Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 3 · Section 55 – Section 56
Caunterbury.
IT shall not nede to make any further answer to you here as cōcerning Ireneus, but onelyonly to note one thing, that if any place of Ireneus had serued for your purpose, you would not hauehave fayled here to alleage it. But bicause you hauehave nothing yt maketh for you in dede, therfore you alleage nothing in especiall (least in the answer it should euidently apeare to be nothing) and so slide you from the matter, as though all men should beleue you, bicause you say it is so.
Irene.And as for the place of Irene alleaged by Melancthon in an Epistle, Decolampadius without any such troubling of him selfe as you imagine, maketh a playne and easy answer therto, although Melancthon wrot not his sayd Epistle to Decolampadius (as you negligētly looking vponupon their workes be deceaued) but to Frideritus Miconius. And the wordes of Irene aleadged by Melancthon meane in effect no more, but to proue that our bodyes shall rise agayne, and be ioyned vntounto our soules, and reigne with them in the eternall life to come. For he wrote agaynst Ualentine, Martion, and other hereticks, which deneied the resurrection of our bodies, from whō it semeth you do not much dissent, when you say yt our bodyes shall rise spiritually, if you meane that they shall rise without the forme and fashion of mens bodies without distinction and proportiō of members. For those shalbe maruaylous bodies, that shal hauehave no shape nor fashion of bodies, as you say Christs body is in the sacramēt, to whose body oures shall be like after the Resurrection.
Why bread is called Christes body and wine his bloud.But to returne to answere Irene clearely and at large, his meaning was this that as the water in baptisme is called Aqua regenerans, ye water that doth regenerate, and yet it doth not regenerate indeed, but is the Sacrament of regeneration wrought by the Holy Ghost, and called so to make it to be esteemed aboue other common waters: so Christ confessed ye creatures of bread and wine ioyned vntounto his wordes in his holy supper, & there truely ministred, to be his body & bloud: meaning thereby, that they ought not to be taken as common bread, or as bakers bread, and wine drunken in the tauern (as Smyth vntruely gesteth of me throughout his booke) but that they ought to be taken for bread & wine,Smyth. wherin we geue thanks to God, and therfore be called Eucharistia corporis & sanguinis Domini, the thanking of Christs body and bloud (as Irene termeth them:) or Misteria corporis & sanguinis Domini, the misteries of Christes flesh and bloud, as Dionysius calleth them: or Sacramenta corporis & sanguinis Domini, the sacraments of Christs flesh and bloud, as diuers other authours vse to call them. And when Christ called bread and wine his body and bloud, why do the the old Authours chaunge in many places that speech of Christ, and call them Eucharistia, misteria, & sacramenta corporis & sanguinis Domini? the thankes geuing, the misteries, and the sacraments of his flesh and bloud? but because they would clearely expound the meaning of Christes speech, that whē he called the bread and wine his flesh and bloud, he ment to ordayne them to be the sacraments of his flesh and bloud? According to such a spech as S. Augustine expresseth, how the Sacramentes of Christes flesh and bloud be called his flesh and bloud, and yet in deede they be not his flesh & bloud, but the sacramēts therof, signifying vntounto the godly receiuers, that as they corporally feed of the bread and wine (which comfort theyr harts and cō tinue this corruptible life for a seasō) so spiritually they feed of Christs very flesh, & drinke his very bloud. And we be in such sort vnited vntounto him that his flesh is made our flesh, his holy spirite vnityng him and vsus so together,Ephe. 5. Ephe. 1. and 4. Coloss. 1. that we be flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones, and make all one misticall body, wherof he is the head and wee the members. And as feding, nourishing, and life commeth from the head, and runneth into all partes of the body, so doth eternal nourishment and life come from Christ vntounto vsus completely and fully, as well into our bodyes as soules. And therfore if Christ our head be risen agayne, then shall we that be the members of his body surely rise also, forasmuch as the members can not be seperated from the head:1. Cor. 15. but seyng that as he is our head and eternall foode, we must needs by him liue with him for euer. This is the argument of Irene agaynst those heriticks which denyed the resurrection of our bodies. And these things the sacraments of bread and wine declare vntounto vsus: but neither the carnall presence, nor the carnall eating of Christes flesh maketh ye things so to be, nor Irene ment no such thing. For then should all manner of persons that receaue the sacramentes, hauehave euerlasting life, and none but they.
Thus hauehave I answered to Irene playnly and shortly, and Oecolampadius neded not to trouble himselfe greatly with aunswering this matter. For by the corporal eating and drinking of Christs flesh and bloud, Irene could neuer hauehave proued the resurrection of our bodies to eternal life.
And Peter Martir maketh the matter so playn,Peter Martyr. that he concludeth Ireneus wordes to make directly agaynst the doctrine of the Papistes.
The answere also is easely made to the place which you alleadge out of Ignatius, where he calleth Eucharistia ye flesh of our sauior Iesus Christ. For he meaneth no more, but that it is the sacramēt of his flesh, or ye mistery of his flesh (or as Irene sayd) Eucharistia of his flesh, as euen now I declared in mine answere to Irene. And your long processe here may hauehave a short aunswere gathered of your owne wordes. This word Eucharistia (say you) can not be well Englished, but the body of Christ is good and playne English, & then if Eucharistia be such a thing as cannot be well Englished, it can not be called the body of Christ, but by a figuratiue speech. And how can you thē conclude of Ignatius words, that this is my body, is no figuratiue speech? It semeth rather yt the cleane contrary may be concluded. For if these. ii. speeches be like & of one sence (Eucharistia is Christs body, and this is my body) & the first be a declaration of the second, is this a good argument? The fyrst is a figure, Ergo the second is none? Is it not rather to be gathered vponupon the other side thus? The first is a declaratiō of the secōd and yet the first is a fygure, Ergo the second is also a figure? And that rather then the first: because the declaration should be a more playne speech then that which is declared by it.
And as for your coulor of Rhetorick which you cal Reiectiō, it is so familiar with your self, that you vse it commonly in your booke, when I alleage any author or speake any thing that you can not answere vntounto.
And yet one thing is necessary to admonish the reader, that Ignatius in this epistle entreateth not of ye manner of the presēce of Christ in the sacramēt, but of the maner of his very body, as he was borne of his mother, crucified, and rose agayn, appeared vntounto his Apostles, and ascended into heauē. Which things diuers hereticks sayd were not done verily in deed, but apparantly to mens sightes, and that in deed he had no such carnall & corporall body, as he appered to hauehave. And agaynst such errors speaketh ye epistle, and not of the reall and corporall presence of Christ in the sacramēt although Eucharistia or the sacrament be ordeyned for a remembrance of that very body, and so hath the name of it, as the sacraments hauehave the names of ye things which they signify. But by this so manifest writhing of the mind of Ignatius from ye true sence and purpose that was ment, to an other sence and purpose that was not ment, may appeare the truth of the Papistes, who wrast and misconstrue all old auncient writers and holy doctors to their wicked and vngodly purposes. Next in my book followeth mine aunswere to Dionisius.
The aunswere to Dionysius de eccles. Hierarch. cap. 3.Dionysius also, Whom they alleage to prayse and extoll this sacrament (as in deed it is most worthy, being a sacrament of most high dignity and perfection, representing vntounto vsus our most perfect spirituall coniunction vntounto Chryst, and our continuall nourishing, feeding, comfort, and spiritual life in him,) yet he neuer sayd that the flesh and bloud of Christ was in the bread and wine, really, corporally, sensibly and naturally, (as the Papists would beare vsus in hand) but he calleth euer the bread and wine signes, pledges, and tokens, declaring vntounto the faythfull receiuers of the same, that they receaue Christ spiritually, & that they spiritually eat his flesh & drinke his bloud. And although the bread and wine be figures, signes & tokens of Christes flesh and bloud (as S. Dionyse calleth them, both before the Consecration and after) yet the Greek annotations vponupon the same Dionyse do say, that the very things themselues be aboue in heauen.
And as the same Dionyse maketh nothing for the Papistes opinions in thys poynt of Christes real and corporal presence: so in diuers other things he maketh quite and clean agaynst them, and that specially in three poynts, in Transubstantiation, in reseruation of the Sacrament, and in the receiuing of the same by the Priest alone.
Winchester.
As touching Dionysius, a wise reader may without any note of mine, se how this author is troubled in hym: and calleth for ayd the help of him that made the greek commē taries vponupon Dionysius:Dionysius. and pleadeth therwith the forme of the wordes really, corporally, sensibly, and naturally, wherof two, that is to say, really and sensibly, the old authors in sillables vsed not, forsomuch as I hauehave red, but corporally and naturally they vsed speaking of this sacrament. This Dionyse spake of this mistery after the dignitie of it not contending with any other for the truth of it, as we do now, but extolling it, as a marueilous high mistery, which if the bread be neuer the holyer, and were onelyonly a signification, (as this author teacheth) were no high mistery at all. As for the things of the Sacrament to be in heauen, the church teacheth so, and yet the same thinges be indéede present in the sacrament also: which is a mistery so deepe and darke from mans naturall capacitie, as is onelyonly to be be beleued supernaturally, without asking of the question (how) wherof S. Chrisostom maketh an exclamation in this wise.
O great beneuolence of God towards vsus:Chrisostomus de Sacerdo. li. 3. he that sitteth aboue with the father at ye same houre, is holden here with the hands of all men, and geueth himselfe to them that will claspe and embrace him. Thus sayth Chrisostom, confessing to be aboue and here ye same things at once, and not onelyonly in mens brests, but hands also to declare the inward worke of God, in the substaunce of the visible Sacrament whereby Christ is present in the mids of our sences, and so may be called sensibly present, although mans sences can not comprehend and feel, or tast of him in their proper nature. But as for this Dionyse he doth without argumēt declare his fayth in ye adoratiō he maketh of this Sacramēt, which is openly testified in his workes, so as we need not to doubt what his fayth was. As for this authors notes, they be descant voluntary, without ye tenor part, being be like ashamed to alleadge the text it self, least his thrée notes might seeme fayned without ground, as before in S. Clements epistle, and therfore I will not trouble the reader wt them.