and whereof he that eateth shall live for ever If it be said this cannot be his Meaning for he delivered this Sermon before his Passion yet speaks of an eating and drinking that was a present Duty so that he could not have this Meaning I say it is true Passiō Christi profuit antequam fuit Beneficia Christi valent tam antrorsum quam retrorsum Ex eo tempore valet ad servandum genus humanum ex quo in Adam est vitiatum Aug. both that Christ spake this before his Passion and the eating he speaks of was a present Duty But what then distinguish between the Time of his Death and the Merit of his Death and the Difficulty is solved He is the Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World. Rev. 13.8 i. e. In regard of the Merit Fruits and Efficacy of his Death and the Faith of Believers Not only before his Passion but before his Incarnation the Fathers did all eat the same Spiritual Meat and did all drink the same Spiritual Drink For they drank of that Spiritual Rock that followed them And that Rock was Christ 1. Cor. 10.3 4. Abraham saw his Day Joh. 8.56 And the Apostle giveth this Account of him Jesus Christ the same yesterday to day and for ever Heb. 13.8 3. In what Respect he here calls them by the Names of Bread Meat and Drink 1. Not in regard of their Nature and Substance As if the very Flesh and Blood of Christ were according to the bare sound of the Words very Meat and Drink such as our Corporeal Food is But 2. In regard of their Effect the saving Benefits of his Flesh and Blood or Passion nourish the Souls of the Faithful and preserve them unto Eternal Life even as Corporal Meat that we eat doth minister Aliment to our Bodies and preserve our Natural Lives And thus as it is the Property of Meat and Drink to maintain the Lives of them that eat and drink thereof and as whatsoever being eaten and drunk doth maintain Life is therefore called Meat and drink So it is the proper Nature of the Fruits and Effects of his Body and Blood to nourish the Souls of them that partake thereof to Eternal Life And therefore for their performing that to Souls which Meat and Drink do to Bodies he calls them by the Names of Meat and Drink 4. What kind of eating and drinking this is that he speaks of Or what our Saviour means by eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood What this Manducation of this Spiritual Meat is Per manducationem nihil aliud intelligit quam actum fidei qui consistit in apprehensione applicatione beneficiorum Christi And this is only Spiritual eating by Faith extra Sacramentum without the use of the Sacramental Signs The Romanists confess that he speaks of this kind of eating in this Chapter from the 32d to the 50th verse but then from ver 50. to 59. of eating Orally and Corporally But we say he speaketh only of Spiritual Manducation in this Chapter which doth consist in a partataking by Faith of the Merit and Virtue of his Death the Fruits and Effects of his Passion for us And thus a true Believer eats the Flesh and drinks the Blood of Christ Spiritually when he 1. Believes that Christ's Body was Crucified and his Blood shed for him for the Remission of Sins And 2. Believeth that by this Passion Jesus Christ hath obtained Remission of Sins and Eternal Life for them that do unfeignedly believe in him And when 3. By this true and lively Faith he doth embrace and close with Jesus Christ apply him to himself and from him thus received or manducated receiveth a daily Confirmation and Increase of Spiritual Life and Growth Thus then 1. The Meat our Lord speaketh of is Spiritual Meat 2. This Spiritual Meat is the saving Good prepared for us by the Body and Blood of Christ crucified for us 3. He calls these Fruits of his Passion his Body and Blood because they are obtained by and rise out of his Flesh and Blood sacrificed on the Cross 4. This eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood which he calls by the Names of Bread Meat and Drink is a Spiritual manducating or eating by Faith. This is our Saviour's Sense which is embraced by the true Protestants or Calvinists as Bellarmine calls them Secondly The Popish Sense of this Sermon This is hinted before And in short 1. They confess that the kind of Meat he speaketh of is Spiritual Meat But then they affirm 1. That this Meat is truly and properly the true and proper Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ And 2. That this eating is an Oral and Corporal eating of his true and proper Flesh and Blood. A Manducation that is performed by Mouth 3. That the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ is thus eaten orally and corporally by the Communicants in the Eucharist This is their constant Tenet that in the blessed Sacrament of the Altar under the Forms of Bread and Wine the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are received orally and corporally and that is eaten this is drunk 4. That this Bodily eating and drinking in the Sacrament is the eating and drinking that is properly and primarily meant by our Lord in this Sermon Et de quâ agitur This is the Mind of the Romanists Now in the next Place I am to shew Thirdly That our Lord Jesus Christ in this Sermon is not treating properly of the Sacrament and Sacramental eating and drinking of his Flesh and Blood much less is he here teaching the Popish Doctrine of Oral and Bodily eating and drinking his true and proper Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament In this Point we have the Consent of the Lutherans Hoc caput non proprie per se ad doctrictrinam de Coena pertinet Chemn Harm p. 1134. De spirituali comestione Dominus ait nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis biberitis ejus sanguineni non habebitis vitam in vobis De Myst Missae l. 4. c. 14. yea we have the Suffrage of divers learned Papists who quit this Argument and positively affirm That our Saviour in this Chapter doth not treat of the Sacrament As Biel in Can. Missae Card. Cajetan in Thom. par 3. q. 80. Art. 8. Card Cusan Ep. 7. ad Bohemos and many others Insomuch that Maldonatus on John 6.53 complains sadly that some Catholicks chose to think and speak in this Controversy as Hereticks rather than as the Orthodox and tho he forbear to name them yet he gives their Character in these Words Scio Catholicos scio Doctos scio Religiosos ac Probos Viros esse So that by the Jesuits own Confession we have Catholicks and Catholicks that are Learned and Religious and Honest good Men on our side Yet if this be nothing we have not only learned Men but an Infallible Pope voting for us and expounding our Lord's Words as we do viz. Innocent the
2. As it is their Addition so it is built upon a false Supposition viz. That Men may eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of Christ in his Sense unworthily Whereas he is here speaking of such eating and drinking of his Flesh and Blood as must certainly and necessarily be worthily done and cannot be done otherwise A Man may take the Signs of his Body and Blood unworthily And therefore the Apostle speaks of eating the Bread and drinking the Cup of the Lord unworthily in the Sacrament 1 Cor. 11.27 But no Man can either in or out of the Sacrament receive the thing signified unworthily viz. Christ and his Benefits or truly believe in and apply Christ to himself unworthily If this be done at all it is done worthily and cannot be otherwise 4. The eating and drinking he here speaks of is ever followed with his dwelling in them and they in him who so eat his Flesh and drink his Blood v. 56 He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him He in me and I in him As much as to say as there is a near and inseparable Union betwixt us he is united to me and I am united to him as there is a Union of the Body and Food And this again makes it plain that he speaks not of the Sacramental eating with the Mouth or of receiving the Eucharist For then when wicked Men who are Enemies to the Cross of Christ have once received the Sacrament they should thenceforth dwell in him and he in them have a Spiritual Union to and Communion with him Yet it is certain there is no such a thing as he will one Day make them all to know Mat. 7.23 These four plainly prove this viz. That our Saviour is not here speaking of the participation of the Sacrament or of Sacramental eating and drinking and much less of the Popish Oral and Corporal eating and drinking of his true and proper Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament under the forms of Bread and Wine I may add farther 5. That our Lord Jesus Christ plainly obviates and prevents this gross and carnal Sense of his Words v. 63. It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing the Words that I speak unto you they are Spirit and they are Life Here I say he expounds his meaning in this Discourse It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing Deitas in Christo seu vis illa Deitatis in Christo est causa propriè cur caro sit vere cibus vivificet Ille Iesus Christi solus qui est totius Christi utriusque naturae valet ad vitam is autem non corporalis sed spiritualis est per fidem Nec audent dicere se unà cum humana Christi natura devorare quoque Deitatem ipsam Rolloc in loc Caro quidem Coeterorum omnium quicquam vere non prodest Caro autem Christi quia in ipse unigenitus Dei filius habitat sola vivificare potest Cyril l. 4. in Joh. c. 23. See Bucan loc 48. qu. 112. i. e. the Humanity profits nothing without the Divinity The Flesh or Human Nature of it self and alone hath no quickning Efficacy but in conjunction with the Spirit or Divine Nature from which it receives this quickning Power and Efficacy The Divinity is the Fountain from which this Vertue flows the Humanity is the Chanel by which it is derived unto us The Words that I speak unto you i. e. of eating my Flesh Verba quae locutus sum ad vos spiritus vita sunt intellexistis spiritualiter Spiritus vita sunt Intellexistis carnaliter etiam sic illa spititus vita sunt sed tibi non sunt spiritus est vita qui non spiritualiter non intelligis Ib. ex Augustino and drinking my Blood they are Spirit and they are Life 1. They are to be understood not after a gross and carnal manner but in a spiritual Sense and so they are Life or confer Life To this the Decretal of the Romish Church agrees in the 2d distinction of Consecration in the Canon prima quidem where we have these Words Understand that which I say spiritually You shall not eat that Body which you see nor drink the Blood which those that crucify me will shed I have recommended a sacred Sign to you which being understood spiritually will quicken you 6. If we should grant them thus much that our Saviour here speaketh of the Bodily eating of his real Body yet this would not serve their turn For they will have the Bread to be transubstantiated into the Body of Christ but this Discourse would prove the quite contrary and that if there be any Transubstantiation it is not the Bread that is transubstantiated into the Body of Christ but the Body of Christ that is transubstantiated into Bread. For our Saviour here expresly calls himself Bread ten times over v. 32 33 35 48 50 51 58. So that there is far more ground to believe that the Body of Christ should be turned into Bread than that Bread should be turned into the Body of Christ 7. When they are driven from all their other Artifices whereby they would make this Sermon of our Lord to speak for them they betake themselves to their last Refuge and that is that we must believe the naked Words of Christ without any Disputation or Question about them Thus the Romanist when at a pinch says This one Word of Christ is enough to me when he calls his Flesh Meat indeed I will not deny doubt dispute This was the great Sin of the Capernaits here v. 52. How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat It came not to their Mind say the Rhemists on the Words that nothing was impossible to God that wickedly said How can this Man give us his Flesh But we may make great Profit of their Sin believing the Mysteries and taking a Lesson never to say or once think How For it is a Jewish Word and worthy of all Punishment To this I say the Sin of the Jews here was 1. That they denied the Matter of Christ's Words viz. that there could be any such thing as the eating and drinking of his Flesh and Blood. Their How was a How of denying the Truth of his Words 2. That they understood not but grosly mistook the true meaning of his Words when he had before plainly enough shewed them that this eating he was speaking to them of stood in believing and had promiscuously used the Phrases of eating coming believing for the same thing But it was not their Sin 1. To deny that Oral Manducation whereof they took him to speak as a thing grosly absurd and monstrous Nor 2. To enquire humbly and modestly after the true meaning of our Saviour's Words and manner of eating and drinking his Flesh and Blood. And so we believing Christ Words to be true may and ought to inquire in what Sense they are true and
after what manner Corporally or Spiritually his Flesh is to be eaten and his Blood drunk And it is a vain pretence of Humility that leads Men to swallow down the most gross Absurdities under a pretence of believing But in the mean time the Papists sin most inexcusably 1st In their wilful understanding of our Saviour as the Capernaits did to speak of his Material Flesh and Blood and of a Bodily manner of eating and drinking thereof 2dly In their violent defending and maintaining of this that the Capernaits denied and condemned We have done with the third thing that was proposed namely That our Saviour in this Sermon is not treating of the Sacrament c. Fourthly We shall add a word of the fourth That our Saviour is here treating of the spiritual eating and drinking of his Body and Blood extra Sacramentum without the Sacrament And this will be evident if we consider that the Manducation here spoken of is an eating 1. That was before the Sacrament was instituted and true Believers did eat his Flesh and drink his Blood when there was no Eucharist to eat and drink them in 2. That is to everlasting Life unto all that so eat Vers 54. 3. That is absolutely necessary to Life and Salvation Vers 53. 4. That unites the Soul unto Christ and Christ unto the Soul Vers 56. These have been brought before to prove that he is not speaking of bodily eating and would come in again here to confirm this 5. The Flesh of Christ is eaten only as it is Meat Now it is not Meat for our Body and Corporal Nourishment but Meat of our Souls and Spiritual Nourishment and only eaten of the Soul spiritually by Faith. In short such as our Hunger is that makes us desire this Meat such as this Meat is that we desire and such as the Life is that is maintained by it such also is our eating of it But the Hunger that makes us desire this Meat is spiritual and the Meat we feed on here is spiritual and the Life that is nourished by it is spiritual and therefore our eating is only spiritual not corporal 6. Our Saviour doth put the matter out of question by expounding his meaning to them and declaring that this eating stands in believing Thus what he calls eating Hic edere Christum est credere in eum atque applicare eum magis magisque ad animos nostros Audita devorandus est intellectu ruminandus fide digerendus Tertul. de Resur Carnis Haec quoties agimus non dentes ad mordendum acuimus sed fide sincerè panem sanctum frangimus partimur Cyprian that he plainly expounds to be nothing else but believing and useth without difference the terms of Eating Coming Believing as synonimous or Words of the same Signification V. 35. here he useth Coming for Eating Believing for Drinking And the proper and natural Consequents of these words I am the Bread of Life are He that eateth me shall never hunger and he that drinketh me shall never thirst But he saith He that cometh to me shall never hunger and he that believeth on me shall never thirst to teach us that he speaks of an eating and drinking which is by Faith. So Vers 47 48. he shews to eat in this Mystery is nothing else but to believe Now I have done with this Argument and from what is said I hope it may be plain and evident to us that our Saviour in this Sermon is not treating of the Sacrament and a sacramental eating and drinking of his Flesh and Blood but of a spiritual eating and drinking without the Sacrament and so here can be no colour of a Foundation for Transubstantiation Yet before I leave this I must add a word to prevent the mistaking of my meaning in what is here said as if I had denied that Believers in the participation of the Sacrament do spiritually eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ This I have not said but that which I have asserted is That our Saviour in this Chapter is not treating of the Sacrament nor of eating and drinking his Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament Yet tho he doth not here speak of it Believers in the due use of the Sacrament do that which he here speaks of i. e. really and truly eat his Flesh and drink his Blood in the Sense here intended i. e. spiritually by Faith. There is a threefold eating as hath been hinted 1. Sacramentally only 2. Spiritually only Corpus Christi accipitur non Sacramentaliter tantum quod solum Symbolum sed simul spiritualiter quoad rem significatam 3. Sacramentally and Spiritually together And thus the Sacramental eating and drinking of the sacred Symbols when performed in a due manner by true Believers is ever accompanied with this spiritual eating And so tho in this whole Sermon he treats not of the Sacrament yet whatsoever he speaks in it of eating and drinking c. may be accommodated and applied to the Sacrament wherein I say this that our Lord presseth on the Jews is performed by all true Christians and without which the Sacrament is but an empty Ceremony Thirdly They argue from the words of our Saviour Mat. 19.26 With Men this is impossible but with God all things are possible From hence they say altho Transubstantiation be hard for Human Reason to understand yet it is not hard for Divine Omnipotence to effect And Christ made the Bread his Body by the same Omnipotent Power whereby the World was made and the Word was incarnate and made Flesh in the Womb of the Virgin. Thus they argue from the Divine Omnipotence and oppose Omnipotence to all the Absurdities Contradictions and Impossibilities that Transubstantiation is clogged with and exclaim against us as setting our natural Reason in opposition to the Omnipotence of Jesus Christ and even denying his Omnipotence because we deny their Transubstantiation This is their last Argument from the Scripture The Argument wherewith they do most delude simple People and draw them into a blind Belief of Transubstantiation and consequently to the Belief and Practice of all the Abominations and abominable Idolatries that are daily practised in the Mass Now in Answer to it I say 1st That we do not deny or once doubt of Christ's Omnipotence but constantly believe and openly profess according to the Scripture that Whatsoever the Lord pleased that did he in Heaven and in Earth Psal 135.6 Eph. 3.20 in the Seas and all deep places And that he is able to do exceeding abundantly above that we ask or think But then 2dly A potentia ad actum seu a posse ad esse non valet consequentia We deny that it is warrantable to argue from the Power of Christ to the Act or being of a thing without sufficient Indications Significations and Evidences of his Will to perform such an Act or effect such a thing Or that because he can by his absolute Power do such
is the Foundation that they lay and upon this Foundation they would build Transubstantiation from these three Terms or Expressions in the Words of Institution which prove that the Cup or that which is contained in the Cup is the true and proper Blood of Jesus Christ 1. It is expresly called his Blood. This is my Blood. 2. It is expresly called the New Testament in his Blood. But Wine cannot be the New Testament in his Blood. 3. It is expresly said to be shed for them for the Remission of Sins Now it was not Wine but his true and proper Blood that was shed for them for the Remission of Sins Answ 1. That the Foundation here laid is not only precarious weak and sandy but false and erroneous For 1. Nothing is more frequent and familiar than improper and figurative Terms in the Institution of Sacraments This we have seen before in the Institutions of both Testaments And were not their Brows of Brass they could never have the Face to deny it and to contradict themselves as we shall see in denying of it But nothing is more frequent with them than this to say and unsay to affirm and deny maintain or disclaim any Position as may make most for the advantage of the Cause that they defend 2. Terms and Phrases may be improper and figurative and yet plain and easy to be understood A figurative and an obscure or ambiguous Term are not all one The Papists themselves do confess that there are several tropical Terms as I shall shew in the Institution of the Cup and yet affirm That they have the certain and true Interpretation of them And therefore by their own Confession the certain Signification of figurative Phrases and Forms of Speech may be known But in this they do not only contradict and condemn themselves but reflect on and accuse the God of Heaven as delivering his Mind to Men in matters of eternal Concernment in terms of an ambiguous uncertain and unintelligible Signification 3. Testamentary Dispositions ought to be plain and may be so tho there be some improper Terms in them Jacob's Testament was full of Figures Gen. 49. yet without doubt well understood by his Sons and their Posterity 4. The Eucharist is not the Testament of Christ but a Sign and Seal of his Testament The new Testament was in being before the Institution of the Supper and Baptism which is a Sacrament and Seal of the New Testament was then already instituted And therefore the Instance of a Testator here brought by them is impertinent and to no purpose viz. The Words of a Testator wherein he says to his Legatee I bequeath a House to thee may not be interpreted I leave the Sign of an House to thee no more may the Words of Christ's Testament viz. This Cup is the New Testament be expounded This Cup is the Sign of the New Testament This I say is impertinent For there is a manifest Dissimilitude in the Examples That of the Testator is a proper Testament this of our Saviour is but a Seal of his Testament Now if a Testator who hath in his Testament given a House to his Heir should give this Testament with the Seal annexed unto it into the hand of his Heir saying This is the House which I give unto thee It would be evident and easy enough for any to understand that the thing so put into his Hand is not the House it self but the Assurances and Confirmations of it And it is no more difficult to understand the meaning of our Lord in these Words This Cup is the New Testament i. e. I have in my Testament bequeathed all my Goods unto you and this Cup is instituted to be a visible Seal of this my Testament unto you 5. The Papists forsake their own Foundation or depart from the proper Signification of the Words in several things As 1. When it is said That he took the Cup after Supper Luke 22.20 They say and truly the Cup is put for and signifies the Wine in the Cup. 2. When it is said That he took the Cup c. saying This Cup is the New Testament Luke 22.20 here they say the Cup is put for and signifies his Blood in the Cup. 3. When he saith of that in the Cup This is my Blood they say it is meant of that which is hidden under the Form and Accidents of Wine and resolve this Proposition thus This compound of my Blood and the Accidents of Wine is my Blood. Again 4. When he calls that which he drank the Fruit of the Vine Mat. 26.29 They say That by the Fruit of the Vine we must understand his Blood. This is their keeping to the Letter of the Words 6. The proper and literal Sense of the Words of Institution cannot be the true and proper Meaning of our Saviour in them because if they be so taken they carry in their very Face the grossest Absurdities that can be imagined and such as make our Saviour's Words to contain and hold forth a ridiculous and monstrous Sense If we take them properly uti sonant Then 1. The Cup whether it be of Gold Silver Wood Stone c. is truly and properly the Blood of Christ for he saith expresly This is my Blood. 2. The Blood of Christ is the New Testament Now a Testament is made up and consisteth of Letters Syllables Words and Sentences written in Paper or Parchment Is the Blood of Christ Letters Words Lines c. Besides this both Matthew and Mark call it the Blood of the New Testament therefore it is not the New Testament for how can it be both the Testament and the Blood of the Testament 3. The Blood of Christ is the New Testament in the Blood of Christ As if he should have said This Blood is the New Testament in my Blood. But this is not easy to understand viz. how the Blood of Christ is in the Blood of Christ the Blood of the Cup in the Blood of the Cross or the Blood of the Cross in the Blood of the Cup unless Christ have two kinds and sorts of Blood. 4. The New Testament is shed for in for the Remission of Sins Thus if we take the Words as they sound they come to this Sense viz. That 1. The Cup whether Gold Silver Wood or Stone is Blood And 2. This Blood is the Blood of Christ And 3. This Blood of Christ is the New Testament And 4. This New Testament is shed for the Remission of Sins And so in short a Cup that is made of Gold c. is at once 1. Blood. 2. The Blood of Christ. 3. The New Testament 4. Shed for us And what can be more gross and absurd If yet we allow them a Trope here and that by the Cup is meant that which is in the Cup the Contents of the Cup which is most true in our Saviour's sense yet still the proper sense will be most absurd and dissonant For the express Words of Christ
concerning the Cup are This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which is shed for you Take these properly and then 1. The New Testament is the Contents of the Cup. and 2. The New Testament is shed for us And could this be Can it be said without monstrous Absurdity that the New Testament was shed for us Or that it was Letters Words Syllables Lines that were shed for us for the Remission of Sins Thus which way soever they turn them the literal Sense is absurd and makes our Saviour's Words ridiculous And this may be enough to shew the Sandiness and Unsoundness of the Foundation whereon they bottom this Doctrine Now the Foundation being overturned the Super-structures fall therewith of themselves To wit that that which is in the Cup is real Blood or Wine turned into the very Blood of Jesus Christ because 1. He calls it his Blood. 2. He calls it the New Testament in his Blood. And 3. Saith of it that it is shed I say this Interpretation falls with the Foundation that it is built on and needs no Answer Yet I shall say a Word 1. In general that all these Forms of Speech are Sacramental Terms and must not be taken in a literal and proper Sense but in a Sacramental and improper Signification whereby the Names of the things signified are given to the Signs that do signify them 2. In particular 1. When he saith of that in the Cup This is my Blood the meaning is this is that which signifieth or representeth my Blood the Sign of my Blood. 2. When he saith This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood the meaning is the Wine in this Cup is the Sign and Seal of the New Testament established in my Blood shed upon the Cross or the Sign of my Blood whereby the New Testament is confirmed 3. When he saith it is shed the meaning is it is the Sign of the shedding of my Blood. The Effusion made in the Sacrament was a Sign or Representation of the Effusion which was to be made the next day upon the Cross I have now done with the Plea they make for the Transubstantiation of the Wine from the Words of the Institution III. We shall now come to the 3d in a word to shew that the Wine is not transubstantiated into the Blood of Christ And this may be evinced First From the Absurdities Contradictions and Blasphemies that it carrieth in it These are too many to be enumerated here besides those even now named arising out of the literal Construction of the Words and those mentioned before that attend the Transubstantiation of the Bread which come in again here It labours with these four great Absurdities Grant but Transubstantiation and then according to their own Principles 1. The Wine is transubstantiated into the Cup. 2. The Cup is transubstantiated into the Blood of Christ 3. The Blood of Christ is transubstantiated into a Testament 4. The Testament is shed for the Remission of Sins All these are absurd enough Secondly From its plain Contrariety unto and Inconsistency with the great End and Fruit of Christ's Death Nothing is more plain in Scripture than these two 1. That Christ died or shed his Blood on the Cross to merit and obtain for us Remission of Sins 1 Cor. 15.3 Gal. 1.4 Eph. 5.2 Rom. 4.25 Isa 53.10 c. And 2. That by his Death and Blood-shed on the Cross Remission was obtained Colos 1.20 and 1.14 Eph. 1.7 Revel 1.5 But if as Transubstantiation supposeth the Wine in the Cup was turned into the Blood of Christ and this Blood of Christ was shed in the Sacrament for the Remission of the Sins of the World then the Passion Death and Bloodshed of Christ upon the Cross was both needless and fruitless He attained not his End in dying his Death profited nothing for that which he died for was obtained before he died to obtain it So that as the Apostle said of Justification by works Gal. 2.21 If Righteousness come by the Law then Christ is dead in vain so I may say if Remission of Sins come by the Blood shed in the Sacrament then Christ is dead in vain Thus it takes away the End and Fruit of Christ's Death the Love of God in giving him to die for our Sins the Love of Christ in laying down his Life for us and makes him die in vain Thirdly From the express Words of Christ Matt. 26.29 Mark 14.25 Verily I say unto you I will drink no more of the Fruit of the Vine until the day that I drink it new in the Kingdom of God. These are our Lord 's own Words after he had instituted and celebrated this Sacrament and they put the Matter out of question for he could not more plainly and clearly have said that it was Wine which he had drunk and not Blood. 3. Arg. If in the Eucharist the Elements be transubstantiated into the proper Body and Blood of Christ then the Church of the Jews in the Old Testament did not eat the same Meat and drink the same Drink in their Sacrament that the Christian Church now in the New Testament eats and drinks in her Sacrament But the Church of the Jews did eat the same Meat and drink the same Drink that the Christian Church now doth And therefore there is no Transubstantiation Here are two things to be proved 1. That if there be any such a Transubstantiation as the Papists maintain then the Church of the Jews did not eat the same Meat and drink the same Drink that Christians now do in the Sacrament And this is plain and evident for granting Transubstantiation the Christian Church now eats the Body and drinks the Blood of Christ as he was born of the Virgin Mary But so did not the Church of the Jews nor could for Christ was not then Incarnate nor had either Body or Blood. 2. That the Church of the Jews did eat the same Meat and drink the same Drink that the Christian Church now doth And this is as plain and evident from the express Words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 10.3 4. And did all eat the same Spiritual Meat and did all drink the same Spiritual Drink For they drank of that Spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ. Observe 1st They did eat the same Meat and drink the same Drink That is Eandem escam potum non tantum inter se sed nobiscum habuerunt Quid est eandem nisi quia eam quam etiam nos Eandem ergo cibum eandem potum sed intelligentibus credentibus non intelligentibus autem Manna sola Aqua Credentibus autem idem qui nunc Tunc enim Christus venturus modo Christus venit venturus venit diversa verba sunt idem autem Christus Aug. Tract 26. in Joh. 1. Not in regard of the external and visible Symbols or Signs For they ate Manna and drank Water We eat Bread and drink Wine 2. But in