Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 3 · Section 49
Canterburie.
I See well you would take a dong forke to fight with, rather then you would lack a weapon. For how highly you hauehave estemed Melancthō in tymes past, it is not vnknowne. But whatsoeuer Melancthon sayeth or how soeuer you vnderstand Melancthon, where is so conuenient a place to vse figuratiue speeches, as when figures and Sacraments be instituted? And S. Augustine giueth a playne rule, how we may know when Gods commādemēts be giuen in figuratiue speches, & yet shal neither the truth be subuerted, nor our religion reduced to significations. And how can it be but that in the vnderstanding of Gods ordinances & commaundements, figures must needes be often receaued (contrary to Melancthons saying) if it be true that you say, that there is no spech so playne and simple, but it hath some peece of a figuratiue speech. But now be all speches figuratiue, when it pleaseth you. What need I then to trauaile any more to proue that Christ in his supper vsed figuratiue speches, seyng that all that he spake was spoken in figures by your saying?
And these wordes (This is my body) spoken of the bread, and (This is my bloud) spoken of the cuppe, expresse no playne comon vnderstanding, wherby the common vse of these figures should be equall with plain proper speches, or cause them to be taken as common proper speches: for you say your felf, that these speches in letter hauehave an absurdity in reason. And as they hauehave absurdity in reason, so hauehave they absurdity in fayth. For neither is there any reason, fayth, myracle, nor truth, to say that materiall bread is Christes body. For then it must be true that his body is material bread, a conuersa ad conuertentem, for of the materiall bread, spake Christ, those words by your confession. And why hauehave not these words of Christ (This is my body) an absurdity both in fayth and reason, aswell as these words, (This cup is the new Testament) seyng that these wordes were spoken by Christ, as well as the other, and the credite of him is all one whatsoeuer he sayth?
But if you will needes vnderstand these wordes of Christ (This is my body) as the playn wordes signify in their proper sence (as in the end you seeme to do, repugning therein to your owne former saying) you shall see how farre you go, not onelyonly from reason, but also from the true profession of the christian fayth.
Christ spake of bread (say you) This is my body: appoynting by this word (this) the bread: whereof followeth (as I sayd before) If bread be his body, that his body is bread: And if his body be bread, it is a creature without sence and reason, hauing neither life nor soule: which is horrible of any christian man to be heard or spoken. Heare now what followeth further in my booke.
Now forasmuch as it is playnly declared & manifestly proued, that Christ called bread his body, and wine his bloud, and that these sentences be figuratiue speches, and that Christ, as concerning his humanity & bodily presence, is ascended into heauen with his whole flesh and bloud,Cap. 15. Answere to the authorities and arguments of ye Papists. and is not here vponupon earth, and that the substance of bread and wine do remayne still, and be receaued in the sacrament, and that although they remayne, yet they hauehave changed their names, so that the bread is called Christs body, and the wine his bloud, and that the cause why their names be changed is this, yt we should list vp our harts & minds frō the things which we se vntounto the things which we beleue & be aboue in heauē: wherof ye bread & wine hauehave the names, although they be not the vey same things in deed: these things well considered and wayed, all the authorities and arguments, which the Papists fayn to serue for their purpose, be clean wiped away.
For whether the authors (which they alleadge) say that we do eat Christes flesh and drink his bloud,Cap. 14. One brief answere to all. or that the bread and wine is conuerted into the substance of his flesh and bloud, or that we be turned into his flesh, or that in the Lordes supper we do receiue his very flesh and bloud, or that in the bread and wine is receiued that which did hang vponupon the crosse, or that Christ hath left his flesh with vsus, or that Christ is in vsus and we in him, or that he is whole here and whole in heauen, or that the same thing is in the Chalice, which flowed out of his side, or that the same thing is receiued with out mouth, which is beleued with our faith, or that the bread and wine after the Consecration be the body and bloud of Christ, or that we be nourished with the body and bloud of Christ or that Christ is both gone hence and is still here, or that Christ at his last supper, bare himselfe in his owne hands.
These and all other like sentences may be vnderstanded of Christes humanity, litterally & carnally, as the words in cōmō spech do properly signifye (for so dooth no man eat Christs flesh, nor drinke his bloud, nor so is not the bread and wine after the consecration his flesh and bloud, nor so is not his flesh and bloud whole here in earth, eatē with our mouthes nor so did not Christ take, him selfe in his own hands:) But these and all other like sentences which declare Christ to be here in earth, & to be eaten and drunken of Christian people) are to be vnderstanded either of his diuine nature (wherby he is eueryevery where) or els they must be vnderstanded figuratiuely, or spiritually. For figuratiuely he is in the bread and wine, and spiritually he is in them that worthely eat and drinke the bread & wine, but really, carnally, and corporally he is onelyonly in heauen, from whence he shall come to iudge the quick and dead.
This briefe aunswere will suffice for all that the papists can bryng for their purpose, if it be aptly applyed. And for, the more euidence hereof, I shall apply the same to somme such places, as the Papistes, think do make most for thē that by the aunswere to those places, the rest may be the more easely answered vntounto.