1570 Edition | Book 9 | Page 1592 
MarginaliaAn. 1552.woordes of breakyng in no case can bee verified vppon the body of Christ, which for the glory thereof is vnpassible.
Marginalia4.4 Furthermore where as the Lord byddeth them to take and eate, it is euident, that the same can not bee vnderstand simplye of the body of Christ without a trope, for somuch as hee can not be eaten and chawed with teeth, as we vse properly in eatyng other meates to doo.
CloseA common objection to Catholic Eucharistic doctrine at the time. Catholics claim that Christ's risen, glorified body is not susceptible to whatever befalls any other kind of food, including chewing.
Marginalia5.5 The wordes moreouer of Luke and Paul spoken of the cuppe, do argue lykewyse that the other wordes spoken of the bread must nedes be taken mystically. As where it is sayd: This cup is the new Testament: which wordes must nedes be expounded, thus: this cup doth signifie the new Testament.
CloseLuke 22: 19 and I Corinthians 11: 25. Catholics maintain that Christ's body and blood both represent Christ's New Testament or covenant: his promise to be with his Church always, including in the sacrament of the Eucharist, in contrast to the Hebrew covenant in which God's presence and protection was dependent upon Jewish adherence to the Law of Moses. It is unclear whether Martyr means the Eucharist represents the New Testament as only meaning the Christian scriptures.
[Back to Top]
CloseJohn 6: 63. The beginning of the conclusion of Jesus' 'The Bread of Life Discourse' in John 6. Catholics would remind those who denied Christ's corporeal presence in the Eucharist, that such a reading of John 6: 63 seemed to deny that 'The Word became Flesh and dwelt among us' (John 1: 14): God became incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ.
[Back to Top]Marginalia7.7 Item, where in the same place of S. Iohn, Christ, to refell the carnall vnderstandyng of the Caparnaites of eating his body, maketh mention of his Ascension. &c.
CloseJohn 6: 62. Perhaps the chief Protestant argument against Christ's corporeal presence in the Eucharist at the time was that Jesus had ascended into heaven and told his disciples he would not return until the end of time. Jesus 'refells' (refutes) the 'Capernaites' (people of Capernaum, though actually he is addressing his disciples) who find Jesus' self-description as 'the bread of life' that must be eaten for salvation difficult to accept. Jesus counters by asking if they would believe if they see him doing something else impossible: ascending into heaven (which seems to imply that they will, though no mention of it is given in John's Gospel, but see Luke 24: 51 and Acts 1: 9). Catholics state that Christ is personally present in heaven and is also corporeally present in the Eucharist, for nothing is impossible for God.
[Back to Top]MarginaliaThe second cause, the nature of a Sacrament.The second cause why the wordes of Christ: This is my body, can not be litterally expounded without trope, is the nature of a Sacrament: whose nature & propertie is to beare a signe or significatiō of a thyng, to be remembred, which thyng after the substanciall and reall presence, is absent. As touchyng which nature of a Sacrament sufficiently hath bene sayd before.
[Back to Top]MarginaliaThe thyrd cause, the testimonie of the fathers.The thyrd cause, why the wordes of consecration are figuratiuely to be taken, is the testimony of the aūcient Doctours.Tertullianus.This is my body: that is to say, this is a figure of my body.MarginaliaTertullianus Contra Martionē. Lib. 4.August. Psal. 3.Christ gaue a figure of his body.MarginaliaAugustinus. Psal. 3.August. contra Admantum Manichæum.He dyd not doubt to say: This is my body, when hee gaue a signe of his body.MarginaliaAugust. contra Adamantum. Cap. 12.Hieronymus.
CloseHieronimus is Saint Jerome.
| Fe- | The death of Christ is not present really in the Sa- crament but by similitude. |
| ri- | The pretious bloud of Christ is present in the Sa- crament as his death is present: |
| o. | Ergo, the pretious bloud of Christ is not present really in the Sacrament. |
CloseThe second argument has already been alluded to. Catholics claim that Christ is both present in heaven and in the Eucharist on earth.
| Di- | The true naturall body of Christ is placed in hea- uen. |
| sa- | The true naturall body of man can bee but in one place at once, where he is: |
| mis. | Ergo, the true naturall body of Christ can bee in no place at once, but in heauen where he is. |
The Maior is playne by these Scriptures: Iesus was takē vp to heauē, & sitteth at the right hand of God. Mat. 26.
CloseMatthew 26: 64.
CloseJohn 12: 8.
CloseJohn 16: 28.
CloseMatthew 24: 23.
CloseActs 3: 21.
CloseCol. 3: 1.
The Minor likewise is euident by S. Austen, who speakyng of the glorified body of Christ, affirmeth the same to be in one certeine place, Propter veri corporis modum, MarginaliaAugust. ad Dardanum.that is, for the maner of a true body.
| Da- | Euery true naturall body requireth one certeyne place. August. |
| rj- | Christes body is a true naturall body: |
| j. | Ergo, Christes body requireth one certeine place. |
MarginaliaComparatio a maiori.
Austen giueth not to the soule of Christ to be in mo places at once, but one. August ad Dardandum.
Ergo, much lesse is it to be giuē to the body of Christ to be in mo places at once, but in one.
MarginaliaComparison betwen Angels & the body of Christ.
The nature of the Aungels is not to bee in diuers places, but they are limited to occupie one certaine place at once. Basilius de spirit, sanct. cap. 22
Ergo, the body of Christ, being þe true naturall body of a man, can not fill diuers places at one tyme.
| Ba- | What soeuer is in many and diuers places at once is God. |
| ro- | The body of Christ is not God but a creature: |
| co. | Ergo, the body of Christ can not bee in mo places to- gether. |
| Fes- | We must not so defende the Diuinitie of Christ, thatwe destroy his humanitie. August. |
| ti- | If we assigne to the body of Christ pluralitie of pla- ces, we destroy his humanitie: |
| no. | Ergo, we must not assigne to the body of Christ plu- ralitie of places.
CloseCatholics would counter Martyr's use of the Fathers here by stating that transubstantiation does not destroy Christ's humanity: in his risen body it is possible for Christ to be in many places at once, for his risen body possesses the property of 'agility' or ease of movement, and so he passes through locked doors in John 20: 19. [Back to Top] |
| Fes- | What soeuer thyng is circumscribed, that is to say, cōteined in the limites of any peculiar place, can not be dispersed in mo places at once. |
| ti- | The body of Christ is a thyng circumscribed: |
| no. | Ergo, the body of Christ is not dispersed in mo pla- ces at one tyme. |
| Da- | Euery quantitie, that is, euery body hauing magni- tude, length, and other dimensions, is circumscribed in one peculiar place: |
| ri- | The body of Christ hath hys dimensions and is a quantitie: |
| j. | Ergo, the body of Christ is circumscribed. |
The Maior is proued by Cirillus. What so euer is vnderstanded to be a body, the same is verely in a place, and in magnitude, and in quantitie. And if it be in quantitie, it can not auoyde circumscription, MarginaliaCyrillus De trinit. Lib. 2. pag. 245.that is, to haue his place.
| Ba- | If Christ had gyuen his body substantially and car- nally in the Supper, then was that body either pas- ssible, or impassible.
CloseThe risen body is also 'impassible': immune from all suffering. Martyr argues that Christ's body was not immune from suffering at the institution of the Eucharist, therefore Christ's corporeal body cannot be received in the sacrament. Catholics would counter that it is the risen body of Christ which they receive, which is still also the same body that was born of the Virgin Mary and also died on the cross. See St Paul's discussion of the resurrected body in I Corinthians 16: 35-57. [Back to Top] |
| ro- | But neither can you say that body to be passible, or impassible, which hee gaue at Supper: |
| co. | Ergo, he dyd not giue his body substātially and car- nally at Supper. |
The Minor is proued thus. For if ye say it was passible, Austen is agaynst it, which sayth: Ye shall not eate this bodye which you see, nor drinke the same bloude which they shall sheed, that shall crucifie me, &c.MarginaliaAugust. in Psal. 98. And if ye say, it was impassible, that may not be admitted by þe wordes of the Euangelist, which say: Eate, this is my body which shall be gyuen for you: So that that body was passible and not impassible, wherin Christ was giuen.
[Back to Top]