And it is untrue that you here say, that the proper and special name of a figure diminisheth the truth of the mystery.” For then Christ in vain did ordain the figures, M they diminish the mysteries.
And the authors term it here a figure, not thereby to “cover the mystery,” but to open the mystery, which was indeed in Christ’s words by figurative speeches understand. Amd with the figurative speech were the ethnick and carnal ears offended, not with the mystery, which they understood not. And not to the ethnick and carnal, but to the faithful and spiritual ears, the words of Christ be figurative, and to them the truth of the figures be plainly opened and declared by the fathers: wherein the fathers be worthy much commendation, because they travailed to open plainly unto us the obscure and figurative speeches of Christ. And yet in their said declarations they taught us, that these words of Christ, concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood, are not to be understanded. plainly, as the words properly signify, but by a figurative speech. - Nor St Augustine never 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 never thought it. For if he had, he would not have written so plainly, as he doth in the places by me alleged, that we must beware that we take not literally any thing that is spoken figuratively.” And specially he would not have expressed by name the words of “eating Christ’s flesh and drinking his blood,” and have said that they be figurative speeches. But St Augustine doth not only tell how we may not take those words, but also he declareth how we ought to take and understand the eating of Christ’s flesh and drinking of his blood, which, as he saith, is this: h “To keep in our minds, to our great comfort and profit, that Christ was crucified and
shed his blood for us, and so to be partakers of his passion. This,” saith St Augustine, “is to eat his flesh and to drink his blood.”
And St Augustine saith not as you do, that Christ’s words be “figurative to the unfaithful;” for they be figurative rather to the faithful than to the unfaithful. For the unfaithful take them for no figure or mystery at all, but rather carnally, as the Capernaites did. And there is indeed no mystery nor figure in eating with the mouth (as you say Christ’s flesh is eaten), but in eating with the soul and spirit is the figure and mystery. For the eating and drinking with the mouth is all one to the faithful and unfaithful, to the carnal and spiritual, and both understand in like what is eating and drinking with the mouth. And therefore in no place do the doctors declare, that there is a figure or mystery in eating and drinking of Christ’s body with our mouths, or that there is any truth in that mystery; but they say clean contrary, that he is not eaten and drunken with our mouths. And if in any place any old author write, that there is a figure or mystery in eating and drinking of Christ with de Our mouths, shew the place if you will have any credit. St Augustine specially (whom
33. you do here allege for your purpose) saith directly against you: Nolite parare fauces sed cor, Prepare not your mouth or jaws, but your heart.” And in another place he saith, Quid paras ventrem et dentem? ^ Crede et manducasti: Why dost thou prepare thy belly and teeth? Believe, and thou hast eaten.”
But to avoid the saying of St Augustine by me alleged, you say that St Augustines rule pertaineth not to Christ’s supper: which your saying is so strange, that you be the first that ever excluded the words of Christ from his supper. And St Augustine meant as well at the supper as at all other times, that the eating of Christ’s flesh is not to be understanded carnally with our teeth (as the letter signifieth), but spiritually with our minds, as he in the same place declareth. And how can it be that St Augustines rule pertaineth not to Christs supper, when by the rule he expoundeth Christ’s words in the sixth of John, which you say Christ spake of his supper? Did Christ speak of his supper, and St Augustine’s words expounding the same pertain not to the supper? You make St Augustine an expositor like yourself, that commonly use to expound both doctors and scriptures clean from the purpose, either for that by lack of exercise in the scriptures and doctors you understand them not, or else that for very frowardness you will not understand any thing that misliketh you. And where you say that we must do as Christ commanded us, without carnal thought or sensual device, is not this a carnal thought and sensual device which you teach, that we eat Christ corporally with our teeth; and contrary to that which you said before, that Christ’s body in the sacrament is a spiritual body, and eaten only spiritually? Now how the teeth can eat a thing spiritually, I pray you tell me.
Now thou seest, good reader, what avail all those glosses of carnal flesh and spiritual flesh,” of “the flesh of Christ, and the flesh of a common man,” of “a figure to the unfaithful, and not to the faithful,” that the fathers termed it a figure, because else the ethnick ears could not abide it,” and “because they would reverently cover the mystery.” And when none of these shifts will serve, he runneth to his sheet-anchor, that St Augustines rule pertaineth nothing to Christs supper. Thus mayest thou see, with what sincerity he handleth the old writers. And yet he might right well have spared all his long talk in this matter, seeing that he agreeth fully with me in the state of the whole cause, that to eat Christs flesh and to drink his blood be figurative speeches. For he that declareth the cause why they be figurative speeches agreeth in the matter that they be figurative speeches..And so have I my full purpose in this article. ^
Now hear what followeth in my book.
The same authors did say also, that when Christ called the bread his I body, and the wine his blood, it was no proper speech that he then used; but, as all sacraments be figures of other things, and ye have the very names
[! By that rule, 1551.] [? You will understand, 1551.]]
ef the things which they do signify; so Christ instituting the sacrament of his most precious body and blood, did use figurative speeches, calling the bread by the name of his body, and the wine he called his blood, because it represented his blood.
Tertullian herein writing against Marcion, saith these words: “Christ did not reprove bread, whereby he did represent his very body.” And in the same book he saith, that Jesus “taking bread and distributing it amongst his disciples made it his body, saying, This is my body;’ that is to say,” saith Tertullian, “a figure of my body.” And therefore, saith Tertullian, that Christ called bread his body, and wine his blood,” because that in the old testament bread and wine were figures of his body and blood.