inhabiter is Christ. For he, that is at discord with Christ, doth neither eat his flesh, nor drink his blood : although to the judgment of his presumption, he indifferently doth receive every day the sacrament of so great a thing." Which distinction between the sacrament and the thing whereof it is a sacrament, and consequently between the sacramental and the real eating of the body of Christ, is thus briefly and most excellently expressed by St. Augustine himself, in his exposition upon the sixth of John. “ The sacrament of this thing is taken from the Lord's table; by some unto life, by some unto destruction: but the thing itself, whereof it is a sacrament, is received by every man unto life, and by none unto destruction, that is made partaker thereof." Our conclusion therefore is this:

The body and blood of Christ is received by all

unto life, and by none unto condemnation. But that substance, which is outwardly delivered

in the sacrament, is not received by all unto

life, but by many unto condemnation. Therefore that substance, which is outwardly de

livered in the sacrament, is not really the body

and blood of Christ. The first proposition is plainly proved by the texts, which have been alleged out of the sixth of John. The second is manifest, both by common experience, and by the testimony of the apostle“. We may therefore well conclude, that the sixth of John is so far from giving any furtherance to the doctrine of the Romanists in this point, that it utterly overthroweth their fond opinion, who imagine the body and blood of Christ to be in such a sort present, under the visible forms of bread and wine, that whosoever receiveth the one, must of force also really be made partaker of the other.

The like are we now to shew in the words of the insti

c Hujus rei sacramentum, &c. de mensa Dominica sumitur ; quibusdam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium. Res vero ipsa, cujus sacramentum est, omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium, quicunque ejus particeps fuerit. Augustin. in Johan. tract. 25. op. tom. 3. pag. 500.

di Cor. chap. 11. ver. 17, 27, 29.

tution. For the better clearing whereof, the reader may be pleased to consider, First, that the words are not, This shall be my body: nor, This is made, or, shall be changed into my body: but, This is my body. Secondly, that the word This can have relation to no other substance, but that which was then present, when our Saviour spake that word; which, as we shall make it plainly appear, was bread. Thirdly, that, it being proved that the word This doth demonstrate the bread, it must of necessity follow that Christ, affirming that to be his body, cannot be conceived to have meant it so to be properly, but relatively and sacramentally.

The first of these is by both sides yielded unto : so likewise is the third. For “ thise is impossible,” saith the Gloss upon Gratian, “ that bread should be the body of Christ." And “it cannot be," saith cardinal Bellarmine, “ that that proposition should be true, the former part whereof designeth bread, the latter the body of Christ: forasmuch as bread and the Lord's body be things most diverse.” And therefore he confidently affirmeth thats, if the words, This is my body, did make this sense, This bread is my body, this sentence “must either be taken tropically, that bread may be the body of Christ significatively; or else it is plainly absurd and impossible: for it cannot be," saith he," that bread should be the body of Christ." For it", is the nature of this verb substantive est, or, is, saith Salmeron his fellow-Jesuit, “ that, as often as it joineth and coupleth together things of diverse natures, which by the Latins are termed disparata, there we must of necessity run to a figure and trope ;” and therefore“ should' we have been constrained to fly to a trope, if he had said, This bread is my body, This wine is my blood : because this had been a predication of disparates, as they call it.” Lastly, doctor Kellisonk also in like manner doth freely acknowledge, that "if Christ had said, This bread is my body, we must have understood him figuratively and metaphorically.” So that the whole matter of difference resteth now upon the second point: whether our Saviour, when he said This is my body, meant any thing to be his body, but that bread which was before him: a matter which easily might be determined, in any indifferent man's judgment, by the words immediately going before, “ IIe' took bread, and gave thanks, and brake, and gave it unto them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you ; this do in remembrance of me." For what did he demonstrate here, and said was his body, but that which he gave unto his disciples? What did he give unto them but what he brake? What brake he but what he took ? and doth not the text expressly say that he took bread? Was it not therefore of the bread he said, This is my body? And could bread possibly be otherwise understood to have been his body, but as a sacrament, and (as he himself with the same breath declared his own meaning) a memorial thereof?

e Hoc tamen est impossibile, quod panis sit corpus Christi. De consecrat. dist. 2. cap. 55. Panis est in altari. Gloss.

Non igitur potest fieri, ut vera sit propositio, in qua subjectum supponit pro pane, prædicatum autem pro corpore Christi. Panis enim et corpus Domini res diversissimæ sunt. Bellarm. de eucharist. lib. 3. сар. .

19. & Ibidem scripsit Lutherus, verba evangelistæ, Hoc est corpus meum, hunc facere sensum, Hic panis est corpus meum: quæ sententia aut accipi debet tropice, ut panis sit corpus Christi significative; aut est plane absurda et impossibilis. nec enim fieri potest, ut panis sit corpus Christi. Id. lib. 1. de eucharist. cap. 1.

Quarto ducimus argumentum a verbo illo substantivo Est: cujus ingenium et natura est, ut quoties res diversarum naturarum, quse Latinis dicuntur disparata, unit et copulat, ibi necessario ad figuram et tropum accurramus. Alphons. Salmeron, tom. 9. tractat. 20.

If these words be not of themselves clear enough, but have need of further exposition, can we look for a better than that which St. Paul giveth of them", “ The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" Did not St. Paul therefore so understand Christ, as if he had said, This bread is my body? And if Christ had said so, doth not Kellison confess, and right reason evince, that he must have been understood figuratively?

i Cogeremur ad tropum confugere, si aliter dixisset, nempe ; Hic panis est corpus ineum, Hoc vinum est sanguis meus : quia esset prædicatio disparatorum, ut vocant. Id. ib.

k Matt. Kellison, survey of the new religion, lib. 8. cap. 7. sec. 7. I Luke, chap. 22. ver. 19.

m 1 Cor. chap. 10. ver. 6.

considering that it is simply impossible, that bread should really be the body of Christ. If it be said that St. Paul, by bread, doth not here understand tbat which is properly bread, but that which lately was bread, but now is become the body of Christ; we must remember that St. Paul doth not only say The bread, but The bread which we break; which breaking being an accident properly belonging to the bread itself, and not to the body of Christ, which being in glory cannot be subject to any more breaking, doth evidently shew, that the apostle by bread understandeth bread indeed. Neither can the Ro. manists well deny this, unless they will deny themselves, and confess that they did but dream all this while they have imagined that the change of the bread into the body of Christ is made by virtue of the sacramental words alone, which have not their effect until they have all been fully uttered. For the pronoun this, which is the first of these words, doth point to something which was then present. But no substance was then present but bread: seeing by their own grounds, the body of Christ cometh not in, until the last word of that sentence, yea and the last syllable of that word be completely pronounced. What other substance therefore can they make this to signify, but this bread only?

In the institution of the other part of the sacrament the words are yet more plain”; “ He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, drink ye all of it: for this is my blood of the new Testament:" or, as St. Paul and St. Luke relate it, “ this cup is the new Testament in my blood.” That, which he bid them all drink of, is that which he said was his blood. But our Saviour could mean nothing but the wine, when he said, “ Drink ye all of it:" because this sentence was uttered by him before the words of consecration; at which time our adversaries themselves do confess, that there was nothing in the cup but wine, or wine and water at the most. It was wine therefore which he said was his blood: even the fruit

Matt. chap. 26. ver. 27, 28.



of the vine, as he himself termeth it. For as in the delivery of the other cup, before the institution of the sacrament, St. Luke, who alone maketh mention of that part of the history, telleth us, that he said unto his disciples; “ I° will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come:" so doth St. Matthew and St. Mark likewise testify, that at the delivery of the sacramental cup, when he had said, “ This is my blood of the new Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins;" he also added : “ but I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.” Now seeing it is contrary both to sense and faith, that wine, or the fruit of the vine, should really be the blood of Christ; there being that formal difference in the nature of the things, that there is an utter impossibility that in true propriety of speech the one should be the other: nothing in this world is more plain, than when our Saviour said it was his blood, he could not mean it to be so substantially, but sacramentally.

And what other interpretation can the Romanists themselves give of those words of the institution in St. Paul ? “ Thisa cup is the new Testament in my blood.” How is the cup, or the thing contained in the cup, the new Testament, otherwise than as a sacrament of it. Mark how in the like case the Lord himself, at the institution of the first sacrament of the Old Testament, useth the same manner of speech, “This is my Covenant or Testament;" for the Greek word in both places is the same: and in the words presently following, thus expoundeth his own meaning, " its shall be a sign of the covenant betwixt me and you.” And generally for all sacraments, the rule is thus

• Luke, chap. 22. ver. 18.
p Matt. chap. 26. ver. 29. Mar. chap. 14. ver. 25.

9 Τούτο το ποτήριον ή καινη διαθήκη εστίν εν τω εμώ αίματι. 1 Cor. cap. 11. ver. 25.

Γ Και αύτη ή διαθήκη ήν διατηρήσεις ανά μέσον εμού και υμών. Gen. cap. 17. ver. 10.

* Και έσται ένα σημείο (vel. εις σημείον) διαθήκης ανά μέσον εμού και vpôvGen. cap. 17. ver. 11.

« ForrigeFortsett »