Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 3 · Section 39 – Section 40
Caunterbury.
IF thou takest not very good heed, reader, thou shalt not perceiue where the cuttill becometh. He wrappeth himself so about in darcknesse, and he commeth not neere the net by a myle, for feare he should be taken. But I will draw my net nearer to him, that he shall not escape. I say that the words which Christ spake of the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud were spoken by a figure, and he would auoyd the matter, by saying that those words hauehave a spirituall mistery in them, which is most true, and nothing contrary to my saying, but confirmeth the same. For ye words of eating and drinking be figuratiue speches, because they hauehave a secret and hid spirituall mistery in them, and cannot be taken otherwise then in that spiritual mistery, which is a figure. And moreouer you plainly here confesse, that to eat Christes flesh and to drinke his bloud be figuratiue speches. But you trauesse the cause wherfore they be figuratiue speches, which is not materiall in this place, where my processe is onelyonly to proue, that they be figuratiue speches. Aud forasmuch as you graūt here all that I take vponupon me to proue (which is, yt they be figuratiue speches) what needeth all this superfluous multiplication of words, when we agree in the matter, which is here in question?
And as for the cause of the figure, you declare it far otherwise, then S. Augustine dooth, as the words of S. Augustine do playnely shew to eueryevery indifferent reader. For the cause (say you) is this, that in the Sacrament we eat not the carnal flesh of a commō man (as the letter soundeth) but the very spiritual flesh of Christ, God and man, and in that respect it is well noted for a figuratiue spech.
In which one sentence be three notable errors or vntruthes. The first is, that you say the letter soundeth than we eat the carnall flesh of a common man: which your saying the playne words of the gospell do maniestly reproue. For Christ seperating himself in that spech from all other men, spake onelyonly of himself, saying, My flesh is very meat,Iohn. 6. and my blood is very drink: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in me and I in him. The second is, that you call the flesh of Christ a spirituall flesh, as before you sayd that he is spiritually eaten. And so by your doctrine his flesh is spirituall, and is spiritually eaten, and all is spirituall: which hath need of a fauorable interpretation, if it should be counted a sound and Catholick teaching. And if all be spirituall, & done spiritually, what meaneth it then, that in other places you make so often mention, yt he is present and eaten carnally, corporally, and naturally?
The third is, that you say the spech of Christ is noted figuratiue in respect of the eating of the flesh of a common man, which is vtterly vntrue. For the authors note not the figuratiue spech in that respect: but as christ spake of his owne flesh ioyned vntounto his diuinity (wherby it geueth lyfe) euen so do the authors note a figuratiue spech in respect of Christes owne flesh, and say therof, that the letter can not be true without a figure. For although Christ be both God and man, yet his flesh is a very mans flesh, and his bloud is truely mans blond (as is the flesh & bloud of his blessed mother) and therfore can not be eaten and drunken properly, but by a figure. For he is not meat and drink of the body, to be eatē corporally with mouth and teeth, and to be dygested in the stomack: but he is the meat of the soule, to be receaued spiritually in our harts & minds, and to be chawed and digested by fayth.
And it is vntrue that you here say, that the proper and speciall name of a figure, diminisheth the truth of the mistery. For then Christ in vayne did ordayne the figures, if they diminish the misteries.
And the Authors terme it here a figure, not therby to couer the mistery but to open the mistery, which was in deed in Christs words by fyguratiue speches vnderstand. And with the figuratiue spech were the Ethnik and carnall eares offended, not with the mistery which they vnderstood not. And not to the Ethnik and carnall, but to the faythfull and spirituall eares, the wordes of Christ be figuratiue, and to them the truth of the figures be playnely opened and declared by the Fathers: wherin the Fathers be worthy much commendation, because they trauayled to open playnly vntounto vsus the obscure and figuratiue speches of Christ. And yet in their sayd declarations, they taught vsus, that these words of Christ, concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud, are not to be vnderstanded plainly (as the words properly signify) but by a figuratiue speech.
Nor S. Augustine neuer wrote in all his long works as you do, that Christ is in the sacrament corporally, carnally, or naturally, or that he is so eaten, nor, I dare boldly say he neuer thought it. For if he had, he would not hauehave written so playnly (as he doth in the places by me alleadged) yt we must beware, that we take not litterally, any thing that is spoken figuratiuely. And specially he would not hauehave expressed by name ye wordes of eating Christes flesh and drinking his bloud, and hauehave sayd, that they be figuratiue speches. But S. Augustine dooth not onelyonly tell how we may not take those words, but also he declareth how we ought to take and vnderstand the eating of Christes flesh and drinking of his bloud, which (as he sayth) is this, To keep in our mindes to our great comfort & profite, that Christ was crucified and shed his bloud for vsus, and so to be partakers of his passion. This sayth S. Augustine is to eat his flesh and to drinke his bloud.
And S. Augustine sayth not as you do, that Christes words be figuratiue to the vnfaythfull, for they be figuratiue rather to the faythfull then to the vnfaythfull. For the vnfaythfull take them for no figure or mistery at all, but rather carnally, as the Caparnaites did. And there is in deede no mistery nor figure in eatyng with the mouth (as you say Christes flesh is eaten) but in eating with the soule & spirite is the figure & mistery. For the eating, and drinking with the mouth is all one to the faythful and vnfaythfull, to the carnall and spirituall, & both vnderstand in like, what is eating and drinking with the mouth. And therfore in no place do the doctors declare, that there is a figure or mistery in eating & drinkyng of Christes body with our mouthes, or that there is any truth in that mistery, but they say cleane contrary, that he is not eaten and drunken with our mouthes. And if in any place any old author write, that there is a figure or mistery in eating and drinking of Christ with our mouthes, shew the place if you will hauehave any credite. S. Augustine specially (whom you do here alleadge for your purpose) sayth directly agaynst you, Nolite par are fauces sed cor, Prepare not your mouth or iawes, but your hart.August de verbis domini serm 33. And in an other place he sayth, Quid paras ventrem & dentem? Crede & manducasti, In Io. tract. 25.Why doost thou prepare thy belly and teeth? Beleue, and thou hast eaten.
But to auoyde the saying of Saynt Augustine by me alleadged, you say, that Saynt Augustines rule perteyneth not to Christes supper: which your sayeng is so strange, that you be the first that euer excluded the words of Christ from his Supper. And Saynt Augustine ment as well at the supper, as at all other tymes, that the eating of Christes flesh is not to be vnderstanded carnally with our teeth, (as the letter signifieth) but spiritually with our mindes, as he in the same place declareth. And how can it be that Saynt Augustins rule perteineth not to Christs supper, when by the rule he expoundeth Christes wordes in the sixt of Ihon, which you say Christ spake of his supper? Dyd Christ speak of his supper, and Saynt Augustines wordes expounding the same, perteyn not to the supper? You make Saynt Augustine an expositor lyke your selfe, that commonly vse to expounde both doctours and scripturs cleane from the purpose, eyther for that by lacke of exercise in the Scriptures and Doctours you vnderstand them not, or els that for very frowardnes you will not vnderstand any thing that misliketh you. And where you say, that we must do as Christ commaunded vsus, without carnall thought or sensuall deuise, Is not this a carnall thought and sensuall deuise, which you teach, that we eat Christ corporally without teeth? And contrary to that, which you sayd before, that Christs body in the sacrament is a spirituall body, and eaten onelyonly spiritually? Now how the teeth can eat a thing spiritually, I pray you tell me.
Now thou seest, good reader, what auayle all those gloses, of carnall flesh and spirituall flesh, of the flesh of Christ, and the flesh of a common man, of a figure to the vnfaythfull, and not to the faythfull, that the fathers tearmed it a figure, bycause els the Ethnike eares could not abyd it, and because they would reuerently couer the mistery? And when none of these shiftes will serue, he runneth to his shotte anker, that Saynt Agustins rule perteineth nothing to Christes supper. Thus mayst thou se with what sinceritie he handleth the ould writers. And yet he myght right well hauehave spared all his long talke in this matter, seing that he agreeth fully with me in the state of the whole cause, that to eat Christes flesh and to drincke his bloud, be figuratiue speaches. For he that declareth the cause, why they be figuratiue speaches, agreeth in the matter, that they be figuratiue speaches. And so hauehave I my full purpose in this article. Now heare what foloweth in my booke.
Cha. 11. This is my body: this is my bloud, be figuratiue speaches. The bread representeth Christes body and the wine his bloud. Tertulianus contra Martionem Lib. 1.The same authors dyd say also, that when Christ called the bread his body, and the wine his bloud, it was no proper speach that he than vsed, but as all Sacraments be figures of other thinges, and ye hauehave the very names of the thinges, which they do signifie: so Christ instituting the sacrament of his most precious body and bloud, did vse figuratiue speaches, calling the bread by the name of his body: and the wine he called his bloud, bicause it represented his bloud.
Tertullian herein writing agaynst Martion, sayth these words: Christ did not reproue bread, wherby he did represent his very body. And in the same booke he sayth, that Iesus taking bread, and distributing it amongs his disciples made it his body, saying, This is my body. That is to say, (sayth Tertullian) a figure of my body. And therfore sayth Tertullian, That Christ called bread his body, and wine his bloud: bicause that in the old Testament bread and wine were figures of his body and bloud.
Winchester.
Tertulianus. The author had left out (the same)Tertullian speaking of the representation of Christes very body, in which place he termeth (the same body) speaketh catholiquely in such phrase as S. Hierom speaketh: and then Tertullian sayth afterward as this author therin truely bringeth hym forth that Christ made the bread his body, which bread was in the mouth of the prophet a figure of his body. Wherfore it followeth by Tertullians confession whē Christ made the bread his body, that Christ ended the figure, and made it the trueth, making now his body that was before the figure of his body. For if Christ did no more but make it a figure still, then did he not make it his body, as Tertullian himselfe saith he did. And Tertullian therfore being red thus, as apeareth to me most probable, that (that is to say in Tertullian) should be onelyonly referred to the explicacion of the first (this:) as when Tertullian had alleged Christes wordes saying (this is my body) and putteth to of his owne (that is to say the figure of my body,) these wordes (that is to say) should serue to declare the demonstration (this,) in this wise (that is to say, this) which the Prophet called ye figure of the body, is now my body. And so Tertulian sayd before ye Chryst had made bread his body, which bread was a figure of his body with the Prophet, and now endeth in the very trueth, being made his body by conuersion as (Cyprian sheweth) of the nature of bread into his body. Tertullian reasoned against the Marcionistes: and because a figure in the prophet signifieth a certayn vnfayned truth of that is signified, seing Christes body was figured by bread in the prophet Hieremy, it appereth Christ had a true body. And that the bread was of Christ aproued for a figure he made now his very body. And this may be sayd euidently to Tertullian, who reasoning agaynst heretikes vseth the commoditie of arguing, and giueth no doctrine of the sacrament to further this authors purpose. And what aduantage should the heretiques hauehave of Tertulian if he should meane, that these words, This is my body, had onelyonly this sence, this is the figure of my body, hauing himselfe sayd before, that Christ made bread his body. If so playne speach, to make bread his body, conteyneth no more certayntie in vnderstanding but the figure of a body? Why should not they say, that a body in Christ should euer be spoken of a body in a figure, and so no certayntie of any trew body in Christ by Tertullianes wordes? This place of Tertullian is no secret poynt of learning, and hath bene of Decolampadius and other alleadged and by ether Catholique men aunswered vntounto it, wherof this author may not think now as vponupon a wrangling argument, to satisfie a coniecture deuised, therby to confirme a new teaching. Finally Tertullian termeth it not an onelyonly figure, which this author must proue, or els he doth nothing.