
the things they signify.105 Augustine seems to have borrowed these two
sayings from him, the latter in the letter to Boniface, the other when he
says, “Why prepare teeth or stomach? Believe and you have eaten,”
treatise 25 on John.106
Cyprian, letter 3, book 2, To Caecilius: “In wine the blood of the
Lord is exhibited.” And against the Aquarians he states that the blood
of Christ cannot be held to be present in the cup if wine ceases to be
there, which happens through their transubstantiation.107 In the
sermon On the Lord’s Supper he writes that the symbols are changed
into the body of Christ, but in such a way that he takes a simile from
Christ himself, in whom the human nature was visible, while the
divine lay hidden. His intention will be clear from this simile: as two

100Origen, In Lev. Hom. VII.5 (PG 12.487), IX, 10 (PG 12.523).

101Origen, Comm. in Matt. XI.14 (PG 13.954).
102Origen, Contra Cels. VIII.33 (PG 11.1566).
103Cyprian, Ad Magnum, LXXVI.6 (PL 3.1142); De Oratione Dom. XVIII (PL 4.532).
104See p. 26 n. 20 above.
105Cyprian, De Unctione Chrismatis is spurious. Cf. CRA, II.383.
106Augustine, Ad Bonifacium, Ep. 98.9 (PL 33.363–64); quoted also at length by
CRAN, III.11, 140ff.; In Joann. Ev., Tract. XXV.12 (PL 35.1602).
107Cyprian, Ad Caec. 9 (PL 4.380–81). Cf. DIS 3(B).
50 Treatise on the Eucharist

natures remain in Christ so are they preserved in this sacrament.108

Cyprian also, the third epistle, the second book: “Just as the body of
the Lord cannot be only in grain or only in water unless the two are
united and joined, pressed into one loaf of bread, so also by the sacra-
ment our people are declared to be one.”109
Athanasius, expounding those words “If anyone speak a word
against the Son of Man, it is forgiven him, but whoever speaks against
the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him in this age or the next,”110
writes: “How great a body is required for the whole world to eat of it?”
He infers that it is to be taken spiritually, and for this reason the Lord
on that occasion mentioned his ascension, against the Capernaites.111
In his Liturgy, Basil calls bread antitype of the body of Christ, even after
the words of consecration.112 Dionysius, On Ecclesiastical Hierarchies,
chapter 3: “The Bishop uncovers the bread, hidden and undivided, and
cuts it into pieces.”113
25. In his exposition of 1 Corinthians dealing with doing this in
remembrance of Christ and his death, Ambrose says: “In eating and
drinking the flesh and blood of Christ, we signify the things that are
offered.” About the same place he also says that in the mystical chalice
we take a type of Christ’s blood.114 In book 4, chapter 4, where he
affirms the change of symbols, he treats also of our change into Christ,
yet does not suggest any transubstantiation in those who receive the
sacrament. In the same book 4, chapter 4, On Sacraments: “Therefore
we add this: how is it possible for what is bread to be by consecration
the body of Christ?” Later: “If there is such great power in the word of
the Lord, that things which were not should come into being, how
much greater is that operation by which things already existing are
changed into something else?”115 Jerome on Matthew says clearly that

108See p. 26 n. 20 above.
109Cyprian, Ad Caec. 13 (PL 4.384).
110Matt. 12:31–32.
111Athanasius, Frag. in Matt. (PG 27.1386).
112 See p. 74 n. 224 and p. 92 n. 275 below, and §55 for the opinion of John of

Damascus that Basil calls bread and wine antitypa only before consecration, De Orth. Fid.
13, 273 (PL 94.1151–52). See GAN, 28, 65, for Martyr’s copies of Basil. Cranmer agrees
with Martyr (Def. III.15; CRA, II.420), but the liturgical texts do not support this claim.
See Basil’s liturgy, Praemium fractionis (PG 31.1639).
113Dionysius, De Hier. Eccles. 3.12.
114Ambrose, Comm. in Epist. Ad Cor. Prim. 11:26 (PL 4.384).
115Ambrose, De Sac. IV.4.15 (PL 16.440–41).
 Patristic Evidence 51

the body and blood of the Lord are represented in the bread and
wine.116
Chrysostom on 2 Corinthians says that what is set before us on
the table is not only Christ’s body but also the poor, to whom we are
bound to do good. For the one who said “This is my body” also said in
his Word that in the persons of the poor he is in need, and is benefited
by gifts.117 In his homily 11 on Matthew, the work called Unfin-
ished,118 he states, “In the holy vessels there is not the body of Christ
and the blood of Christ, but mysteries of the body and blood of
Christ.” Also, on 2 Corinthians chapter 12, homily 17: “Just as Christ
said, do in remembrance of me, both in the bread and in the cup.” And
on Psalm 22, “You prepared a table in my sight. This is showed to us
daily in the sacrament, through the likeness of the body and blood of
Christ, bread and wine after the pattern of Melchizedek.”119
Emissenus, whom they cite from de Consecrat. dist. 2, seems to
affirm a change of the symbols, and also mentions our mutation into
Christ.120
26. Augustine has numerous statements on this point. Comment-
ing on Psalm 82: “You will not eat what you see, nor drink this blood
which they are about to pour; I tell you a mystery, which brings life
when understood spiritually.”121 On the Trinity, 3, chapter 10: “The
bread made for this purpose is consumed in receiving the sacra-
ment.”122 It is wrong for Rochester to try to apply this saying to the
showbread. For we have elsewhere proved his interpretation incorrect,

116Jerome, Comm. in Ev. Matt. IV.26:26 (PL 26.195).

117Chrysostom, In Ep. II ad Cor., Hom. XX.3 (PG 61.539–40).
118Hom. XI.22 (PG 56.691). The Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum is now known to be

spurious, but “enjoyed great reputation during the Middle Ages as a genuine work of
Chrysostom” (Quasten, Patrology III.471).
119Chrysostom, In Ep. I ad Cor. Hom. XXVII.4 (PG 61.230).
120Eusebius, bishop of Emesa, whose extant writings are now recognized, vindi-

cating ancient opinion. See Quasten, Patrology III.348 ff. In the Reformation it was his
sermon De Eucharistia that proved most significant: Gratian on “Eusebius Emissenus,” De
Eucharistia c.xxxv (PL 187.1744ff.). Cf. CRAN, II.5, 49. In defense of his softer view of the
words of consecration (Adv. mon. quosdam Hispanos, 1528), Erasmus noted his oppo-
nents’ appeal to Emissenus, “an author of not much favorable renown provided he is the
one whose words are reported in the Decretals”; J. B. Payne states that the text “has
finally been established as belonging to Faustus of Riez” (John B. Payne, Erasmus: His The-
ology of the Sacraments [Richmond, Va.: John Knox Press, 1970], 129, 289n160.
121Augustine, En. in Ps. 98.9 [sic] (PL 37.1265); CRA, II.443–44.
122Augustine, De Trin. III.X.19 (PL 42.880).
52 Treatise on the Eucharist

by several arguments.123 First, if you take the plain sense which the
words themselves bear and which is offered you at first sight, you will
see clearly that the saying concerns the Eucharist. And in the book of
Augustine which Erasmus edited, he wrote in the margin Eucharis-
tia.124 Moreover, soon after in this chapter, Augustine deals with the
same thing and mentions the Eucharist so plainly that even an oppo-
nent could not deny it. He had written of the Eucharist above, chapter
4 of the same book, in beginning the treatise.125 Also, in these words
there is explicit mention of the same sacrament; if he had wanted it
taken as common bread, it would still have agreed with what had gone
before, namely the bronze serpent and the stone erected by Jacob, as
much as with the showbread. In that passage he had not mentioned
the term sacrament, but later stated that we should understand him as
speaking about the Eucharist. Last, he said, “The bread made for this
purpose is eaten in receiving the sacrament.” This does not suit the
showbread. They were not made for eating but for putting on the table,
to remain before the Lord—so in Hebrew they are called Panim. It hap-
pened later that they were eaten, not by accident but so that they
would not spoil in the Lord’s sight. For this reason they were changed
every week. Once they were dedicated to God, he wished to show this
honor to them, that they should be eaten by the priests. Truly the
bread of our Eucharist is made for this purpose, to be eaten in receiving
the sacrament. To the arguments already stated I add one stronger than
the rest: Augustine said “It is eaten” in the present tense, and not “it
was eaten,” as it should have been if it were spoken of figures and cere-
monies of the Old Testament.
In To Peter on Faith, chapter 19, Augustine calls it a sacrament of
bread and wine. He instructs the said Peter thoroughly in the faith
regarding the memory of Christ and his death, but he has not a word
about this transubstantiation which they so greatly plead today.126
Against Faustus, book 20, chapter 21: “The flesh and blood of Christ was
promised in the Old Testament in the likeness of the victims; on the

123John Fisher, De veritate corporis Lib. IV, cap. 30F; Martyr had replied to his argu-
ments in COR, fols. 309v–310r (on 11:25).
124Erasmus, Omnium Operum D. Aur. Augustini… (Basel: Froben, 1543), tom. III, fol.

289.
125Augustine, De Trin. III.4.10 (PL 42.874).
126The De fide ad Petrum is spurious (PL 40.772–73): a dogmatic collection by Ful-

gentius of Ruspe (PL 65.759) familiar in the Middle Ages.

 Patristic Evidence 53

cross it was exhibited in reality; but in the sacrament it is celebrated

through remembrance.”127 And in City of God 21, chapter 25, he says
plainly that the unfaithful do not eat the substance of the sacrament,
that is, the body of Christ: “For he who is not in the body of Christ is
not to be considered to eat the body of Christ, and he in whom Christ
abides not does not abide in Christ.”128 He has similar words on John,
tract. 20, and in the thirtieth says, “The body of Christ is in a definite
place in heaven, but its truth extends everywhere.” 129 He says so
because truth is spiritual and always present with the faithful. Wher-
ever they are, communicants confess Christ and believe that he had a
true body, not counterfeit as the heretics thought.
27. Against Adimantus the Manichee, chapter 12, he writes: “The
Lord did not hesitate to say, ‘This is my body,’ when he gave a sign of
his body.”130 It does not matter if you say he gave both sign and reality,
for Augustine was not referring to that, but wanted to show that the
saying is figurative, like another he mentions from Deuteronomy, “The
blood is the life.” Thus he says, the Lord does not “doubt,” because in
figurative speech we put something at risk.
In On Christian doctrine, book 3, chapter 16, he teaches that we
have figurative speech in John 6: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of
Man,” and so forth, because something scandalous seems com-
manded. For it is more offensive to eat a man’s flesh than to kill him,
and to drink his blood than to shed it. “Therefore it is a compelling fig-
ure, that we should with gladness and profit store up in memory the
flesh of Christ crucified and wounded for us.”131
In the Letter to Boniface he states quite clearly that sacraments take
the name of those things of which they are sacraments, and he
expressly names the sacrament of the body of Christ to be the body of
Christ in a certain way, adding “The sacrament of the blood of Christ is
the blood of Christ.” He wrote all this to show that baptism is the sacra-
ment of faith and hence may be said to be faith, so that little ones who
are baptized have faith because they receive this sacrament.132 Lest
anyone say they are signs of something substantially present, as they

127Augustine, Contra Faustum XX.21 (PL 42.385), paraphrase.

128Augustine, De civit. Dei XXI.25.2 (PL 41.741).
129Augustine, in Joh. Tract. XXX.1 (PL 35.1632).
130Augustine, Contra Adim. I.12.1 (PL 42.143–44).
131Augustine, De doctrina Christiana III.16 (PL 34.74–75).
132Augustine, Ad Bon., Ep. 98, 9 (PL 33.303–4).
54 Treatise on the Eucharist

put it, let them ponder the similes which this Father brings: when we
are near Easter we say tomorrow or the day after will be the Lord’s pas-
sion, and on the Lord’s Day Christ rose again, when such things are not
present but happened long ago. And he affirms that the baptism of
children is faith, when it is not yet present in little ones.133
The same Father, as is seen in de Consecratione, dist. 2, chapter
Interrogo vos: it is as much a sin of neglect to let the word that was
preached slip from our mind as part of the sacrament to fall on the
ground. If we accept this, it hardly agrees with transubstantiation, for it
seems far more absurd for Christ’s body itself to fall or be trampled,
than for some part of the holy words to be heard without regard.134
Moreover on Psalm 3 he said that Christ admitted Judas to the Supper
when he delivered the figure of his body.135
They like to say that the figure and sign in this sacrament, which
is the body of Christ hidden under accidents, is his own body as it hung
on the cross, lifeless and bloodless. And the blood hidden under acci-
dents of wine is the figure and sign of the blood shed on the altar of the
cross. But who cannot see that these figments are worthless? For we
would be offering a sign and figure greater than the thing signified in
terms of sense and eminence. Therefore the Master of the Sentences
defines a sacrament, from Augustine, as a visible sign of invisible
grace.136 But the body of Christ concealed under accidents (as they
have it) is just as remote as that which hung on the cross, indeed—if
one may speak the truth—even more unknown and obscure than what
is signified, contrary to the nature of signs and figures. For we may
more easily know and contemplate the body hanging on the cross than
what they provide in the Eucharist.
28. In a letter to the clergy and people of Constantinople, Pope
Leo wrote that this is a mystical distribution, a spiritual food, a heav-
enly power, and that we receive it in order to be changed into the flesh
of Christ, who took our flesh for our sake.137

133Augustine, Ad Bon., Ep. 98, 9 (PL 33.363–64); his letter to Bishop Boniface was a

reply to the latter’s question how parents and friends could answer on the child’s behalf
at baptism.
134Augustine in Gratian, Dec. II.C.1, qu. 1.c.94 (PL 187.521).
135Augustine, En. in Ps. 93.27 [sic] (PL 37.1214); LC/CP have “Psalm 8.” Cranmer

has In Joan. Tract. 59 (CRA, II.434), PL 35.1795.

136Lombard, Sent. IV, dist. 1, 2 (PL 192.839); Augustine, De civ. Dei X.19 (PL 41.297;

Gratian, PL 187.1744).
137Leo I, Ep. LIX.2 (PL 54.868); see p. 23 n. 8 above.
 Patristic Evidence 55

Cyril, book 4, chapter 14, on John: “Thus he gave pieces of bread

to the believing disciples, saying, ‘Take.’ And in the Letter to Calosyrium
“Therefore it was fitting that he should be united with our bodies in a
certain way through his holy flesh and precious blood, which we
receive as a blessing unto life in the bread and wine.”138
We now produce Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus. He lived in the
time of Cyril and attended the Synod of Ephesus and Chalcedon. He
was held to be most learned and eloquent. When a dissension arose in
the Synod of Ephesus between John, patriarch of Antioch, and Cyril of
Alexandria, Theodoret saw fit to join with Antioch; but the affair was
settled. He was known as a learned man and saintly member of Christ’s
church. In the books which he wrote he explicitly and by name
opposed Nestorius; it is printed at Rome.139 The papists saw that he was
a definite adversary of transubstantiation, and accused him of double-
dealing. One reason is that the church had not yet pronounced on it, as
if we should heed what the pope with his cardinals decreed at Con-
stance or in the synod where Berengar was condemned,140 instead of
what the ancient church preached and believed. Further they say that
when this man wrote against heretics and dealt with mysteries he
leaned too much the other way, and was against transubstantiation in
order to vanquish adversaries. But the superficiality of this excuse is
evident from the context of the writer, where you can see that one
word cannot be overturned, because the entire argument and its force
derives from the nature of a sacrament. If you mix transubstantiation
with it, nothing is conclusive and heretics will carry the day. They add
that in the same book he sometimes speaks more highly of the Eucha-

138Cyril of Alexandria (376–444), In Johann. IV.2 (6.52) (PG 73.570); Ep. ad Calor.,
Praef. adv. Anthrop. (PG 76.1074). Donnelly notes: “The biggest difficulty in verifying
patristic citations arose from the edition of Saint Cyril of Alexandria almost certainly
used by Vermigli: Opera divi Cyrilii.… Tomi quatuor (Basel: Hervagius, 1546), whose com-
mentary on John’s Gospel contains material not found in modern editions” (DIAL,
xxvn59).
139 In the Disputation Martyr introduces Gelasius and Theodoret as he opens

debate with Tresham, in order to press the Christological analogy. Tresham objects that
Theodoret is “an obscure author, known only to you.” Martyr insists that he was quoting
from a book which was “printed, and may be bought at Rome.” Tresham closes the dis-
cussion with the apt remark that it is “a long and tedious business to go to Rome for such
a book.” See DIS, 1(E), below, CRA, II.331 ff., and GAN, 219 (III) on Martyr’s copy. Mac-
Culloch, Thomas Cranmer 490–91, notes “the partisan unreliability of the fifth-century
Nestorian sympathizer Theodoret.”
140Council of Vercelli; see p. 28 n. 32 above.
56 Treatise on the Eucharist

rist, but all things considered, he never speaks with such veneration as
to be against our stated opinion. He stands against those who denied
that Christ had a true body, saying that at the time of his ascension his
body was completely changed into the divine nature. First he intro-
duces the patriarch Jacob, that he may build up an argument from the
sacraments.141 Here are the words.
[28b]142 “He washes his garments in wine, and his vestments in the
blood of grapes.” Orthodoxus asks again: Do you know what the Lord him-
self called the wine? And adds: Therefore the Savior called the blood of
grapes blood. And a little after: For as we call the mystical fruit of the vine
the blood of the Lord after consecration, so the blood of grapes is called blood
of the true vine. And again: You know that God called his own body bread?
and so on. Also: And in another place his flesh is called bread? and so on.
And referring to sacraments he states as follows:143 In giving the myster-
ies in truth he called the bread body, and what was mixed in the cup, blood.
He adds what I taught before about the conversion of properties or
change of names. In John chapter 6 and finally at the Lord’s Supper,
the same thing happens both then and now, except that the names are
inverted and the terms exchanged, so that he speaks like this: Our Sav-
ior, however, changed the names and gave the name of the symbol to the
body: and to the symbol the name of the body. In the same way in which he
called himself a vine, he called the symbol itself blood. So because of this
change of names the heretic takes the symbols named for the reality,
and the reality for the name of the symbols. The orthodox declares
clearly the benefit of this exchange of names. The heretic says first: But
I want to know the reason for the change of names. Orthodoxus responds:
For he wished the partakers in the holy mysteries not to fasten on the nature
of visible objects, but through the variation in names to believe the change
accomplished through grace. And soon after: He dignified the visible things
by calling them symbols of the body and blood, not changing nature but
adding grace to nature.

141Gen. 49:10–11.
142Masson and Marten (LC, CP) omit this section, presumably because it quotes

Theodoret in Greek, and is repeated in the following sections. Theodoret of Cyrus (ca.
393–466), Eranistes seu Polymorphus, Dial. 1, Immutabilis [Atreptos]. The first five quota-
tions are from PG 83.53b–d. The speakers are Eranistes and Polymorphus; Martyr uses
the Latin names Orthodoxus and Sodalis. Cranmer used the same passage (Def. III.11,
CRA 388ff.). Cf. DIAL, xxiii, 52n.
143The next four quotations, still from Theodoret’s first Dialogue, are found in PG

83.56a–b.
 Patristic Evidence 57

Here you do not have transubstantiation, but only symbols to be

changed according to grace, and made sacraments. He concludes his
argument, that these symbols are of the body and not the divinity, so
that they are not changed into the body of Christ in such a way that
Christ’s body truly is a body and passed into the divine nature. So
speaks the first dialogue, called Immutabilis, in Greek Atreptos, page 8.
In the second dialogue, called Asygchytos,144 page 138, he writes
of the mysteries, how he understands them concerning the body of
Christ: If then the divine mysteries are exemplars of the real body, the Lord’s
body is now still a body, not however changed into the divine nature, but
filled with divine glory. The heretic continues to enquire. What do you
call the gift which is offered before the priestly consecration? Orthodoxus
replies: Food of a certain kind of grain. Again his partner [socius] asks,
playing the role of heretic: And how do we call the other symbol? The
orthodox replies: This name is also common, signifying a kind of drink.
His partner presses him on this: But after consecration, what do you call
them? Orthodoxus responds: The body of Christ and the blood of Christ.
With these questions the heretic concludes his argument, and wishes
to infer from the conversion of the symbols into the body of Christ also
a conversion of the body of Christ into divine nature; he says: Therefore
just as 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 the
Lord’s body after the ascension is changed into divine substance. The ortho-
dox turns the argument back on its author and says: but rather sacra-
ments should be considered to be the body of Christ, not transformed
into divinity, as if bread and wine after consecration do not change
their nature at all, but now have grace added to them, just as immortal-
ity is granted to Christ; he says: You are caught in the net you have woven.
For even after consecration, the mystical symbols are not deprived of their
own nature; they remain in their former substance, both figure and form, and
are both visible and tangible as before. But they are regarded as what they
have become, and are believed and worshipped as being what they are taken
to be. Therefore compare the image with the archetype and you will see the
likeness. For a figure must resemble the truth. That body has its former form,
figure and limitation, and (to speak simply) the same substance as a body.
But after resurrection it is made immortal, and beyond corruption, worthy of
a seat on the right hand; it is worshipped by all creatures, because it is called

144Inconfusus. The quotations are from PG 83.165c–168d.

58 Treatise on the Eucharist

as body of the Lord’s nature. His partner [socius] asks: Since bread
changed in name after it is consecrated, how does it happen that the
body that is in Christ after resurrection is called body, since according
to the analogy of sacraments it should be called divine, as bread is said
to be the body of Christ; therefore he has: Yet that mystical symbol
changes its former name, nor is it afterwards called by what it was known
before, but is styled body. So must the reality now be called God, and no
longer body. Orthodoxus responds to this objection that sacramental
bread is by no means called the body of Christ so that the name bread
will be surrendered, but is called the bread of life, so that the body of
Christ also is now glorified, to be called divine and life-giving body; he
says: You seem to me to be ignorant. For he is called not only body but also
bread of life; for so the Lord used to call it; we call that very body a divine
body, life-giving, masterful [herile] and lordly, teaching that it is not common
to all men but belongs to our Lord Jesus Christ, who is God and man. “Even
Jesus Christ, who is the same yesterday and today and forever.”145 If Latin
has any power, at least when written, I repeat all of the above, and now
add:

29.146 Orthodoxus: You know how God called his own body bread?
Sodalis: I know.
Orthodoxus: And in another place his flesh was called grain?
Sodalis: I know this too. I have heard him say, “The hour comes when
the Son of Man shall be glorified,” and “unless the grain of corn fall
on the earth and die, it remains alone, but if it die, it will bring
forth much fruit.”147
Orthodoxus: In giving the mysteries in truth he called the bread body,
and what was mixed in the cup, blood?
Sodalis: He called them so.
Orthodoxus: Yet by nature it would properly be called body, even his
own body and blood?
Sodalis: Agreed.
Orthodoxus: Our Savior himself changed the names, and gave the name
of the symbol to the body, and to the symbol the name of body. In

145Heb. 13:8.
146LC/CP resume at this point. The quotations in this section are repeated, from
Dialogue 1, Immutabilis [Atreptos] (PG 83.53a–d).
147John 5:25; 12:24.
 Patristic Evidence 59

the same way in which he called himself a vine, he called the

symbol itself blood.
Sodalis: What you said is true; but I want to know the reason for the
change of names.
Orthodoxus: The point is clear to those initiated in divine things. For he
wished the partakers in the holy mysteries not to fasten on the
nature of visible objects, but through the variation in names to
believe the change accomplished through grace. He who spoke of
his own natural body as grain and bread and called himself a vine,
also dignified the visible things by calling them symbols of the
body and blood, not indeed changing nature, but adding grace to
nature.148
Sodalis: Certainly, mysteries are spoken of in mystic language, and
things not known to all are made manifest.
Orthodoxus: Since then it is agreed that the patriarch called the Lord’s
body “robe” and “garment,” and that we have begun to discuss
divine mysteries, tell me in truth of what you understand the holy
food to be a symbol and type? Of the divinity of Christ the Lord, or
of his body and blood?
Sodalis: Plainly of those things whose names they received.
Orthodoxus: You mean the body and blood?
Sodalis: I do.
Orthodoxus: Well said. For when the Lord took the symbol, he did not
say, “This is my godhead” but “This is my body.” And again, “This
is my blood”; and elsewhere, “The bread which I will give for the
life of the world.”
Sodalis: All are true, for they are words of God.
Orthodoxus: But if they are true, the Lord at least had a body.
Sodalis: Yet I say he is bodiless.
Orthodoxus: But you confess that he had a body?

30. From the second Dialogue:149

Sodalis: We must “turn every stone” as the proverb says, to get at the
truth, especially in establishing sacred doctrine.

148Ridley, A Brief Declaration of the Lord’s Supper (1555; Cambridge: Parker Soc. Ed.,

1843), 35, quotes this passage in commenting, “where is there the Papistical transubstan-
tiation?”
149Dialogue 2, Inconfusus (PG 83.166–170); cf. CRA, II.391ff.
60 Treatise on the Eucharist

Orthodoxus: Tell me then: the mystic symbols offered to God by minis-

ters of holy things, of what are they symbols?
Sodalis: Of the body and blood of the Lord.
Orthodoxus: Of the true body or not?
Sodalis: The true.
Orthodoxus: Well said, for they should be an image of the archetype,
just as artists imitate nature, painting images of what they see.
Sodalis: You speak the truth.
Orthodoxus: If then the divine mysteries are exemplars150 of the real
body, the Lord’s body is now still a body, not however changed in
nature into divinity, but filled with divine glory.
Sodalis: You have introduced this subject of divine mysteries in good
time, for through it I will show a change of the Lord’s body into
another nature. Therefore answer my questions.
Orthodoxus: I will answer.
Sodalis: What do you call the gift which is offered before the priestly
invocation?
Orthodoxus: We should not speak openly; perhaps some are here who
are not yet initiated.
Sodalis: Let the answer be enigmatic.
Orthodoxus: Food of a certain kind of grain.
Sodalis: And how do we name the other symbol?
Orthodoxus: This name is also common, signifying a kind of drink.
Sodalis: After consecration what do you call them?
Orthodoxus: The body of Christ and the blood of Christ.
Sodalis: And you believe that you receive Christ’s body and blood?
Orthodoxus: I do.
Sodalis: Therefore just as the symbols of the Lord’s body and blood are
one thing before the priestly invocation but after it are changed
and became something else, so the Lord’s body after the ascension
is changed into divine substance.
Orthodoxus: You are caught in the net you have woven. For even after
consecration, the mystical symbols are not deprived of their own
nature; they remain in their former substance, both figure and
form, and are both visible and tangible as before. But they are
regarded as what they have become, and are believed and wor-
shipped as being what they are taken to be. Therefore compare the

150Existentis corporis exemplaria; Theodoret has antitypa.

 Patristic Evidence 61

image with the archetype and you will see the likeness. For a figure
must resemble the truth. That body has its former form, figure and
limitation, and (to speak simply) the same substance as a body. But
after resurrection it is made immortal, and beyond corruption,
worthy of a seat on the right hand; it is worshipped by all creatures,
because it is called as body of the Lord’s nature.
Sodalis: Yet that mystical symbol changes its former name, nor is it
afterwards called by what it was known before, but is styled body.
So must the reality now be called God, and no longer body.
Orthodoxus: You seem to me to be ignorant. For he is called not only
body but also bread of life; the Lord himself used to call it so, and
the body moreover we call a divine body, life-giving, masterful and
lordly, teaching that it is not common to all men but belongs to our
Lord Jesus Christ, who is God and man. “Even Jesus Christ, who is
the same yesterday and today and forever.”151

31. Chrysostom to Caesar the monk, at the time of his second

exile, against Apollinaris and others who confused the divinity and
humanity in Christ (it is in the library at Florence, though not
printed):152 “Christ is both God and man: God because impassible,
man because of his passion, one Son, one Lord, truly one and the same
in unity of the natures, possessing one dominion, one power (even if
not consubstantial) and each one preserving unmixed its obvious
properties, because the two are distinct. For before the bread is sancti-
fied we call it bread, and being sanctified by divine grace through the
priestly mediation, it is freed from the name bread and considered
worthy to be called the Lord’s body, although the nature of bread
remains in it, and it is proclaimed not two bodies but one body of the

151Heb. 13:8.
152Martyr’s appeal to the Ad Caesarium Monachum was challenged by Gardiner
and others. The original MS was discovered in the library of the Dominican monastery of
S. Marco in Florence in 1680, confirming Martyr’s reference. See VWG, app. B, 269; also
McNair, Peter Martyr in Italy, 289–90. Migne’s introductory Monitum describes the
events: “quam Petrus Martyr olim adversus transubstantiationis fidem objecerat, cum
viri clarissimus Emericus Bigotius in bibliotheca Florentina Sancti Laurentii reperisset,
edissetque … [Martyr] … qui ex ea locum quemdam protulit in Locis communibus” (PG
52.755–60) Cf. John of Damascus on the text: Diss. Tertia (PG 94.315ff.). Gardiner ques-
tioned Martyr’s translation of the work, which he calls “a secret copy of an epistle uttered
at one time in divers senses,” which “remaineth in the archdeacon or archbishop of Can-
terbury’s hands” (Cranmer, Answer, Works, 287).
62 Treatise on the Eucharist

Son. Even so this divine enydrosis, that is, the nature of an overflowing
body, makes both into one Son, one person.”153
Hesychius, in book 20, on Leviticus 8: he commands the flesh to
be eaten with the bread so that we might understand why he calls it a
mystery, which is both bread and flesh.154
Gelasius against Eutyches wrote that in the sacrament of the
Eucharist the substance and nature of bread and wine do not cease to
exist. He makes a comparison of this sacrament with Christ, in whom
both natures remain whole, divine and human, just like the nature of
bread and of the body of Christ in the sacrament.155
Gregory in the Register says that whether the bread is leavened
or unleavened, when we eat we are made one body of the Lord and
Savior.156
Bertram, in his little book On the body and blood of the Lord, says
about the nature of the symbols, that according to the substance of cre-
ated things, what they were before consecration, that they are after.157
In the sermon On the Lord’s Supper, Bernard clearly proposes the
simile of a ring, by which one receives either marital faithfulness or the
possession of some dignity; so in the ordination of a bishop, the ring or
crozier or mitre are signs handed down and conferred, but not empty
signs.158 For what is signified is most surely given, as I have shown hap-
pens in sacraments.

Refutation of Arguments for Transubstantiation

32. Now let us dissolve the arguments of these men by which they
try to prove transubstantiation. To the first159 we reply that in John 6
Christ promised his flesh or body and blood for food and drink. He
does this as often as we truly believe that he died for us; and also in the
Supper, because when this sacrament was instituted he added symbols
to that spiritual eating. They object strenuously Hoc est corpus meum,
and the controversy concerns its truth, yet only as to the mode, for
both of us affirm the proposition’s truth, and contend only about its
153Chrysostom, Ad Caes. Mon. (PG 52.758)
154Hesychius, In Lev. II, 8:31 (PG 93.886).
155Gelasius (Pope 492–96), Ep. 1 and 3 (PL 59.17d, 23c); cf. 14 (PL 59.89) and App.

Sec. (PL 59.141). See also DEF, 388, 585–86, and CRA, II.331–32.
156Gregory the Great, Registrum VIII, 1 (PL 148.573); CRA, II.328.
157Ratramnus, De corpore et sanguine Domini XII (PL 121.132–33).
158Bernard, In Coena Domini, Sermo 8 (PL 184.953–54).
159See §3 above.
 Refutation of Arguments for Transubstantiation 63

meaning. They declare that the statement is clear, and on the contrary
we say that Augustine, in his On Christian doctrine, teaches that one
place should not be interpreted against many others, but in the way
that agrees with them.160
They should not object clarity of sense so often, otherwise when
it is said, “Let us make man in our image and likeness,”161 Anthropo-
morphites arise, and infer that God has body and soul and other mem-
bers, as we see them formed in man.162 You will say that this likeness
refers to the soul, since through it man rules other creatures, as God
does; but they say that it is written about man, and that you falsely
attribute what is said of the whole to the part, the soul. But you again
object that God is a spirit and does not have flesh and bones, and so by
other Scriptures determine the sense of this one.
The Arians claimed to have the plain sense of “The Father is
greater than I.”163 You restrict this to human nature because in other
places Christ’s divinity is demonstrated, as in John 1, Romans 9, and
the fifth chapter of John’s Letter. Likewise Christ said, “Let him who
has not a sword buy one.”164 This would seem to incite to vengeance;
but if you consider other places you will see that it is spoken figura-
tively. Paul has, “Pray without ceasing”—the Euchêtae arose, who
thought we should devote ourselves to perpetual, whispered pray-
ing.165 Yet it is stated elsewhere, “He who does not provide for his own,
especially his household, denies his faith and is worse than a heathen”;
again, “Let all things be done with order,” and “Whoever does not
work, let him not eat.”166
The Chiliasts or Millenarians thought they had the clearest word
in Revelation 20 about the thousand years, when Christ will reign with
his own.167 The Sabellians said there is no difference between the
Father and Son, from another place, “I and the Father are one,” and

160Augustine, De doct. Chr. II.9 (PL 34.42).

161Gen. 1:6.
162On the anthropomorphitae, see Martyr, “Visions,” PW, 139, 147.
163John 14:28.
164Luke 22:36. Adding “Item” from ERR, 27v.
165The Euchite sect, “those who pray,” or Messalians (fourth to seventh centuries)

believed that one’s personal demon could be exorcised only by continuous praying,
taking 1 Thess. 5:12 literally.
1661 Tim. 5:8; 1 Cor. 14:40; 2 Thess. 3:10.
167On Chiliasm see Martyr’s “Resurrection” §57, PW, 108.
64 Treatise on the Eucharist

from “Philip, he that sees me, sees the Father also. And as I am in the
Father, so the Father dwells in me.” They claimed that these are clear,
and support their case.168
The Ebionites considered Christ a mere creature, and said that
“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” 169 could not be
understood otherwise, since God could not forsake himself. They said
that it follows from what is written in John 6 (”Whoever eats my flesh
and drinks my blood will never die”) that those who have once prop-
erly communicated can never die. Augustine brilliantly exposed this
error, in City of God.170
If you take the words of the Song of Songs at their face value, it is
only a love song or nuptial poem [epithalamium]. Thus we should not
always pretend to clarity of words. Christ said “He that has ears to hear,
let him hear, and he that reads, understand.”171 We should not seize
the first sense to offer itself, neglecting other places without due con-
sideration. Christ told the apostles, “Beware that leaven of the Phari-
sees.” 172 At first they thought he spoke of bread, but he meant
doctrine. When he said, “Our friend Lazarus sleeps,” the apostles were
also sleeping and replied, “If he sleeps he is safe”; but he was speaking
about death.173 Again, the Lord said, “Destroy this temple and in three
days I will raise it up,” yet they did not understand that he meant his
body.174 “He that keeps my commands will never die”; here too the
Jews thought he spoke of ordinary death. Nicodemus interpreted the
new birth basely, and the woman of Samaria was just as wrong about
the water that Christ promised her. The Jews also had the wrong idea
when Christ said to them that Abraham saw his day and was glad.175
Well then, they should not so often tell us that this Scripture,
“This is my body,” is clear, for we will answer: it is clear as to the signifi-
cance of the word. But their interpretation is not clear, as parallel sen-
tences indicate: Christ is a rock, Christ is a lamb, You are the body of

168 John 10:30, 38; 14:9. The Sabellians (third-century Rome) emphasized the

divine unity, with three modes rather than persons.

169Matt. 27:46.
170 Augustine, De civ. Dei XXI.20.19 (PL 41.733–34); the Ebionites were Jewish

Christians reputed to have denied the Virgin Birth and full deity of Christ.
171Matt. 11:15.
172Matt. 16:11.
173John 11:11–12.
174John 2:19.
175John 3:9; 7:11–12; 8:56.
 Refutation of Arguments for Transubstantiation 65

Christ, We many are one bread. All these are words of God, and we may
affirm them to be clear and transparent, yet they do not imply transub-
stantiation.
33. There is therefore no reason why clarity 176 of the words
should be promoted like this. We must look carefully for what is meant
here by examining other places and circumstances of Scripture. We will
expound the proposition through a deeper examination. God seeks to
draw man to himself through generous promises; he wishes to bless
man and make him happy. Because of our unbelieving hearts, he
makes many benefits appear to mankind, to draw them to himself. Not
only has he given us the whole of creation, but in the time of the flood
he delivered the race from destruction by water, though all had
deserved it. He declared himself merciful to Abraham, he prospered the
family of Isaac and his seed Jacob, that they should increase in Egypt.
When they were oppressed there he delivered them, gave them a land
richly blessed, and exalted them to kingly and priestly dignity. Yet they
were always unfaithful, sceptical of God’s goodwill towards them.
Therefore on account of their unbelief he drove them into various cap-
tivities, then set them free. Finally, that there should be no doubt of his
goodness, he bestowed the greatest of all benefits, namely his Son
clothed in human flesh, to die on the cross for our salvation. So great
was this favor that as Paul said to the Romans, “How could he not give
us all things with him?”177 In case it should be forgotten, he decreed
that it should be renewed in this sacrament of the Eucharist, that by
faith we should keep Christ in mind delivered by him to death for us,
and that in believing this we should eat his flesh and blood. To do this
more effectively, symbols of bread and wine were added, moving us
more powerfully than mere words.
34. When Christ says, “This is my body,” he means the very same
that is offered in John 6 when he said, “I am the bread of life.”178 He
was speaking of himself, of the body and flesh delivered to death or
rather to be delivered, as is clear from his words. He wished only that
they might be bread and drink for us, by which our minds should be
strengthened and fed, and through the mind, the body and even the
whole man. Therefore in the Supper, Christ did nothing else than

176perspecuitas: for Martyr’s theory of interpretation, see COR, Praef. (LC I.6), and

the introduction to PML, vol. 6 (Commentary on Lamentations).

177Rom. 8:31.
178Matt. 26:26; John 6:35.
66 Treatise on the Eucharist

transpose the proposition: first he had said that his body and flesh are
bread, and now he says the reverse, showing bread as his body. When
he stated, “This is my body,” it was as if to say, my body received by
faith will be for bread or like bread, by which you will be fed spiritually.
Therefore let the meaning be, I give you bread to eat, while offering my
body to be fastened to the cross, so that with faithful memory and
attentive mind you may spiritually eat among yourselves; and as with
the body you eat bread so with the mind will you eat my flesh.
What is more simple or clear than this interpretation? Or what
agrees better with the promises made by our Lord in John 6? Some may
argue that Christ’s first saying, “I am the living bread,” should be taken
in respect to the divine nature, as Chrysostom seems to desire. First, we
say that this is not quite suitable, since Christ chose his words in regard
to the eating of his body, and instead of earthly bread offered the
Capernaites his flesh to be eaten. This seems clear from the burden of
his speech, even though he states that the bread came down from
heaven, for often what belongs to the divinity is attributed also to the
humanity. But if the explanation of Chrysostom carries such weight
with them, so should what he says later, that the saying of Christ, “The
bread which I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the
world,” refers to the Eucharist.179 He is not alone in this, for other
interpreters agree.
Hence the Lord stated that the bread is his flesh, and now he
declares the same thing in the Supper, for he says of the bread dis-
played, “This is my body.” He affirms both things at once, that his body
or flesh is bread spiritually eaten—bread of the soul and of our regener-
ated nature. Thus there is no change of the proposition, it is taken the
same way in both places. If you take the whole thing, bread and what is
offered through bread, that is, the body of Christ, we admit synecdo-
che, for it is spoken of the whole, or one part for the other. But if you
refer the saying to the bread, which signifies and offers us Christ’s body
to be eaten, it will be the figure metonymy, when the name of what is
signified is attributed to the sign.180 Once again in this interpretation
everything is simple: absurdities are avoided, and one Scripture does
not contradict another.

179Chrysostom, Ad Caes. Mon. See p. 61 n. 152 above.

180Martyr argues for a verbalis communicatio by which signum and res may be desig-

nated by certain literary devices, chiefly metonymy and synecdoche. For these figures of
speech, see VWG, 107ff. and 221ff. (”The Eucharist and Tropism.”)
 Refutation of Arguments for Transubstantiation 67

35. They have said that if you allow tropes in this way, heretics will
pervert everything. But I maintain that unless we use figures, as is clear
from what we cited above, the heretics will triumph. For they also will
plead a proper sense, namely whatever suggests itself at first sight. Noth-
ing remains for us but to show that such phrases and figurative speech
are used frequently in the holy Scriptures, something we can easily do.
We read in Scripture, “The seed was the Word of God,” “The rock
was Christ.” 181 I know there are some who cavil that no trope is
involved, since Paul limited his speech to the spiritual rock, which they
claim to be Christ truly and not figuratively. Yet Augustine and Origen
are with us, for they state plainly that the outward rock signifies
Christ.182 But in case we seem to evade the objection, we say that if
they want to take “rock” spiritually, let them also take bread here spiri-
tually and allegorically, and we will admit it to be Christ in truth and
without any trope. Moreover the Lord said, “I have chosen you twelve,
and one of you is a devil,” yet Judas was not therefore transubstantiated
into a devil.183 It is written about circumcision, “My covenant will be
in your flesh,” although circumcision is not the covenant, but only a
sign of the covenant.184 In Genesis 33 it tells of Jacob building an altar,
which he called the great God of Israel.185 And in Exodus, after the vic-
tory over Amalek, Moses called the altar which he raised “the Lord my
banner,” and Jeremiah recalls a city named “the Lord our righteous-
ness.”186 For these were reminders of those things to come which they
expressed by names. It is written about John the Baptist that he was a
burning and shining light; also “He is Elijah, if you receive him.”187
Christ said of himself, “I am the vine, and you are the branches; I am
the door.” We are also told about him that he is a stone set for ruin and
resurrection.188 In Deuteronomy, “the blood is the life,” although it is
that by which the life is preserved and symbolized.189 Judah said about

181Luke 8:11; 1 Cor 10:4.

182Origen, In Jer., Hom. XVI, 3 (PG 13.442); Augustine, Sermo LXXVI, 1 (PL 38.479).
183John 6:70.
184Gen. 17:13.
185Gen. 33:20.
186Jehovah nissi (Ex. 17:15); Jehovah tsidkenu (Jer. 23:6): Martyr uses the Hebrew in
both cases.
187John 5:35; Matt. 17:12.
188John 15:1, 10:7; 1 Pet. 2:6.
189Deut. 12:23.
68 Treatise on the Eucharist

his brother Joseph, “Let him not be killed, he is our flesh,” the phrase
denoting the natural union of kinfolk.190
Paul said the many are one bread, which must be understood figu-
ratively. And Christ breathed on the disciples and said, “Receive the
Holy Spirit,” yet the breath was not transubstantiated into the Holy
Spirit. In Genesis, “My spirit will not dwell in man, because he is flesh,”
and in John, “The Word became flesh,” where the figure is synecdoche,
because the entire person is understood in the term flesh.191 On the
cross the Lord said, “Woman, behold your son” and to the disciple,
“Behold your mother”; yet they were not transubstantiated, but
remained as before except that a new order, a new relation and refer-
ence was established between them.192 It is said of Christ, “He is our
peace,” yet he is rather the cause of our peace. “My words are spirit and
life,” yet they only signified these things, or brought them to believers.
John said of Christ, “Behold the Lamb of God,” but his nature was not
changed into that of a lamb.193
36. All through Scripture the words of the Lord are said to be judg-
ment, truth, and justice, whereas this is but signified and expressed in
them. This simile is most appropriate to sacraments, which are said to
be visible words.194 The Apocalypse has, “I am alpha and omega,” that
is, the beginning and end of all things. And Paul says of his Gospel
which he preached, “It is the power of God to salvation to all who
believe,” yet it is only the instrument by which God’s power declares
itself to those who will be saved. Of the preaching of the cross he says
that to the ungodly it is foolishness, that is, it signifies something fool-
ish to that sort of man. But to the godly, he adds, it is the power and
wisdom of God, because it represents these things to them.195
Concerning the Law, God said that death and life, blessing and
curse were set before the Hebrews, that is, through the Law’s significa-
tion, the promises and threats expressed in it.196 In Genesis the seven
cows and seven ears of corn are said to signify seven years.197 Ahijah
the prophet of Shiloh gave Jeroboam ten pieces of his torn cloak and
190Gen. 37:27.
191Gen. 6:3; John 1:14.
192John 19:26–27.
193Eph. 2:14; John 6:63; 1:29.
194Augustine, In Joan. Ev., Tr. 80, 3 (PL 35.1840).
195Rev. 1:8; Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:18.
196Deut. 30:19.
197Gen. 41:26.
 Refutation of Arguments for Transubstantiation 69

said that he was giving him the rule of ten tribes.198 In 1 Corinthians
11 Paul writes that a woman should have power [exousian] on her head,
that is, a veil, by which the man’s power is signified.199 In 2 Corin-
thians, God made Christ to be sin, namely in terms of the likeness and
representation of flesh—the victim offered for sin is called sin, and the
priests were said to eat the sins of the people, that is, the victims offered
for their sins.200
It is written in Ezekiel, “I will pour water upon you,” and by water
the Holy Spirit is signified, as we read of Christ’s saying, “He that
drinks of this water” etc., where the evangelist recalls that he spoke of
the Spirit which they were to receive.201 We hear of the lamb that was
called passover, although some try to deny it. But the Hebrew has “The
sacrifice is the passover.” 202 By sacrifice we must understand the
animal killed, or the act of offering the victim. Just so is Christ’s body
represented both in bread and wine and in the action of eating and
drinking. The lamb was not that passing over [transitus] of the angel,
but only its token and sign. Christ sought a place where he might eat
the passover with his apostles, and by passover he understood those
meats and things consecrated, which denote a passing over.203 Also
Paul: “Christ our passover is offered,” calling Christ himself our cere-
mony and passing over.204 This cannot be other than figurative. Nor
was the lamb a passing over of the angel to be performed at that
moment, but something done long ago, whose memory was repre-
sented by those outward signs. We also have Christ’s body here,
though it suffered before; it is not to be delivered to the cross now, or
the blood to be shed now.
37. If they are to interpret these words of Christ strictly, when he
said “This is my body which is given for you,” they must say that the
bread was crucified, or at least Christ hidden in accidents (as they put
it) in the sacrament. For showing what he held in his hands, Christ said
that it was to be given and shed for them. And if they state that it was
indeed what was given, but not in the same mode [sed non eodem

1981 Kings 11:31.

1991 Cor. 11:10.
2002 Cor. 5:21; Lev. 7:6.
201Ezek. 36:25, John 4:14.
202Martyr also includes the Hebrew: Zebah pesah hu (Ex. 12:27; Deut. 16:2).
203Matt. 26:17.
2041 Cor. 5:7.
70 Treatise on the Eucharist

modo] or form, then they are groping for interpretations and evasions
and not accepting the statement simpliciter. You see this in the words
“given” and “shed”; when taken as they sound (while we utter the
words of consecration), they signify the body of Christ now delivered
to the cross, and his blood now shed or soon to be shed. But they want
them turned into the perfect tense, so that we should understand the
body given and the blood shed; that means dealing figuratively, taking
one tense for another.
Paul’s saying makes no difference; “those who eat unworthily are
guilty of the body and blood of the Lord”; also they eat their own judg-
ment because they do not distinguish the Lord’s body.205 The interpre-
tation of Ambrose on the first was that they will be punished for the
Lord’s death, because he was killed for them, who do not respect his
worth. So he takes them to be guilty of the Lord’s body as we have
heard, and no transubstantiation is required.206 Those who eat unwor-
thily are said not to discern, that is, not to value the Lord’s body,
because so great is the union between symbols and things signified
that the reproach of the one redounds to the other. So Paul said, “A
man praying or prophesying with head covered dishonors Christ,”207
where clearly he would ascribe to Christ what was done about man’s
head, which ought to be a symbol of Christ.
Consider also what Paul wrote to the Corinthians, who were not
completely without faith, but plagued with certain weaknesses. We do
not say that this kind of person receives symbols alone, and has not the
body of Christ, but we say this of unbelievers, Epicureans, atheists, and
those outside the church. We might rightly say of them that they were
guilty of the Lord’s body and blood, as to both symbols and the reality
of the sacrament, because they did not discern the Lord’s body, receiv-
ing them without faith and not fulfilling them in life.
It should be noted here that when Paul deals with the sacramen-
tal action, that is, with eating and drinking, he mentions bread and
says, “Who eats this bread.” Afterwards, when he would exaggerate the
fault, he says “the body of the Lord.” If we judge the matter correctly, in
his whole treatment of this sacrament the apostle referred to bread
more often than to the Lord’s body. For you will find that he refers five
times to bread, and the body of the Lord only four.208
2051 Cor. 11:27.
206Ambrose, Comm. in Ep. ad Cor. Primam XI (PL 17.243).
2071 Cor. 11:4. 208Cf. §6 above.
 Refutation of Arguments for Transubstantiation 71

38. Now we must see what moves us to take this saying “This is my
body” figuratively. First consider that Christ was present at the Supper,
so that he did not need to show his body to the apostles, for they saw
him. And how could he eat himself really and corporeally? Yet he truly
communicated with the apostles, as the Fathers affirm and Christ him-
self says, in Matthew: “I shall not drink hereafter of this fruit of the
vine.”209 Moreover, we note what is said about remembrance, where a
figure is implied. We see that they change the tenses so that what is
declared by the future or present, about giving the body and shedding
the blood, they render by the perfect.
We consider that in their consecration they cannot escape figures
of speech, because they take the word “is” for “is changed,” “is transub-
stantiated,” or “becomes.” Since Christ instituted a sacrament, it is
appropriate for the symbols to be taken as significant, that is, figura-
tively, according to the nature of a sacrament, which is that it should
be a sign. We remember also Christ’s ascension into heaven, the truth
of the human nature he assumed. Also John, when it is said to the
Capernaites, “My words are spirit and life, the flesh profits nothing”
(when eaten carnally), “it is the Spirit who gives life.”210 Once again
there is Paul, who clearly names it bread, where those who still want a
figure are so much against us. We hear Paul testify that the Fathers had
the same sacrament with us; in Augustine’s judgment it was not
enough for him to say that they had spiritual meat and drink, but he
adds “the very same.”211 To prevent any doubt, the apostle refers also to
baptism, which he says they obtained in the sea and cloud. Hence it
seems as if they had the same sacraments not only among themselves
but also along with us. It is evident that the related statements are to be
taken figuratively, for they say “The bread which we break is the com-
munion of the body of Christ,” and, “this cup is the new testa-
ment.”212 We have often dealt with these things. It is not fitting that
the body of Christ should be eaten.
From all this it is obvious what should be said to the second argu-
ment,213 in which they objected that the sentence is not to be taken
figuratively, unless it has something before or after which leads us to do

209Matt. 26:29.
210John 6:63.
2111 Cor. 10:1; Augustine, In Joh. Tract. 26.12 (PL 35.1612).
2121 Cor. 10:16, 11:25.
213See §3 above.
72 Treatise on the Eucharist

so. They insist upon retaining that phrase, “which is given for you,” in
the strict sense. This is patently false, since it would change the tenses;
we do not take it as the body that was delivered, for that was visible and
passible. Nor can the qualities of a corruptible body and a glorified one
exist together in the same substance or subject, so that the same body
should be passible and impassible at the same time. We have showed
what other places lead us to admit this kind of figure, synecdoche, or
metonymy.
39. We will answer another argument about things that are dis-
tinct, disparata as they are called, between which you cannot form a
mutual predication.214 Things that are discrete or dissimilar can be
joined when an analogy or signification occurs, so that they are strong
enough to make a proposition. We see this not only when the Lord
says, “The seed is the Word of God” and “I am the vine,” but also when
Paul says that we are one bread. Again he says, “The bread which we
break is the communion of the body of Christ,” and “This cup is the
new testament in my blood.” We are not troubled because some hold
Matthew and Mark to state clearly, “This is my blood of the new testa-
ment.” We do not deny that those evangelists wrote it, but we contend
that the words of Luke and Paul must be accepted, and we hold that
those statements just cited consist of words that differ widely, called
disparates in logic. But through analogy and signification they are well
and aptly connected.
40. Another argument has it that when Christ said “This is my
body,” he did not say, this signifies or represents my body, this bread is
a figure or sign of my body. To this we reply that Christ did not say that
his body hid under accidents without a subject, nor did he affirm that
the substance of bread ceases to exist, or is changed or transubstanti-
ated into his body. I am surprised that they make such objections, since
these views may be found among the Fathers. For they often say that
the body and blood of the Lord is represented, signified, designated,
showed, and call the symbols of bread and wine seal, figure, type, and
antitype. No one should cavil that they refer these signs or figures to
Christ’s death and not to the body; the Fathers clearly state that the
body and blood are signified, and the signs or figures of the body and
blood of the Lord are given. We shall set out some of the numerous
texts, to convince you of this truth.

214See p. 25 n. 14 above.
 Refutation of Arguments for Transubstantiation 73

Augustine, On instructing the unlearned: “Concerning the sacra-

ment which he received, there are visible seals of divine things, and the
invisible things themselves are honored in them.” The same man in
City of God, book 10, chapter 5: “Therefore the visible sacrifice is the
sacrament and sacred sign of the invisible sacrifice.”215 And Jerome,
book 4 on Matthew, chapter 26: “as in his prefiguration Melchizedek
priest of God Most High offered bread and wine, he also represented
the truth of his body and blood.”216
Bertram: “by the testimonies of the holy Scriptures and sayings of
the holy Fathers, it is quite clearly shown that the bread called Christ’s
body and the cup Christ’s blood is a figure, since it is a mystery.”217
Tertullian, against Marcion book 4: “having taken bread and dis-
tributed it to the disciples, he made it his body, saying: ‘This is my
body, that is, a figure of my body.’”218
Cyprian, epistle 3, book 2: “We see that in the water the people
are understood, in the wine the blood of Christ is shown.”219
Ambrose, the book Of those who are initiated in the Mysteries:
“Before the blessing of the heavenly words another species is named;
after consecration the body of Christ is signified.” And On Sacraments,
book 4, chapter 5: “Make this offering for us, attested as reasonable and
acceptable, a figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.”220
Also on 2 Corinthians 11: “Having this in mind, we signify in eating
and drinking the flesh and body of the Lord, which were offered for
us.” Again, “We receive the cup as this type, as mystical blood, to the
maintenance of our body and soul.”221
Bernard in the sermon on the Lord’s Supper: “Therefore as the
Lord approached his passion, he prepared to endow his own with his
grace, so that the invisible grace might be present by some visible
sign.”222
Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians 10: “Why do I speak of commu-
nion? We are that same body. What does bread signify? The body of

215 Augustine, De catech. rud. I.26.50 (PL 40.344); De civit. Dei XVI.22 [sic] (PL
41.500).
216Jerome, Comm. in Ev. Matt. IV.26:26 (PL 26.195).
217Ratramnus, De Corp. et Sang. Dom. XCVII (PL 121.169).
218Tertullian, Adv. Marcion. IV, 40 (PL 2.491).
219Cyprian, Ad Caec., Ep. 63.13 (PL 4.383).
220Ambrose, De Myst. IX, 52 (PL 16.406); De Sac. IV.5, 21 (PL 16.443).
221Ambrose, Comm. in Ep. ad Cor. Primam [sic] 11:26 (PL 17.243).
222Bernard, perhaps Sermo de excell. ss sac. 11 (PL 184.987).
74 Treatise on the Eucharist

Christ. What do they become who par take of it? The body of
Christ.”223
Basil calls it antitype in his Liturgy, and that after consecration.224
Augustine, On the Trinity book 3, chapter 4: “The apostle could
preach the Lord Jesus Christ by signifying through the tongue, or else
by a letter, or by the sacrament of his body and blood.”225 Against Adi-
mantus: “The Lord doubted not to say, This is my body, when he gave a
sign of his body.”226 And on Psalm 3: “He admitted Judas to the feast in
which he commended and delivered to his disciples a figure of his body
and blood.”227 Also against Maximinus book 3, chapter 22: “In the sac-
raments one should consider not what they are but what they show,
because they are signs of things, being one thing and signifying
another.”228
So you see that the Fathers do not reject but establish a significa-
tion of the body in this sacrament. Moreover we showed from Scripture
that there is this kind of statement, where the verb substantive is is
taken for signifies. And so this argument fades. When they object that
Christ did not say either signifies or represents, we answer that this
may be understood from Scripture, which we proved sufficiently above.
Nor (as they think) do we argue as follows: the sentence is taken
like this elsewhere; therefore it should be taken so here. Rather, we
oppose those who, in order to prove their transubstantiation, repeat
“This is my body,” the very thing in controversy, and of doubtful sense.
They offer us a simple meaning, holding fast to what other Scriptures
show to be slippery, since this way of speaking should often be taken in
a different way in Scripture. We have many other reasons for our opin-
ion of the Eucharist; we do not advance this as our own argument, but
when they insist on such a phrase we reply only that it usually means
something else, and therefore their conclusion is weak.
41. They argue about adoration, that if bread remains it would be
venerated in the sacrament. I am amazed at their concern for true ado-
ration when both pictures and statues are venerated among them; but
they claim that they do not worship these but what they represent.

223Chrysostom, In Ep. ad Cor., Hom. XXIV.2 (10:16) (PG 61.200).

224See 50 n. 112 above. Reading “consecrationem” for “baptismum” as in ERR 34r.
225Augustine, De Trin. III.4.10 (PL 42.874); also in DIS, 91r.
226Augustine, Cont. Adim. I.12.1 (PL 42.143–44).
227Augustine, En. in Ps. 3, 1 (PL 36.73); also in CRA, III.11 (II, 388).
228Augustine, Cont. Max. Arian. Episc. II.22.3 (PL 42.794); CRA, II.387.
 Refutation of Arguments for Transubstantiation 75

[5]229 Why not acknowledge the same thing if bread remains, that
what will be worshipped is not bread but what it signifies? And why
not remove accidents for the same reason, lest perhaps they are wor-
shipped? They might make the excuse that no one wishes to honor
accidents here; but we know that the pictures and figures they allow in
their churches are accidents, to which men kneel. If they would wor-
ship the substance of wood or stone, they have plenty to adore in for-
ests and roadways. But rough and simple folk cannot make the
distinction, or judge between accidents and substance.
Those who pretend to be moved with such zeal should transub-
stantiate the cup, lest it be worshipped when displayed. Certainly this
argument always seemed very light to me, even when put forward by
Scholastics of no mean reputation. [6] It is objected that if we do not
allow transubstantiation in this sacrament, two natures or bodily sub-
stances will occur at once in the same place. Who does not wonder that
they show such awe towards nature, such reverence as not to break its
laws? Yet they have accidents hanging without a subject, which is quite
contrary to nature’s decrees. Through their absurd device they do not
escape what they fear, because when accidents remain, among them is
a body having quantity and occupying a distinct place. Yet they also
want Christ’s flesh to be corporeally present, a thing of quantity; to
have it under accidents they must grant two quantities and two bodies
together. But according to the opinion which we assert, there is no
danger of such absurdity.
42. [7] They declared that it is not appropriate to the dignity of
Christ to have his body joined with bread. This is frivolous, for it is not
held that the body of Christ and the nature of bread compose one sub-
ject, like the divine and human natures in Christ. Nor can we see what
greater dignity accidents have than bread, so that if Christ’s body is
with them it cannot remain with the substance of bread. Is not the
divine nature said to be in hell itself without losing its dignity? Yet they
judge that this body is given to be eaten truly and substantially even to
the wicked, who are most unclean and unworthy of it. Why do they
fear for the dignity only when the Lord’s body and blood are joined to
bread and wine? Especially when there ought to be a union of significa-
tion.

229Margin begins numbering 5 to 9.

76 Treatise on the Eucharist

[8] They also referred to the nature of sacrifice. They say that the
body and blood of the Lord are offered in Masses, so that unless we
allow the metamorphosis, nothing is offered but something signified
and adumbrated. Here Cyprian may do for us, To Caecilium third letter
book 2: “It is the passion of the Lord that we offer.”230 Everyone knows
that Christ’s passion is not at all present in the hands of the priest,
since it is something done in the past of which a memorial is made and
for which thanks are given to God. But everything they pretend in this
argument is a fiction, in which they imagine that the Son of God him-
self is properly and truly offered to the Father by the priest. How wrong
they are in this, it is not now the place to say.

Rules for Patristics231

43. [9] At this point we should show that what they bring from
the Fathers’ beliefs that seem to oppose our aim do not actually count
against us. But before proceeding to their exposition, I wish to offer a
preface, that can be taken as certain rules for understanding the
Fathers, who speak on this topic of the sacrament powerfully and ear-
nestly.232
[1] The first consideration is that Scripture alternately attributes
to the reality what belongs to the symbols, and in turn ascribes to signs
what belongs to the reality. The Fathers use the same procedure, so that
you often see them treat the substance as if they spoke of symbols, and
on the other hand write about the symbols as if they dealt with the
reality and significance. This follows from the great likeness that exists

230Cyprian, Ad Caec., Ep. 63.17 (PL 4.387).

231Margin: Quaedam regulae ad intelligendos Patres. Martyr’s discrimination in

approaching the Fathers illustrates the humanist shift from auctoritates to fontes: see C.
Stinger, “Italian Renaissance Learning and the Church Fathers,” RCF, 473 ff. I. Backus,
“The Fathers and Calvinist Orthodoxy: Patristic Scholarship,” RCF, 842ff., describes later
cases, such as Abraham Scultetus’s Syntagma of 1598.
232See §4 (26) above, and [47r] (p. 208) below. Martyr’s general principles for inter-

preting the Fathers are: (1) Scripture is Deus dixit, with priority over the sententiolae
which “doctors of indices” like to gather from the Fathers; and (2) there are “degrees of
the Fathers,” according to which Augustine lived in “purer” times, while from Theophy-
lact onwards it is evident that “Later Fathers speak less prudently.” See LC, 4.4.13–23
(scholium from Martyr’s De Votis) on the authority of the Fathers, DEF, II (fols. 595–96)
on Regulae; and VWG, app. B, 267–71, “Peter Martyr’s Patristic Sources.” Cf. Calvin, Inst.
IV.17.14: transubstantiation was “unknown to those better ages when the purer doctrine
of religion still flourished.” Cf. §54 below, and GAN, 41ff., “La Littérature Patristique.”
 Rules for Patristics 77

between them through the Lord’s institution. Augustine illustrates this

clearly, to Boniface, that in sacraments the names are exchanged.233
[2] Another rule is that if you look carefully at what is said before
and after, you will see that the Fathers always identify this food as spiri-
tual, and not related to the throat, stomach, or teeth.
[3] Third, whenever they say that we communicate with Christ
“carnally,” so that the body also is nourished in the Eucharist, we
should take it in the same way as we understand that when he was con-
ceived of a virgin and assumed human nature, the Son of God joined
with us carnally. Moreover when we believe his words and receive the
sacraments with faith, we abide in him and he in us, because in such
communion the Spirit is given us, and our flesh and body which were
already of the same nature with Christ are made of the same qualities
with him: they become capable of immortality and resurrection, and
when they obey and serve the spirit, are truly nourished to eternal life.
So in the Eucharist our body is fed in two ways. First it is fed by sym-
bols, second by this renewal to eternal life, and thus is Christ said to
abide in us through this sacrament. Of the first communication that
we have with him through nativity and incarnation, you have witness
from the letter to the Hebrews, chapter 2: “Since therefore the children
share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same
nature.”234
[4] Consider also that to the Fathers, the words of consecration
mean nothing else than to dedicate something common and profane
to a holy use, and this is to make it holy. Therefore when the word con-
secration occurs in the Fathers, there is no reason for us to imagine
transubstantiation. We do not deny some change there, namely that
by which they become sacraments, to signify effectively, to offer and
exhibit the body and blood of the Lord to us through the power of the
Holy Spirit, in mind and faith.
[5] Further it should be known that between us and the Caper-
naites there is no difference regarding the essential thing: they thought
that they would eat the true flesh of Christ, which we also agree does
happen. But the difference lies in the manner and way of eating [in
modo et ratione manducationis]. What they thought was done car-
nally, happens spiritually according to our teaching. Thus the true

233Augustine, Ad Bonif., Ep. XCVIII.9 (PL 33.303–4).

234Heb. 2:14. On this twofold union see Martyr, ROM, 8:1, VWG, 142ff.
78 Treatise on the Eucharist

body and true blood is exhibited, because faith does not grasp things
imagined but true. When we read in the Fathers that the body of Christ
is contained or obtained in these mysteries, they mean nothing else
than that it is denoted, exhibited, demonstrated, and signified.235
44. [6] When you hear the Fathers say that bread or wine is no
longer present, you should not take it at face value but apply it to your-
self, when you communicate faithfully. For in that case you should not
think of bread or wine, but your mind and sense should cleave only to
the things represented to you. Therefore it is said, Sursum corda, when
you lift up your mind from them to the invisible things offered you.
Holy Scripture also does not shrink from this kind of figure. Paul said,
“Our wrestling is not with flesh and blood,” even though he agreed
that the body and flesh trouble the soul and must be restrained, as he
writes elsewhere: “The flesh lusts against the spirit.”236 Nor was he
ignorant that many evil men are called flesh and blood, who trouble us
still and with whom we must wrestle daily. But Paul was thinking of
that chief and principal struggle, from which the others derive.
[7] He also said that in Christ there is neither male nor female,
bond nor free, although these offices and persons are not removed
from Christ and the church, indeed there are rules prescribed just for
them.237 But Paul understood that these things in Christ do not relate
to regeneration, the forgiveness of sins, and eternal life, the essence of
Christianity. In distributing them, Christ does not take account of
status and condition. The same apostle writes, “The kingdom of God is
not in word,”238 yet he would not thereby divest the church, which is
the kingdom of God, of sermons, exhortations, and readings, which
are performed by words. He meant only that great power and efficacy
of the Spirit, by which everything should be ruled in the church. So say
the Fathers when they deny that the nature of the symbols remains; as
we noted, it is not to be taken absolutely, but in terms of our faith and
meditation, which should not cling to them.
[8] You may add to this that faith is so effective that it makes
things present not indeed really or substantially but spiritually, for it
apprehends them truly. The apostle said that Christ was crucified
before the eyes of the Galatians. Abraham was said to have seen the day

235See introduction, xxxvii, n. 78, on the key term “exhibere.”

236Eph. 6:12; Gal. 5:17.
237Gal. 3:28.
2381 Cor. 4:20.
 Analysis of the Patristic Evidence 79

of the Lord.239 Similarly, the ancients had in their sacraments the same
Christ whom we enjoy. So you see that for this presence the reality in
its natural condition need not change place, or be present to us with all
its material and physical conditions.
[9] It should also be noted that because the divine nature of Christ
is truly present to us, this can be imparted to the humanity through
alternation and communication of the properties. Thus when Christ
was speaking on earth he said that the Son of Man was in heaven, and
so attributed to the humanity what belonged to the divinity. In this
way I concede that the human nature of Christ is present to us in the
communion, if interpreted through communication of properties.240
[10] Finally, if you ask why the Fathers used these tropes and
hyperboles, we think it was partly to follow the language of Scripture
and partly to strike the human mind more forcibly. It was also to show
that this significance of the sacrament is not just like comic or tragic
acting. For there, an actor can represent Hector or Priam and nothing
follows of any consequence. But here, the reality is represented by the
power of the Holy Spirit, given and imprinted on our minds through
faith, with many gifts and graces resulting, especially a secret and inef-
fable union with Christ, so that we become truly one with him.

Analysis of the Patristic Evidence

45. The first objection was from Irenaeus,241 who said that when
earthly bread is consecrated it is not common bread but becomes
Eucharist. We admit this willingly, and affirm that what is present is
not profane and common bread but holy, which as he said has been
made the Eucharist. What follows supports us the more; he writes that
the Eucharist consists in two things, heavenly and earthly: he does not
say, accidents of something earthly. Afterwards he adds that in receiv-
ing the Eucharist our bodies are not corruptible, having hope of resur-
rection. And if he holds such a great change in our bodies as is equal to
the change in bread (for he says, just as the bread is no longer common,
239Gal. 3:1; John 8:56.
240 Martyr’s typically Reformed doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum would
become sharper in later debates with the Lutherans, after his return to Strasbourg and
subsequent removal to Zürich: see DIAL, 50–51, 102–4, etc. In 1549, however, Martyr was
content to object to a transubstantial presence simply in terms of the hypostatic pres-
ence expressible through communication of properties.
241 Martyr is replying to the Patristic evidence cited by the opposition, which

began in §4.
80 Treatise on the Eucharist

so our bodies are no longer corruptible) what need is there of transub-

stantiation? For he sees these changes as equal in both, yet permits no
transubstantiation of our bodies.
In the second place Tertullian was introduced, and he also had
declared himself for them. Not only, however, does he say that when
the Lord took bread he made it his body, saying “This is my body,” but
he adds: “that is, a figure of my body.”
They objected that Origen wrote about the Lord’s confessing that
this is his body. We certainly do not deny this; but the whole quarrel
concerns the mode by which it becomes the body of the Lord. On this
he himself plainly teaches elsewhere that there are figures here, and
that this bread is called the nourishing word of the soul, so that we are
not to cling to the blood of the flesh but the blood of the word.
Cyprian seems to speak more harshly, when he said that this
bread is changed not in form but in nature. But consider what he wrote
to Caecilius, that the blood of the Lord is displayed with the wine. And
if wine is no longer in the cup, the Lord’s blood cannot be there.242
What he says about mutation we also grant, only sacramentally. We do
not admit that the shape or form or accidents have this gift to be sacra-
ments, but that the very nature and substance of bread and wine is
changed into the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord. As
bread’s own substance nourishes and not its form, so the body of Christ
feeds our soul, animates our body, and renews it. And as the substance
of bread consists of many grains, so the mystical body which it repre-
sents has many members joined together. Both we and our opponents
therefore say that the form—the appearance and aspect of bread—is
not changed, but it is the substance that is changed. They would have
the mutation come through destroying the nature of bread, but we
hold only a sacramental change. Cyprian himself is against them, for
they do not change the substance of bread but remove it completely.
We say that it is changed, that it becomes the body of Christ, that is, a
sacrament of Christ’s body, which it was not before. Besides, among
good authors of the Latin tongue, natura does not always mean sub-
stance, but power, ability, and property [vim, ingenium, et propri-
etatem]. Thus Cicero’s Scipio’s Dream: the proper nature and power of
the soul is to be self-moved. And To Lentulum: that is, the nature and
religion of your province; also when he speaks about the nature of

242See above, 34, n. 56.

 Analysis of the Patristic Evidence 81

herbs, the nature of stones, and such like.243 This meaning agrees well
with Cyprian’s saying.
46. They appeal to Ambrose, especially in his books on the sacra-
ments. Some have thought that these are not his.244 Rochester attacks
those who think so, saying that we must at least credit Augustine, who
ascribes those books to Ambrose, and clearly states that Ambrose wrote
books on the sacraments. He cites the Prologue on the books of Chris-
tian doctrine.245 I have often read these, but never found what this
fellow writes. Unless perhaps he means what Augustine says in the
Retractations, where he mentions his writing On Christian doctrine;
there he might have something like it. Moreover, I know well that
Augustine against Julian the Pelagian cited Ambrose, de Sacramento
regenerationis, vel de philosophia, but not the books de Mysteriis, vel de
Sacramentis; and what is cited is not found in the de Sacramentis. But to
delay no longer, let them be counted Ambrose’s; they do not widely
dissent from us. For he often mentions signifying, and states that these
sacraments are named and are called the body of Christ, which we
grant. And whenever he refers to mutation or conversion it is to be
understood concerning sacramental change.
Further, the same Father should be examined in other places. First
he has, On Duties book 4, chapter 48: “Here is the shadow, here the
image, there the truth; a shadow in the Law, an image in the Gospel,
the truth in heaven. In the past a lamb was offered, a calf was offered;
now is Christ offered, but offered as a man, undergoing passion, yet he
offered himself as a priest, that he might remit our sins. Here in image,

243Cicero, Somnium Scipionis, ed. F. E. Rockwood (Norman: University of Okla-

homa, 1966), 19ff.; Ad Lentulum (Publius Cornelius Spinther Lentulus, governor of Cili-
cia), perhaps Epist. 18: “eam esse naturam et regionem provinciae tuae” (Cicero: Epistulae
ad Familiares, ed. D. R. S. Bailey; (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), I.7. Cf.
Martyr’s “Dreams” in PW, 137.
244The genuineness of the books on the sacraments attributed to Ambrose was

denied by the Reformers: Zwingli, Eine klare Unterrichtung vom Abendmahl Christi, 853,
states: “The papacy includes these words of Ambrose in the canons … but they are
ascribed to Augustine, although they are not really his.” Today the authenticity of the De
Mysteriis is no longer in doubt; the De Sacramentis (PL 16.417ff.) is regarded as a later doc-
ument, with borrowings from Ambrose and Origen. Quasten, Patrology, IV.172, con-
cludes: “These doubts have been laid to rest through the work of Faller, Botte, and
Chadwick, who have established that the De sacramentis is the stenographic record of
homilies given to the neophytes.” Martyr’s quotation in this section is from the De Off.
I.48. Cf. CRA, II.325n.
245John Fisher, De veritate corporis, Lib. V, cap. 21A; Augustine, Retract. IV.4 (PL

32.632).
82 Treatise on the Eucharist

there in truth, where before the Father he intercedes for us as an advo-

cate.”246 And on 1 Corinthians, as we cited above, he said: “In eating
and drinking we signify the flesh and blood of Christ, which are
offered.” When he speaks of the blood he says that we receive its type,
the mystical cup.247 Again in the books de Sacramentis in the fourth
part, chapter 4 he clearly holds our change into Christ, which we have
often noted in other Fathers.248
47. It remains for us to consider Chrysostom. They proposed his
simile of wax, which is destroyed in substance when put into fire, so
that nothing remains or survives; even so, he states, you may think
that the mysteries are consumed by the substance of the body of
Christ.249 They ask us what could be better suited to transubstantia-
tion? But here I think it well to examine Chrysostom himself, so that
you may see how such things are properly taken, as we mentioned
above about the sayings of the Fathers.
In homily 83 on Matthew he said: “Many say that they wish and
long to see the form and shape of Christ, and to look on his garments
and shoes: but he gives himself to you not only to see but to touch.” Do
we not understand here that he attributes to the sacramental reality
what belongs to the symbols, namely that the body of Christ should be
touched and seen? Who does not see that this applies to the symbols
alone? Again in the same homily, “He reduces us to one lump (so to
speak) with himself, not by faith alone but makes us actually his
body.”250 He wrote the same in homilies 60 and 61, To the People of Anti-
och: “I say that we are made and mixed with the body of Christ, not
only by faith and love but in actuality.”251 If it is true that we are not
transubstantiated, although still so closely joined to Christ, what need
is there for bread to be transubstantiated in order to be made Christ’s
body? It could be questioned whether Chrysostom counts against us
when we teach such a reception by faith, since he says that we are
mixed with him and changed into him not only in faith but in fact. It
should be noted here that while we said Christ’s body and blood are
eaten and drunk through faith, yet such receiving by faith is followed

246Ambrose, De Officiis I [sic], 48.238 (PL 16.94).

247Ambrose, Comm. in Eph. XI (PL 17.243).
248Ambrose, De Sac. IV.4.16 (PL16.441).
249Chrysostom, De Poenit., Hom. IX, in Encaeniis (PG 49.345).
250Chrysostom, In Matt., Hom. 82 (al. 83) 4 (PG 57.743).
251See 26 n. 22 above. Cf Calvin, Inst. IV.17.6.
 Analysis of the Patristic Evidence 83

not by a fictional but a true union between us and Christ. By this our
mind is joined with him and also our body and flesh receive his renew-
ing power, and we become truly members of the Lord, taking him as
our head and drawing spirit and life from him continually. This is what
Chrysostom says, that we are in fact joined to Christ.
Again, in the same homily on Matthew he said that these are sym-
bols of the Lord Jesus by which we stop the mouths of heretics, who ask
how Christ could suffer. For if he had not true flesh and truly suffered,
these symbols were empty. He has in the same homily that our tongue
is bloodied in receiving the sacraments.252 Do not cavil that the blood
should be taken to be invisible, by which our tongue is bloodied with
wine or as they say accidents of wine. In homily 60 which the same
Father has To the People of Antioch he writes that our tongue grows red
with this blood.253 Who cannot see hyperbole here? Also in In Encae-
niis he has that the blood in the cup is drawn from the Lord’s side,
which cannot be believed as it stands, since the Lord’s side is not
opened today, nor is blood drawn from it.254
48. He writes in the same homily, “Do you really see bread or
wine?” and adds, “God forbid!” Surely if he were asking the senses,
they would reply that what he says is not true. For by the judgment of
our senses both bread and wine are present; but he speaks the truth
when he continues, “Do not think that; because in our opinion they
ought to depart.” And, “Think not that you receive the body of Christ
from man, but from the seraph who is present, and who delivers a live
coal to you with tongs.” I do not think they want to transubstantiate
the minister or pastor who gives us the sacrament! He adds, “Let us run
to suck the blood that flows from the Lord’s side.” Not even the scho-
lastics dare to say things like that. They write that the bread and wine
are changed into the substance of the body and blood, yet not so that
anything is added to the true substance of Christ’s body, or leaves it.
Also he has, in homily 61, To the People of Antioch, that Christ not only
gave himself to us to be seen but also to be touched and felt, on whose
flesh we fasten our teeth.255 Here you see what belongs to symbols
being attributed to the things signified through the sacraments. For

252Chrysostom, In Matt., Hom. 82 (al. 83) (PG 57.743).

253Cranmer, Writings and Disputations, 405, used this language against Weston in

interpreting Chrysostom’s De Sacerdotio III.3.

254Chrysostom, De Poenit., Hom. IX (PG 49.345); CRA, II.415.
255Weston quoted this passage against Cranmer, Writings and Disputations, 403.
84 Treatise on the Eucharist

our tooth does not reach the substance of Christ’s body, but only the
bread the symbols and sacraments.
He says in homily 60, To the People of Antioch, that we should not
think the hand of the priest offers the sacrament, but rather the out-
stretched hand of Christ. No less in baptism, he fulfils the office of bap-
tizing. and in 61 he warns us in this sacrament to leave Christ seated in
heaven, worshipped by angels.
From all this it is clear that this Father of ours took all possible
care to shift the minds of the communicants from crass signs and out-
ward symbols to meditation on things heavenly and divine. It is odd
that those who so diligently examine patristic texts do not produce
what is in homily 61 to the people of Antioch. They are heedless and
stubborn who stand by at the administration of the sacraments and do
not communicate, thus showing that they do Christ great injury. But
lest we swerve from what is proposed in the argument in Homilia in
Encaeniis regarding the wax which is destroyed n the fire, we reply that
in that place Chrysostom several times has the word “think,” so that
we should understand them to be received in terms of our faith and
meditation. By this means when communicating we do not take bread
and wine themselves but seek the things that are joined to them by an
effective signification.
Moreover, we bring a like simile from Cyril, in book 10, chapter
13, on John. There he says that when wax is melted and mixed with
other wax to make one of both together, this refers to what happens in
receiving this sacrament, when we are really made one with Christ. He
has the same in book 4 chapter 17.256 If this simile about wax is rele-
vant to Christ and ourselves without any transubstantiation of our
bodies, the same can be said of the simile of Chrysostom, which he has
between wax and the symbols or mysteries. Our adversaries should also
be questioned as to whether they want the similes to be equal in every
respect. If so, accidents must be removed from this sacrament, for wax
put into fire is destroyed not only in substance but also in accidents. If
they do not want the comparison to apply like that, then we are free to
take it all in terms of our mental contemplation and the embrace of
faith. We confess to you that with respect to the matter itself, the
nature of bread and wine departs and our mind clings only to its signi-

256Cyril of Alexandria, In Joann. Ev. X.2 (15:5–6) (PG 74.363); Jenkyns has only

“lib. iv cap. 17” as reference (CRA, II.452).

 Analysis of the Patristic Evidence 85

fication, and to what is offered us through symbols, that is the body

and blood of Christ. Enough has been said about Chrysostom for us to
see the relevance of what we said above about the Fathers.
49. After that, what augustine said on Psalm 33 was cited: when
he distributed the sacrament to the apostles at the Last Supper, Christ
carried himself in his own hands.257 We do not deny this, for what pre-
vents Christ from carrying his body in his own hands, if by body you
understand the sacrament of his body? Also, at the end of that passage
Augustine adds: “In a certain” [quodammodo] as if to say he does not
simply carry, but in the sort of manner we are describing just now.
They oppose us with the same Augustine in book 3 of On the Trin-
ity: bread is given this visible form by men’s hands, but it cannot be
made into so eminent a sacrament without the invisible operation of
the Holy Spirit. It is a great wonder why they do not acknowledge any
other work of the Holy Spirit in this sacrament except transubstantia-
tion. When one hears the name of the Holy Spirit’s work in this sacra-
ment, immediately they infer transubstantiation. Yet these symbols
cannot be brought or changed to the state and condition of sacraments
without the divine operation—the Lord’s institution, the sacred words
and the power of the Holy Spirit. For these holy things no longer strike
our minds in an ordinary and common way, but by an effectual and
most vehement force of the Spirit. And by the strength and work of the
same Holy Spirit our minds and spirits are moved to grasp the sacra-
mental reality.
Now on Psalm 98 where it says, “Worship his footstool,” 258
Augustine enquires what that [istud] footstool is, and finds it stated in
Scripture: “The earth is his footstool.” He continues: “But how can we
worship the earth? Is it not written, you shall worship the Lord your
God and him only shall you serve? And is it not commanded that we
should not worship things in heaven or above the earth, or in the
waters, or under the earth?” Then he adds that there is a kind of earth
which can and should be adored properly, for he says “the Son of God
assumed human nature, that is, the flesh of a virgin, which is called
earth in Scripture because our body is taken from the earth. It is clear
that Christ’s flesh should be worshipped, for when he presented it for
eating, none ate without first worshipping.” These words of Augustine

257See §4 [9] (26) above for the texts from Augustine.

258Paraphrase of Augustine, En. in Ps. 98.9 (PL 36.1264). See §§4, 17 above.
86 Treatise on the Eucharist

cannot be held against us, because we agree that the flesh of Christ
should be adored on account of the union it has with the divine
nature. What is at issue here is not whether it should be worshipped
but whether it lies hidden under accidents.
They say that it would be idolatry if it were not there in the sacra-
ment, but only bread. We reply to this that they run as great a risk, for
they should remove accidents in case they are worshipped, and should
transubstantiate the cup itself. In the sacrament, however, we distin-
guish symbols from realities, and give some honor to the symbols,
namely that they should be handled properly and not be despised, for
once dedicated to God they are holy things. As for the things signified,
the body and blood of Christ, we grant that they should be readily and
joyfully worshipped. For Augustine says here, “we do not sin in wor-
shipping the flesh of Christ, but we sin in not worshipping.” Mean-
while he reminds us not to cleave to Christ’s flesh but to be lifted up in
mind to the divine nature, to which it is joined by an unbreakable
bond; otherwise “The flesh profits nothing, but the spirit gives life.”
Here you may note that Augustine takes this saying of the Savior in
John 6 to refer to the flesh of Christ, not the carnal understanding
which some desire.
50. As to adoration, I will sum up in a few words, repeating what I
have said elsewhere in the exposition of the letter to the Corin-
thians.259 It consists of invocation, confession which is twofold, of
heart and mouth, and thanksgiving. They are due both to God and to
Christ, wherever they reveal themselves to us. This happens in three
ways. First, when by the internal word and the power of the divine
Spirit any strong thoughts arise in our minds about God and Christ,
worship follows because we confess or invoke or give thanks. Some-
times they declare themselves to us through outward words, when we
read the Scriptures or hear godly sermons; then we are often stirred up
to invocation or other things that belong to divine service. Finally,
Christ and God sometimes reveals himself by outward signs, as on
Mount Sinai. To Isaiah it was under the form of a king sitting on his
royal throne, in the ark of the covenant, or in the sacraments; there
also adoration is given. But just as Augustine warned us not to settle on
the flesh but to go on to the godhead, so here concerning worship I
advise us when receiving the Eucharist not to stick with symbols but in

259COR, 10:16, fols. 261r ff.

 Analysis of the Patristic Evidence 87

spirit and truth to adore Christ sitting in heaven at the Father’s right
hand. I say this because the error of transubstantiation is so large and
firm that the simpler folk do not understand; therefore I consider it
profitable to abstain from outward adoration, namely prostration or
kneeling, until they can be instructed. Inward worship may be used
without risk, nor would the outward be evil in itself. For many kneel
and worship devoutly when they hear those words of the Gospel, “And
the word became flesh,” yet the words themselves are not said to be
worshipped, but rather their signification.260 Why could not the same
be done here, in such a way that the symbols are not adored, but what
is signified through them? Nevertheless at present, for the reason
noted above, outward worship is perhaps not opportune, unless fre-
quent mention of these things is made in sermons.
51. Let no one seize my statements as an excuse for saying that it is
lawful for images or pictures to be venerated, since at times God and
Christ seem effectively to declare themselves to us there. For we have
clear instruction not to make ourselves images to worship. But regard-
ing scriptural words and sacraments, nothing prevents our worship in
hearing or receiving them, because they are instituted by the word, will
and command of God, so that we may be called to divine service,
which consists of worship. Nor should you gather from this that the
elements of the Eucharist are to be worshipped. For whatever strength
the symbols have is from the Holy Spirit, the words of the Lord and his
institution, which are nothing without the use of the sacrament.261
The promise obtains while we eat and drink. Therefore that dogma
about consecration was not universal, for in the time of Hesychius, as
he himself testifies (on Leviticus), the Eucharistic remains were
burned. You have this in Origen on Leviticus, but it is the same book
ascribed to both.262 And Clement, bishop of Rome, as appears by his
decree de Consecratione, dist. 2, rules that the remnants of this sacra-

260The notorious “black rubric” appended to the Book of Common Prayer (attrib-

uted to John Knox) states that in the case of such kneeling, “no Adoration is intended, or
ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or
unto any Corporal Presence of Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood. The Body of Christ is
given, taken, and eaten, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner.” See F. Proctor and
W. H. Frere, Prayer Book, 83ff.
261extra usum sacramenti non extant: see 44 n. 87 above.
262Hesychius, In Lev. II, 9:24 (PG 93.894); Origen, In Lev., Hom. IX.9 (PG 12.522).

The latter was attributed to Hesychius in a sixth-century introduction; see Quasten,

Patrology 3:490, and §32 above.
88 Treatise on the Eucharist

ment are to be eaten by clerics. We do not deny that they were some-
times kept, but this was done without adoration and superstition.263
They were given to children, and to women to be taken to the sick, as is
clear from the history of Eusebius of Caesarea, and from Jerome. Now I
would not say too quickly that receiving the sacrament in that way—
apart from the sacred company and the rite instituted by the Lord—
was a proper communion; yet I allow it to the sick providing the sacred
words are repeated and some of the faithful celebrate the Lord’s cere-
mony there together.264 For where a number do not communicate, the
nature of a sacrament is not preserved. Christ said, “Take, eat and
drink.” The breaking of bread concerns distribution, and in their
canon they say many things which are false unless a number commu-
nicate. Also it is called supper, communion, gathering [synaxis], names
which hardly suit a private action. We never read of private masses in
the Fathers. Honorius, bishop of Rome, decreed that the Eucharist
should be reserved, adding that honor and reverence should be given it
when carried about.265 If this had been done previously he need not
have made a solemn decree.
In summary, we hold that this sacrament, as has been stated
already, has no power or efficacy of its own unless it is used and
received, even as you see in all other sacraments.
52. Hilary is brought against us, but he had great controversies
with the Arians and fought against them because they thought there is
no union between the Father and the Son except by an agreement of
wills. Hilary says to them, “I ask whether there is between us and Christ
a union by natural property or by agreement of will?”266 For the Arians
would seize on that place where Christ prayed that we should be made
one with him, just as he and the Father are themselves one—in John 17,
where it says “As thou Father art in me and I in thee, that they also may
be one in us.” The heretics added that we have no union with Christ
except by consent and will, and from this inferred that between the
Son of God and the Father no other union occurs than this. Hilary

263Clement, Ep. 2 (PL 187.1740).

264Martyr’s attitude towards reservation of the sacramental elements is given in

detail in the treatise An in communione liceat una tantum specie uti (COR, 10:17, LC, 4.11),
recapitulated in the Censura libri Communium Precum; see VWG, 29–30.
265Honorius I, pontificate 625–38 (PL 80.469); councils at Tours (461, 567) had

ruled on the manner of reservation. MAN, VII.943ff., IX.789ff.

266Hilary, De Trin. VIII.50 (PL 10.273–74). Cf. 27 n. 26 above.
 Analysis of the Patristic Evidence 89

therefore had to demonstrate that we are united to Christ naturally, in

order to show that the Son also is naturally joined to the Father. His
proof is as follows. If the Word of God truly assumed human nature, he
communicated naturally with us in his flesh and we are to abide in
him, because he himself has our nature in him. And in turn in the
Lord’s Supper, if we truly receive his flesh, we participate in him natu-
rally, and he truly abides in us. Thus Hilary argues from the truth of
sacraments, which we do not deny. This was the Fathers’ custom, to
draw arguments from the sacraments, the things known best. But there
is nothing here against our opinions, for Hilary does not contend that
the flesh of Christ is under accidents, hidden or covered in this sacra-
ment. He holds only that in communicating we are truly joined to
Christ’s flesh; we do not deny that at all. But let us consider [mihi con-
syderate] that a little before those words on the Eucharist, this Father
says the same thing about baptism, that through it we are joined to
Christ and each other, not only by unity of assent and will but in
nature.267 There again you are forced to posit transubstantiation, if you
introduce it into the Eucharist for this reason.
Nor is Chrysostom wide of this habit of taking arguments from
sacraments. In homily 83 on Matthew, as we cited before, he says that
these are symbols of the Lord Jesus, by which we curb and stop the
mouths of heretics. For they often say, how could Christ suffer? And we
in turn object that if Christ had not true flesh, these symbols are vain.
This follows naturally because they would represent to us fictitious
things. And so they silence Manichees, Marcionites, and other such
plagues.
53. We need not labor over Leo, bishop of Rome; for in the saying
put up against us he affirms a mystical distribution, setting down a spir-
itual nourishment and heavenly power, and stating that we pass into
the flesh of Christ just as he took ours.268
They cite Emissenus, whose words are read in de Consecratione,
distinction 1. But examine it closely and you find these words: “Touch
with the mind and take the body of Christ with the hand of the heart.”
This makes his position clear, that we eat the Lord’s body spiritually.
Further, like other Fathers he strongly urges our mutation into Christ,
which (as we see) is still without transubstantiation.269
267Hilary, De Trin. VIII.7 (PL 10.241).
268See 27 n. 27 above.
269See p. 51 n. 120 above on Eusebius of Emesa.
90 Treatise on the Eucharist

I know that some may wonder why we so often oppose the chang-
ing which the Fathers seem to add to the symbols, with the change in
ourselves, which they consider equal. Some imagine a far different
union between us and the body of Christ, so that the analogy and pro-
portion does not obtain, even though the Fathers hold both. To this we
answer and say that our argument is most effective because it is from
the greater to the less by negation. For the union of Christ with us and
those who communicate is greater than with the symbols. Therefore
since transubstantiation is not required in our case, much less is it for
symbols. That we are joined with Christ more than are symbols is clear
because the latter union was created on account of the former. More-
over the words and Spirit through which the symbols are consecrated
apply much less to them than to humans.270
54. As to Theophylact, we say that he is a recent writer, who hap-
pened to live in that time when many questions about transubstantia-
tion began to be raised, under Nicholas, bishop of Rome, in the time of
Lanfranc and Berengar.271 He was not a man of much judgment, as can
be shown from his interpretation of John 3 at the end, where he
accuses the Latin church by name on the procession of the Holy Spirit
from the Father and the Son. So we should not think his authority so
great as to prejudge its truth; still we shall examine his statements. In
his work on Matthew he asserts that bread is not a figure of the body of
Christ. 272 Now if he means something empty and vain, he speaks
rightly; we do not appoint such a figure either. That this is his interpre-
tation is not to be doubted, for on Mark he says that it is not only a fig-
ure; otherwise, if he denied a figure absolutely he would be against the
other Fathers, whom we clearly showed here positing both sign and fig-
ure. 273 He says that bread is transformed, converted, and transele-
mented; if these words are taken sacramentally we do not mind. For
bread and wine become sacraments, passing into elements of divine
things, and put on a symbolic form. But they say that he writes that the
flesh and blood is not seen, lest we abhor it. Now if you urge these

270 Cf.DIS IV(C) 70 v, against Chedsey: “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,” and Calvin, Inst. IV.17.39.
271See p. 76 n. 232, concerning interpretation of the Fathers. Theophylact was

introduced in §4 above.
272Theophylact, En. in Ev. Matt. XXVI.26 (PG 123.443).
273Theophylact, En. in Ev. Marci XIV.22 (PG 123.650).
 Analysis of the Patristic Evidence 91

words too strongly we object what he wrote on Mark: the forms of

bread and wine are changed into the power of the body and blood of
the Lord. If you insist that elsewhere he does not say “into the power,”
but “into the body and blood of the Lord,” we reply that this is the
interpretation of those words, that these signs take the power of the
things, so that the sacraments have nothing less than if the reality were
there. As I have said, the offense is removed if we determine that the
change is made not into the reality but into the power.
Another saying of his seems more forced, where he writes on John
6: “Just as, while Christ lived on earth, bread was changed into his flesh
by the usual manner of nourishment through natural mutation, so this
bread is changed into the body of Christ.”274 We conceded that this
analogy is generally accepted. We do not deny a sacramental change to
the sacrament. But suppose you take this similitude just as it stands,
that the bread is as truly changed in the sacrament of the Eucharist as it
was converted into Christ’s flesh while he lived here, through his own
food and sustenance. Then an absurdity follows, contrary to your own
opinion, namely that accidents of the symbols are not retained in this
sacrament, because they were not kept in Christ’s sustenance while he
lived here.
I may add that on those words in John 6, “Who eats my flesh and
drinks my blood dwells in me and I in him,” the same exegete says that
this happens while he is mixed with us, so to speak, and transele-
mented into me. Here again you see that along with the other Fathers
he affirms such a change of ourselves into Christ as to say that we are
transelemented into him. So much for Theophylact.
55. Among more recent men they cite Anselm, Hugh, and Rich-
ard of St. Victor. But since the dogma of transubstantiation had been
forced on their age, these men served the time by their writings, and
their new invention should not prejudice the opinion of the most
ancient church and the teaching of the oldest Fathers.
They seem to make the most of one among the rest, John of Dam-
ascus, who in book 4 in his On the Orthodox Faith, chapter 14, wrote at
length on the subject. Now I find that he lived under Leo Isauricus,
emperor of Greece. There were almost one hundred and twenty years
between Gregory the Great, bishop of Rome, and this John. Already in
Gregory’s time many superstitions and human inventions were piling

274Theophylact, En. in Ev. Joh. VI.48 (PG 123.1307).

92 Treatise on the Eucharist

up in the church, and things became even worse afterwards. So it is no

wonder that Damascene inclined toward many half-truths and super-
stitions. We have a specimen of his judgment in doctrine and in
expounding Scripture. He was much in favor of images, and ran great
risks in their defense. In this same fourth book he wrote a particular
chapter on the matter, in which he would have them not only made
but worshipped and honored.275 Besides, he held the relics of departed
saints in such honor that he devoted a special chapter to them, in
which he is not afraid to call them the fountain of divine gifts.276 He is
bold to say that we should worship the saints by faith, something intol-
erable, since faith is owing only to God and to his words. He has a
sermon on purgatory in which he states that Emperor Trajan, an idola-
ter and persecutor of martyrs, was freed from the punishment of hell
by the prayers of Gregory. Also that the idolatrous woman Falconilla
had been saved by the prayers of a certain man after she was dead and
held in the bonds of hell. He introduces a fable about one Marcarius,
who conversed with the skull of a dead man, from which he heard that
the souls of the dead which are harassed by pains, experience relief at
the time of the sacrifice of the mass. He sprinkles the whole sermon
with these stories.277 When he writes about the resurrection, he tries to
prove it from the book of Genesis, where it is written that the Lord said
to Noah, “You shall not eat the flesh with the blood, for I will require
your lives at the hands of beasts.”278 He will require them, he says, at
the resurrection, for beasts do not die on man’s account. It seems that
he did not know the law given by God in Exodus and in Deuteronomy,
where he commands the stoning of an ox that had gored and killed a
man. 279 In the chapter on Virginity he writes: “If Adam had not
sinned, men would not have been joined in marriage, to procreate.”
Seeing that the divine saying, “Increase and multiply,” is against him,
he says that perhaps men could have multiplied through some other
part of the body!280 No scholastic theologian would have said that.
The same man twists Basil: when he says bread and wine are antitypes,
275John of Damascus, De fide orth. IV.13.267 (PG 94.1135ff.).
276John of Damascus, De fide orth. IV.16 (PG 94.1167ff.).
277John of Damascus, Diss. Quinta. “De iis quid in fide obdormierunt,” et de purgatorio

III (PG 94.351).

278Gen. 9:4.
279Ex. 21:28.
280 John of Damascus, De fide orth. IV.24.296 (PG 94.1207): “God had power to

multiply the race in different ways.”.

 Analysis of the Patristic Evidence 93

that is, examples of the body of Christ, he expounds him as meaning

before consecration.281 This is absurd, for before consecration they
have no more in them than other ordinary food. If this is the way they
signify Christ’s body and blood, they would be sacraments already
before the pronouncement of the words of the Lord. In the Greek Mass
after consecration they pray openly that the bread may become the
body and blood of Christ. And according to the Mass of Basil those
words come after consecration. In our own canon, if you look carefully,
after consecration it is named bread.282
56. Now let us examine his arguments. The first is from the power
of God. Since he was able to create heaven and earth by his Word, to
produce plants, animals, birds, and fish, why could he not make his
body from bread? That sort of argument is very weak; in fact, the
present dispute is not about the divine power. We do not deny that
God is able to turn bread into flesh, but the entire contention is
whether he wills to do it.283
His other argument is derived from Christ’s words, for he says that
“this is a figure or sign of my body” was not said by the Lord; it is
declared to be the Lord’s own body. We have already replied to this
argument. If he means it absolutely when he denies the sacrament to
be a figure of the Lord’s body, he has almost all the Fathers against him,
for they acknowledge a figure here. But if he means not merely a figure,
a vain or empty sign, we give him this readily. Still, he mixes certain
words in his writings which suggest that he is not so crass as he appears.
For he says that the bread of communion is not simple bread, but has
divinity adjoined.284 We easily allow this, saying that it is not common
or simple but now sanctified and converted into the nature of a sacra-
ment. It can therefore be said that divinity is added, since the Holy
Spirit uses it as an instrument for our salvation.
281John of Damascus, De fide orth. IV.13.273 (PG 94.1151–52). See p. 50 n. 112, and

p. 74 n. 225 above.
282See Canon Missae: Panem sanctum vite eterne —The Sarum Missal (Oxford: Clar-

endon Press, 1969) 223.

283John of Damascus, De fide orth. IV.13.271 (PG 94.1139). See COR, 11.24; it is not

the divine posse which is at issue but the velle, as revealed in the scriptural promises: what
God wills to do. The same question was to arise from the Lutheran side in defense of their
concept of the ubiquity of Christ’s glorified body; Martyr responded in his DIAL,16ff.; cf.
“Resurrection” §19, PW, 64–65; Calvin, Inst. IV.17.24: “It is not a question of what God
could do but what he willed to do … they plunge themselves into the abyss of omnipo-
tence, in order to extinguish the light of truth.”
284John of Damascus, De fide orth. IV.13.271 (PG 94.1147).
94 Treatise on the Eucharist

He compares it also to baptism, stating that God always conde-

scends to our ways and customs, and since we wash in water and anoint
with oil; therefore God joined to these things his grace and Spirit in
baptism. Thus, since it is a human custom to eat bread and drink wine,
he joined his divinity to these things.285 To follow the transubstantia-
tors he should not have added to but extinguished their natures. The
nature of analogy requires that just as the union of grace and the Holy
Spirit in baptism neither repels nor destroys the nature of water, even
so the reality of this sacrament does not destroy or cast out the essence
of the symbols.286
He also says that God condescended to our ways so that through
familiar things and according to their nature we may reach what is
beyond nature. Here he deals with our transmutation into Christ.287
We should note that he holds the sacramental symbols to be natural,
and if you suppose them to be only accidents without a subject, or
having the body of Christ hidden within, they are no longer natural.
Indeed he uses terms in which he says that the nature of bread is
changed, consumed, made Christ’s body; if they are taken in regard to
the change of the sacrament they do not contradict us; we accept what
he says, that these things happen beyond nature. For it is not natural
for a sacrament to be made from common bread, nor for the washing of
regeneration to consist of natural water. But if you ask for the mode of
this change into the body of Christ, he says it is not easy for us to
express the way bread passes into our flesh in ordinary nourishment.
How to take this likeness was described sufficiently above, when we
spoke about Theophylact. It is enough to take the simile generally and
apply it to sacramental mutation; but if you want a special analogy for
such a change as food’s entering our body and being converted into
flesh, then you destroy not only the nature of bread but also its acci-
dents.
57. He adds that bread is made the body of Christ and wine and
water his blood, so that they are not two but one.288 If he refers the
unity to the cup and the bread as if to say they are one sacrament, we
will not labor the point. For in this action Christ is given us as food, as

285John of Damascus, De fide orth. IV.13.269 (PG 94.1142).

286I.e., proportionate relations (A:B::C:D) are based on the presence of comparable

terms on each side.

287John of Damascus, De fide orth. IV.13.269 (PG 94.1142).
288John of Damascus, De fide orth. IV.13.270 (PG 94.1146).
 Analysis of the Patristic Evidence 95

if by one sacrament, although in receiving its two parts the church is

not afraid to say in the plural, here are sacraments. In the Collect of the
Mass after communion you often read, “The sacraments which we
have received,” and so on. But suppose they say that they are one, so
that after consecration the bread and body of Christ, because of tran-
substantiation, are now one and not two. Then we oppose with the
opinion of Irenaeus, where he writes, the Eucharist consists of two
things, namely earthly and heavenly. 289 Also Pope Gelasius, who
argued from the union of bread with the body of Christ, the natures
remaining whole, that the union of human and divine natures in
Christ maintains them both whole and inviolate. He adds moreover
that this sacrament is not passed out of the body.290 Surely the tran-
substantiators can say nothing else, for since they allow to the Eucha-
rist nothing but accidents and the nature of Christ’s body, there is
nothing that pertains to elimination.
Against these things I object a clear place of Origen, on Matthew
15, where he interprets the words “What enters the mouth does not
defile a man.” He says, “If it does not defile, neither does it sanctify. But
what shall we say about the bread of the Lord? Is it true that it neither
sanctifies nor defiles?” He replies, “If anything seems to be impure, it
does not defile us, unless through an evil conscience. Even so what is
seen and called holy does not sanctify unless there is uprightness and
integrity of the inner life. For if it were able to sanctify through its own
nature, there would not have been among the Corinthians ‘so many
weak and infirm, nor many who slept’. […] Therefore whatever is mate-
rial in the bread of the Lord passes into the stomach and beyond. But
whatever comes through prayer and the word of the Lord profits the
soul according to the proportion of faith. So it is not the material that
is useful, but the word that is added benefits the soul.” In case you
think that he speaks of some other food, he recapitulates: “These
things concern the mystical and symbolic body.”291 No one will deny
that Origen sometimes erred in doctrine. Yet Jerome, Epiphanius, and
the Fathers who most diligently examined his errors, never mention
that his judgment on the Eucharist was faulty; they would not have
done so if he had been wrong on so great a point. In the same place he

289Irenaeus, Contra Haer. IV.18.5 (PG 7.1028–29).

290See p. 62 n. 155 above.
291Paraphrase of Origen, Comm. in Matt. (15:11) XI.14 (PG 13.947–51).
96 Treatise on the Eucharist

adds most clearly that the wicked do not eat the body of Christ,
because it gives life, and whoever eats it abides in him.
Therefore let Origen, a most ancient Father and of great renown,
be opposed to John of Damascus, a recent and not illustrious writer.
58. Then there was objected to us from the Council of Ephesus
what Cyril wrote in its name to Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople;
for there was agitation against him at that time.292 He affirmed that
the human person in Christ is completely distinct and separate from
the person of the Son of God, so that there was no kind of unity except
one of dignity. The argument against him was from the nature of sacra-
ments. If the flesh of Christ is so separate from the divine person, it fol-
lows that it is not life-giving; if we grant that Christ’s flesh is in the
sacraments, we would eat the flesh of a man, somehow sanctified and
exalted. But from that we could not obtain eternal life according to the
promise. This is the scope of all those debates. Those Fathers do not
maintain or try to prove that Christ’s flesh lies hidden in bread, but
wish us to eat it in the sacrament in truth, and to eat such flesh as will
give us life eternal. We do not deny this, if the mode of eating is under-
stood to pertain to the spirit and to faith. For we grant that in the sacra-
ment the flesh of Christ is eaten spiritually yet truly. Nor do we ever
pretend that it is disjoined and separated from the divine person of the
Word.
They object to us the Council of Rome or Vercelli, where Berengar
was condemned, and compelled to recant. Since the acts of such coun-
cils are not extant we cannot answer at length. So it is best to weigh the
recantation itself, prescribed by Pope Nicholas to Berengar in the coun-
cil, to see how important this council was and whether those who pre-
sided were of sound mind. In the decrees de Consecratio, dist. 2 chapter
Ego Berengarius, one finds the text in which he had to confess that the
body of Christ is handled physically by the hands of the priests, that it
is broken and torn with the teeth.293 How well such things agree with
the body of Christ now glorified, and with his sacrament, may be
judged by any wise man.
The commentator on the decrees, a man otherwise of denser
intellect, could not help seeing such absurdity.294 He therefore says,
these things are to be taken with caution and skill, or else you will fall

292See §4 and §28 above on arguments from the councils.

293Confessio Berengarii in Gratian, c.xlii (PL 187.1750–51); see 28 n. 32 above.
 Analysis of the Patristic Evidence 97

into greater error than that under which Berengar labored. For he saw
that it is not fitting to say that the body of Christ may be felt physically
in the sacrament, or be broken or torn with the teeth. And trying to
heal this wound, the Master of the Sentences says, book 4: these things
are not to be attributed to the body of Christ, but to the symbols,
which they hold to be accidents.295 So he identifies a trope in that
speech, in which what belongs to the symbols is attributed to the real-
ity. If we use the figure properly in interpreting the Fathers when they
speak extravagantly to the people about this sacrament, the adversaries
shout that we corrupt and distort or falsify their writings, whereas here
they rush to the same anchors. They want a trope where one should
least be present, namely in explaining the doctrine and crafting the
recantation, things that ought to be clearest of all. So we do not linger
over this council, which acted most crassly.
59. They also appeal to the Synod of Constance, where Wyclif was
condemned, and John Hus and Jerome of Prague were burned for cer-
tain opinions, especially because they were against transubstantiation,
which was prescribed there by full decree.296 We must certainly call
this council treacherous, since it saw to the killing of those two men
who had come under safe conduct. The emperor also took this badly,
for he had given his own word; otherwise, the Bohemians would never
have allowed those men to go to the council. As for their decree on
transubstantiation, there is the point that it is a recent opinion. Nor
should we take seriously what many say, that it was confirmed by
decree but not first established, because under Nicholas, bishop of
Rome in the Synod of Vercelli and Rome, it had been declared clearly
enough. We grant indeed that this opinion broke out before the coun-
cil of Constance; but because it was not fully received and met much
opposition everywhere, they thought it necessary to reestablish it arbi-
trarily, by fire and severe threats.297
Against this council we object the general and ecumenical Coun-
cil of Florence, held under Bishop Eugene IV, who attended it. Also
294Glossator: the Glossa ordinaria is a twelfth-century compilation of interlinear

and marginal glosses to Scripture; see E. A. Matter, “The Church Fathers and the Glossa
Ordinaria,” RCF, 83ff. Zwingli calls the work “the papacy’s own book” (bäptisch decret)
and the gloss “mere words without any real meaning,” Eine Klare, op.cit. 806–7.
295Peter Lombard, Sent. IV, dist. 12.4 (PL 192.865). Calvin, Inst. IV.17.12, comments

that Lombard “rather inclines to a different opinion” from that of the recantation
imposed by Nicolas.
296See §4 above.
98 Treatise on the Eucharist

present was the emperor of the Greeks, with the patriarch of Constan-
tinople and many bishops of the East. In the council, the Greek church
was united with the Latin, and they settled the dissension over the
Holy Spirit. In the acts of that council we may see that after agreement
was reached between men of the Eastern and Latin rites concerning
articles, the pope would have gone further and had them deal with
transubstantiation, receiving it according to the Latin opinion. At that
point the Greeks resisted and would have none of it, nor could they be
driven to give their consent by any other arguments. When letters of
union were to be drawn up and published, they took good care that
there should be no mention of it. This may be observed in the bull of
Eugene, which begins “Let the heavens rejoice and let the earth be
glad.” In it he rejoices with the Christian world for this blessing of the
Greek and Latin Churches being reunited.298 Now if this transubstanti-
ation had been of such great moment, the Roman Church would never
have been joined with the Greek which did not accept it. Today they
say that it is a grave heresy not to admit it. But it is unbelievable that
the Latin Church should at that time have joined with heretics and
communicated with them. Here also the argument concerning the
universal consent of the church dissolves, for what they assume is not
true, that all churches agreed together on this. That ancient church
existing in the time of the Fathers (as we have showed), never dreamed
of such a thing, while the Eastern and Greek Church thought exactly
like us.
60. To their arguments they add considerable praise of the divine
power, to induce men to believe so great a miracle.299 But the reason-
ing is very flimsy. What they should have shown was never proved,
namely that God willed to do it and that the Scriptures promise it to us.
They point to “This is my body,” but this is the very point in contro-
versy, and can have another meaning. Thus the argument is rendered
weak, and can be proved vacuous by an example. The Lord said to Nico-
demus, “None can enter the kingdom of heaven unless he is born
again.” He began to ask, “How can a man of mature age or an old man

297Calvin, Inst. IV.17.15, agreed with Martyr’s view of the historical development:

“In the time of Bernard, though a harsh mode of expression had been adopted, still tran-
substantiation was yet unknown.”
298Council of Florence, 1439: Eugene IV, Decretum “Exultate Deo” (MAN, 31A,

1047ff.).
299See §5 (28) above on omnipotence.
 Analysis of the Patristic Evidence 99

enter again into his mother’s womb?”300 One could say to him, Christ
has now declared that it shall be so; why do you doubt the power of
God, by which all things are created? By it you can surely be born again
from your mother’s womb. Yet Christ did not say so, but declared that
it would occur through spiritual rebirth. Even if he did [not] mention
water relating to baptism, he clearly taught that we must be reborn by
the Spirit. We see the same things here: Christ commands us to eat his
flesh, and taking bread said, “This is my body.” The transubstantiators
say, the body of Christ cannot be one with bread; therefore its nature is
transubstantiated into the body of Christ; and they would persuade us
that this is done by the power of God. Meanwhile they plead that they
are not alone, because when Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Cyril debate
mutation, they point us to the power of God, and celebrate it with
adoring praise.
We reply that the Fathers speak well. No doubt it is within God’s
power to change bread and wine into sacraments, which they were not
before; nor is it a work of nature that they should so powerfully and
effectively signify, offer, and exhibit the body and blood of the Lord, to
be grasped by our souls and by faith. Thus the Holy Spirit is involved
here, the Lord’s institution is of great moment, while the words uttered
by divine inspiration and now repeated have much to contribute. Add
to these that while we communicate we experience a change or conver-
sion into Christ, far exceeding the power of nature. Now, since the
supernatural power of God may be required for all these things, they
apply it to transubstantiation. It is as if we should argue affirmatively
from the more universal to the more par ticular, which is not
allowed.301
Moreover, the same power is required in baptism, since it is not a
work of nature that water should become the fountain of regeneration.
Yet some do not welcome such comparison of baptism with Eucharist.
For though they cannot deny that Christ is also present in baptism,
and is given to us (for it is written, “As many of you as are baptized have
put on Christ”), 302 yet they say that Christ is in the Eucharist in a
better and more excellent way than in baptism; therefore, bread is tran-
substantiated, while water does not need to be transubstantiated. We
reply to them that we need not bother much in which of the sacra-
300John 3:3–4.
301Aristotle, An. Prior. I.23, 95a28–29.
302Gal. 3:27.
100 Treatise on the Eucharist

ments Christ is more eminent if it be granted that he is in both; and as

he may be present in the one with the substance of the elements
remaining whole, even so in the other. If you contend at all about their
value, the excellence of baptism may be shown by cogent reasons. For
it is greater to be born than to be nourished; again, baptism was made
famous by many miracles: the heavens were opened, the voice of the
Father was heard, and the Holy Spirit was seen in the form of a dove—
nothing like this happened in instituting the Eucharist. We do not say
this to degrade this sacrament, for it is most worthy and should be
highly honored, but to answer the objections about the power of God.
We already showed from Augustine, On the Trinity book 3 chapter 10,
that such great miracles as they assert are not to be accepted.303 You
have the same thing in the poem of Gregory Nazianzen, in which all
Christ’s miracles are treated, without mentioning those that are the
greatest and without peer, if we are to believe them.304 Augustine also
dealt with the miracles of Scripture, in a certain book of his entitled the
Book of Miracles, but does not mention transubstantiation.305 So it
seems that we should not introduce an argument for this opinion from
the divine power, which we do not deny; but rather argue that in this
sacrament it is required.
61. Next they alleged that their opinion had been confirmed by
many wonders and miracles, which may be read in Cyprian, in the life
of Gregory, and in many other writers. To this we answer that miracles
might happen for three reasons. One is, to keep back rogues and the
unworthy from such a sacrament, which kind of miracle we allow. For
the apostle writes that among the Corinthians many were feeble and
weak, and many slept, because they communicated unworthily.306 I
think that those of whom Cyprian writes are to be considered under
this heading. Another kind of miracle is sometimes used to illustrate
the dignity and greatness of this glorious sacrament, and this we do
not reject, for we know that baptism was often adorned with many
miracles. A third kind could be for the confirmation of this opinion or
rather error of transubstantiation. This is the way our adversaries
oppose it to us. But miracles of this kind are to be completely rejected.

303Augustine, De Trin. 3, 10 (PL 42. 879–80); see §25 above.

304 Gregory Nazianzen, Carmina I, Poemata Theol. 1, Dogmatica 20–23 (PG

37.487ff.).
305Augustine’s De mirabilibis is spurious (PL 35.2149ff.).
3061 Cor. 11:30.
 Analysis of the Patristic Evidence 101

We are warned about it by the Law: whenever a prophet tries to entice

men to idolatry and superstition, even though he gains credence by
miracles, he is not to be believed, but the Lord wants him stoned.307
And we know that the Antichrist will come, and will become famous
through signs and wonders. Nor are we ignorant that in the time of
Moses the magicians stood before Pharaoh and performed miracles
against the Word of God. We read in Irenaeus, book 1, about the impos-
tor and heretic named Mark who in this sacrament of the Eucharist
deluded the simple by wonders.308 For he changed the color of the
wine, so that it appeared entirely blood, and by his illusions increased a
little wine so much that the whole cup was full and overflowing. Again,
when there was a larger cup of greater capacity, it too was filled to the
brim without more liquid. Who would say that his heresy should be
approved on account of these miracles? If we turn to the heathen, we
read that rivers of blood flowed on the earth, blood pouring from the
thumb of Jove. Livy tells how it rained flesh at Rome; Quintus Curius,
that when Tyre was besieged by Alexander the Great, bread oozed
blood before everyone. And it is said that when Apollonius of Tyana
was in the council before Emperor Domitian he suddenly vanished and
could not be found.309 The things that the heathen can bring to sup-
port their service of idols are infinite. Therefore we completely reject
these miracles which they claim establish the superstition of transub-
stantiation.
Nor is it a great thing which they introduce about a miracle
wrought by Gregory the Roman Pontiff: it is written in his biography
that the bread of the Lord, or call it the sacrament of the Eucharist, was
turned into a finger of flesh. If this were done for the two reasons we
allow, there would not be much to argue over. But that life of Gregory
has not much weight. For if we believe Vincent, it was written a hun-
dred years after his death by John, a deacon of Rome, and sent to a cer-
tain emperor of Germany.310 Even granted its worth, the adversaries
wish to conclude from a finger of flesh that the flesh of Christ lies
307Lev. 19:27. Reading “esse” for “est” as in ERR, 52r.
308Irenaeus, Contra Haer. I.13.2 (PG 7.579–80).
309Apollonius of Tyana in Cappadocia (b. 4 B.C.E.), neo-Pythagorean sage and the

subject of several “Lives” much embellished. Philostratus and Hierocles narrated the dis-
appearing story to counter Christian claims of miracle. See Eusebius Contra Hieroclem 1
(PL 4.795ff.). Martyr repeats the passage in “Resurrection” §64, PW 118.
310Cf. Altaner: “drei … legendären Viten,” including one by Johannes Diaconus

(Patrologie 417). See 29 n. 37 for this story.

102 Treatise on the Eucharist

hidden corporeally under accidents. One could infer from this kind of
miracle that under the sacramental forms there are contained ashes
and coals, because in Cyprian’s time the holy bread was once turned
into these, as he himself wrote. Also I believe that it is not unknown for
frauds often to use illusions for the construction of miracles.
62. Another argument strongly pushed the dignity of the glori-
fied body which after resurrection is called spiritual. We do not deny it,
but recall Augustine in the letter to Consentius, that such a body is not
so spiritual that it passes into the nature of spirit. For Paul also calls the
body in some sense animal, which cannot be understood if the body
passes into the nature of soul.311 Again, The City of God, chapter 20: “At
times while the soul obeys the flesh, it is called fleshly, not because it
passes into the nature of flesh; likewise the body is called spiritual, not
because of its passing into the nature of spirit but because it will com-
pletely subject its entire will to spirit.”312 In the epistle to Pammachius
(an apology against John, bishop of Jerusalem, who attributed an ethe-
real or airy body to the souls of the risen, which would be subject nei-
ther to touch nor to eating) Jerome argued that after the resurrection
Christ possessed without any doubt a most true body, quite visible.313
And he presented an objection: if it was thus visible and the same body,
why was it not known when he showed himself like a stranger? He
answers, because their eyes were held fast, that they should not know
him; as if to say that what belongs to the nature of body was not only
visible but recognizable, unless there was an impediment in the eyes,
holding them back. Therefore since Christ had a true body after the
resurrection, bound to its dimensions and space, we have no reason to
rob it of these properties, and force it into the straits of a bit of bread, as
though it were contained within it no matter how great it is. But
granted that this too may be done by God’s power, can it simply be
concluded that it is done? The argument is weak, as we showed before.
They reasoned also from the Greek article, when Christ said touto
estin to sôma mou, as if the article has power to draw the proposition to
its correct sense, and allow no trope. 314 They are deceived, for the
Greek article does not always possess that power, as is clearly shown in

3111 Cor. 15:44. Udall expands this sentence: “For a certaine kynde of bodye there
is, whyche of S. Paule…is called Corpus animale, as if ye should say in englyshe, a bodye
indewed wyth a solle…” (Discourse, fol. lxxxviii, verso).
312Augustine, De civit. Dei 13.20 (PL 41.393).
313Jerome, Ep. ad Pamm. 84.6 (PL 22.742).
 Analysis of the Patristic Evidence 103

Luke 8, where Christ explains the parable he gave about the sower of
the seed, and says ho sporos estin ho logos tou Theou, where you see that
the Greek article is added to the Word of God.315 Yet this text does not
demand that the Word of God should be held as though it is properly,
really, and corporeally in that seed cast on the ground, about which
the parable was first made. It is said to be contained in it by the
strength and property of signification, in the same way we take it in the
words of the Lord, “This is my body.” For we may say that the Lord’s
body is not predicated of bread except through signification.
An argument was also taken from Christ’s promise, “I will be with
you to the end of the age,” which is no problem for our position.316 For
we admit that Christ is present with us [nobis] through the divine
nature, through grace and the many gifts that his Spirit offers us. If we
desire his blood and flesh beyond that, we can have them in this sacra-
ment by faith and spiritual eating, after which there follows our truest
yet secret and ineffable union with Christ, when we are changed into
him.
63. It was proposed afterwards that if things stand like this, it fol-
lows that our sacraments contain nothing more than the sacraments of
the old law, since Christ was signified in them as well.317 In truth, if we
regard the nature of symbols, the reality was more fully shadowed than
in our sacraments, which are completely without blood. In the sacri-
fices of the ancients, the slaughter was plainly seen, and the blood shed
there more clearly represented the death of the Lord and placed it
before man’s eyes, than do our bread and wine.
We reply that in terms of the reality, our sacraments are one with
those of the fathers, the same thing being given in both even though
the signs vary. So Paul testified in 1 Corinthians.318 Still, our sacra-
ments have many advantages over the old. For they are established
never to be changed until the end of the age; nor do they show some-
thing that has yet to be done, but what is already accomplished. They
are simpler, and relate to a greater number of people. And since they

314Matt. 26:26. Udall follows the Greek words with a gloss: “that is in Englyshe sill-

able for sillable, thissame is the body of me (for so runneth the greke wordes which are
translated…)” (Discourse, fol. lxxxix; some intervening pages are not numbered).
315Luke 8:11.
316Matt. 28:20.
317See §§8–9 above.
3181 Cor. 10:1–4, a favorite text of Martyr’s; cf. COR, fol. 241r ff.
104 Treatise on the Eucharist

are clearer, they excite more faith, followed by a fuller measure of the
Spirit. Their greater clarity does not result, as the adversaries imagine,
from a more obvious form of the outward symbols, but from the nature
of t he words spoken in t hem. For our finished redemption is
announced in clear words, stronger than could be generally under-
stood by the ancients. If the thing is expressed more clearly by words,
an outward representation is not to be expected. They also wondered
how it is possible, if things are as we claim, for the church to have been
so long in such a serious error. They would not wonder if they consid-
ered what Christ said of his final advent: “Do you think that when the
Son of Man comes, he will find faith on earth?”319 So great was the
coming error showed to be that if it were possible, even the elect would
be led astray. Will these men please tell us what kind of church Christ
found at his first coming? Had not the scribes and Pharisees, priests,
and high priests corrupted and tainted everything with their tradi-
tions? Yet we are not to think that the church was left completely in
error, for there were always many good people who were displeased at
these things and condemned them. And since at the first advent there
were Simeon, the widow Anna, Joseph and the Virgin Mary, Elizabeth
and John the Baptist, who were faithful and of excellent judgment, the
church could not be termed utterly forsaken. So also in these last times
the whole church is not infected with these human traditions.
They also say that the fact of signification may occur in meals
through bread and wine, so that we need not honor the Eucharist so
much. But the argument is feeble, because in ordinary food there is no
institution of the Lord, no sacraments, no words of the Lord heard or
any promise given. Therefore they are not comparable.
64. Finally, an argument was introduced from the power and effi-
cacy of the Word of God. A dictum of Ambrose cited in Alger, book 1
chapter 7, calls it a working word [operatorium], since the bread and
wine remain the same yet are changed into something else.320 We
accept the words of [ab] Ambrose willingly. We also affirm that bread
and wine remain the same, not (as the transubstantiators say) by acci-
dents or species experiencing such change that the substance disap-
pears; they are conserved in their proper natures, the change occurring
through sacramental grace. We take nothing away from the efficacy of
319Luke 18:8.
320Ambrose, De Myst. IX.52 in Alger, De sac. Corp. et Sang. Dom. I,7 (PL180.756); cf.

§5 above.
 Analysis of the Patristic Evidence 105

the Lord’s words, yet think it unsuitable to refer to them as if they were
an incantation, so that the result follows whenever and however they
are pronounced by the priest over bread and wine with an intention to
consecrate. For everything depends on the Lord’s institution and the
action of the Holy Spirit. We need not worry over Algerius, for he
comes after Berengar’s time, and mentions his recantation in his writ-
ings.321 Moreover his judgment may be gathered from a certain argu-
ment of his, in chapter 21 of the first book. Seeking to prove that the
ungodly as well as the godly receive the body of Christ in the sacra-
ment, which indeed follows from transubstantiation, he says: “Take a
simile from the outward word, that is, speech made through sound. For
anyone reached by such speech, it contains and has its own proper
sense. If it comes to men of intelligence they hear with profit for they
perceive what is said. But if it comes to unlearned and ignorant men, it
carries its proper meaning just as much, but is of no use to the hearers
because they do not understand.”322 In his argument this man pre-
sumes that words bear their sense with them, but does not consider
that the sense is not included or enclosed really, as they say, in the
sound or form of the letters, but only through signification.323 If the
same thing were said to him about the bread and wine in sacraments,
that they offer the body of Christ through signification, he would be
refuted by his own simile. This proves that the ungodly do not receive
the body of the Lord, like the rude and ignorant who hear Greek and
Latin speech but do not catch the meaning. So nothing better could
have been said on our behalf. The same author states in the first chap-
ter of the second book that the accidents in the sacraments by no
means suffer decay or spoiling, but it only seems so to us, a thing the
Scholastics would not have said.324 What else is this but to appoint a
permanent illusion of the senses? So we need not put much stock in
him, even though he tries to support his transubstantiation by every
means.

321Alger, De sac. corp. et sang. Dom. I, 7 (PL 180.756).

322Paraphrase of Alger, ibid. I, 21 (PL 180.801).
323Cf. Augustine, De Magistro II.3 (PL 32.1196), and Martyr’s “Resurrection” §28,
PW 77.
324Alger, De Sac. II, 1 (PL 180.807–808).
106 Treatise on the Eucharist

Alternatives to Transubstantiation
65. We have now explored the first opinion at length, because
when it is removed many superstitions are abolished. We shall not dis-
cuss the other two in such detail, for we do not care particularly which
of them is held, providing it is understood soundly. We speak of them
now only in order to see what we think is to be avoided in both, and
what accepted. Thus there have been some who retained the substance
of bread and wine, and also the body and blood of the Lord, joining the
Lord’s body and blood by the closest bond to these symbols which
remain in their own nature. Yet I do not think they do so to make one
person [hypostasis] of these things so united. Still, as they have said,
the body and the blood of Christ are really, corporeally and naturally in
the bread and wine. Now others have joined them together only
through signification. The first opinion is attributed to Luther, the
other to Zwingli; yet I have heard from worthy men that Luther regards
this matter not so crassly, while Zwingli thought not so lightly of the
sacraments.325
They say that Luther inclined to exaggeration and to language
which exceeds the truth, because he thought Zwingli and others
wished to make the sacraments bare and empty signs, whereas Zwingli
intended no such thing. But he in turn was afraid that Luther might
affirm things which detract from the truth of human nature, and
“impanate” the body of Christ, so that a greater superstition would be
nourished. Therefore he saw fit to treat this sacrament more lightly. So
a controversy was aroused beyond what was called for, causing great
harm, when actually the disagreement was more about words than
reality. In dealing with these two we shall separate the opinions from
the persons; for we do not hold that either Zwingli or Luther was of
such a view, but only examine certain opinions that are circulated.

325 Bucer defended the Lutheran view, convincing Martyr that Luther himself

should not be equated with the hyper-Lutheran party at Strasbourg. Martyr’s earlier con-
tact with Bullinger led him to regard the Zurich tradition favorably, while the Swiss stu-
dents at Oxford, particularly the indefatigable John ab Ulmis, brokered a bond between
Vermigli and “Zwinglianism.” Cf. B. Gerrish: “The Lutheran Eucharist was not a theoph-
any, and the Zwinglian Eucharist was not a Pelagian workout,” OER, 2:76. Cf. Calvin on
the “two faults … too little regard for the signs … [or] extolling them too much” (Inst.
IV.17.5).
 Lutheran Teaching 107

The Lutheran Teaching

66. Those who join Christ’s body so crassly to symbols bring two
similes in order better to present their case. The first is: if you have a pot
full of wine and state “This is wine,” you do not lie, because you show
the very wine contained in the cup. Similarly if you take heated iron
and point to the fire, saying “This is fire,” you do not speak falsely or
absurdly. In the same way, they say, what the Lord says (”This is my
body”) is to be understood, and they admit the figure synecdoche. For
since they show a compound subject, it is not a true proposition unless
it refers to one part of what is demonstrated.326
It should be understood that they do not take these similes as if
they believed them to correspond with the truth at every point. Rather
they contend that the body of Christ is not present locally but only
definitively, which they understand in terms of anything not circum-
scribed by measure of place, but said to be present because its nature or
essence is appointed to that place, or at work in it.327 Yet this does not
agree with the existence of wine in a cup, for it has its place there where
it is enclosed. Moreover these men do not say that the body of Christ is
in the bread in such a way that it takes the name from its qualities or
accidents, for it cannot truly be called white, round, baked, or cooked.
Yet we see this happen to fire which is mixed with glowing iron: it so
follows the form of iron, the length, breadth, and depth, that it can be
described from this shape and form. From this it seems clear that the
likeness in this opinion is not taken by them in every detail, but only so
that a true and real union of the sacrament and the reality may be dem-
onstrated. When this is allowed, it follows that the faithful and the
unfaithful alike receive the body of Christ. First, of course, they think
that the reality of this union is sufficiently proved by the words of the
Lord. But they see that the other matter, that Christ’s body is given
even to the wicked, necessarily follows. We have already showed the
opposite, namely that these words of Christ do not demand this mean-

326The glowing fire and two natures is a recurring simile, e.g. Babylonian Captivity

(1520) and The Adoration of the Sacrament (1523)—Luther’s Works 36: Word and Sacraments
vol.2, ed. A. R. Wentz and H. T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1959) 32, 282.
327On modes of presence, see Luther, Confession concerning Christ’s Supper (1528)

trans. and ed. R. H. Fischer, Luther’s Work, vol. 37 (Phila: Muhlenberg Press, 1961) 215ff.
Luther follows the Occamist spelling diffinitive. The terms come from the Nominalist tra-
dition. See H. A. Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1967) 275–76, and J. Pelikan, Luther the Expositor (St. Louis: Augsburg, 1959) 138ff.
108 Treatise on the Eucharist

ing; and it has been proved by effective reasons that the wicked receive
only outward elements.
67. They also argue that if the words of Scripture are taken figura-
tively it could easily happen that many precepts would be overthrown.
When circumcision was commanded, Abraham might have said, the
words are figurative and I shall satisfy this law if I circumcise my heart
and cut off the desires and vices of the flesh. Again, when choice of
meat was enjoined, the Israelites might have said that the fulfilment of
the precept could consist in its moral observance, by not committing
those sins signified by unclean beasts. Thus neither circumcision nor
the distinction of meats would count for anything.
The strength of this argument may be shown from the letter and
proof-text, that it is not a figurative speech. As to circumcision, it is
appointed on the eighth day after the child’s birth, and adds that the
covenant of the Lord was to be done in the very flesh. From this it
appears that true circumcision was commanded. And in the distinc-
tion of meats, the conditions of clean and unclean creatures are so
expressly described, and purifying of offenders so instituted, that no
doubtful ground remains. We also have a rule of Augustine, On Chris-
tian doctrine, in which he shows that unless an evil act is commanded,
or some good work prohibited, the passage is to be taken without
trope.328 If this rule is applied to the choice of meat and to circumci-
sion, he shows that the words of God are to be understood simpliciter.
They say moreover that in the prophets and the histories, figures
are admitted freely because there the Holy Spirit acts in human ways,
and accommodates himself to their familiar speech, that he may
express more and more earnestly what is to be said. But in doctrine and
precepts we must not judge quite the same: they say that everything
should be taken absolutely. Their opinion is not firm or universal, for
instance in the Lord’s precept, “Beware the leaven of the Pharisees.”
Here he clearly uses a figure, so that the apostles were deceived. More-
over in Matthew 7 he commands them to beware of false prophets,
saying “They will come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are rav-
ening wolves.”329 Who does not see a figure of speech in this com-
mand? Also in teaching doctrine there is no doubt that figures and
tropes are used. Paul says in the New Testament, “The rock was Christ;

328Augustine, De doct. Christ. III.16.24 (PL 34.74).

329Matt. 16:6, 7:15.
 Lutheran Teaching 109

we are one bread.” And it is written of God that he is a consuming

fire.330
68. After this they contend that the body of Christ can be every-
where according to his words to Nicodemus in John 3, where it is said
“No one ascends into heaven but he that descends from heaven, the
Son of Man who is in heaven.”331 See, they say, the Son of Man, that is,
Christ, spoke to them about his human nature, and was also in heaven
because the human nature cannot be torn from the divine; therefore
what is said of one is to be affirmed of the other. I answer: although we
should not divide these two natures from one another, yet it does not
follow that what pertains to one is also to be given to the other. We
surely grant that the divinity of Christ is everywhere, yet will not
extend this to his body and humanity. Augustine quite clearly taught
this To Dardanus.332 And what is brought out of the third chapter of
John is interpreted by the same Augustine, that the Son of God was in
heaven according to his divine nature.333 Nor did Chrysostom judge
otherwise, when he expounded this place. For he affirms that to be in
heaven was not attributed to the Son of Man but to his better
nature.334
How feeble an argument this is—that these two natures are joined
together; therefore what is granted to one must be also attributed to
the other—can be shown by a similar argument. The solar body and its
light have between them a natural and highest conjunction, yet that
body does not really attain to every place the light reaches. So our
body, eye, and sight are joined with each other and yet our sight appre-
hends many things which our physical eye does not contact.
They argue later that many things must be conceded to Christ’s
body beyond the ordinary course and conditions of other bodies.
There are two reasons for this: partly because it is glorified, partly

3301 Cor. 10:4,18; Heb. 12:29.

331John 3:13.
332Augustine, Ep. 187, ad Dard. 19 (PL 33.839). At this time Martyr is not too con-
cerned with the concept of ubiquity, but on his return to Strasbourg in 1553 he found the
relationship with Lutherans deteriorating. He published his reply to Brenz, Dialogue on
the Two Natures in Christ (1561). Donnelly, DIAL xxii, 45, describes the significance of
Augustine and Cyril for both Brenz and Vermigli and of Augustine’s letter to Dardanus in
particular; it was printed along with the 1552 edition of the Treatise and Disputation. Cf.
Calvin, Inst. IV.17.17, 30.
333Augustine, In Joann. Ev., Tract. XII.8 (PL 35.1488).
334Chrysostom, In Joannem, Hom. XXVII (al. XXVI), 1 (PG 59.157–58).
110 Treatise on the Eucharist

because [quia] it has the Word joined with it. We acknowledge that
many things are to be accepted; but if the nature of a human body is to
be preserved, to be everywhere cannot be appropriate to it. For if we
grant this we would not add nobility to it but destruction, since it
would then be forced from its own nature. Moreover, it does not take
the matter much further: even if we grant that Christ’s body has this
power to be in many places, it would not therefore follow that God
wishes to act the same way in this sacrament.
69. They strive to prove this corporeal presence by the likeness of
a teacher. Since he is able to extend his words to many hearers, he com-
municates his mental concepts to them so that all alike understand
him fully. Even so, they say, the Lord acts in the words pronounced at
the sacrament. He wraps his body in them, so that by them he might
be revealed in all these symbols, and communicated to all who receive.
Therefore why not allow Christ what is granted an earthly master?335
But the comparison is far-fetched, and as we said before, words do not
carry the substance or concept of mind, except by way of signification.
Their purpose is not served either by what they attempt to add
from Ephesians 1, where it is said that the body of Christ is everywhere:
Christ is given as head of the body the church, which is as the Greek
has it “the fullness of him who fills all in all.”336 For that does not
mean that the body of Christ fills everything and is everywhere as they
infer. The meaning of that verb or participle plêroumenou is ambiguous,
for it can be taken both actively and passively, since it is a middle verb.
If you understand it passively, according to the Greek scholia, the
meaning is that Christ the head of the church is filled in all his mem-
bers in regard to all things, not that he is completed in his own person.
For he is perfect and sufficiently blessed, and is to be regarded in terms
of the body and members. As the headship is conferred on him, so the
church is understood as the fullness of Christ, so that it fills and per-
fects his mystical body. But if the sense is active, then Christ is said to
be head in that he himself perfects all gifts and virtues in all his mem-
bers. The meaning is not that he is everywhere as man.
It is also thought that this can be proved from Scripture because
Christ clearly acknowledges that Lazarus was dead, although he was
not there.337 But if one contends that he did not have a glorified body
335E.g.Luther’s Large Confession upon Christ’s Supper (1528): one voice falls on a
thousand ears.
336Martyr quotes the Greek of Eph. 1:22–23.
 Lutheran Teaching 111

at the time, then it matters little because he still had divinity joined
with it. But to remove uncertainty, after the resurrection the angel said
to the woman, “He is risen, he is not here,” and “He goes before you
into Galilee”; again, “He was removed from their sight” when he
ascended to heaven.338 Therefore he does not fill all things, nor is he
everywhere.
70. They also like to cite a place in Ephesians 4, “He that
descended is the same that also ascended even above all heavens, that
he might fill all things.”339 Yet this passage proves nothing, and is
interpreted in two ways. First, to fill all things is referred to what is
prophesied and written of Christ. Thus a little before he quoted the
Scripture, “He ascended on high, he led captivity captive, he gave gifts
to men.” If you refer it to places, you must understand this as kinds of
places, not one single kind, as in the sentence, “The Lord wills all men
to be saved.”340 So we may say that Christ occupies sometimes a middle
place, sometimes a higher, or another time even lower, as in the sepul-
chre. The transubstantiators say this does not apply to them, because
they do not say that the body of Christ is everywhere, but only where
there is the sacrament. Still, it counts against them; for if it is not
inconsistent for Christ’s body to be at one time in twenty or fifty
places, as they hold, then likewise in a hundred or a thousand, and ulti-
mately in all; hence they will make the body of Christ infinite.
Nor is there any reason to question the form of argument, because
Jerome used it against John, bishop of Jerusalem, when he wished to
prove that after the resurrection our bodies can remain without
food.341 For he said, Elijah and Moses continued without food forty
days by the power of God; therefore someone could also be sustained
longer by the divine power; and if for longer, then forever if God so
wills.
But to return: they see that it follows from such a close union that
the sacrament may be adored; for if the Lord is contained there really
and corporeally, who would not worship him? They teach that one is
free to do it or not, saying: although he is there, yet not for purposes of
adoration; if you receive him and eat it is enough, although if you wor-

337John 11:14–15.
338Matt. 21:6–7; Acts 1:9.
339Eph. 4:10.
3401 Tim. 2:4.
341Jerome, Lib. Contra Joan. Hier. 29 (PL 23.381).
112 Treatise on the Eucharist

ship you do no wrong. But on the contrary we judge that in adoration

the mind should not turn to the symbols.342 While the sacramental
rite is performed, if one well instructed in the mystery turns his mind
to adore Christ reigning in heaven he does well, and acts as he should
in worshipping Christ who declares himself to him. No idolatry is com-
mitted, as Paul teaches in his letter to Corinth when he says, if a man
enters your gathering who is unlearned and simple, and hears every-
one speaking together in tongues, he will no doubt say, “they are mad,”
and will not be edified. But if he hears you prophesy and knows the
secrets of his heart to be revealed, he will fall down and worship the
Lord.343 He will not worship the men making these prophecies, but
since the Lord is revealed to him there, he will turn to him in adora-
tion.
71. In short, the reasons why their crass judgment seems false are
these: (1)344 that this real and corporeal presence brings no usefulness
that we do not have from a spiritual presence. For in John 6 the Lord
promised eternal life to those who eat him, that he would dwell with
them and they with him: what more is needed? (2) Neither could the
same sacraments be allowed to us and to the ancients, because they
could not have obtained this real presence, since the Son of God had
not yet taken human flesh. (3) It would follow that both godly and
wicked eat the body of Christ. (4) Also, beyond that spiritual eating
which we have in John 6, they introduce another, both carnal and cor-
poreal, which cannot be proved since it and the other are the same,
except that in the latter symbols are added, to better confirm the real-
ity. (5) Lastly, it follows also [item] that when they attribute so much to
words, they are in the same difficulty as are the transubstantiators
when they say, “This is my body.” For they cannot explain themselves
or say plainly and without contradiction what they mean, and how the
words uttered may be true, if they do not admit a trope. (6) They diffuse
the body of Christ so that it is in many places at once, in fact every-
where. Nor is it valid to say “not locally,” since even though he is there
in the way that angels are said to occupy a place, this is not appropriate
for a creature, as is proved above by Didymus, Basil, Augustine To Dar-
danus, and Cyril. You may find these texts at the end of the first dispu-
tation.345 The words of Scripture do not drive us to such a gross and
342Cf. n. 260 on the “black rubric” of the Book of Common Prayer, by Knox.
343Paraphrase of 1 Cor. 14:23–25.
344Numbers are marginalia.
 Lutheran Teaching 113

corporeal presence, and since faith is of the Word of God; therefore

faith should not accept it.
72. The Fathers teach otherwise. Cyprian shows what sort of body
is in the Eucharist when he says in his sermon on the Lord’s Supper:
“Even today whoever creates, sanctifies and blesses his most true and
holy body, and distributes it to those who receive in faith.” The proper
body of Christ is not created afresh, or sanctified, or divided up.346
Chrysostom on Matthew 5, homily 2, opus imperfectum: “There-
fore if it is so dangerous to transfer these sanctified vessels to private
use, which do not contain the true body of Christ but a mystery of his
body.”347 And how we are to ascend to heaven when we communicate,
if we want to enjoy the body of Christ, the same Father expounds 1
Corinthians 10, homily 24. He commands us to approach Christ with
all unity and love, and being made eagles in this life, to fly to heaven
itself or rather above heaven. He says, “For where the corpse is, there
also are the eagles. The corpse is the body of the Lord, on account of his
death. For unless he had fallen, we should not have risen again. But he
calls us eagles, showing that whoever comes to this body must strive
towards the heights, having nothing in common with earth, nor
follow and clutch lower things, but always be soaring heavenwards,
and behold the sun of righteousness and have the eye of the mind far-
sighted; for this is a table of eagles, not of crows.”348
Again, Chrysostom on Matthew 26, homily 83: “They were ready
to journey from Egypt to Palestine and therefore wore travellers’
clothes: you must ascend from earth to heaven.”349 And in the 3rd of
The Priesthood: “Do you think you are still among mortals and on
earth? Do you not rather think that you are translated into heaven?
And casting off all carnal thoughts, with disembodied spirit and pure
mind contemplate the things that are in heaven?”350
345LC/CP add: “against Tresham.” In the opening debate on the first proposition

of the Disputation the authority of Augustine was invoked by both Tresham and Martyr;
see DIS I(E). The four texts mentioned here are: Didymus, De spiritu sancto, 1, and Basil,
De spiritu sancto, 22, on the deity of the Holy Spirit and his omnipotence, “which is not a
condition of a created being”; Augustine, ad Dard., “where he wrote concerning the glo-
rified body of Christ, that it is in a definite place because of the measure of a true body”;
and Cyril, Dialog de Trin. 2, “Cyril plainly states that divinity would be limited if it were
quantitative.”
346See p. 26 n. 20 above.
347See p. 51 n. 118 above.
348Chrysostom, In Cor. Primum, Hom. XXIV, 7 (PG 61.203).
349Chrysostom, In Matt., Hom. 82 (al 83), 4 (PG 58.743).
114 Treatise on the Eucharist

73. Augustine To Boniface has all these things in the same order
and sense: “when Easter is approaching, ‘Today or the day after Christ
died; on the Lord’s day he rose again; baptism is faith; the sacrament of
Christ’s body is Christ’s body.’”351 We see that in all the sayings we
have considered what is really absent is predicated of what is present.
The same Father on Psalm 54: “The head was in heaven, and he said,
why do you persecute me? We are with him in heaven through hope,
he is with us on earth through love.” And in letter 119 to Januarius:
“Thus to that persecutor whom he smote with the voice and ate up as it
were by transferring him into his body, he called from heaven ‘Saul
Saul, why do you persecute me?’”352 On John, tract 30, as also in the de
Consecrat. dist. 2, in fact the first: “The Lord is above, yet here is the
truth of the Lord. For the Lord’s body in which he arose should be in
one place, yet his truth is scattered everywhere.”353 Also on John, tract
50: “for in respect to his majesty, his providence, and the ineffable and
invisible grace, what was spoken by him is fulfilled, ‘Behold I will be
with you until the end of the age’;354 but in respect to the flesh which
the word assumed, in respect to that which was born of a virgin, which
was seized by the Jews, fastened to a tree, taken down from the cross,
wrapped in clothes, buried in a sepulchre, revealed in resurrection, ‘me
you have not always with you.’355 Therefore, since he had for forty days
been close to his disciples according to his bodily presence, they
escorted him and watched but did not follow as he ascended to heaven,
and is not here. For there he sits at the right hand of the Father, yet is
here. For he did not depart in the presence that belongs to majesty; we
always have Christ. Concerning the carnal presence it is rightly said to
his disciples, ‘But you will not always have me.’ For the church had him
only a few days in the presence of flesh; now it holds by faith, it does
not see with the eyes.”356
The same Father, on John’s letter at the end: “Therefore our Lord
Jesus Christ ascended into heaven on the fortieth day, and com-
mended his body to take a place where he was, because he saw that
350Chrysostom, De Sacerdotio III, 4 (PG 48.642).
351Augustine, Ad Bonif. 98.9 (PL 33.303).
352Augustine, En. in Pss. 54 (55) (PL 36.629); Ep. LV (119) Ad Inquis. Jan. XVII.31 (PL

33.220).
353Augustine, In Joann. Tract. 30,1 (PL 35.1632); and in Gratian (PL 187.1752).
354Matt. 28:20.
355Matt. 16:11.
356Augustine, In Joann. Ev., Tract. 30, 13 (PL 35.1763).
 Lutheran Teaching 115

many would honor him because he ascended to heaven, whose honor

would be worthless if they trampled underfoot his members on earth.
And lest anyone be mistaken, and oppress the feet on earth while ador-
ing the head in heaven,357 he declared where his members would be.
When he was about to ascend he gave some final words, and after these
words spoke no more on earth. As he was about to ascend to heaven the
head commended his members on earth, and departed. You no longer
find Christ speaking on earth; you will find that he speaks only from
heaven itself. Why? Because the ear thly members were being
oppressed. From heaven he said to Paul the persecutor, ‘Saul, Saul, why
do you persecute me?358 I ascended into heaven but I am still on earth.
Here I sit at the Father’s right hand, there I still hunger, thirst, and am a
stranger.’ How then did he commend his body on earth as he was going
to ascend? When his disciples were asking him, ‘Lord, is this the time
when you will manifest yourself and you restore the kingdom to
Israel?’ He replied as he was about to leave, ‘It is not for you to know the
time which the Father holds in his power; but you will receive the
power of the Holy Spirit coming upon you, and will be my witnesses in
Jerusalem.’359 See how he spreads out his body, see where he does not
wish to be trampled. ‘You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and
through all Judea and Samaria, to the end of the earth.’ Behold where I
still lie as I ascend; for I ascend because I am the head. My body still
abides—how? everywhere on earth.”360
74. Cyril agrees with Augustine, on John book 6, chapter 14: “We
should note this: even though he was about to depart only as regards
his body, yet he is always present through the majesty of his godhead,
as he promised when departing from his disciples, ‘Behold I am with
you always, to the end of the age.’”361 The same [Cyril] on John book 9,
chapter 21: “Christ said that for a little time he would be with his disci-
ples, not because he would depart from them completely, for he is with
us always to the end of the age, but because he would not be with them
as before. For now the time was near for him to go into heaven to the
357Martyr uses the same quotation in the Dialogue on the Two Natures; J. P. Don-

nelly, DIAL, 157n541, notes that at this point he omits part of the passage, whereas here
he gives it all.
358Acts 9:4.
359Acts 1:6ff.
360Augustine, In Epist. Johann., Tract. X.V.9 (PL 35.2060–61).
361Cyril of Alexandria, In Joann. Ev. IX.14 [sic] (PL 74.156–57). Cranmer, Def. III.5,

CRA II.364, uses the same pair of quotations, from IX.14 and 21.
116 Treatise on the Eucharist

Father. The faithful ought to believe that even though he is absent

from us in body, he still directs us and all things by his power, and is
present to all who love him. Therefore he said, ‘Truly truly I say to you,
where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in their
midst.’362 For just as when he dwelt on earth as a man yet at that time
was also filling the heavens and never left the company of angels, even
so now in the same way when he is in heaven he does not fill the earth
with his flesh, and is with those who love him. But note that even
though he was about to depart only as regards his flesh (for he is ever
present through the power of his godhead, as we have said), yet he used
to say that nevertheless he would be for a short time with his disciples,
clearly naming himself, lest anyone dare to divide Christ into two
sons.”363
To these we may add Vigilius, who writes in his first book against
Eutyches: “The Son of God departs from us according to his humanity,
but according to his divinity he tells us, ‘Behold I am with you always,
to the end of the age.’”364 And just after: “Therefore those he has left
and from whom he has departed in his humanity, he has not left nor
deserted in his divinity. He is absent from us in the form of a servant
which he took from us into heaven; he is present to us in the form of
God, which has not gone away from us on earth. But for us he is one
and the same, who is present and absent.”365 The same man in book 4:
“If one nature belongs to the Word and to the flesh, why is not the
flesh found everywhere, since the Word is everywhere? For when he
was on earth he was surely not in heaven, and now that he is in heaven
he is surely not on earth. It is not so much that we may look for Christ
to come from heaven in his flesh, while as for the Word we believe that
he is with us on earth. Therefore according to you either the Word is
contained in a place with the flesh, or the flesh is everywhere366 with
the Word, since one nature does not take to itself something contrary

362Matt. 18:20.
363Cyril, In Joann. Ev. IX.13:33 (PG 74.156–57). Cf. DIAL, 159, where Martyr uses
the same quotation. Donnelly, DIAL, 159, notes that “There are only eighteen chapters
in book II of his commentary on John’s Gospel in the PL edition. Vermigli was almost
certainly using Opera divi Cyrilli…Tomi quatuor (Basel: Hevagrius, 1546), which does have
twenty-two chapters” (cf. p. 55 n. 138 above).
364Matt. 28:20.
365Vigilius, Lib. ad Eut. I.6 (PL 62.98–99); also in DIAL, 160–61; CRA, II.368.
366J. P. Donnelly, DIAL, 162n567, notes that here we should follow “the reading of

the 1581 Basel edition, ubique, rather than that of the Zurich editions, utique.”
 Lutheran Teaching 117

or different. But being limited in place and being everywhere are oppo-
site and very different. Because the Word is everywhere whereas the
flesh is not everywhere, it is obvious that one and the same Christ has
both natures; he is everywhere in his divine nature, and contained in a
place in his human nature. Being created and not having a beginning,
being subject to death and not being capable of dying.” And he adds at
once, “This is the catholic faith and confession which the Apostles
handed down, the martyrs confirmed, and the faithful keep to this
day.”367
75. Then there is Fulgentius to King Thrasimundus, book 2: “It is
one and the same man who has localized existence from a human and
who is limitless deity from the Father. The same individual according
to his human substance was absent from heaven while he was on earth,
and left the earth when he ascended to heaven. According to his divine
and limitless substance he did not leave heaven when he descended
from heaven, nor did he leave the earth when he ascended to heaven.
This can be known with complete certainty from the Lord’s own words;
when he wished to show that his humanity was localized, he said to his
disciples: ‘I ascend to my Father and your Father, to my God and your
God.’368 He added when he was talking about Lazarus, ‘Lazarus is dead;
and for your sakes I am glad that I was not there, so that you may
believe.’369 Yet he showed the vastness of his divinity when he said to
the disciples, ‘Behold I am with you always, to the end of the age.’370
How did he ascend to heaven unless he was a true and localized man?
Or how is he present to his believers unless he is without limits and
true God?”371
The same Father in book 3: “The very same and inseparable Christ
arose from the tomb only as regards his flesh; the same and inseparable
Christ as regards the whole man which he took, left the earth spatially,
ascended to heaven, and sits at God’s right hand; as regards the same
total man he shall come to judge the living and dead, and to crown the
faithful and godly.”372

367Vigilius, Lib. ad Eut. 4.14–15 (PL 62.126); also in DIAL, 161–62.

368John 20:17.
369John 11: 14–15.
370Matt. 28:20.
371Fulgentius, Ad Trasimundum II.17 (PL 65.265); also in DIAL, 163.
372Fulgentius, Ad Tras. III.34 (PL 65.299); cf. DIAL, 164.
118 Treatise on the Eucharist

Finally, Bernard on the Song of Songs, sermon 33: “I have also the
Word, but in the flesh, and the truth is set before me, but in the sacra-
ment. The angel is fattened with the fat of the grain, and now is full of
meal; meanwhile I should be content with the husk of the sacrament,
the bran of the flesh, the chaff of the letter, the veil of faith. These
things are such that to taste them brings death, unless they have
received some seasoning with the firstfruits of the Spirit. Only my
death is in the pot, unless it is sweetened by a little meal from the
prophet.” And later: “Regardless of how much these things increase,
the husks of the sacraments and the richness of grain are not received
with equal pleasure, nor are faith and vision, memory and presence,
eternity and time, the face and the reflection, the image of God and
the form of a servant. Truly in them all, faith is rich for me and under-
standing poor. But is the flavor of faith and understanding the same?
For this makes for merit and that for reward. You see that there is as
much difference between foods as between places, and as the heavens
are exalted above the earth, so are its inhabitants.”373
Here you see plainly that Bernard makes an antithesis between
memory and presence, and assembles many other things that relate to
our concern. But let us return to our adversaries. They have Fathers to
oppose to us. Irenaeus says that the Eucharist consists of two things,
earthly and heavenly; Gelasius also asserts it. But this only follows if
you take the whole sacrament, making one thing of the sign and the
significance; then we grant that it is made of two things. But if you
afterwards appoint such a union between bread and the body of Christ
as there is between the divine and human natures in Christ, that would
certainly not be granted. For one hypostasis would have to be made of
the bread and Christ’s body, that is, one subject, so that they could
never be separated from one another, which is most absurd. From the
other Fathers they object practically the same thing as the transubstan-
tiators cited above.

The Zwinglian Teaching

76. Now let us see what those who hold the third opinion say
against them.

373Bernard, Serm. in Cant. Canticorum XXIII.3 (PL 183.952); partially quoted in

DIAL, 201.
 Zwinglian Teaching 119

First they do not admit that scattering of Christ’s body by which

it can be everywhere, since it is against the property of human nature.
Augustine writes otherwise quite clearly To Dardanus. Moreover they
contend that the eating set forth in John 6 is completely one with this
last eating, except that symbols are added.374 They prove this by claim-
ing that when John mentions his eating at the end of the Gospel, he
does not refer to the institution of the sacrament as do the other evan-
gelists, since he had already conveyed it sufficiently. In his sixth chap-
ter John supplied a summary of the doctrine which they had omitted.
They maintain that there is no reason why anyone should say that the
communion is therefore superfluous, since in frequent communica-
tion we celebrate the memory of the Lord, we give thanks, and the
mind is stirred up by the appearance of those things which are done;
what are there are not mute but speaking signs. Further, there is a sort
of token [tessera] by which Christians show themselves one with
Christ and among ourselves. Again, they confess their faith concerning
the body of Christ delivered to the cross, and his blood shed for our sal-
vation. For it is not enough to believe with the heart, but confession
must also be with the mouth; and not only with the mouth, but with
outward acts. Nor do they admit what the others claim, that the
wicked also receive the body of Christ. For sense and reason do not
reach him, but faith alone lays hold; since they are destitute of that,
they can have nothing but symbols. And Paul writes, “Whoever eats
this bread unworthily,” not whoever eats the body unworthily.
77. They are amazed at those who follow the opposite opinion,
who attribute the remission of sins to a corporeal eating of Christ, since
that is to admit opus operatum; the remission of sins is received only
through faith. They also rest on the saying of Paul, when the Lord com-
mands that this be done in his memory, and to proclaim his death.375
These words seem to them to imply the absence of the body of Christ.
But I have warned elsewhere376 that this argument is not very firm,
unless they mean it concerning the body of Christ really and corpore-

374John 6 was Zwingli’s standard reading at the Lord’s Supper. It is the first of his
two “plain Scriptures” supporting his Eucharistic doctrine, the other being 1 Cor. 10; see
Zwingli, Eine Klare 810, 825. Brian Gerrish, OER, 79, notes: “Zwingli’s favorite text (John
6:63) stands like a banner on the front page of [Cranmer’s] Defence”; see Cranmer, Def.,
title page: “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing” (CRA, II.275).
3751 Cor. 11:24ff.
376COR. 11.24; cf. 10.16 regarding the Anabaptists.
120 Treatise on the Eucharist

ally and naturally present; otherwise when it is received by faith, it is

not understood to be completely absent, although he remains in
heaven in respect of his nature and substance. For he is eaten spiritu-
ally, and is truly joined to us.
They cite the Fathers, who clearly state that here we have a type,
sign, and figure of the body of Christ. And they bring two similes: one
is of a friend, whose friend being absent in body is said to be present
when he thinks of him. The other one they submit concerns a number
of mirrors, which surround a man whose appearance and face is multi-
plied in them all, although he does not move from his place.377 I grant
that these are similes, though somewhat colder than is suitable to this
mystery. For a friend being grasped by thinking and kept in mind does
not change the thinker or nourish his mind, nor does he restore his
flesh to become capable of resurrection. And what one has in a mirror
is the faintest shadow, which should not be compared to that union
which we have with Christ. For the presence of Christ’s spirit which we
affirm has the power of the Holy Spirit joined to it, coupling us most
closely with him. Yet these similes should not be completely rejected,
since they can in a way lead us to the truth of the matter, provided they
do not take it for an equality. They show how this reception must be by
faith and the mind.
They have mentioned two unions with Christ, one by faith when
we apprehend his body nailed to the cross and his blood shed for our
salvation; the other is the fact that the Son of God himself took our
true nature and so there is a natural communion between us and
Christ, of which mention is made in Hebrews 2. But there is a third
kind of union,378 on which we enter with Christ by eating him spiritu-
ally. They do not often speak of this, though they are not entirely
silent. But with that we shall deal in a moment.379

377These images have not been found in examining Zwingli’s Eucharistic writings,

despite the assistance of my late colleague Edward Furcha in the search. For Zwingli’s
general treatment of tropes, see “Subsidiary Essay on the Eucharist” (1525) in Huldrych
Zwingli Writings, trans. W. Pipkin (Allison Park, Pa.: Pickwick, 1984), 2:201ff.; the latter
has a general treatment of tropes. There is a simile of a widow regarding her wedding ring
to recall her husband, “On the Lord’s Supper” (LCC, XXIV), 234.
378For Martyr’s teaching on this medium or arcana communio, found in his com-

mentaries (e.g. ROM, 8, COR, 10) and in correspondence with Calvin and Beza, see
VWG, 142ff.
379See §81 below.
 Conclusion 121

If they are asked whether Christ is present in the Lord’s Supper,

they answer that he is; but they say this through synecdoche, since one
part of Christ, the divinity, is truly present. Otherwise in expounding
the sentence of the Lord, “This is my body,” they use metonymy, apply-
ing what belongs to the sign to the thing signified.380 In this way they
grant that Christ himself is present, as the sun which keeps its own
place is nevertheless said to be present in the world, ruling it with its
motion and light. How faith can make something present, they think
Paul has stated in Galatians, that Christ was described before their eyes,
and crucified among them.381

Conclusion
78. It now remains for us to show how we judge between these
two opinions, what should be guarded against and what accepted. Not
that I have in mind to reprove those singular and most excellent men,
either Luther or Zwingli. For I know for a fact that in his books Zwingli
considers the signs in this sacrament to be far from empty or useless, as
we said above. And it has also been reported to me by men who have
conferred with Luther that in truth he placed only a sacramental
union between the body of Christ and the symbols.382 This is not the
time to describe how the controversy between them has grown and
inflamed. Therefore we shall set aside these men who are never praised
enough, and treat the opinions as set down and advanced by both
sides.
In the first opinion I cannot allow such a crass connection of the
body of Christ with bread so that he is contained in it naturally, corpo-
really, and really. For the holy Scripture does not drive us to this posi-
tion; to increase and multiply such miracles without its testimony is
not theological. Moreover such a presence is not necessary, and has no
bearing on our salvation. Nor do I agree that the wicked receive the
body of the Lord. For whatever the Lord instituted he did for our
health; but a carnal and corporeal eating is not healthy for the wicked;

380The problem of metaphorical language was central to the Marburg debate; see
J. C. McLelland, “Lutheran-Reformed Debate on the Eucharist and Christology,” in Mar-
burg Revisited, ed. P. C. Empie and J. I. McCord (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966), 39–54.
381Gal. 3:1.
382E.g. Martin Bucer: “I have dealt again and again with so many Lutherans” who

wish only “Christ to be truly given and received in the Supper” (letter to Calvin of 14
August 1549 on the Consensus Tigurinus; text in CR, 41, 350ff.).
122 Treatise on the Eucharist

therefore Christ instituted no such thing. Whatever the wicked eat cor-
poreally, they should not call it an eating of Christ’s body, unless you
wish to attribute the name of the reality to the sign or symbol. Further,
we will not agree that the body of Christ is everywhere, or scattered
through everything or in many places, since this is against the condi-
tions of human nature. We do not need to infer that there is a distinc-
tion between the spiritual eating which you have in John 6 and that
which the Lord instituted at the Last Supper, except that he added sym-
bols to the doctrine and promise which he had first given. Moreover,
we should not easily admit what they speak ambiguously about adora-
tion. We taught above plainly and simply what we should believe on
this point. So much for this opinion, from which I think it good to
derive what I have thus stated.
79. In the other opinion I am not happy that they mention only
rarely a sacramental mutation of the bread and wine, although this is
no light matter, and one that the Fathers intend whenever they seem
to favor transubstantiation. Scripture does not condemn it, because in
his treatment of the sacrament, Paul does not call it simply cup, but
cup of the Lord.383 We see also in the Old Testament that what was
offered was called not merely holy, but holy of holies, that is, in the
Hebrew phrase “the holiest.”384 Therefore they have no right to say
that this change is a little thing, since it is of great moment. But if they
pretend that they do this because we should not cling too much to
symbols, we reply that a remedy is easily found for this evil through
doctrine, by which men are taught that Christ is joined to us by an
excellent union when we communicate, so that he dwells in us and we
in him. In the next degree he is also joined to words, through significa-
tion. And in the third place he is joined to symbols, also by significa-
tion, but less than that which belongs to words. Indeed through the
former (of words) the symbols derive their sacramental signification. If
these things are taught properly there will be no danger. I admit that
the writers of this opinion have dealt with the sacramental conversion
at times, but seldom.
80. Then again, they have not always recognized the power
belonging to it. For these are no ordinary signs, but such as may move
the mind powerfully and effectively. They will say that this attributes

3831 Cor. 11:27.

384Ex. 30:36.
 Conclusion 123

too much to elements of this world. We answer that it is not attributed

to them for their own sake, but on account of the institution of the
Lord, the power of the Holy Spirit, and the clarity of the words. If they
ask how I can know that the Holy Spirit is at work here, the answer is
simple: because a spiritual eating is already ordained, and how will we
eat spiritually without the Holy Spirit? There is no doubt about the
Lord’s institution, and of the efficacy of the Word the Scriptures every-
where speak. Paul says, “The Gospel is the power of God to salva-
tion,”385 namely that God will declare his power by this instrument;
and what else is the Eucharist than the visible Gospel or Word? Paul
also says, “Faith is by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.”386
Not that the Word makes us believe, for the Spirit is he through whom
we believe; but he uses the instrument of words and also sacraments,
which are sensible words of God. For who does not know that creatures
are sanctified by the Word of God, as in the letter to Timothy?387 This
also must be understood properly, for it is the Holy Spirit who sancti-
fies, but he does it through instruments of both words and sacraments.
Therefore we must not remove from bread and wine this change by
which they are made effective signs of the body and blood of Christ,
that is, through which the Spirit of the Lord works in us powerfully and
extraordinarily provided we are endowed with faith and piety. For here
we do not intend a power that will tie our salvation to things of this
world. On the other hand, let no one question us as to what communi-
cants gain, on the ground that since this reception is by faith, they
already have Christ joined to them if they believe. To answer is easy, for
he is indeed joined to them, but is daily joined more closely, and while
we communicate is united to us more and more. This happens so that
we might fulfil the Lord’s command, who ordered us to eat and drink
this sacrament. Otherwise you could say the same about baptism: for as
soon someone believes he is justified and has remission of sins, yet he is
not baptized in vain. If you ask whether this power of the Eucharist
holds for everyone equally, I reply: not at all; rather, according to the
reason and proportion of the communicant’s faith. Just as Origen said
on Matthew 15: the matter of this sacrament profits only through the
Word, and its appeal can assist our minds according to the quantity
and proportion of faith.388
385Rom. 1:16.
386Rom. 10:17.
3871 Tim. 4:5.
124 Treatise on the Eucharist

81. There is something else I want to pass on to them, that

through communion we are incorporated in Christ. This word is not
new, but is in Paul, to the Ephesians: the Gentiles are made joint heirs
and of the same body [cohaeredes et concorporales], which is in Greek
synsôma.389 For although we hold that the encounter with Christ’s
body happens through faith, yet a true union with Christ follows this
contact as an effect, not fictitious or imaginary. It is related first to the
soul and then redounds to the body. This is commended to us in Scrip-
ture by Paul under the metaphor of bread and body, when he calls us
members of the same body under Christ the head, and by the analogy
of marriage, in which two become one flesh. To explain it, Cyril intro-
duced a simile of melted wax, mingled with other wax so that one is
made of both; thus would he have us joined with Christ. The words in
Ephesians are especially relevant here, according to which we are said
to be of his flesh and of his bones.390 At first glance it seems that it
ought to be put differently, namely that the Son of God is of our flesh
and of our bones, because he assumed our kind of flesh. But Paul does
not simply mean flesh, but flesh free from sin, capable of resurrection
and immortality. Since the faithful do not have this by themselves or
from Adam, they claim it for themselves from Christ, since they are
incorporated in him through the sacraments and by faith. Thus there
comes a kind of entrance of Christ into us, and a spiritual contact,
which Paul had in mind when he said to the Galatians: “Yet now I do
not live, but Christ lives in me.”391
The above does not make it necessary to draw Christ from heaven,
or spread his body throughout infinite places, since everything we
teach is spiritual. Yet it is not fictional, since spectres, apparitions, and
illusions do not nourish the soul, as this certainly does. For we declare
and insist that these symbols signify, offer, and most truly exhibit the
body of Christ, although spiritually, that is, to be eaten with the mind,
not the bodily mouth. If you question the way that the ancients in
their sacraments could have the same as us, it is easy to make a reply,
because we have established that what is done in this sacrament is not
corporeal but spiritual. And we read in the Apocalypse, “the Lamb slain

388Origen, In Matt., Comm. Series 85 (PG 13.1734–35).

389Eph. 3:6.
390Eph. 5:30.
391Gal. 2:20.
 Conclusion 125

from the foundation of the world.”392 They awaited things to come, we

honor what is already done.
Last, we showed this by way of a warning, lest what we add about
the spiritual mode should be taken to detract from the truth. For
Augustine said on Psalm 54, the body of the Lord is in a definite place
in heaven, but the truth of the Lord’s body is everywhere, for wherever
the faithful are they grasp the fact that Christ had a true body given for
us, and by that faith are fed.393
82. Now then I have said what it seems to me should be estab-
lished as scriptural in this matter of the sacraments, which I would
have the faithful reader consider and take in good part. Of his own
goodness, God grant that the church of Christ may obtain both truth
and peace concerning this sacrament. These two things are my desire
because I have observed so far that the Eucharist (with which we are
dealing) has been so overwhelmed, buried, and deformed by lies,
devices, and superstitions that it could be reckoned anything besides
what the Lord instituted in the Supper. To prevent its being easily
purged, the devil (the greatest enemy of all peace and truth) has sown
so many opinions, controversies, disagreements, heresies, and battles,
although without blood, that scarcely any consent worthy of Chris-
tians can be hoped for by human reason. Alas! we have not endured
these things without harm, for we have dealt double injury to this sac-
rament: in part because we have erected an accursed idol instead of the
excellent and special gift of Christ; in part because we have abused
these holy mysteries, without sincere faith, with conscience defiled by
grave sins, scorning a proper examination of our own hearts.
I pray that God will pity such a great calamity, and will deign to
restore to his church at last a Eucharist renewed and enjoying its proper
use; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

392Rev. 13:8.
393Augustine, En. in Ps. LIV.3 (PL 36.629).
126 Treatise on the Eucharist
 Part Two

A Disputation
on the
Sacrament
of the
Eucharist
Letter from the Royal Legates
The Illustrious Legates of His Royal Majesty
Who Presided over this Disputation
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 hap-
pening 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 igno-
rant 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 ficti-
tious accounts were diligently related and false claims were eagerly lis-
tened 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 pass-
ing 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
1hoson 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.

129
130 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 mea-
sure 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 forefa-
thers, 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 supe-
rior 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 vic-
tory 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
2Isa. 28:15.
3Acts 6:8ff.
 Letter from the Royal Legates 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 follow-
ers 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 pre-
sented to you by Peter Martyr and that we confirm this to you as a testi-
monial 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 oppo-
nents.5 Farewell.

4A difficult sentence, with hoc put in error for nos: (hoc) nos nominis nostri inte-
gritate in vadimonium.…
5John Jewel acted as his secretary; see AL, 1:lxxvii ff. on the various accounts.
 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 sacra-
mentally.
[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

6Eccl. 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 Eucha-
ristiae 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, con-
cerning Martyr on formal questions before debating, and the omission of the third prop-
osition. 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.
8See introduction, p. xxviii–xxix above, for the Royal Visitors.
9Rubrics in square brackets indicate material from Anthony Marten’s English ver-

sion of 1583 (CP, app. pp. 173–250.) See introduction, p. xxviii–xxix, nn. 44– above, for
the persons named.

133
134 Disputation on the Eucharist

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, per-
sonally I consider it most fitting for this one to be held now; it is agree-
able 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 hap-
pened 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.

10Section numbers and letters are editorial insertions.

11See John Foxe, The Acts and Monuments of the Church (London: Chatto & Windus,

1875), 2:919A–924B.
12Phil. 2:2.
 First Day 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 enmi-
ties 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 acci-
dent [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, sen-
sual, 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 wor-
ship. 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 excel-
lent teaching of Jesus our Lord and Savior to disputes he had with
Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians—about loving our neigh-
bor, 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 dif-
ference 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

13MSa places this preface before any other items are recorded; its marginalium has:

“Hoc oratio inserta est antequam signum” (AL, 2:iv).

14Acts 15:6ff.
136 Disputation on the Eucharist

I thought it good to speak like this about public disputations in

general. Coming nearer these debates of ours, I admit [4r] that I hesi-
tated 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 sub-
stance 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 disputa-
tion. 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.
15Acts 19:28.
16See TR, §§65–77 (p. 106–119 above) on the alternative positions of Lutherans and

Zwinglians).
17See 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.”
 First Day 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 sub-
stantial (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 writ-
ten, “corporeally and carnally.”20 My adversaries also contend [5r] that
the latter question is superfluous, for they say, “If you remove transub-
stantiation 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, Val-
entinians, 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

19These 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).
20Cf. Dugmore, The Mass, 184ff. on the difference between Cranmer and Gardiner

concerning corporaliter.
21Chedsey omits “Valentinians … heretic” (MSa; AL, 2:vi).
138 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 gath-
ered 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 under-
stood, 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 schol-
ars. 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 discus-
sions, 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 con-
22E.g.COR, fols. 261ff. (on 1 Cor. 10:17), the lectures preceding the (Treatise lec-
tures 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.
 First Day 139

science 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 con-
clusions, 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 substan-
tially 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 con-
vinced, 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, support-
ing our assertion. From them the consent of the whole world and per-
petual 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
decreed through public edicts regarding the certain truth of this sacra-

23Luke 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.
25See introduction, “The Academic Debate,” p. xxviii–xxix above, for the role of

Richard Smith, Martyr’s predecessor as regius professor, in precipitating the debate.

140 Disputation on the Eucharist

ment 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 argu-
ments 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

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, 24ff., on “eucharistic theology in the medieval west-
ern church.”
27See Chancellor Cox’s opening speech above concerning royal authority.
28MSa inserts: Prima conclusio Petri Martyri sive quaestio (ut ipse vocat) in dispu-

tationibus fore Oxonii 22, Maii Anno Domini 1549. In Eucharistia non est panis et vini
transubstantiatio in corpus et sanguis Christi (AL, 2:viii).
29Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:17–18.
 First Day 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 sub-
stance 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 signifi-
cative, but effective, active and working. Augustine said on Psalm
30Chedsey: “quinquies meminit eodem loco panis” (MSa; AL, 2:ix). Cf. [78v] (p.
262) below, where Chedsey has John 6 mentioning bread five times.
31Matt. 26:26.
142 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 inter-
pret 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 sacra-
ments.”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 objec-
tion, namely how in your view this comparison Cyprian makes
between Christ and this sacrament takes place.

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

33Chedsey omits the first two sentences, and has instead: “Ego mihi respondeo ad

secundum caput tuum, servabitur illud …” (MSa; AL, 2:x).

34Cyprian, Sermo de Coena Domini et Prima Institutione consummatis omnia sacra-

menta 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.
35Chedsey 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).
 First Day 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 par-
takers 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 Gela-
sius. 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 pro-
ceed, 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 author-
ity 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 every-
thing contains in itself the nature and truth of the things of which
36Gelasius (pope 492–96), Ep. prima and Ep. tertia (PL 59.17d, 23c).
37Chedsey adds: “et Nestorium” (MSa; AL, 2:xi).
144 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 sub-
stance 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 acci-
dents 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 sig-
nified 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 sub-
stance. 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 con-
tained 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 sacra-
ment consists of the body of Christ and of accidents, such acci-
dents 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 him-
self 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 main-

38Gratian, De consecratione, dist. II, c. 48 (PL 187.1754). Chedsey adds “id est corpus

Christi” (MSa; AL, 2:xi).

39Chedsey: “unam naturam veram tantum esse in Christo. Et eum non nisi species

[nil] corporis” (MSa; AL, 2:xi).

 First Day 145

tain, 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 per-
fect. But how I consider the true body of Christ to be in the sacra-
ment will be explained later, when I come to the second question.
Now from the witnesses brought forward, we have effectively con-
cluded 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 Ortho-
dox 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 human-
ity and divinity remain whole, the substance of bread in the sacra-
ment does not go away.

40Theodoret 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.
41Chedsey: “in tertio” (MSa; AL, 2:xii).
42Dialogus II (Inconfusus) 126 (PG 83.167). See TR, §30, for the extended quota-

tion.
146 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 Chalce-
don, the eighth action.44 The testimony of a heretic deserves no
authority in such a great matter.
Martyr45: 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 spe-
cial 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 pro-
ceeded 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 slan-

43Martyr adds: “Igitur non habet locum transubstantiatio” (MSb; AL, 2:xiii).
44Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 758–828), theologian and histo-

rian; see MAN, 6:643ff. 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).

46E.g. Theodoret, Ep. LXXXIII, CL (PG 83.1266 ff., 1414).
 First Day 147

dered him. But as we have said, at length they were all reconciled
among themselves. In this eighth action of the synod of Chalce-
don 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 Chry-
sostom 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
47John Bessarion (1403–72), spokesman for the Greek Church at the Council of
Ferrara-Florence (1438–39) on the filioque clause. See MAN, 31A, 911ff. Cf. C. Singer, “The
Council of Florence and Its Consequences for the Patristic Revival,” RCF, 488 ff.
48Prov. 27:2.
49See “Response and Critique” (introduction, p. xxx ff. above) regarding the sig-

nificance of this work which Martyr brought to England, introducing it to Cranmer. Cf.
TR, p. 64 n. 169 above.
148 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 Ori-
gen, who supports me. Writing on the fifteenth chapter of Mat-
thew, 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 mate-
rial 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

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

53Chrysostom, De Poenit. IX (PG 49.345).
54Chedsey adds Augustine (MSa; AL, 2:xv).
55Jewel’s original notes omit this sentence (MSb: AL, 2:xv).
 First Day 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 mir-
acles. 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 acknowl-
edges 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

56 Irenaeus, Contra Haereses IV.17.5 (PG 7.1023). Chedsey cites “libro secundo,
capite tricesimo secundo” (MSa; AL, 2:xiv).
57Irenaeus, 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 argu-
mentandi per similitudinem debissimus est” (MSa; AL, 2:xvi).
150 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 sim-
ile.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 spir-
itual, for Cyprian says: “Truly the union of ours and his does not
mingle the persons, nor unite the substances, but relates the affec-
tions 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 transforma-
tion 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 Ire-
naeus, that there is a similar change in both. I infer that the sub-
stance 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 heav-
enly. 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

58MSa adds: Et feste Aristotele, vadus argumentandi per similitudinem debissis-

mus est (AL, 2:xvi).
59Cyprian, Sermo de Coena fol. 445. See p. 142 n. 34 above.
602 Cor. 3:18.
61Chedsey: “argumentum meum” (MSa; AL, 2:xvii).
 First Day 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 nourish-
ment, yet food is converted through natural digestion into some-
thing 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 incor-
ruptible 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 argu-
ment taken from a simile is not valid.
Martyr: You answer just as absurdly when you take something as con-
sisting 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 con-
sists 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

62CP 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 elemen-
tam. Ad aliud dico argumentum in simili invalidum esse” (MSa; AL, 2:xvii).
64in actu, in potentia; see Aristotle, Meta IX.6.1048a25ff.
152 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 sub-
stance, 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 argu-
ment 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 Eucha-
rist, 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 ques-
tion 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 There-
fore 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
65John 17:11.
66Hilary, 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 Trini-
tate” (MSa; AL, 2:xviii).
67Chedsey 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.
68Hilary, De Trin. VIII.25–26 (PL 10.254–55).
 First Day 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 Vir-
gin. 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 suffi-
ciently, 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 Augus-
tine told Vincent the Donatist.74 An argument derived from any-
thing 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 alle-
gorically, for it was called into question at that time, the contro-
versy being whether the bread of the Eucharist should be leavened

69See TR, §78 above.

70See 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), 176ff., “Redundatio ad corpus.”
71CP has “bread.”
72Gregory, Register VIII.1 (PL 148.573).
731 Cor. 5:8.
74Augustine, Ep. XCIII.3 (PL 33.325–26).
75Chedsey: “Aliter dici potest quam loquitur Gregorius de materia panis quae ante

consecrationem extitit” (MSa; AL, 2:xix).

154 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 contro-
versy; 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 sac-
rament 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 sac-
rament, you shift from those matters through a trope taken from
their former nature. It leads me to argue with you as follows: Tran-
substantiation 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
76Chedsey adds: “Hoc etiam vidi [sic] Scotus” (MSa; AL, 2:xx).
77Chedsey: “Redeo ad primum argumentum” (MSa; AL, 2:xx).
 First Day 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 acci-
dents? 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 propo-
sition 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 Epi-
phanius 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 with-
out 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

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

79Epiphanius, Ancoratus LVII (60) (PG 43.118). Cf. fol. 27v (p. 175) below.
80servator; MSb has “salvator” (AL, 2:xxi).
81Hoc meum est, et hoc, et hoc; Epiphanius has: Hoc meum est hoc.
156 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 incompre-
hensible, 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 speak-
ing.
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 mean-

82See A. Rabil Jr., Erasmus and the New Testament (San Antonio: Trinity University
Press, 1972), 42ff., 104ff., 115ff., 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, 537ff.
83Sentence omitted from MSa (AL, 2:xxi).
84Sentence omitted from MSa (AL, 2:xxi).
85verbum Dei; MSa has “Sacramentum” (AL, 2:xxi).
 First Day 157

ing of sayings must be taken from the causes of the sayings, because
the substance is not subject to speech, but speech to the sub-
stance.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 never-
theless 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 Scrip-
ture 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

86non sermoni res, sed rei est sermo subjectus: Hilary, De Trin. 4.14 (PL 10.107).
87Matt. 26:26.
882 Pet. 1:20.
89MSb omits the rest of this sentence (AL, 2:xxii).
158 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 faith-
ful, 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 Evan-
gelists 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 divin-
ity 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
90MSb: “authoritas” (AL, 2:xxii).
91John 6:51.
92The remainder of this speech is omitted from MSa (AL, 2:xxiii).
 First Day 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

93Chrysostom, In Epist. I Cor., Hom. XXVII.4 (PG 61.230): sicut enim in pane et in
calice dixit Christus.
94Sentence omitted from CP.
95Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Ev. XII (on 21:13) (PG 74.747).
96MSa: “Contra: tu tergiversaris in termino idcirco dici panem quod ante fuerit

panis” (AL, 2:xxiv).

97Chrysostom, In Matt., Hom. 82 (al. 83) 1 (PG 58.739).
98MSa inserts: “Non nego mutari a ligno modo in pane in sacramento, sed panem

non manere, nego” (AL, 2:xxiv).

160 Disputation on the Eucharist

bread is changed, yet into a sacrament; but I deny that the sub-
stance of bread is removed, nor will you ever show it from Chrysos-
tom. 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 acci-
dents. 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 effec-
tive, 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 signi-
fied 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 some-
times 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

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

100Ambrose, 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).

101Augustine, In Joann., Tract. 26.12 (PL 35.1612).
102Augustine, 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.
 First Day 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 dif-
ferent places at once, for the holy Scriptures teach the opposite,
that after the ascension Christ was with his apostles even accord-
ing 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.
104Mark 16:19; Matt. 26:11.
105John 16:28; Mark 13:21.
106Acts 3:21; Col. 3:1.
107For a detailed discussion of the ubiquity of the body of Christ, see DIAL, Mar-
tyr’s 1561 reply to the position of John Brenz.
108Chedsey: “Primum nego minorem…” (MSa; AL, 2:xxv).
1091 Cor. 9:1; 15:8.
110Acts 9:4–5, 17, 27.
162 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 perse-
cute 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 sub-
111Chedsey inserts: “Contra negas minorem, sed nondum satisfecisti argumento.
Et dicis quod corpus Christi potest esse in diversis locis” (MSa; AL, 2:xxv).
112Acts 9:4. Augustine, En. in Pss. 54 (55) (PL 36.629). See TR §73 (p. 114) above.
1132 Cor. 12.
114The problem of space posed by the doctrine of Ascension remained in conten-

tion between Martyr and Bucer also; see VWG, 275ff.

115E.g. caeli nidos, Matt. 8:20 (Vulg.).
 First Day 163

ject, let us consider his letter to Dardanus, where he wrote concern-

ing 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. There-
fore 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 differ-
ent 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 con-
cerning the soul or mind of Christ, but urges Dardanus not to

116Augustine, Ep. ad Dard. (PL 35.839): “Take away from bodies the space of their

location and they will be nowhere”; see DIAL 14n30.

117Augustine, En. in Pss. 54 (55) vs. Donatists (PL 36.628 ff.).
118Luke 4:30; 9:29. Cf. n. 210 below.
164 Disputation on the Eucharist

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, some-
thing 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 oppo-
sition of terms (as you put it); you merely say it.
Tresham: There is no difficulty here in terms of objects; for Paul distin-
guishes 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, chap-
ter 20: “Because it will serve the spirit by a great and wonderful
119Duns Scotus, Opera Omnia XVIII (Civ. Vat., 1982) 166ff.: Sent. II, lect. II, dist. 2,

pars 2, Qu. 2: Quomodo Angelus est in Loco.

120That God cannot do things that imply logical contradiction: see TR, §60 (p. 98)

above, and “Resurrection,” PW §19, p. 64.

1211 Cor. 15:46.
122MSb: “in” (AL, 2:xxvii).
123Augustine, Ep. CCV, I.9 (PL 33.946): animale … animatibus … spirituale … cum

spiritu.
 First Day 165

readiness to obey, so that it fulfils by the most secure will an indis-

soluble 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 cir-
cumscribed, 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 argu-
ment, 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 attrib-
uted 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 some-
thing 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 mystical125
body of the church, that mystical 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.

124De civ. Dei XIII, 20 (PL 41.393); cf. TR §62 (p. 102) above.
125MSb 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).

166 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 every-
where. 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

127John 20:21.
 First Day 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 par-
ticular 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 the

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

129Didymus, De spiritu sancto 6 (PG 39.1037–38).
130Ps. 139:7.
131Haggai 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.

168 Disputation on the Eucharist

Holy Spirit, because he may be found at one time in various differ-

ent 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 ever ywhere,
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 every-
where 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.

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

134MSbreplaces these two sentences with: TRESHAMUS. Imo Christus est Deus.
MARTYR. Sed Corpus eius non est deitas, imo natura. TRESHAMUS. Iesus… (AL, 2:xxix).
135MSb omits “omnipotens, aut” (AL, 2:xxx).
 First Day 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 circum-
scribed. 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 sep-
ulchre 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 quan-
tity, 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 dili-
gently, when he did not exclude divinity itself from having a place
and being circumscribed, if it had quantity. As to what you answer

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 dia-
logo secunda pagina, vicesimo quarta vel 263 de Trinitate” (AL, 2:xxx).
137 Major: no earthly body can be everywhere; minor: Christ’s body is circum-

scribed; therefore it cannot be everywhere, QED.

138MSb omits this sentence (AL, 2:xxx).
170 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 some-
thing 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 else-
where.142 So I return to the argument, it is a firm conclusion: this
thing is in many places; therefore it is God.
139See 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).
140Cf. 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 neces-
sitate, sed per eius voluntate.” (AL, 2:xxxi).
142The argument seems mixed here, as Martyr joins angelic with creaturely prop-

erties; elsewhere he clearly teaches the ubiquity of angels—see LC I.13.3ff.

 First Day 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 crea-
ture, 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
Basil 143 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 circum-
scribed. 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

143MSa: “Basilius vicesimo secundo capiti, de Spiritu Sancto,” but omits Didymus
(AL, 2:xxxii).
144MSb adds: “finis primae actionis. Tô Theô doxa” (AL, 2:xxxii).
172 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 ques-
tions are proposed, and some reasons for my opinion. Therefore to pro-
ceed with our intention, I would have you show your judgment on the
questions; I am sure that whatever you say will be impartial and mod-
est. 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 wis-
dom, that you will so direct our words that we do not fall into absurdi-
ties, 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]
145 John 6:63. Cf. Augustine: “Believe, and you will understand”; In Joann. Ev.,

Tract. XXVII.9 (PL 35.1619).

 Second Day 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, deliv-
ered 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) tran-
substantiated, 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 sub-
ject 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

146John 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.
147Matt. 26:26.
148John 16:12; 6:51.
174 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 fol-
lows: 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; there-
fore 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
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.
150Chedsey numbers his arguments, primo to octavo (MSa; AL, 2:xxxv ff.).
151MSa: “id est, sub specie panis et vini visibili; latenter et ineffabiliter infunditur

divina essentia” (AL, 2:xxxiv).

152Reading “27” for “72.”
153Chedsey 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).
 Second Day 175

the taste of bread, it has 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 tes-
tify, 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 sub-
stance 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 him-
self 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 with-
out 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 Ire-
naeus, you say, calls it bread in book 4 chapter 32; and before consecra-
tion it is indeed true bread. But when the Word comes the body of
Christ is made from this matter, so that creatureliness precedes conse-
154Augustine, Ep. ad Dard. III.10 (PL 33.835).
155MSa inserts: “Quam ergo Eucharistia constat ex pane et vino, et corpore Christi

addent hoc vere manere” (AL, 2:xxxv).

156See TR, §43 above.
157Origen, In Matt., Comm. Series 85 (PG 13.1734–35); cf. TR §80.
158Cyprian, 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.”
176 Disputation on the Eucharist

cration. When he said that the cup, which belongs to creatures like
ourselves, is confessed to be his blood, he showed that by the wonder-
ful 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 Epipha-
nius. 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 transubstanti-
ated 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
159Cf. TR, §31 (p. 61) above.
160Epiphanius, Ancoratus LVII (60) (PG 43.118); see fol. 15v (pp. 154ff.) above.
 Second Day 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 per-
suaded 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 “agree-
ment” [convenientiam].161 Augustine On instructing the unlearned
wishes a sacrament to have a likeness to the thing. He says this in
the letter to Boniface, where on account of this likeness, he gives
the sacraments the names of the things.162 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 acci-
161Cicero, 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).

163Chedsey adds: “Quid itaque Eucharistia habeat pro re corpus Christi, et corpus

mysticum, vos si detrahitis panem et vinum quo nutrintur corpus subtrahitites analo-
giam Chrysostomus habet: Quemadmodum corpus pane et vino alitur ita pascitur
animae corpore Christi” (MSa; AL, 2:xxxvii).
164Major: 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).
178 Disputation on the Eucharist

dents, 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 fin-
ished, 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 sacra-
ment, 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 fit-
ting 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 acci-
dents, 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 acci-
dents 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

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

 Second Day 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 sacra-
ments 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 nour-
ishes us is what comes from the substance of bread, not from acci-
dents. 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 sacra-
ment 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 tran-
substantiation, we would not be sustained or nourished by any-
thing. 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

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

180 Disputation on the Eucharist

the Eucharist: I say it is empty. For these heretics (as you call them)
were all future Fathers, who say that bread remains there. Further-
more, 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 diges-
tion we could not live. Of course some portion is expelled as excre-
ment, 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 acci-
dents. 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

167The 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).
168MSa: “primam” (AL, 2:xl).
 Second Day 181

made from the element when the Word is added.

Martyr: This says nothing, because you have not yet shown that the Lat-
eran Council drew its decrees from the Word of God. I have already
objected often to this, [31r] that the element must remain necessar-
ily if it will become a sacrament. As for taking account of our weak-
ness, 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 ele-
ment and it is made a sacrament”; yet he does not say that the ele-
ment 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 com-
pounded of both, different from either the word or the element.
Martyr: A sacrament is the sign of something holy,170 and this is consis-
tent with an element, to be a sign. Everyone admits that sacra-
ments 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 [signifi-
candi 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 sac-
raments. 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;
169MSa includes two short speeches to the same effect (AL, 2:xl).
170MSa inserts: “Ut in Baptismo manet aqua, ita in Eucharistia manet panis. Ex

aliquo certo fit, ex re scilione et signo” (AL, 2:xli).

182 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 con-
strains 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 per-
suade 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 power 174 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 pre-
vent 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 acci-
dents without a subject. [32r] I thought the same thing might be
done, that bread as well as accidents might remain in the sacra-
ment, 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

1711 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27.

172MSb: isto sacramento (AL, 2:xli).
173Matt. 4:4.
174MSa: Dei agitur…factum (AL, 2:xlii).
 Second Day 183

bread to disappear. Hence it does not yet appear that you are com-
pelled 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
175 Matt. 26:26; John 6:51.
176MSa: “Cheadzeus. ‘Hoc est corpus meum,’ refertur ad ‘utrunque.’ Et est dissolu-

tum argumentum.” The following speech of Martyr is phrased differently (AL, 2:xliii).
184 Disputation on the Eucharist

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) signif-
icative, 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 apos-
tle 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 count-
less 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
1771 Cor. 10:4; John 6:70; Gen. 17:10.
178Matt. 11:14; John 20:22, 15:1.
179Gen. 37:27.
180Eph. 2:14; 1 Cor. 12:27.
181Rom. 9:33.
182Rom. 1:16; Pss 110:7, 119:86, and 142.
1831 Cor. 1:18.
184Gen. 41:26; 1 Kgs. 11:30.
1851 Cor. 11:11.
186Lev. 6:26.
187I Cor. 5:7.
 Second Day 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 every-
thing 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 sacra-
ment, 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 eat-
ing. 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 testa-

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

189MSa: Adducimus duplici ratione ad statuendum tropum (AL, 2:xliv).
190I Cor. 11:24ff.
191Cf. Aristotle, An. Post. II.1, 89b34; see n. 18 above.
186 Disputation on the Eucharist

ment,” 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 sac-
rament, 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 signi-
fied 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 pres-
ence 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,

192John 6:62–63
193MSa: usque ad abominationem desolationis (AL, 2:xliv).
194MSa 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).
 Second Day 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, figura-
tively. 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 con-
sists 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 after-
ward 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.

1951 Cor. 10:17.

188 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 testa-
ment?” 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 acknowl-
edge 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 Adi-
mantus the Manichean: “He did not hesitate to say, ‘This is my
body,’ when he gave a figure of his body.”198 Jerome says with Ter-
tullian that Christ represented his body. Such testimonies are innu-
merable, 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 mat-
ter, to say it is a figure of the body of Christ and therefore it is not
the body of Christ, does not follow.
196The contrast is between terms functioning either figuratively (tropice) or simply,

absolutely (simpliciter).
197Tertullian, Adv. Marcion IV, 40 (PL 2.491); cf. TR, §23, 40.
198Augustine, En. in Ps. 3, 1 (PL 36.73); Contra Adim. 1.12.1 (PL 42.143–44).
199MSa omits Augustine: Marcion haereticus in causa erat Tertullianus sic verba

hic interpretatur (AL, 2:xlvi).

200Heb. 1:3.
 Second Day 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 rep-
resentation. 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 per-
son, 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 fig-
ured are one; for between persons there is (as they term it) a real dis-
tinction.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

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

202Heb. 1:1.
203tês hypostasês auton (Heb. 1:3): MSa omits the Greek text (AL, 2:xlvii).
204The Nicene-Constantinopolitan theology of the Trinity held “three persons in
one substance,” distinguishing among the three without ontological separation.
205John 3:13.
190 Disputation on the Eucharist

would not have crucified the Lord of glory.”206 Therefore accord-

ing 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 Tertul-
lian 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 sac-
rament 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 divin-

2061 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.
 Second Day 191

ity 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 conse-
quent; 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 Tertul-
lian, 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 dis-
agree 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 sacra-
ment 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 Tertul-
lian’s words. It is inconsistent of you to propose that the conclu-
sion 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 appear-
ance 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
208MSb: Tolle divinitatem a Christo, et aeque reliquis hominibus conveniet atque

Christo…(AL, 2:xlviii).
192 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 sac-
rament; 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 some-
thing 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 substan-
tially 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,
209MSa puts it more starkly: Nunc autem docebo sacramentum signum esse absen-

tis rei (AL, 2:xlviii).

210Ambrose, 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).

212This is one statement of Martyr’s that would have upset Bucer; see, “Response

and Critique” (introduction, p. xxx ff.) above

 Second Day 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 contra-
dicted 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

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

214MSa omits the proper name (AL, 2:xlix).
215Deut. 12:22–23; Matt. 10:28.
216Deut. 12:23.
194 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 con-
clude, that in this sacrament the sign is not the signified, nor the
figure the thing figured; which nevertheless you argued so ear-
nestly 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.
 Second Day 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 disci-
ples, 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
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).
218Augustine, En. in Ps. 98:5, 9 (PL 37.1265).
219In 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.”
196 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 intro-
duced: “you will not eat this body which you see.” Let us under-
stand 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 sub-
stance. 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 some-
thing 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 qual-
ity; 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

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

 Second Day 197

said, “not this body which you see [40v] will you eat, O Caper-
naites,” 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 lib-
erty 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 dif-
ferent, and quite unlike, to be bound within a place, and also to be
everywhere; for the word is everywhere, but its flesh is not every-
where.”222 So you see that this most learned Father denies that it
can agree with one nature to be circumscribed and not circum-
scribed. Accordingly, he wants one of them attributed to the divin-
ity 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 lim-
its. To be within and without limit, like being passible and impassi-
ble, 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

222Vigilius Tapsensis, Lib. ad Eut. 4 (PL 62.98–99); see TR §74 and DIAL 161.
223MSa adds: sicut fatebatur Eutyches, sed rationem specierum sub quibus conti-

nentur corpus Christi (AL, 2:liii).

198 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 impossi-
ble for one and the same nature to sustain contrary things at one
time. Nor does it help when you say that when contraries are abso-
lute 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.

224See Aristotle on “nature,” Meta. V.5, 1014b30ff.

225MSa adds: In sacramento cum non habeat corpus quodtum, id est per modum

quanti, nihil repugnat in multis esse locis (AL, 2:liv).

226organicum: Martyr adopts Aristotle’s thesis that the body is the instrument of

the soul; see “The Image of God,” PW, 37ff.

 Second Day 199

Chedsey: I deny the argument.

Martyr: Where then do you place the true body of Christ with his quan-
tity?
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 instru-
ments, 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 sacra-
ment, 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.
227Reading 42 for 38.
228Luke 24:39.
200 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 neces-
sary 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; there-
fore if I offend by changing the times, you also offend in your argu-
ment 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, cir-
cumscribed by quantity and within a place, but that in the sacra-
ment 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 pos-
sible 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 defi-
nite, 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.
 Second Day 201

Martyr: I would not be counted so ignorant as not to know the predica-

bles.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.

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 transub-
stantiation 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 Augus-
tine says: “This is to eat Christ, to have Christ dwelling in one.”234
Therefore it seems that since the wicked do not have Christ dwell-

229Aristotle’s predicables or predicates: essence (substance), quantity, quality, rela-

tion, place, time, position, state, activity, passivity: Topics I.9, 103b20 ff.
230Nicholas Cartwright, Master of the Hospital of St. John, near Banbury, a sup-

porter 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).
231Isa. 63:3.
232Major: if A then B; minor: but not-B; therefore not-A (QED).
233John 6:56.
234Augustine, In Joann. Ev., Tract. XXVI.6.18 (PL 35.1614).
202 Disputation on the Eucharist

ing 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

2351 Cor. 11:29; corrected from “2” in ERR, 43v.

236John 9:2.
237Reading 44 for 40.
238MSa adds a question put by Martyr: Et hoc in signis evidentissime demonstrat?

(AL, 2:lvii).
 Second Day 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 expe-
dient 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. There-
fore, 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 peo-
ple. 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

239John 16:7.
240Name omitted from original.
241John 1:32.
242CP omits Chedsey’s statement, and adds the second part to Cartwright’s.
243Stated in both MSS (AL, 2:lviii).
204 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 frus-
trate 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 spir-
itual 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 sym-
bol. 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 incorpo-
ration.” 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, Augus-

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

 Second Day 205

tine 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, ‘Who-
ever 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 sacra-
mentally 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 pre-
pare 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 spiri-
tual 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.” Likewise, “Whoever calls upon the name
of the Lord, shall be saved.”250 We should always add: if he perse-
veres. 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 writ-
ings 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

2451 Cor. 6:15.

246John 6:56.
247Augustine, De civitate Dei 21.25, 2, 4 (PL 41.741–42).
248Augustine, In Joann. Ev., Tract. XXVI.19 (PL 35.1615).
249Matt. 25:12.
250Mark 16:16; Acts 2:21.
206 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 salva-
tion 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 con-
verted 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 spiritu-
ally eat his flesh or drink his blood, even though carnally and visi-
bly 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.

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

252Matt. 7:22; Luke 13:26.
253Augustine, Ep. 98.9 (PL 33.303–4).
254Augustine, In Joann. Ev., Tract. XXVI.15 (PL 35.1614).
 Second Day 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

255MSa concludes: Cheadzeus. Sed necessario colliguntur ex patribus, et ex colla-

tione locorum necessario oriuntur. / Hic iubebant visitatores Regii, finem esse disputa-
tionem huius diei (AL, 2:lx).
208 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 hap-
pened 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

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

257Philip Morgan, Principal of St. Mary’s Hall; see introduction, p. xxix n.
above.
258In the most striking and the lengthiest difference from Martyr’s MS, Chedsey
(MSa) includes a lengthy exchange among the bishop of Lincoln, Chancellor Cox, Mor-
gan, and Martyr. Morgan fares badly; twice his attempts to mount arguments are dis-
puted 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 transubstan-
tiantur, ergo neque nostra. Istud argumentum est viciosum, et multis imposturis reple-
tum. 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).
 Third Day 209

may embrace it; having obtained it may teach it with purity. There-
fore guide us in debate by the rule of your Holy Spirit, so that in dis-
cussing 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 at 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 lin-
gered 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 pres-
ence 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

259For 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).

261MSb omits “de praesentia Christi” (AL, 2:lxiv).
210 Disputation on the Eucharist

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, Scrip-
ture 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 pas-
sage is obscure on this point. Many things declare that there is a fig-
urative 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 speak-
ing 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 sacri-
fice [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
262ut quendam iuvenem Anglum ego novi. Perhaps Joachim Vadian, whom Cran-

mer 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.
263Augustine, De Consensu Evangelistarum III.1.2 (PL 34.1158).
264Matt. 26:26; 1 Cor. 10:16, 11:26.
2651 Cor. 11:25.
 Third Day 211

heaven, and from thence will come to judge the world. If you com-
pare 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. Cath-
olics see them and read them, and disagree with them both. And
the Scriptures seem to be so ambiguous, that unless they are clari-
fied 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 direc-
tions 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 salva-
tion. When they are brought forth and read simply they fulfil 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 Scrip-
tures.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 func-
266MSa inserts: Omnes secte commemorate videbant istas scripturas et inter se
conferebant…(AL, 2:lxv).
2672 Tim. 3:16.
268MSb expands this speech, e.g.: idem dico de Apollinaxi Nestoreo, et Euthycho

ac pestibus huius generi…(AL, 2:lxv).

269In particular, Martin Luther (1483–1546) and Huldrych Zwingli (1484–1531).

See TR, §§ 66–75, and 76–77 for Martyr’s evaluation of each.

212 Disputation on the Eucharist

tion 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 every-
thing 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

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

271The 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 conse-
crate, familiar in Eastern liturgies, was espoused by the Reformed in turn. See VWG 31ff.
272Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24.
 Third Day 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; there-
fore 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 under-
stand 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
273MSa adds: Dic in quibus verbis consecratio sacramenti collocatur? (AL, 2:lxvi).
274MSa expands this speech with reference to ministerial blessing (AL, 2:lxvii).
214 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 grammat-
ical 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
275MSa records a longer speech: Erat panis communis antequam verba prefereban-

tur, sed post consummatum verborum prolationis erat symbolum ac sacramentum (AL,
2:lxviii).
276MSa expands: Christus itaque non consecravit priusquam nam verba ad actio-

nis pertinenta pronuntiabantur…(AL, 2:lxviii).

277A figure of speech in which the order of words or phrases is inverted (Aristotle,

Meta. V.11, 1018b8ff.).

 Third Day 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 grammati-
cal 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

278MSb gives the Greek; MSa transliterates: Est hysteron proteron, sed in figura
quae…(AL, 2:lxviii).
279MSb: 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).
281MSa 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).
283Theophylact, En. in Ev. Joann. III.547 (PG 123.1218).
216 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 exam-
ple, in Theophylact you have: “For it is not only a figure and exem-
plar,” 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 Boni-
face 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 invoca-
tion 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

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

285Theophylact, 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).
287See TR §§43f above, and VWG 267ff., “Peter Martyr’s Patristic Sources.”
 Third Day 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 Theo-
phylact 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 sym-
bols 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

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

289Theophylact, En. in Ev. Matt. XXVI.146 (PG 123.443).
290Theophylact, En. in Ev. Marci XIV.250 (PG 123.651). MSa enlarges the quota-

tion: Et Dominus dicit ‘Panem quem ego dabo, caro mea est.’ (Non dicit ‘figura est carnis
mea,’ sed ‘caro mea est’)…(AL, 2:lxx).
291MSb omits “et gratiam” (AL, 2:lxxi).
218 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 sig-
nify 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 sac-
ramental 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 under-
stood. Nevertheless, since you urge so keenly that Christ did not
say it was a figure, no more did he say that the accidents are sepa-
rated 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 sub-

292MSa expands this speech: Responde mihi, vir doctissime. Quod si scriptura ipsa

recipe velit transubstantiationis …. (AL, 2:lxxi).

293Theophylact, En. in Ev. Matt. XXVI.146 (PG 123.443).
294Augustine, Ep. ad Bonif. 98, 9 (PL 33.303–4). MSa adds a reference to Augustine’s

ad Vicentium (AL, 2:lxxii).

 Third Day 219

stance.295 And the fear that we will shrink from raw flesh is taken
away by establishing the substance of bread and a sacramental sig-
nification. 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 transubstantia-
tion.
Morgan: But since in the 6th chapter of John the body of Christ is figu-
ratively 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,
295Cf. Aristotle’s lexicon on “substance,” with “quality” as its modification: Meta.
V.8,14.
296Cf. TR, Preface, on the “hyperbolae patrum,” p. 16 above.
2971 Cor. 10:16; 11:27.
298MSb adds: et ab Evangelistis (AL, 2:lxxiii).
299MSa differs: Dicis scripturam si recipisset transubstantiationis, nunquam men-
tionis futuram panis…(AL, 2:lxxii–lxxiii).
300Mt. 26:29.
220 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 natu-
ral 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 con-
sists of many grains.302
Morgan303::Why can’t it be taken metaphorically here too?
Martyr304:Because, as I have already said twice, properties are spoken of
here, namely breaking and eating, that do not agree with bread under-
stood 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 met-
aphorical, relating to the body of Christ which we receive by faith.

3011 Cor. 10:16.

302E.g. Chrysostom, 1 Cor., Hom. XXIV, 2 (PG 61.200). Cf. TR §11 [7] (p. 36 above).
303MSa expands considerably: Probo corpus Christi fractum fuisse. Nam fractio

carnis non est aliud quam dissolutio continuitatis in carne…(AL, 2:lxxiii).

304MSa: Respondeo: Christus dicit ‘panem de coelo’ per metaphoram, sed non dic-

itur ‘panis quem frangimus’ per metaphoram…(AL, 2:lxxiii).

 Third Day 221

I am astonished that you take what agrees properly with the sacra-
ment, 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 bro-
ken, 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 con-
struct 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 cruci-
fixion. But you should ponder what Paul says, “The bread which we
break,” where it is not proper to understand that we ourselves cru-
cify 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
305MSb omits the second sentence. MSa expands: Ergo corpus Christi, et ‘panis

quem frangimus’ bene consentiunt in scripturis…(AL, 2:lxxiv).

222 Disputation on the Eucharist

“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 corre-
spondence that obtains between “to eat” and “to receive by faith”
holds between “to break” and “to look” or “to know Christ’s suffer-
ing 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 suf-
ferings 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 meta-
phor because if we follow your mind, one says that “to break” signi-
fies “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

306MSa adds: Nego corpus Christi per metaphoram posse frangi (A: L II.lxxiv).
307MSa 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.
309MSb omits the first two sentences. MSa: lingua Britannica in obscurioribus dis-

ciplinarum locis discutiendis retinet haec metaphoram. At hoc grammaticae unus est dif-
ferere quae sit lex metaphorae…(AL, 2:lxxv).
 Third Day 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 bro-
ken, 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 meta-
phor, 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 perpetu-
ally 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
310MSb omits “Anglicana” (AL, 2:lxxv).
311MSb omits this rubric; MSa has: Tum Cancellarius praecepit Morgano silen-

tium. Et Doctor Treshamus in disputationis sua ingressus est. Ut sequitur: (AL, 2:lxxvi).
224 Disputation on the Eucharist

the 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 fol-
lows: 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 real-
ity 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

312Cyprian, 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.…
313Erasmus, Divi Caec. Cypriani, fol. 445.
314Erasmus 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 inter-
pretation 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 exposi-
tione liber, Strasbourg 1525.
 Third Day 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 estab-
lishes 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 sac-
rament of Christ’s body, [56v] even a sacrament of the mystical
body, which it was not previously. Therefore this change is attrib-
uted 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

315MSa 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).
316Erasmus, D. Aur. Augustinini … (Basel: Froben, 1569), tom. III, fol. 289; see TR,

§26, p. 165 124 above.

226 Disputation on the Eucharist

[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 genera-
tion matter remains; in alteration, what is composed; in augmenta-
tion, 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:319Now is Cyprian not Cyprian but Peter; there is no need of
omnipotence, that we should bring to the bread something inten-
tional, 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 sacra-
mental conversion. Therefore in this way we agree that bread is

317MSa 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).
318See Aristotle on substance in Meta. VII, esp. 7, 1032a12ff.
319 MSa inserts: Quod tu hic asseris in generationem manere id quod ante fuit

falsum esse palam est …(AL, 2:lxxviii).

320MSa adds: quam tunc panis Eucharisticus si non secus quam tu [ …] mutetur

(AL, 2:lxxviii).
321Augustine, De Trinitate III.4.10 (PL 42.874).
322MSb omits the last sentence (AL, 2:lxxviii).
 Third Day 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. Chrysos-
tom 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 sacra-
ment.326 But if such hyperboles are examined in detail they can by
no means stand; hence they require an appropriate interpretation.

323MSb: substantialiter (AL, 2:lxxix).

324MSa 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).
325Chrysostom, De Poenit. IX (PG 49.435).
326MSb inserts another exchange: TRESHAMUS: Hilarius in eandem sententiam

verba facit, ambo habuere Spiritum Sanctum, ergo aliis inventus testis veritatis. MAR-
TYR: 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 hyper-
bolae, quae …(AL, 2:lxxix).
228 Disputation on the Eucharist

You may see that often he and other Fathers deny absolutely some-
thing 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 Cris-
pus, 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 commu-
nion, 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.”

327See TR §4 (p. 26 above).

328Eph. 6:12; Gal. 5:17.
329Gal. 3:28.
3301 Cor. 1:14–16.
 Third Day 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 under-
stood according to the words, unless you wish to remove or tran-
substantiate 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 doc-
trine 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 our-
selves 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

331MSa records a lengthy speech: Domine Petre, scripturas quasdem citando et

easdem interpretando. Ut ad tu institutum accomodaces…(AL, 2:lxxxi).

3321 Cor. 15:15.
333See p. 153 n. 70 above.
230 Disputation on the Eucharist

(esteem, think, and consider). But your distinction of these things

into doctrine and morals does not appear from the order of Chry-
sostom’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 doc-
trine.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 some-
one 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 Chrysos-
tom? 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 under-
stands 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 rea-
son.”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.

334MSa is more expansive: Ubi etiam fluere sanguinem e latere Christi affirmat,
non ex calice…(AL, 2:lxxxi).
335Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Ev. IV, 365 (PG 73.583); cf. TR, §48.
336Cyril, In Joannis Ev. X.2 (PG 74.342).
337On 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.
338Chrysostom, In Matt., Hom. 82 (al. 83), 4: Credamus itaque ubique deo; Chry-

sostom has: Deo igitur ubique obsequamur…“let us submit to God in everything” (PG
58.743).
 Third Day 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 occa-
sionally 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 under-
stand 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 after-

339Chrysostom, 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).

341Chrysostom, In Matt., Hom. 82 (al. 83), 4 (PG 58.743).
232 Disputation on the Eucharist

wards 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 figura-
tive.
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 doc-
trine 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 cor-
rectly, 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
342intelligibilia; MSb: intelligenda (AL, 2:lxxxiii); CP has “sensible things which

are delivered to all.”

343MSb omits Martyr’s previous speech and Tresham’s to this point (AL, 2:lxxxiii).
344Tommaso 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; refer-
ence supplied by F. A. James III).
345Morgan’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).
 Third Day 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 quantita-
tive 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:346That 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
passion 349 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

346MSa inserts: Satis erit in quo patres e principiis istis quibus tu [initeris?] nun-
quam aliquod statuisset contra transubstantiationem …[AL, 2:lxxxv).
347MSa has “Homil. 66” (AL, 2:lxxxv).
348Acts 10:41.
349MSa omits “ante passionem” (AL, 2:lxxxv).
350Chrysostom, In Johannem, Hom. 87 (al. 86), 1 (PG 59.474).
351MSa 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).
234 Disputation on the Eucharist

was in various places at once. As to its mass, I answer that the glori-
fied 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 under-
stand 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 quan-
tity 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 mea-
sure; 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:353To 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. Fur-
ther, 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
352agile et leve: on the qualities of glorified bodies see “Resurrection” §§56ff. (PW,

107ff.).
353Name omitted in original.
 Third Day 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 Vir-
gin’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 Vir-
gin’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

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).
236 Disputation on the Eucharist

number 159, entitled Dominica in octava pascha, sermon 3 ad compe-

tentes: “It is a miracle that our Lord Jesus Christ came to his disci-
ples 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 won-
der, 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.

355Erasmus, 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 Univer-
sity Library, Scholars’ Facsimiles & Reprints, 1975), fol. cxciiB; GAN, 409: In Novum Testa-
mentum Annotationes (Basel: Froben, 1540).
356Augustine, Sermo CCVI (Ad competentes) (PL 38.1076ff.).
357Augustine, Sermo CCXLVII, 2 (PL 38.1157). MSa adds material from sermon 156

(AL, 2:lxxxvii).
 Third Day 237

Martyr:358Before 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 dis-
tinction 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 fol-
lows 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 mira-
358MSa 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 ingres-
sum (AL, 2:lxxxviii).
359CP has “quality.”
360MSa includes an additional exchange: Martyr: Subduxit fateor Christus de cor-

pore suo omnis quantitatem quae eius ingressum per clausas ianuas impedibat. Morga-
nus: Accipio quo dicis …(AL, 2:lxxxviii).
238 Disputation on the Eucharist

cle 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 resur-
rection: ‘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 disci-
ples 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

361Acts 5:19; an angel opened the prison to release the apostles.

362Luke 24:39.
 Third Day 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 quan-
tity 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 remem-
bered that Christ said, “Handle and see,” etc. But who does not
know that what is handled has both quantity and measure of quan-
tity? Therefore by subtlety he understands agility, but not some-
thing 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 quan-
tity. 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 Augus-
363Augustine, De agone christiano XXIV.26 (PL 40.304).
364ad quantam vellet subtilitatem; for the quality of subtlety see “Resurrection”

§59 (PW, 110–11).

240 Disputation on the Eucharist

tine 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 pre-
sented 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

365MSa expands this reference to Augustine: Recipis Christum posse facere de cor-

pore suo quod voluerit … Deinde subtilitatem corpus per agilitatem interpretans…(AL,
2:xc).
366Ambrose, Exp. Ev. Sac. Luc X, 168–70 (PL 15.1845–46).
 Third Day 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. Sec-
ondly, 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 Scrip-
tures what [quid] answer should be given.

367affectionem esse quanti, et supponere necessario modum quantitatis. See Aris-

totle, Top. I.9, 103b20ff.; Meta. V.21, 1022b15ff.
368MSa omits this speech (AL, 2:xci).
242 Disputation on the Eucharist

(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 quan-
tity in nature, yet there is an immediate distinction between corpo-
real 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 man-
ger.”373
Martyr: I answer firstly that it does imply contradiction for there to be
an organic body perfectly equipped with members, and yet with-
out quantity. Again, what you bring out of Luke is not conclusive,
for the infant wrapped in clothes did not signify himself, but that

369MSa: 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).
370MSa: Insignissime domine Petre…(AL, 2:xcii).
371Cf. Aristotle, De Anima II.1.412a7ff.
372See p. 164 n. 120 above.
373Luke 2:10–12.
 Third Day 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 antonoma-
sia 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; there-
fore 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 princi-
ple of Christ’s will. Moreover, if you regard the conditions and

374Heb. 1:1–2.
375John 10:18.
376Isa. 53:7.
244 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 concern-
ing 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 con-
cluded 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 crea-
ture, if he should be called the son of some other God than [67v]

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).
378Paraphrase of Irenaeus, Contra Haer. V.3.2 (PG 7.1129ff.).
379Aristotle, An. Post. I.3, 72b25–26: “demonstration must be based on premisses

prior to and better known than the conclusion.”

 Third Day 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 Eucha-
rist 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 Eucha-
rist, 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 Ire-
naeus 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

380Paraphrase of Irenaeus, Contra Haer. V.2.2 (PG 7.1124–25).

246 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 spiri-
tual. 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 [intelligi-
bilia].” 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 partak-
ers 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

381For the Ad pop. Antioch. see TR, p. 26 n. 22 above. For In Joann. Hom. see Jenkyns’

“Authorities,” CRA IV.423f.

382MSa: Visitatores Regii iam satis utrinque disputatum esse consuerunt. Et ideo

hic finem imposuerunt disputationis huius diei. MSb: Finis tertiae actionis (AL, 2:xcvii).
 Fourth Day 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 mean-
ing, 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

383Gregory Nazianzen, Oratio XXIX, Theol. III.1 (PG 36.73). The quotation is given

in Greek as well as Latin.

384Perhaps Athanasius, De decretis Nic. Syn. (PG 25.415).
385I Cor. 2:14.
386I Cor. 2:4–5.
387Jerome, Ad Paulinum, Ep. 53.7 (PL 22.544).
388testimonia; MSa: exempla (AL, 2:xcviii).
248 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 figura-
tive.”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 Tertul-
lian 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 inter-
pret.”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

389Augustine, De doctrina christiana III.10.15 (PL 34.71).

3901 Cor. 14:13.
391Deus qui corda fidelium: Missa de Sancto spiritu; see p. 174 n. 149 above.
392Insertion in MSa: Praefatio Petri Martyris in suis responsionibus [followed by

omission to 79a] (AL, 2:xcix).

 Fourth Day 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 post-
pone 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 follow-
ing. 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 excel-
lently in the Eucharist than in baptism, since through baptism we

393MSb: sempiterne Deus (AL, 2:xcix).

394Proposition 1: In sacramentum Eucharistiae, non est panis et vini transubstan-
tiatio in corpus et sanguinem Christi. (There is discrepancy between the two MSS for the
next few pages) (AL, 2:xcix–xcx).
395Arguments supporting the two questions are numbered in the margins.
396Gal. 3:27.
397Rom. 6:3ff.
398See 1 Cor. 12:13.
250 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 Hed-
ibia, 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 transub-
stantiation, because in that case the proof of Christ’s true resurrec-
tion 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 won-
der, 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 proper-
ties 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.

399Jerome, Ep. 120.2 (PL 22.986).

400Augustine, De Baptismo XII.18 (PL 43.119).
4011 Cor. 12:27.
402Luke 24:39.
 Fourth Day 251

[4] By their unnecessary transubstantiation they pervert the

nature of things, since they take accidents away from their sub-
stance 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 mira-
cle. Since they were [71r] learned, and understood well how sub-
stance 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 transub-
stantiated 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 mira-

403 Nazianzen, Carmina I. Poemata Theol., 1: Dogmatica 20–23 (PG 37.487 ff.);

Augustine: the De mirabilibus sacrae is spurious (PL 35.2149ff.). Cf. TR, §60.
252 Disputation on the Eucharist

cle; 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 cor-
rupted, which is far removed from a glorified body.
[8] Sometimes also vomiting happens after receiving commu-
nion, 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

404Cyprian, De Lapsis 25 (PL 4.485).

405Aristotle, Meta. I.9.990bff.
406Reading 72 for 68; some pages within 70–75 and 93–96 are numbered incor-
rectly.
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: Philo-
sophical Writings (Indianapolis: Library of Liberal Arts, 1964), xx.
 Fourth Day 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 reign-
ing 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, dis-
proving a carnal eating of his body when he dealt with the Caper-
naites; 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 piece-
meal 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 accord-
ing 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 dif-
ferently, 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

408Proposition 2: Corpus et sanguinis Christi non est carnaliter aut corporaliter in

pane et vino, nec ut alij dicunt, sub speciebus panis & vini.
254 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 Inter-
rogo 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. Chry-
sostom on John, homily 25, and Basil in letter 141.411 Reason itself
also persuades us: for whatever fruit or grace bread has in the sacra-
ment, 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 hap-
pens 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 pres-
ence 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 com-
pletely absent;413 for by the power of faith and spiritually, they are

409Gratian, Dec. Sec., causa 1, Qu. 1, 94: quid vobis plus esse videtur, verbum Dei an

corpus Christi? (PL 187.52).

410Jerome, Comm. in Eccl. 9:7 (PL 23.1084): servemus mandata, et panem et vinum

spiritualia invenire poterimus.

411Origen, 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.
412I John 1:7.
413non ponere omnino abesse.
 Fourth Day 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 Gala-
tians, “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 sacramen-
tally, 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 mira-
cles 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

414See introduction, “Response and Critique,” xxx above, for Bucer’s concern that

Martyr was teaching a “real absence” theory.

415Eph. 2:6; Rom. 8:24; Gal. 3:1.
416Lombard, Sent. IV, dist. 1.2 (PL 192.839): invisibilis gratiae visibilis forma.
256 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 compari-
son 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

417ineffabiliter; CP has: “the divine essence did visibly infuse iself.” The patristic

arguments were introduced on the first day of the Disputation: see above 134.
 Fourth Day 257

in the Eucharist, namely the divine essence which is infused and

the sacraments by which it is infused. But you introduce other mat-
ters 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 acci-
dents 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 interpre-
tation 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 com-
pletely. Even Eutyches would have conceded that if the substance
of Christ’s body were removed and changed into divinity, its acci-
dents 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 Disputation on the Eucharist

makes against you. For in that place Augustine means that Christ
will come with the very substance of human nature; nor did Gela-
sius 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 con-
tains 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 invisi-
ble 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 sub-
stance 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
 Fourth Day 259

reached no conclusion if they had taken accidents for the sub-

stance 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 sanc-
tification. 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 acci-
dents, 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 con-
verted 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 uni-
versal, having regard to the good as well as the evil.
Irenaeus also, when he says: the bread in which there is thanks-
giving 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

418Matt. 15:11.
260 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 sat-
isfy the sense of the words. For Irenaeus states quite clearly con-
cerning 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 conse-
cration, 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 argu-
ment was intended to prove that the Lord spoke of the body of

419See fols. 15v and 27v above.

 Fourth Day 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 acci-
dents, 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 under-
stand 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 dis-
putation 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 summa-
rized them out of order, which you should not have done.
Martyr: I have done nothing wrong here, because for someone to con-
firm 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 rea-
sons I had. Therefore lest I should seem to affirm false and ill-con-
sidered matters, they at least had to be explained at that point.

420MSa resumes its account (broken off at 70r) at this point (AL, 2:civ).
262 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 argu-
ments 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 fol-
lows. In the sixth chapter of John five kinds of bread are men-
tioned. The first, by which the multitude was refreshed, when
Christ said, “You seek me, because you ate the bread.” 422 The

421See II(C), fol. 28r above.

422The passage under discussion is John 6:26–51.
 Fourth Day 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 argu-
ment about is truly the flesh and body of Christ, and is called bread
through a metaphor that is quite clear and elegant. The correspon-
dence 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 nour-
ishes us in both soul and body. And when you argue: in the Supper
Christ gave his flesh which is called bread metaphorically; there-
fore 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 sacra-
ment adds symbols and the outward eating of the true bread, that
the same spiritual eating might be encouraged, and be more effec-
tual. 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 sym-
bolic 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 Disputation on the Eucharist

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
 Fourth Day 265

not dispute among themselves about eating the body. Otherwise

Christ would have promised what he did not fulfil, 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 spiri-
tual 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 sacra-
ment 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

423MSa: confirmat Cyrillus in sexto Ioannis, conferens hanc promissionem …(AL,

2:cviii). See TR, p. 55 n. 138, on textual problems in Cyril.

424MSb: in Ioanni a Cyrillo (AL, 2:cix).
425I.e., John 13.
266 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 suf-
fered 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 signifi-
cation.
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 meta-
phorical 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

426MSb omits the last sentence and the next two speeches (AL, 2:cix).
 Fourth Day 267

he gave this allegorical bread, that is, his flesh to be eaten spiritu-
ally. 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 cruci-
fied. 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 signifi-
cation; therefore it was proper that there should be transubstantia-
tion, in order for him to give his true body.
Martyr: I acknowledged that in the Supper the Lord gave what he prom-
ised, 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 hap-
pens only there. What kind of argument is this: Christ gave his
flesh to those who ate with him; that flesh is called bread meta-
phorically in John because to us it stands for bread; therefore he did
not give true and natural bread as well? These things are not con-
trary 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 significa-
tion. And Augustine testified that sacraments are named from the
reality, and that body which is offered unto us through significa-
tion is true and no fiction.
268 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 car-
nally, and by no means [82r] natural; therefore transubstantiation
is proved.427
Martyr: He gave his very flesh just as he promised, but to be eaten spiri-
tually, 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 Under-
stood; 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 ini-
tiated 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

427MSb omits the last sentence (AL, 2:cxi).

428Reading visum for usum, following CP.
 Fourth Day 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, transub-
stantiation.
Martyr: Well done; I acknowledge the words of Ambrose, but go fur-
ther.
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 There-
fore cannot the word of Christ which could make out of nothing
429Ambrose, De Myst. IX.50–51 (PG 16.405–6).
4301 Kings 18:38.
431Ps. 148:5.
270 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 him-
self 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 consecra-
tion 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 pref-
ace 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 doc-
trine.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

432Ambrose, De Myst. IX.59 (PL 16.409–10).

433John 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.
434Augustine, Retract. 4.4 (PL 32.632).
435MSa: Satis est mihi a te probari Ambrosium, Neque ego Roffensem defendam;

tamen a falsa citatione Augustini, possum eum liberare …(AL, 2:cxii).

 Fourth Day 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 ordi-
nary 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 hap-
pened 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 acci-
dental 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 argu-
ment 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

436Ambrose, De Sac. IV.4.15 (PL 16.440–41). Cf. TR, §§4, 26.

437I.e. a maiori ad minorem, a valid form of argument.
272 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 differ-
ently 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 doubt-
less that of Christ, which was crucified and was buried, and there-
fore 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 signi-
fied, and that it is truly but spiritually received by us through com-
munion. 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 sacra-
ment does not come from nature [85r] but is brought through con-
438Ambrose, De Myst. IX.53 (PL 16.407).
439Ambrose, De Myst. IX.54 (PL 16.407).
440transferuntur; MSb: transformatur (AL, 2:cxiii).
 Fourth Day 273

secration? 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. Fur-
ther, 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 sub-
stance 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 substance 442 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:
441MSb includes another exchange between Chedsey and Martyr (AL, 2:cxiv).
442MSb: naturam (AL, 2:cxiv).
443Ambrose, De Sac. IV.4.15 (PL 16.440–41).
274 Disputation on the Eucharist

“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 some-
thing 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 dis-
tinction: if by species you understand accidents, that is, form, fig-
ure, 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 sym-
bols 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 sub-
stance, so that the substance itself should either perish or be con-
verted 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 consecra-
tion, I answer as follows: the change of which we are speaking is

444Ambrose, De Myst. IX.52 (PL 16.406).

 Fourth Day 275

the same in those things that through consecration now sustain

another quality and have obtained a greater dignity, namely a sac-
ramental 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 sacra-
ment, so that through this change the element is now called some-
thing 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 ele-
ments.445 It is the substance of these elements, that is, of the sym-
bols, 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 Sacra-
ments: “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 sac-
rament, 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
445Col. 2:8.
446Ambrose, De Sac. IV.4.13 (PL 16.439).
447Ps. 33:9.
276 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 chap-
ter; 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 sacramen-
tally 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 appro-
priate, no matter how obscure they are? Previously in the Evange-
448MSSa,b add: sed post consecrationem (AL, 2:cxv).
449Ambrose, De Sac. IV.4,19 (PL 16.442); also in Gratian (PL 187.1758).
450Ambrose, De Sac. IV.4,19 (PL 16.442).
 Fourth Day 277

list, 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 mean-
ing 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; every-
one 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 cre-
ated.’ 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 like-
wise will you drink the likeness of his precious blood.”453 What
could be said more clearly in these words to demonstrate a sacra-

451Ambrose, De Sac. IV.15–16 (PL 16.440–41).

452a minore ad maiorem.
453Ambrose, De Sac. IV.4, 20 (PL 16.443).
278 Disputation on the Eucharist

mental condition or quality that stands in similitude and significa-

tion?
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 bless-
ing 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 quali-
ties 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 sym-
bols 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 ele-
ments, as [88v] I said before. For the element is the part of the sacra-
ment 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
454MSa has a longer speech, involving reference to Eusebius Emissenus, De Conse-
cratione dist. 2 (AL, 2:cxvii–cxviii).
455Ambrose, De Myst. IX.50 (PL 16.405).
 Fourth Day 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 transub-
stantiation.

(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 tomor-
row, 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 “remem-
brance” [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
456MSa adds: An sit in Eucharistia verum et reale corpus Christi? (AL, 2:cxix).
457Chrysostom, In Heb., Hom. 17.3 (PG 63.131).
458Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermones in Cantica, XXXIII.4 (PL 183.952).
280 Disputation on the Eucharist

with Chrysostom that we have the same body that was offered on
the cross; but because he always interweaves memory and remem-
brance 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,
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 offered460 to us and
received, but with the mind and faith; that is, spiritually or sacra-
mentally, and that means truly present to our faith. The difference
between us concerns the mode of presence. You imagine and pre-
tend 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;
459Gal. 3:1; John 1:56; Eph. 1:20.
460exhiberi, a key term for Calvin and Bucer; see “Response and Critique” (intro-

duction, p. xxx ff.), and VWG, app. C, 272ff.

 Fourth Day 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 substan-
tially in the sacrament.
Martyr: I deny [90r] the argument, for you pass from substance to acci-
dent, 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 dif-
ferent, 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 to

461MSb: existentiam (AL, 2:cxx).

282 Disputation on the Eucharist

be present bodily, or to be held substantially in the hands of com-

municants.
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 nour-
ished 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 car-
nally463—you seem to wish to drive me to say this by so many of
your superfluous questions. When I affirm a sacramental significa-

462Chrysostom, In Joann., Hom. XLVI al XLV.3 (PL 59.261). Cf. n. 381 above.
463These were the terms agreed on reluctantly by Martyr; see 4v above.
 Fourth Day 283

tion, 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 desti-
tute 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 con-
tained 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 under-
stand 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 sacra-
ments; 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
464sacrae 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).
465Augustine, De Trin. III.4.10 (PL 42.874); see TR p. 74 n. 225 above.
284 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 incor-
porated into Christ.
Chedsey: Bread nourishes through its substance; therefore it may sig-
nify 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 con-
secrated 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, writ-
ings), 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 sub-
stance 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 fol-
lows: “This blood poured forth would cleanse the whole world.
Paul expounded many things about this to the Hebrews. This
 Fourth Day 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 signifi-
cations 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 pres-
ence; 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 repre-
sent 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.

466signavit; Chrysostom has sacravit.

467Chrysostom, In Joann., Hom. XLVI al XLV, 3 (PG 59.261).
286 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 testi-
mony 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 sig-
nification. 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 speak-
ing, 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
4681 Cor. 10:3–4.
469A reference to Martyr’s course of lectures on 1 Corinthians: see COR, fol. 238r

(on 1 Cor. 10:2).

 Fourth Day 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 evi-
dent 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. There-
fore 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 neces-
sary that where faith is more abundant the sacrament should be
superior. For Abraham both believed and was justified before he

470ex 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.
471Matt. 26:26–27.
288 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 sacra-
ments, but not that it should be given only through them. If you
had said that those sacraments through which faith is more con-
firmed and increased in believers should be considered superior,
you would have spoken the truth; but what you add about Abra-
ham 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 excep-
tions, 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 Chancel-

lor 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 con-
science urged on them, they have brought no little honor to this Acad-
emy; for they have not avoided a subject of such moment, but wished
472I.e. arguing from inconclusive premises. The record of MSb concludes here (AL,

2:cxxv).
 Dr. Richard Cox’s Conclusion 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 dis-
putation. 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

473”Not even Hercules could contend against two,” Greek proverb, quoted e.g. by

Aulus Gellius (ca. 125–75 C.E.).

474See introduction, n. 34.
475oppositionibus: CP has “propositions.”
290 Disputation on the Eucharist

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 princi-
ples. 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 mad-
ness; 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 what-
ever 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

476Matt. 24:35.
 Dr. Richard Cox’s Conclusion 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 godli-
ness. For we know and are convinced that there are some who are rest-
less 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 every-
where 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 punish-
ment; 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, com-
plete 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 dun-
geon;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

477John 8:44: “the devil …the father of lies.”

478Rom. 15:1–2.
479Phil. 2:1–2.
480 in specu Trophonij: a Boeotian oracular god; after receiving an oracle the

inquirer was snatched away underground.

292 Disputation on the Eucharist

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.

481Matt. 5:16.
 About the Translator

JOSEPH CUMMING MCLELLAND received his Ph.D. in historical theology,

directed by Thomas F. Torrance, from New College, Edinburgh, in 1953
for a dissertation on Peter Martyr’s sacramental doctrine. He was
Robert Professor of History and Philosophy of Religion and Christian
Ethics at The Presbyterian College, Montreal, from 1957 to 1964, and
McConnell Professor of Philosophy of Religion at McGill University
from 1964 to 1993, serving as dean of the Faculty of Religious Studies
from 1975 to 1985. He was President of the Canadian Theological Soci-
ety (1968–69), and Editor-in-chief of Studies in Religion/Sciences
Religieuses for several years. He is now Emeritus Professor of McGill Uni-
versity and The Presbyterian College. A symposium at his retirement
has been published as The Three Loves: Philosophy, Theology, and World
Religions, edited by Robert Culley and William Klempa (1994). His
books on Vermigli are The Visible Words of God (1957), Peter Martyr Ver-
migli and Italian Reform (editor, 1980), Life, Early Letters and Eucharistic
Writings of Peter Martyr (with G. Duffield, 1989), Early Writings, Peter
Martyr Library, volume 1 (1994), and Philosophical Writings, Peter
Martyr Library, volume 4 (1996). He serves as Consulting Editor of The
Blackwell Encyclopedia of Medieval, Renaissance and Reformation Thought,
and General Editor of the Peter Martyr Library.

293
 Scripture References

Genesis 53:7 ...................... 30, 244 9:29 ............................163

1:6................................ 63 63:3 ............................ 202 10:24............................ 33
2:23-24 .........................14 13:26...........................207
2:23.............................. 31 Jeremiah 11:19..............39 18:8.............................104
6:3................................ 68 21:14-15 ......................139
9:4................................ 92 Lamentations 4:4 .........30 22:17-18......................140
17:10 .......................... 185 22:19........................... 213
33:20............................ 67 Haggai 2:5 .................. 167 22:19-20 .......................12
37:27 .....................68, 185 24:39 .......... 200, 239, 251
41:26.....................68, 185 Matthew 24:40 ........................... 35
49:10-11 ....................... 56 4:4 .............................. 183
7:15 ............................ 108 John
Exodus 7:22 ............................ 207 1:14.............................. 68
7:12 .............................. 31 8:20 ............................ 162 1:19, 26-27................... 68
12:9.............................. 46 10:28 .......................... 194 1:32 ........................... 204
21:28............................ 92 11:14........................... 185 1:56 ............................281
30:36.......................... 122 11:15.............................64 2:9 ................................31
12:31-32 .......................50 2:19.............................. 64
Leviticus 15:11...........................260 3:3-4 ............................ 99
6:26............................ 185 16:6 ............................ 108 3:4 ............................... 40
7:6................................ 69 16:11......................64, 114 3:9 ............................... 64
19:27 ...........................101 17:12............................. 67 3:13..................... 109, 190
18:20 ...........................116 5:25 ............................. 58
Deuteronomy 21:6-7 ..........................111 5:35 ..............................67
12:, 22-23.............. 67, 191 24:35 .......................... 291 6 ................................. 141
30:19 ............................ 68 26:11 .......................... 161 6:24 ............................... 4
26:16 .......................... 141 6:26-51....................... 206
1 Kings 26:17 ............................69 6:33 ............................. 24
11:30 .......................... 185 26:26 ...... 24, 65, 103, 140, 6:35 ........................ 31, 65
11:31 ............................ 69 157, 174, 184, 211 6:51.........11, 158, 174, 184
26:26-27 .....................288 6:53 ............................. 24
Psalms 26:29 ...............32, 71, 220 6:56 .................... 202,206
33:9.............................276 27:46 ............................64 6:62-63 ....................... 187
34:20............................ 31 28:20 ............ 29, 103, 114, 6:63 ..........68, 71, 119, 173
110:7 .......................... 185 116–17, 167 6:65 ..............................41
119:86 ........................ 185 6:68 ............................ 174
120:4.............................. 8 Mark 6:70 ...................... 67, 185
139:7 ...........................167 13:21 .......................... 161 7:11-12 ......................... 64
142 ............................. 185 14:22 .......................... 140 8:44 ........................... 292
16:19........................... 161 8:56 ............................. 64
Proverbs 27:2...............147 9:2 ............................. 203
Luke 10:7...............................67
Ecclesiastes 7:29......... 133 1:26 ff...........................42 10:18.......................... 244
2:10-12 ....................... 243 10:30............................ 64
Isaiah 4:30 ............................ 163 10:38............................ 64
28:15 .......................... 130 8:11 .......................67, 103 11:11-12 ....................... 64

295
296 Scripture References

John (continued) 1:18 ...................... 68, 185 Ephesians

11:14-15 ................111, 117 2:4-5........................... 248 1:20 ............................ 281
12:24............................ 58 2:8...............................191 1:22-23 ....................... 110
12:26............................ 42 2:14 ............................ 248 2:6 ..............................256
13............................... 266 4:20.............................. 78 2:14 ...................... 68, 185
14:3.............................. 42 5:7........................ 69, 185 3:6 .............................. 124
14:6............................. 174 6:15 ............................ 206 4:10 .............................111
14:9.............................. 64 9:1...............................161 4:22 ..............................40
14:28............................ 63 10:1 .............................. 71 6:12 ...................... 78, 229
15:1....................... 67, 185 10:1-4......................... 103 5:21 ff. .......................... 15
16:7............................ 204 10:3 .............................. 32 5:30 ............................ 124
16:12........................... 174 10:4 ............... 67, 109, 185
16:28........................... 161 10:16 ......... 31, 71, 86, 211, Philippians 2:2 ........... 134
16:29.............................41 220–21
17:11 ...........................152 10:16-17 ....................... 30 Colossians
19:26-27....................... 68 10:17 ........ 14, 47, 138, 187
2:8 .............................. 276
19:36.............................31 10:33 .......................... 287
3:1 .............................. 161
20:17........................... 117 11:4 .............................. 70
20:21...........................166 11:10 ............................ 69
1 Thessalonians 5:12 ........
20:22 ..........................185 11:11........................... 185
63n165
11:24 ff. ........ 119, 185, 213
Acts 11:25 ..................... 71, 211
2 Thessalonians 3:10 ....63
1:6 ff. .......................... 115 11:26 ...........................211
1:8 .............................. 167 11:26-28 ....................... 30
1 Timothy
1:9 .............................. 111 11:27 .............69, 122, 220
2:4 ...............................111
3:21............................. 161 11:27-29 ....................... 24
4:5 ..............................123
5:19............................ 239 11:29 .......................... 203
5:8 ................................63
6:8 ff. ..........................130 12:13 .............40, 183, 250
9:4 .......................115, 162 12:27 ..............47, 185, 251
13:5-7............................. 3 2 Timothy:3:16........... 212
9:4-5 ........................... 161
10:41.......................... 234 14:23-25 ......................112
14:40 ............................ 63 Hebrews
15:6 ff. ........................135
17................................ 161 15:8 .............................161 1:1 .............................. 190
19:28...........................136 15:15 .......................... 230 1:1-2 ...........................244
27................................ 161 15:44 .......................... 102 1:3 .............................. 189
15:46 .......................... 164 2:14 ............................ 777
Romans 12:29 ..........................109
1:16............... 68, 123, 185 2 Corinthians 13:8 ........................ 58, 61
6:3 ff. ......................... 250 3:18 ............................ 150
8:24 ........................... 256 5:21 .............................. 69 1 Peter, 2:6....................67
8:31.............................. 65 12: .............................. 162
9:33 ............................185 2 Peter, 1:20................ 157
10:17...........................123 Galatians
15:1-2 ........................ 292 2:20............................ 124 Revelation
3:1......... 79, 121, 256, 281 1:8 ................................68
1 Corinthians 3:27 ......... 40, 99, 183, 250 13:8 ............................125
1:14-16 ....................... 229 3:28...................... 78, 229 14:4 ..............................42
 Index of Names
Including Classical and Patristic References

Ab Ulmis, John, xix, xxi, xxvi, xxx(n) De doctrina Christiana, 53, 63, 108,
Alger of Liége, De Sacramentis corporis et 189, 248, 270
sanguinis Domini, 30, 104–5 De fide ad Petrum (spurious), 52
Ambrose, 81n De Magistro, 105
Comm. in Eph., 50, 70, 82–82 Der mirabilibus sacrae (spurious), 251
Comm. in 1 Cor., 50, 70, 73 De Trinitate, 27, 51–52, 74, 100, 157,
Contra Faustum, 82 226, 283, 384
De Myst., 73, 104, 160, 271–74, 278 Enarratio in Pss., 27, 33, 43, 51, 54, 74,
De Officiis, 81–82 85, 114, 125, 142, 162–63, 188, 195–
De Sac. Corp. et Sang. Dom, 26, 30, 34, 97
50, 53, 81, 104, 192, 271–77 Epist. ad Bonifacium, 49, 53–54, 77,
Exp. Ev. Sac. Luc, 240 114, 153, 178, 218, 221
Anselm, De corpore et sang. Dom, 27 Epist. ad Dardanum, 1109
Apollonius of Tyana, 101 Epist. ad Inquis. Jan., 114
Aquinas, Thomas, Summa theologica, 24, Epist. ad Marc., 32
43 In Epist. Johann. Ev., 34, 36, 47, 49, 53,
Aristotle, 150n 68, 71, 109, 114–15, 160, 172n, 178–
An. Post., 136–37, 185, 244 80, 202, 205–6
An. Prior, 99, 136 Epist. XCVIII, 206
De Anima, 242n Retract., 271
De Gener. et corr., 40 Sermo CCVI, ad competentes, 237
Meta., 151, 170, 195, 198, 215, 219, Sermo CCXLVII, 237
226, 241n, 252 Sermo de util. ag. poen., 32, 43, 236
Topica, 201n Augustine, Sermo LXXVI, 67
Arius, 158
Athanasius, 174 Basil
De dec. Nic. Syn., 247n De spiritu sancto, 113n, 167–68, 171n
Frag. in Matt, 50 Epist. CL, 254
Augustine, xxiii, 144 Liturgy, 50, 74, 92–93, 218
Ad inquis. Jan., 114 Berengar, xliii, 28, 55, 96, 105, 150. See
Cont. Adim., 53, 74, 189, 193 also Gratian
Contra Litt. Petil., 206 Bernard of Clairvaux
Contra Max. Arian, 74 In Coena Domini, 62
De agone christiano, 239–40 Serm. in Cant. Canticorum, 118, 280
De Baptismo, 250 Sermo de excell. ss sac, 73
De catechizandis rudibus, 73, 160, 177 Bertram. See Ratramnus
De civitate Dei, 47, 53, 64, 102, 165, Bessarion, John, 147
205, 284 Beza, Theodore, xxx
De consensu Evangelistarum, 210 Bossuet, xxxviii

297
298 Names & Classical/Patristic References

Brenz, John, xxxvii, 109n Didymus, De spiritu sancto, 166–67, 170n–

Bucer, Martin, xvii–viii, xxv, xxx–xliv, 171n
20n, 106n121, 152, 162n, 193n, 222, Diogenes Laertius, 129
280 Dionysius, De Hier. Eccles., 50
Bullinger, Henry, xv, xxv, xxxiii, xlii Dixon, R. W., xiix(n), xxviii
Donnelly, J. P., 116n
Cajetan (cardinal), 232 Duns Scotus
Calvin, John, xvii, xxv, xxx, xxxiv, xxx- Lect. in LIb. Sec Sent, 38, 164
viii, 43n, 76n, 98n, 280 Sentiarum, 28
Cartwright, Nicholas, xxix, 201–3
Cassiodorus, 148 Edward VI, xxi–iii, xvi, xliii, 140
Chedsey, William, xxviii–xxx, xlvi, 130, Emissenus. See Eusebius of Emesa
133, 172–200, 204–7, 247–88 Epiphanius, 95, 148
Chrysostom, xxii, 148 Epiphanius, Ancoratus, 155, 176
Ad Caes.Mon., xli, xliv, 61, 66 Erasmus, xl, 26n, 52n, 142n, 148–49, 156,
In Cor. Primum, 113 224n, 225, 236n
De Poenitentia (Hom. ad Pop. Ant.), 26, Divi Caecilii Cypriani ep.Carth. et Mar-
82–83, 148, 227, 245 tyris Opera, 26n20
De Sacerdotio, 113 Eusebius of Caesarea, 88
In Epist. I ad Cor., 51, 74, 113, 159, 220 Contra Hieroclem, 101n
In Epist. II ad Cor., 51 Eusebius of Emesa, xliii, 51
De Eucharistia, 51n120
In Heb., 280
Eutyches, 116, 158, 197n, 257, 272
In Joannen, 109, 233, 245, 254, 282,
285
Fisher, John (“Rochester”), 38–39, 52n,
In Matt., 82–83, 89.113, 160, 230–31
81, 270
Op. Imperf. in Matt, 51, 113
Foxe, John, xlii, 134n
Cicero
Fulgentius
Ad Lentulum, 81
Ad Trasimundum, 117
De Iuv. Rhet., 25
De fide ad Petrum, 52
Epistulae ad Familiares, 81, 177
Somnium Sciponis, 81 Gardiner, Stephen, xxx, xxxii, xxxiv–v,
Clement of Rome, Epist., 88 38n, 61n, 137n
Corda, Salvatore, xviii, xxi, xxiv, xxxiv, Gelasius, 55n, 174n, 258
153n Epist. prima and Epist. tertia, 62, 143
Cyprian, xxiii, 13 Goode, William, xlii
Ad Caes. Mon., xliii, 34n, 49–50, 73, Gorham, G. C., xlii
76, 80 Gratian
Clomm. in Symb. Ap., 235 Dec. De consecratine, xxiii, xliii, 54, 87,
De Lapsis, 176, 253 89, 144, 254
De unctione Chrismatis (spurious), 49n Dec. De Eucharistia, 51
Sermo de Coena Domini, 26, 113, 142, Dec. Ego Berengarius, 28, 140
150, 175, 204, 224 Dec. Sec., 255
Cyril of Alexandria Gregory Nazianzen
De sancta et consub. Trin., 169, 266 Carmina, 100, 251
Epist. ad Calor., 55 Oratio, 247
Epist. XVII, 28 Gregory the Great
In Joannis Ev., 55, 84, 115–16, 159, Registrum, 62, 153–54, 176, 260
230, 265
Hall, Basil, xxxi, xxxiii, xliii(n), 14
 Names & Classical/Patristic References 299

Harding, Thomas, xxi Morison, Richard, xxix, 133

Haynes, Simon, 133
Henry II (emperor), 46n Nestorius, 55, 146–47, 158, 175, 257, 272
Hercules, 289 Nevinson,Christopher, xxx, 133
Hesychius, In Lev., 38, 62, 87 Nicephorus (patriarch), 146
Hilary, De Trinitate, 27, 88–89, 152–53 Nicholas II (pope), 28, 96
Hughes, Philip, 30n Nicodemus, 253
Hugh of St. Victor, De Sacramentis, 27,
170n Occam, William, 252n
Origen
Innocent III (pope), 28, 180 Comm. in Matt., 11, 26, 48–49, 80, 95,
Irenaeus, Contra Haereses, 26, 48, 79, 95, 124, 175, 254
101, 149–50, 244–45, 260 Contra Cels., 49
Frag. Comm. Orig. in Ev. Matt., 148,
Jerome, 88, 95, 148 176, 260
Ad Eustochium, 235 In Jer. Hom., 67
Ad Hedibiam, 250 In Lev. Hom, 49, 87
Ad Paulinum, 248 In Matt., Comm. Series, 124, 176
Comm. in Eccl., 48, 254 In Num., 48
Comm. in Ev. Matt., 51, 73 Overell, M. A., xxxix–xliv
Comm. in Isa. Proph., 47
Epist. ad Pam., 102, 251 Parsons, Robert, xxvi(n)
Lib. Contra Joan. Hier., 111 Peter Lombard, Sentences, 28, 39, 43, 54,
Jewel, John, xxi, xxvi(n), xl, xliii, 131n 97, 256
John of Damascus Iud., 23
De fide orth., 27, 50, 92–94 Plato, Phaedrus, 9
Diss. Quinta, 92 Proster of Aquitaine, 143, 258
Diss. Tertia, 61 Pym, John, xliv

Knox, John, 87n, 112n Rastell, John, xx–xxi

Ratramnus, xxiii
Lactantius, Div. Inst., 39 De corp. et sang., 34, 672
Lambert, John, 210n Ridley, Nicholas, 59
Laud, William, xliv
Leo I, Epist. LIX.2, 27, 54, 89 Scaliger, Josef, xxxiii
Lombard, Peter. See Peter Lombard Simler, Josiah, xxvi(n), xv
Löwe, Andreas, xvi, xviii(n), xlv Smith, Richard, xviii, xxi, xxvi, xxviii,
Luther, Martin, xxv, xxxi(n), xlv, 106–18, 139n
232n Smyth, C. H., xxxi, xxxv(n), xxxix,
xliii(n)
MacCulloch, Diarmaid, xxxii, xxxiv Somerset (earl), xvii, xviii–xx, xxii
Mani, Manichean, 158, 193 Sozomen, Eccl. Hist., 37n
Marcion, 35, 89, 191. See also Tertullian
Marten, Anthony, xx, xliv, 10n, 56n Tertullian, 191n
Masson, Robert, xx, xliv, 10n, 56n Adv. Judaeos, 39
McNair, Philip, xviii(n), xxv(n), xxix– Adv. Marcion, 26, 39, 48, 73, 80, 188,
xxx, 61n 190–91
Micronius, xxxiii De carne Christi, 235
Morgan, Philip, xxx, 130, 133, 208–23, Thales of Miletus (sage), 129
232–41 Theodoret of Cyrus (Cyrrhus), xlv, 55n,
300 Names & Classical/Patristic References

145–47, 259 Udall, Nicholas, xxxiii, 102n, 203n

Dial. 1 (Immutabilis), 56–59, 145
Dial. 2 (Inconfusus), 57–60, 145 Vadian, John, 210n
Epist. LXXXIII, 146n Victor I (pope), 46
Theophylact of Ochryda
Vigilius Tapsensis, Lib. ad Eut., 116–17,
Enaratio in Ev. Joannen, 91, 215–17
197–98
Enarratio in Ev. Marci, 27, 90, 215–17
Enarratio in Ev. Matt., 90, 218
Thomas Aquinas. See Aquinas Wyclif, John, 28, 140
Torrance, T. F., xv
Tresham, William, xxvi–xxx, xlvi, 113n, Zwingli, Ulrich, xxii, xxiv, xxxi(n), 81n,
130, 133–71, 223–32, 242–46 97n, 106, 118–21, 158
 General Index

Absence of Christ, from Supper., 17–18, many-grains analogy (See Mystical

106, 137, 159, 210–11, 255 body)
Accidents, 23, 32, 38, 45, 69, 75, 86, 105,
144, 160, 179, 183, 197, 221, 252, 259 Canon, Roman, 36, 88, 95. See also Book
Accommodation, 15–16, 108, 234 of Common Prayer
Action, eucharistic. See Usus sacramentum Sarum Missal, 175, 248
Act of Uniformity, xxi Carnal eating. See under Eating
Adoration Ceremonies, 33
of Christ, 27, 84–85, 87 Christ. See also Hypostatic union
of images, 75, 92 ascension and heavenly session, xvii,
of sacraments, 16, 74–75, 87, 111–12, 29, 41, 50, 57, 103, 109ff., 113ff.
122 161–62, 166, 172, 174, 187
Allegory, 25, 32, 67, 153, 188, 265, 268 bodily limitation, 19, 35, 37, 46, 53,
Anabaptists, xxiii, 16 75, 163, 196, 198
Analogy, 16, 36, 40, 49, 72, 90–91, 94, 124, crucifixion, 39, 54, 65–66, 75, 82, 121,
178–79, 181 163, 192–93, 223, 227
incarnation, 42, 77, 85–86, 89, 104
of faith, 148
promised in Old Testament, 32
Angels, 37, 41–42, 116, 167–68, 170–71
resurrection, 35, 102, 239ff.
Antichrist, 101
second advent, 104, 258–59
Antitypos, 50, 60n150, 74, 92, 219
ubiquity, 37, 109ff., 125, 161–66, 199
Antonomasia, 190, 244
Church. See Mystical body
Archetype, 57, 60–61
Church Fathers. See Index of Names;
Argument, 89–90, 99, 141, 153, 164, 196– Patristics
97, 225, 272, 278–79. See also Syllogism Circumcision, 32, 44, 67, 108
contradiction in terms, 164–65 Coinherence, xxiii
inductive, 44 Communication idiomatum, 16, 79, 109,
from simile, 150ff. 117, 191, 193
Ascension. See under Christ Concomitance, 43–44
Authority, xxiii, 7, 175, 209 Consecration
of elements, 23, 26, 43, 46, 50, 56ff.,
Baptism, 20, 35, 40, 53–54, 71, 89, 94, 99– 71, 77, 87
100, 123, 147, 153, 179–80. See also Sac- of ourselves, 90
raments Consubstantiation, xxiii, 22
Black rubric, 87n260 Contempt, of Anabaptists, xxiii, 16
Body, benefit of communion, 48, 77, 79, Conversion of elements. See Mutation
83, 153, 246 Councils, 7, 27–28, 209
Book of Common Prayer, xvii, xli–xlii, 93 Basle, 43n86
Bread, 31–32, 36, 70, 141, 144–45, 149, Chalcedon, 55, 146–47
157, 208, 264. See also Leavened bread Constance, 27, 55, 96, 146
of life, 30, 65, 264, 268 Ephesus, 27, 55, 96, 146

301
302 General Index

Councils continued Heresy, 55 ff., 63, 83, 88–89, 100, 138,

Florence, 97 143, 145–46, 148, 159, 168, 175, 181,
Roman Lateran, 28, 181–82 191, 219
Tours, 88n265 Hoc est corpus meum, 25, 36, 38, 53, 62,
Vercelli, 28, 55, 96–97 69–70, 72, 99, 102–3, 112, 155, 159,
Covenant, 13 184–85, 196, 251, 271
Holy Spirit, 10–11, 13, 15, 41, 47, 50, 68,
Decrees, papal, 7 78, 85, 99, 116, 120
De re sacramentaria, by Cranmer, xxxi inward criterion, 210
Devil, 11, 67, 125, 146, 159, 183, 291 procession of, 90
Disparates, 25, 72 Human nature, 17, 35
Disputation. See also Terminology Humoral pathology, 38
participants, xxvii–xxviii, 130, 133ff. Hyperbole, xxiii, 16, 79, 83, 106, 228 ff.,
reactions to, xxix ff. 233, 249
rules for, xxiv–xxv, 135–36, 143, 177, Hypostatic union, xxi, xxiii, xxxii, 16, 39,
262–63, 290 62, 95–96, 106, 118, 142 ff., 257
written accounts, xlv, 129 ff. Hysteron proteron, 215–16. See also Syllo-
Docetism, 35, 64 gism
Duplex manducatio, xxiii, xxxviii predicables, 202

Eating Idolatry, 25, 29, 86, 112, 125, 136

carnal (Capernaite), 33, 41, 50, 66, 77, Images, 87, 92
96, 112, 114, 174 Impanation, 1–6, 210
spiritual (See under Union, with Impassibility. See Passibility
Christ) Incarnation. See under Christ
Elements. See also Mutation Inquisition, xvi
eucharistic, xvii, xxvi, 36 Institution, words of, 45, 85, 99, 105, 123,
reservation of, xxii, 88 266–67
Eucharist. See under Sacraments Intention, 36
Exhibere, xxxiii, xxxvi–vii, 78, 99, 124
Law, 68
Faith, 17, 19 Leavened bread (unleavened bread), 62,
Fathers. See Patristics 153–54, 177, 261
Figure. See trope Leaven of the Pharisees, 64
Figures of speech. See Simile; Word of God Local presence. See under Presence
Form. See Species; Substance Logic, 136–37, 196–97, 199, 243, 248, 252–
Fraction, 39, 48 53, 265, 278
hysteron proteron, 215–16
Glossator, 97 predicables, 202
God Lord's Supper. See Sacraments
grace, 54, 145, 155, 270–71, 289
omnipotence, 29, 34, 93, 98, 104, 111, Manducatio impiorum, xxii, xxiv, 24, 30,
142, 164, 169, 183, 225, 237 70, 75, 96, 100, 105, 107, 112, 122, 205
our chief desire, 11 ff., 283
wrath, 12 Manna, 32, 34, 264, 276
Good, the, 10, 260 Martyrs, 42
Greek Church, 93, 154, 218 Mass, the, 76, 88, 204, 256. See also
Greek language. See Word of God Canon, Roman
of Basil, 50, 74, 92–93, 219
Happiness (felicity), 10, 65 Greek, 93
 Subject Index 303

Measure of place. See Quantity by will, 27, 88

Memory, remembrance, xviii, 11, 45, 71, Purgatory, 92
118–19, 280–81, 520–53
Metaphor, 15, 124, 221ff., 264, 267. See Quantity, 39, 155, 169 ff., 199 ff., 233,
also Simile 235–36, 238–39, 242, 252, 259. See also
Metonymy, 66, 72, 121 Presence, local
Miracle, 13, 29, 38, 47, 100–101, 121, 183,
236, 252–53, 260 Remembrance. See Memory
Mode of sacramental union. See Sacra- Resurrection, 92. See also under Christ
ments glorified body, 29, 102, 170–71, 196,
Mutation 233, 263, 269, 389
of elements, 80–81, 122, 160 Royal legates, xxvii, 4, 19, 133
of self into Christ, 51, 89, 94, 150 prefatory letter, 129–31
Mystery, 12, 51, 56 ff., 113, 125, 143, 173, royal permission, xxv, 134, 140, 290
213–14, 228, 291
Mystical body, 13–14, 23, 32, 36, 47, 49, Sacraments. See also Baptism; Old Testa-
80, 89, 95, 110, 164–65 ment
defined, 10–11, 176, 182, 203, 255–56,
Names, exchange of, 49, 53, 56 ff., 77, 107, 284
217–18 ratio of, xxi, 26, 226–27, 275
Natural knowledge, 15 res sacramenti, xxxv, 32, 144
Nature, 80, 99, 199, 227, 270, 274 sacramental relation, xvi, xxii, 22, 80,
122, 125, 133, 137, 160, 247
Old Testament Sacrifice. See also Christ; Old Testament
history, 65 of Christ, 11, 28
sacraments, 32–33, 53, 71, 79, 103–4, of thanksgiving, 87
119, 160, 286–87 (See also Sacra- Sanctification, 45, 95
ments) Satan. See Devil
sacrifices, 29, 34, 45, 69, 103, 276 Scholastics, xxvii, xxxii, 18, 25, 36, 75, 83,
Omnipotence. See under God 92, 105, 130
One flesh, 14, 125 Scripture. See Index of Scripture Refer-
Opus operatum, 12, 119 ences; Word of God
Showbread, 40, 51–52
Passibility, 46, 61, 186, 196, 244–45 Signification, xxxvi, 22, 74, 194–95
Passover, 32, 69 Signs, xx, 11, 39, 56, 60, 62, 74, 119
lamb of, 46, 69 effective, 20, 65, 78, 122, 210, 281,
Patristics 285
arguments about transubstantiation, visible, 54
48–62 Simile, 14–15, 62, 94, 104, 107, 150–51,
rules for interpretation, xxiii, 76–79, 154, 180, 183, 231, 257, 273. See also
156–57 under Argument
Philosophy, 9, 181, 253, 291 Lutheran, 1–7, 110
Poor, the, 51 Marcionite, 35
Prayer, 63 wax, 26, 82, 84, 228 ff.
Presence, 118, 144 ff., 245 Zwinglian, 120
bodily, xxxv, 53, 144 Sophistry, xxxii, 16, 38, 135, 215
local, xxxvi–viii, 37, 107, 199 (See also Soul, 37, 45, 63, 102
Quantity) Species, xxiii, 16, 18, 22, 104, 133, 144, 160,
of angels, 112 198
real, xv, xxxvii, xli, 204, 255, 282 Substance, 25, 80, 137, 141, 146, 150, 157,
304 General Index

176, 179, 190, 258. See also Accidents three kinds, 120, 122
Supper, Lord's. See Sacraments of Christ with elements (See Sacra-
Sursum corda, xxxvi, 78 ments)
Syllogism, 169, 178, 202, 205, 256, 268. University, xvi, 138, 289 ff.
See also Argument Unworthy participation. See Manducatio
Symbols. See Signs impiorum
Synecdoche, 66, 68, 71, 107, 121 Usus sacramentum, xxii–iii, 44, 87–88, 143

Terminology, 18–19, 29, 102–3, 137, 216,

Visible words, xxi, xxxviii, 255
292
Transelementatio, 27, 91–92, 218
Will, presence by, 27, 88
Transubstantiation
Word of God, xxx, 3, 10, 29, 48, 104, 113,
alternatives to, 106–21
155, 158, 184, 255. See also Index of
arguments for and against, 24–48,
Scripture References
62–105
conciliar decree, 97 clarity (perspecuitas), 63 ff.
defined, 23 figures of speech, 31, 65–66, 108, 114,
Trope, 25, 31, 40, 48, 53–54, 67–68, 71 ff., 141, 157 ff.
79–80, 90–91, 93, 97–98, 107. See also Greek scholia, 110
Simile Greek text, 102–3, 110, 124, 190, 192,
216
Ubiquity. See under Christ incarnate, 116 ff., 163
Union interpretation, 65–66, 153, 157 ff.,
with Christ, xxxiii, 10–11, 15, 20, 77, 212–13, 249, 257
83, 90, 120, 124, 153, 206, 231 (See outward criterion, 210
also Mystical body) preached, 54, 68, 74, 78, 86, 229
Notes 305
306 Notes