eat and drink VII It is a Miracle that every wicked Priest should do so many Miracles in one and so many more in number than Christ himself did in the same proportion of time as far as the History of the Gospel telleth us Christ is quite exceeded by them all VIII It is a Miracle that every wicked Priest can work all these Miracles so easily as with the careless saying over four words When the Apostles could not cast out some Devils or work some Miracles and some could not be done but by fasting and prayer IX It is a Miracle that every Priest can work all these Miracles upon an unbeliever or a wicked man For to such they say it is the real flesh and blood of Christ and no bread or wine And the senses of all these wicked men are deceived Whereas Christ himself could not do any great miraculous work among some where he came because of their unbelief X. It is a Miracle that God and the Priest should do these foresaid Miracles on Mice and Rats and other Beasts by deceiving their senses which we find not that Christ ever did or that God should feed them with the miraculous accidents aforesaid XI It is a Miracle of these Miracles that the Priest can thus easily work Miracles not only on other creatures but on the glorified body of Christ himself by the foresaid changes c. XII It is a Miracle that when Christ wrought his Miracles usually before a far smaller number these Priests work Miracles thus before or on the senses of all the men in the world that will be present at the Mass for all their senses are deceived XIII It is a Miracle that the Abassines Armenians Greeks Protestants yea any that they call Schismaticks and Hereticks who do not intend to work any Miracle nor believe Transubstantiation do yet work Miracles in each Sacramental administration of the Eucharist not only without their knowledge but contrary to their belief and against their wills For they say that even such mens consecration is effectual XIV Either their Priests consecration worketh all these Miracles when they intend it not as if they speak the words in jeast or scorn or in Infidelity or only when they intend it If the first be said it is a Miracle of Miracles that any Priest can work so many and great Miracles by a jeast or scorn If not then all the business is come to nothing and no one but the Priest knoweth whether there be any such Miracle at all and whether ever he eat the flesh of Christ And so it will be in the power of the Priest to deceive and damn all the people according to the Papists exposition of Christs words Joh. 6. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you XV. Either a malicious intention to a wrong end will be effectual in Consecration or not If not none but the Priest knoweth that there is any body and blood of Christ or that ever he received any Because none knoweth though the Priest intend Consecration whether he intend it to a right end But if a wicked end will serve as I think most of them hold the Miracle may be great and sad For any Roguish drunken malicious Priest may undo a Baker or Vintner at his pleasure and by four words deprive him of all his Bread and Wine Yea he might nullifie all the Bread and Wine in the City and so either make a famine at his pleasure or else make whole Families and Cities live still and be nourished without any substance by bare Accidents which would be a Miracle indeed If the Priest can by consecration change only a convenient quantity of bread and wine then all that is overmuch is bread and wine after consecration If otherwise why may he not change all the bread and wine in the Shop or Cellar where he cometh intending consecration to an ill end If he can do it only on the Altar then want of an Altar would frustrate the effect which they hold not But if he can do it without an Altar he may do it in the Shop and Cellar If he can do it only on the bread and wine present how near must it be Then the words will work at so many yards distance and not at so many Or if he cannot do it out of sight a blind Priest cannot do it But if he can do it on that which is absent we may fear lest in an anger he may take away all the bread and wine in the Land at least in a frolick to try his power XVI And it is some aggravaion of these manifold Miracles that a Degraded Priest can do them Because they follow the indelible Character And so he that hath once made a Miracle-worker cannot take away his power again nor his sin lose his power Is not this a marvellous power of Miracles which becometh like a nature to them as the power of speaking is XVII Yet is this Miracle-working-power more miraculous in that a mans own unwillingness or Repentance of his Calling cannot hinder the Miracle if he do but speak four words Consent it self is not necessary to it Let a man Repent that ever he was a Priest and profess that he continueth in that Calling against his will yea let him write as I now do against Transubstantiation yet all this will not hinder his next Consecration from working all the foresaid Miracles XVIII It is miraculous that if you keep a consecrated Wafer never so long if you use it never so coursly if you as he did who occasioned the conversion of Mr. Anthony Egan a late Irish Priest pawn it at an Ale-house for thirty shillings if you lay it down for a stake at Cards or Dice c. it will not cease to be Christs flesh and so by his blood nor ever becomes bread or any other substance till it corrupt And yet in a mans stomach it ceaseth to be Christs body as natural heat corrupteth it by concoction And yet it is not Christs flesh that is concocted XIX It is a Miracle of this Miracle which Aquinas and others assert that the Bread and Wine are not Annihilated but wholly turned into Christs body and blood and yet as Vasquez saith It is not that the matter of bread begins to be under the form of Christs body as Durandus held Saith Veron Reg. fid cap. 5. This Transubstantiation is neither a change nor a production of any thing but it is a Relation of order between the substance that doth desist to be and that into which it doth desist And yet saith the Concil Trident. There is a change made of the whole substance into c. XX. Lastly It is a Miracle that all these Miracles should be done so as not to appear to the senses of any man living either to Convert Unbelievers or Confirm the faithful So that millions of these Miracles are seen and not
other Ordinances as in the Eucharist Nor know I what they mean by the Forms of bread and wine under which they say that Christs Body and blood is given But I am past doubt that Bread and Wine are still really in substance there And whereas the same men say that It is Christs humbled flesh and blood as sacrificed on the Cross that is Commemorated but his Glorified Body and soul only which are Communicated and Received I must say 1. That Christ plainly tells us of his Giving us his Sacrificed Body or flesh it self to eat as he is the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the World And he saith Take Eat this is my Body which is broken for you c. so that the same body is Commemorated and Communicated But how Communicated In the effects of his sacrifice His Body was given a sacrifice to God for us and the fruits of that sacrifice given to us And thus he was given a sacrifice for the life of the world And thus we do receive him By our bodily taking and eating the Bread we profess that our souls take him to be our Saviour and Cause of our Life both as Purchasing and Meriting it on Earth and Interceding and Communicating it in and from Heaven 2. And this Doctrine will not serve the Papists turn who tell us that Bread and Wine are ceased and that Christs very flesh and blood is there into which all the substance of the bread and wine are turned and that his natural Body before his death was in the same sort given under the forms of Bread and Wine as now and will not be beholden to this subterfuge And indeed it is strange if the Sacrament at the first Institution should be One thing and ever after another thing and that the Bread should ever since be turned into Christs body upon the Priests Consecration and not be turned into it because not yet glorified upon his own words This is my Body Therefore we must let this go and speak of what they own and hold indeed And as for any other Bodily presence influence or communication of Christs Body or Soul besides that which they call Transubstantiation we have nothing to do with it in this Controversie That the substance of the Bread and Wine is not turned into the substance of the flesh and blood of Christ is proved I. Because the Glorified Body of Christ is not formally and properly Flesh and Blood Though it be the sâ—me Body which was Flesh and Blood The Apostle Paul saith 1 Cor. 15.50 51. Now this I say brethren that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God nor doth corruption inherit incorruption Behold I shew you a mysterie We shall not all sleep but we shall all be changed It is not only Dr. Hammond but other of the best expositors who shew that by Flesh and blood and corruption here is not meant sin but flesh and blood formally considered which is ever corruptible And the Papists commonly confess this If therefore it be flesh and blood which the bread and wine are turned into then either Christ hath two bodies or two parts of one which are utterly heterogeneal one flesh and blood and the other not one corruptible and the other incorruptible II. And this feigneth Christ to be often Incarnate even thousands and millions of times And to lay down that Incarnate body again as oft as it corrupteth and to take up a new one as oft as the Priest please and yet all but one Whereas the Church and Scripture have ever told us but of one Incarnation of Jesus Christ III. And it is expresly contrary to his promise Joh. 6.51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven If any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever And the bread which I give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world v. 34. Who so eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father so he that Eateth me even he shall live by me He that eateth of this bread shall live for ever These are the express promises of Christ But the Papists say that wicked men and unbelievers eat the flesh of Christ who shall not live for ever nor have eternal life nor dwell in Christ but are more miserable by their hypocrisie I pass by abundance of other arguments because commonly used and these are as many as my ends require and I would make the Reader no more work than needs CHAP. XI The Conclusion of the first Book The Causes of Popery R. I Have now made plain to you 1. What the Protestants Religion is or at least my own and all that I perswade you or any other to embrace 2. And also that it is granted to be all true by the generality of the Papists as is explained and proved 3. And I have told you by an enumeration of some particulars why I am not a Papist and why I do disswade you from it 4. And I have made good my first charge in the point of Transubstantiation if any thing in the world can be proved The second I shall leave till another time viz. To shew you how far their Religion as Popish is from Infallible Certainty and what horrid confusion is among them and how they have done much to promote Infidelity in the world by building Religion upon some notorious untruths and upon a multitude of utter uncertainties Though I doubt not but among them there are many true Christians who practically resolve their faith into the surer evidences of Divine Revelation yet I shall clearly prove to you that all those whose practical faith is no surer or better than the notional opinions of their Divines will allow have no certain faith or Religion at all And what impudency is it to make men believe that there is no certainty of Religion to be had but in their way who build their Religion upon such a multitude of uncertainties and certain falshoods as will amaze you when I come to open them to you viz. that ever so many Learned men and persons of all ranks can be induced so to jest in the matters of their salvation And if I be not by death or other greater work prevented I hope in order to make good all the rest of the Charges before mentioned which are our Reasons against the Popish way of Religion In the mean time tell me what you think of that which is already said D. I know not how to confute what you have said And yet when I hear them on the other side me thinks their tale seems fair and I cannot answer them neither so that between you both we that are unlearned are in a sad case who must thus be tost up and down by the disputations of disagreeing Priests so that we know not
Saint and yet not the benefits or effects As if Christs flesh and blood could be in a mans body without his benefit When he hath promised that he that eateth him shall live by him Yet see the measures of their faith and Church Saith Aquinas 3. q. 80. a. 3. ad 2. Vnless perhaps an Infidel intend to Receive that which the Church giveth though he have not true faith about other Articles or about this Sacrament then he may receive sacramentally CHAP. VI. The fourth Argument This Miraculous Transubstantiation is expresly contrary to the Word of God in Scripture Arg. 4. THe Papists say that there is no bread after the words of Consecration Gods word saith There is Bread after the Consecration Therefore the Papists speak contrary to the Word of God I. In 1 Cor. 11. It is called expresly BREAD after consecration no less than three times in three verses together 26 27 28. For as oft as ye eat this Bread and Drink this cup ye shew the Lords death till he come Wherefore whosoever shall eat this Bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup Here they that call for express words of Scripture for our doctrine without our consequences may see their own faith expresly contradicted and our opposition justified The Holy Ghost here expresly calleth it Bread And yet no expresness nor evidence will satisfie them P. By Bread is meant that which was Bread before or else that which nourisheth the soul as Bread doth the body And so it is metonymically only called Bread as Christs Flesh is called Bread in Joh. 6. R. Why then do you call for express texts of Scripture as our proof when that expresness signifieth nothing with you but you can say It is a metonymie or a metaphor at your pleasure But you say so against notorious Evidence The Apostle calleth it Bread so often over and over as if he had foreseen your inhumane heresie He calleth it The Bread which is to be Eaten joyned with Drinking the Cup never once calling either of them the Flesh or Blood of Christ but as he reciteth Christs words which he expoundeth Yea he telleth us that eating this bread and drinking this cup is to shew the Lords death till he come where he calleth us to look back at Christs death as past in our Commemoration and to look forward to his personal coming as future but never telleth us that we must kill Christ and eat him our selves when we have made him nor that his body is there present under the accidents of Bread and Wine But the rest of the Scriptures as expresly justifie our doctrine 1 Cor. 10.15 The Cup of blessing which we bless is it not the Communion or Communication of the blood of Christ And the Bread which we break is it not the communion or participation of the body of Christ Here it is the Cup and the Bread after Consecration if the Holy Ghost may be believed And in the next words the Apostle repeateth it in his reason For we being Many are One Bread and One Body For we all partake of one Bread or Loaf Is not here express proof So Act. 20.7 When we came together to break Bread And v. 11. He ascending and breaking bread and eating c. Here it is twice more called Bread after the Consecration which ever went before the Breaking So Act. 2.42 46. It is twice more called Breaking of Bread And what else can the recitation of Christs institution mean 1 Cor. 11.23 24. Panem accepisse fregisse to have taken Bread and having given thanks to have broken What is it that he brake It s non-sence if it have no accusative case that it respects And plain Grammatical construction tells us then that it must be that before mentioned What he Took he blessed and brake and gave But he took Bread and the Cup The same is in Mat. 26 26 27. and the other Evangelists II. The Scriptures expresly Act. 2 c. make the Killing of Christ and drawing his blood to be the heynous sin of the Jews for which some Repented and others were cast off Therefore it is not to be believed that Christ did first kill or tear himself and shed his own blood or that his disciples did kill him or tear his flesh and shed his blood before the Jews did it And if they tore his flesh and drank his blood and yet killed him not the event altered not the fact The Jews did but break his flesh and shed his blood If you fly to a good intention Paul will come in for some further excuse for his persecution III. 1 Cor. 10.21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of Devils Ye cannot be partakers of the Lords table and of the table of Devils Here note 1. That the same phrase is used of the Participation of the Lords mysteries and the Devils But it was not the flesh and blood or the substance of Devils which the Idolaters ever intended to partake of but only their sacrifices 2. It is here called only the Table and the Cup and not the flesh and the blood 3. It is said that They could not partake of both whereas according to the Papists doctrine if a man should partake of the Idols sacrifice in the morning and of the Lords Table in the evening without repentance he should really partake of Christs own flesh and blood which the Text saith cannot be done P. It meaneth only You cannot Lawfully or you ought not to partake of both but not that it is impossible or never done R. No doubt but it meaneth that They ought not or cannot Lawfully but that 's not all The text plainly meaneth You cannot have communion with both You may take the bread and wine at your peril but you cannot partake of it as a sacramental feast which God prepareth you and so partake of Christ therein And the same is said expounding this 2 Cor. 6.15 What concord hath Christ with Belial and what agreement hath the temple of God with Idols Intimating that Communion with God and Idols Christ and Belial are so far inconsistent But by the Papists doctrine an Idolater and Son of Belial may partake of the very substance of Christs body and blood into his body as verily as he partaketh of his meat and drink IV. The Scripture teacheth us expresly to judge of sensible things by sense Luk. 24.39 Behold my hands and my feet that it is I my self handle me and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have And when he had thus spoken he shewed them his hands and his feet And v. 43 he did eat before them to confirm their faith But they could have no more sensible evidence of any of this than we have of the being of Bread and Wine or some
order of nature Thou blindest the providence of God himself as if he had made mens lying and deceitful senses to be the Lords in understanding honouring dispensing and enjoying all his works Is not the whole Condition of man subadministred by these And after We may not call those senses into question lest Christ himself must deliberate of their certainty or must distrust them Lest it may be said that he falsly saw Satan cast down from Heaven or falsly heard the voyce of his Father testifying of him or was deceived when he touched Peters Wives Mother or perceived not a true taste of the Wine which he Consecrated in the memorial of his blood Many such places are in Tertullian 4. Origen is large and plain to the same purpose in Matth. 25. calling it Bread and a Typical and Symbolical Body which profiteth none but the worthy receivers and that according to the proportion of their faith and which no wicked man doth eat c. Many more such places Albertinus vindicateth 5. Cyprians Epistle to Magnus is too large this way to be recited As Even the Sacrifices of the Lord declare the Christian Vnanimity connexed by firm and inseparable love For when the Lord calleth Bread his body or his body bread made up of many united grains c. And when he calleth the Wine his Blood c. So Epist ad Caecil 6. Eusebius Caesar demonstr Evang. l. 1. c. 10. Celebrating daily the memorial of the body and blood of Christ Seeing then we receive the memorial of this Sacrifice to be perfected on the Table by the symbols of his body and most precious blood And l. 8. He delivered to us to use Bread as the symbol of his own body 7. Athanasius's words are recited by Albertinus l. 2. p. 400 401 c. 8. Basil de Spir. Sanct. saith Which of the Saints hath left us in Writing the words of invocation when the Bread of the Eucharist and the Cup of blessing are shewed 9. Ephrem in Biblioth Photii p. 415. Edit August saith The body of Christ which believers receive loseth not his sensible substance and is not separated from the intelligible grace And ad eos qui filii Dei c. Take notice diligently how taking Bread in his hands he blessed it and brake it for a figure of his immaculate body and he blessed the Cup and gave it to his Disciples as a figure of his pretious blood 10. Cyrillus vel Johan Hierosol Catech. Mystag calls the bread indeed Christs body but fully expounds himself de Chrysmate Cat. 3. pag. 235. For as the Bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the Holy Ghost is no more Common Bread but is the Body of Christ So also this Holy Oyntment is no more meer Oyntment nor if any one had rather so speak common now it is consecrated but it is a Gift or Grace which causeth the presence of Christ and the Holy Ghost that is of his Divinity As the Oyntment is Grace or the Holy Ghost just so the Bread is the body of Christ as he saith after Cat. 4. It is not only what we see Bread and Wine but more 11. Hierom cont Jovinian l. 2. The Lord as a type or figure of his blood offered not water but wine 12. Ambrose de Sacram. l. 4. c. 4. This therefore we assert How that which is Bread can yet be the body of Christ And If Christs speech had so much force that it made that begin to be which was not how much more is it operative that the things that were both Be and be changed into something else And As thou hast drunk the similitude of death so thou drinkest the similitude of pretious blood 13. Theodoret in Dialog Immutab dealeth with an Eutychian Heretick who defended his Error by pleading that the bread in the Eucharist was changed into the body of Christ To whom saith Theodoret The Lord who hath called that meat and bread which is naturally his Body and who again called himself a Vine did honour the visible signs with the appellation of his body and blood not having changed their Nature but added Grace to Nature And in Dialog 2. In confus he saith The divine Mysteries are signs of the true body And again answering the Eutychians pretence of a change he saith By the net which thou hast made art thou taken ☞ For even after the Consecration the Mystical signs change not their nature For they remain in all their first SVBSTANCE figure and form and are Visible and to be Handled as before But they are understood to be the things which they were made and are believed and venerated as made that which they are believed to be Would you have plainer words 14. Gelasius cont Nest Eutych saith Verily the Sacraments of the body and blood of Christ which we take is a Divine thing for which and by which we are made partakers of the divine nature ☞ And yet it ceaseth not to be the Substance and Nature of Bread and Wine And certainly the Image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the Mysteries What can be plainer 15. Cyril Alexandr in John 4. cap. 14. saith He gave to his believing disciples fragments of Bread saying Take Eat This is my body 16. Facundus lib. 9. cap. 5. pag. 404. as cited by P. Molin de Novitate Papismi We call that the body and blood of Christ which is the Sacrament of his body in the consecrated Bread and Cup. ☞ Not that the Bread is properly his body and the Cup his blood but because they contain the Mysterie of his body and blood But I am so weary of these needless Transcriptions that I will trouble my self and the Reader with no more Albertinus will give him enow more who desireth them And no doubt but with a wet finger they can blot out all these and teach us to deny the sense of words as well as our senses D. But you said also that the Present Church and its Tradition is against Transubstantiation as well as the Antient How prove you that R. Just as I prove that the Protestants are against it By the present Church I mean the far greater part of all the Christians in the world The Greeks with the Muscovites the Armenians the Syrians the Copties the Abassines and the Protestants and all the rest who make up about twice or thrice as many as the Papists That they hold that there is true Bread and Wine after Consecration all impartial Historians testifie both Papists and Protestants and their own several Countreymen and also Travellers who have been among them And their Liturgies even those that are in the Bibliotheca Patrum put out by themselves do testifie for those Countreys where they are used Though as Bishop Vsher hath detected by one words addition they have shamelesly endeavoured to corrupt the Ethiopick Liturgy about the Real presence But I need no more proof of that which
no faithful History doth deny And then I need not prove that Transubstantiation is against the most General or Common Tradition For all these Christians the Greeks Armenians Abassines c. profess to follow the Religion which they have received from their Ancestors as well as the Papists do And if the Papists be to be believed in saying that this is the Religion which they received from their forefathers Why are not the other to be believed in the same case And if the Popish Tradition seem regardable to them Why should not the Tradition of twice or thrice as many Christians be more regardable And if in Councils the Major Vote must carry it Why not in the Judgement and Tradition of the Real body of Christs Church As for their trick of excepting against them as Schismaticks and Hereticks to invalidate their Votes and Judgement we despise it as knowing that so any Usurper that would make himself the sole Judge may say by all the rest of the world But as they judge of others they are justly judged by others themselves CHAP. X. The second part of the Controversie Whether it be Christs very Flesh and Blood into which the Bread and Wine are Transubstantiated R. OUr first Question was Whether there be any Bread and Wine left after Consecration Our second is Whether Christs Real Flesh and Blood be there as that into which the Bread and Wine are changed And herein 1. I do freely grant that the change of Christs Body by Glorification is so great as that it may be called though not a Spirit yet a spiritual body as Paul 1 Cor. 15. saith Ours when Glorified shall be that is A body very like in purity simplicity and activity to a Spirit And the general difference between a spirit and body was not held by many of the Greek Fathers as it is by us And if the second Council of Nice was Infallible no Angel or other Creature is Incorporeal Or as Damasus saith They are Corporeal in respect to God but Incorporeal in respect to gross bodies The perfect knowledge of the difference between Corpus and Spiritus except by the formal Virtues is unknown to mortal men 2. I grant therefore that our senses are no Competent Judges Whether Christs true body be in the Sacrament no more than Whether an Angel be in this room There are bodies which are Invisible 3. I grant that it is unknown to us how far Christs Glorified body may extend Whether the same may be both in Heaven and on earth I am not able nor willing to confute them that say Light is a Body nor them that say It is a spirit nor them that say It is quid medium as a nexus of both I mean Aether or Ignis visible in its Light And it is an incomprehensible wonder if Lumen be a real radiant or Emanant part of the Sun that it should indivisibly fill all the space thence to this earth and how much further little do we know So for the extensions of Christs body let those that understand it dispute for me 4. And I will grant that it is very probable that as in Heaven we shall have both a Soul and Body so the Body is not like to have so near an Intuition and fruition of God as the soul And whether the Glorified Body of Christ will not be there a medium of Gods Communication of Glory to our bodies yea and his glorified soul to our souls as the Sun is now to our eyes I do not well understand only I know that it is his prayer and will that we be with him where he is to behold his Glory and that God and the Lamb will be the Light of the Heavenly Jerusalem 5. And I am fully satisfied that it is not the signs only but the Real Body and Blood of Christ which are given us in the Sacraments both Baptism and the Eucharist But how given us Relatively de jure as a man is Given to a Woman in Marriage or as a house and land are delivered to me to be mine for my use though I touch them not Thus 1. A right to Christ is given us 2. And the fruits or benefits of his Crucified body and shed blood are actually given us that is Pardon and the Spirit merited for us thereby 6. And among the Benefits given us besides the Relative there are some such as we call Real or Physical terminatively and hyperphysical originally ut à Causa which are the spirit of Holiness or the Quickening Illuminating and Sanctifying influence of the spirit of Christ upon our souls And the Sacrament is appointed as a special means of communicating this 7. I have met with some of late who say that Indeed Christs Body and Blood in his humbled state were not really eaten and drunk by the disciples at his last supper For the flesh profiteth not to such a use But that his Glorified Body is spiritual and is extensively communicated and invisibly present under the form of Bread in the Sacrament and that as we have a Body a sensitive life and an Intellectual soul so Christ is the life of all these respectively viz. His Body is made the spiritual nourishment of our Bodies his sensitive soul for which the word Blood is put because it is in the blood in animals is the food or life of our sensitive souls and his Intellectual soul of ours And to these uses they assert the Real presence and oral participation of Christs Glorified body To all which I say 1. Whether or how far an invisible spiritual Body is present sense is no judge nor can we know any further than Gods word telleth us 2. That Christ in his Glorified soul and Body is our Intercessour with God through whom we have all things we must not doubt 3. That Christ in his Humane and Divine Nature now in Heaven is that Teacher who hath left us a certain word and that King who hath left us a perfect Law of Life whom we must obey and a promise which we must trust we must not question 4. That the Holy Ghost who is our spiritual Life is given us by from and for Christ our Mediator we must take for certain truth But though in all these respects Faith apprehendeth and liveth upon Christ yet that moreover his Glorified Body in substance either feedeth or by contact purifieth our Bodies and his sensitive soul our sensitive souls and his Intellectual soul our Intellectual souls as if in themselves and not in their effects only they were thus communicated to us I understand not either by any just conception of the thing it self or any proof of it from the word of God But if any can help me to see it I shall not refuse instruction Nor can I see why the soul of Christ should be said to be given in the Wine only and not in the Bread Nor why by this kind of Communication he may not as truly be said to be given us in