my body must be expounded thus this Bread is the sign and Sacrament of my Body Whence it follows that in one single Proposition of Jesus Christ in the institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist viz. this cup is the New Testament there are two figures one in the word Cup being taken for that which is in the cup this is a figure called a Metonymie whereby the thing containing is taken for the thing contained The other Figure is that the cup is called the New Testament this is also a Figure called a Metonymie whereby the sign is called by the name of the thing signified And therefore the Romish Doctors are mistaken when they tell us that all that Jesus Christ said when he instituted the Eucharist must be taken literally and without a figure But withal we must not imagine that Jesus Christ spake obscurely because he spake figuratively these figures and manners of speech being commonly and familiarly used by all the World 5. But when we say that these words this is my body this is my bloud must be expounded thus this Bread is the Sign and Sacrament of my Body this Wine is the Sign and Sacrament of my Bloud we do not mean that the Bread and Wine are barely and simply signs of Christs Body and Bloud but we believe that the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist are signs that do exhibit the body and bloud of Christ to Believers For when they do by the mouth of the body receive the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist they do at the same time by the mouth of the soul viz. by Faith receive the Body of Christ broken and his Bloud shed for the remission of their sins as will be proved in the next Chapter 6. Add hereunto this one Argument When a man saith that a thing is such if it be not such during the whole time which he imploys in saying it is such he makes a false Proposition For example When a man saith that a Wall is white if it be not white during the whole time he imploys in saying it is white he makes a false Proposition But according to the Romish Doctors when Jesus Christ said this is my body it was not his body during the whole time which he imployed in saying this is my body for they say it was his body afterward only Therefore according to the Romish Doctors Jesus Christ uttered a false Proposition which being blasphemous to affirm we must lay down this for a foundation that that which Jesus Christ gave his Disciples when he said this is my body was his body not only after he had said it but also while he was saying it and before he said it And here we have this advantage of those of the Romish Church that we believe the truth of these words of Jesus Christ this is my body much better then they do because they believe it at one time only viz. after he had said it but we believe it at three several times viz. before he said it when he was saying it and after he had said it But here some may object that we must not take the words of our Lord in too rigorous a sense and that in these words this is my body we must take the Present tense for the next Future and then the sense will be this this will immediately be my body To which I answer that the Romish Doctors will have us take these words this is my body in the rigour of the literal sense and then the Proposition is evidently false I know that the Present tense may be taken for the next Future as when Jesus Christ said I go to my Father and to your Father I go to my God and to your God that is I shall go speedily But who can be so bold and ignorant as to affirm that this speech is without a Figure seeing all Grammarians know that it is a Figure called Enallage of time Therefore the Romish Doctors must confess that by their own doctrine this Proposition of Jesus Christ this is my body is either false or figurative and that seeing it is not false it must be figurative and that the figure must be a Metonymie whereby the sign takes the name of the thing signified as hath already been proved and not an Enallage of time CHAP. II. Concerning the Exposition of these words He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud bath eternal life My flesh is meat indeed c. 1. IN this Chapter I shall prove that Jesus Christ speaks of a spiritual eating and drinking by Faith and not of a corporal eating and drinking by the mouth of the body My first Argument is this When a man would satisfie his hunger and quench his thirst he eateth and drinketh that thing which he hungers and thirsts after because eating satisfieth hunger and drinking quencheth thirst But it is by Faith that is by believing in Jesus Christ that we satisfie the hunger and quench the thirst which we have after Christ for it is in the sixth of St. John He that cometh to me shall never hunger and he that believeth in me shall never thirst Therefore it is by Faith or by believing that we eat and drink Jesus Christ and consequently the eating of Christ flesh and drinking his bloud is spiritual and not corporal 2. My second Argument is this Jesus Christ saith He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life And except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud ye have no life in you John 6. But it is the spiritual eating and drinking by Faith that gives life eternal and not the corporal eating and drinking by the mouth of the body because many Reprobates according to the very doctrine of Rome it self do corporally eat the flesh and drink the bloud of Christ and yet shall not inherit eternal life 3. The third Argument is taken from S. Augustine and Cardinal Cajetan who expound the words of Jesus Christ as we do St. Augustin in Book 3. of Christian Doctrine speaketh thus To eat the flesh of Christ is a figure teaching us to partake of Christs Passion and to imprint in our memories with delight and profit that Christ was crucified for us Card. Cajetan in his Commentary on St. John 6. saith To eat the flesh of Christ and drink his bloud is faith in Christs death so that the sense is this if you use not the death of the Son of man as meat and drink ye shall not have the life of the Spirit in you And having sufficiently proved his Exposition he adds To eat and drink the Sacrament is a thing common as well to those that eat unworthily as to those that eat worthily but that which Jesus Christ here speaks of is not common to both for he saith he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternal life he saith not he that eateth worthily and drinketh worthily but he that eateth and drinketh Whence it
clearly appears that according to the Letter he speaks not of eating and drinking the Sacrament of the Eucharist but of eating and drinking the death of Jesus Christ 4. Now that we may clearly understand this doctrine we must consider wherein the life which Jesus Christ gives us doth consist for seeing the flesh of Jesus Christ is meat to us because it gives us life it is evident that if we know what life what life that is which Jesus Christ gives us we must know likewise how Jesus Christ is meat to us and consequently how we eat him But to know what that life is which Jesus Christ gives us we must consider what that death is in which we were involved which is expressed by St. Paul Ephes 2. in these words When we were dead in sins and trespasses God hath quickned us together with Christ by grace ye are saved and consequently the death in which we were involved consists in two things first in the curse of the Law which imports the privation of felicity and the suffering of temporal and eternal punishment for our sins Secondly it consists in an habitual corruption whereby sin raigns in us and therefore it is said 1 Tim. 5. The widow that lives in pleasure is dead while she liveth Also sins are called dead works Heb. 10. So that the life which Jesus Christ hath purchased for us consists in two things First In deliverance from the curse of the Law by the pardon of our sins as St. Paul tells us Colloss 2. God hath quickned you together with Christ having forgiven you all trespasses blotting out the obligation that was against us which obligation proceeded from the Law because it did oblige all the transgressors of it to a curse Secondly It consists in regeneration or sanctification whereof Jesus Christ speaking in John 3. saith Except a man be born again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God and S. Paul Heb. 12. Without holiness no man shall see the Lord. Therefore seeing that the life which Jesus Christ hath purchased for us consists in the pardon of our sins and in our regeneration and sanctification which ends in glorification and that Jesus Christ is called meat in reference to this life we must consider the means whereby Jesus Christ hath purchased these things for us and seeing it is certain that his death is the means by which he hath purchased pardon of sins and regeneration we must conclude that Jesus Christ is the food and nourishment of our souls in regard of the merit of his death But that Jesus Christ by his death hath purchased life for us that is justification which consists in the pardon of our sins and regeneration which consists in holiness of life appears by these passages of Scripture viz. We are justified by the bloud of Christ and reconciled to God by his death Rom. 5. We have redemption by his bloud even the remission of sins Ephes 1. He hath reconciled us in the body of his flesh by his death that he may present us holy without spot and blameless in his sight Coll. 1. We are sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all Heb. 10. Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it that he might sanctifie and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word that he might present it unto himself a glorious Church c. Eph. 5. Therefore seeing Jesus Christ hath purchased life for us by his death and that his flesh and bloud are our meat and drink because they purchased life eternal for us on the Cross viz. the remission of our sins and sanctification ending in glorification it follows that the action whereby Jesus Christ is applied to us for righteousness and sanctification is the same by which we eat the flesh of Christ and drink his bloud But this action is nothing else but Faith as the Scripture tells us Being justified by faith we have peace with God Rom. 5. God purifies our hearts by faith Act. 15. He that believeth hath eternal life Joh. 6. From what hath been said I form this Argument That Action whereby we obtain remission of sins and sanctification ending in glorification is the same whereby we have that life which Jesus Christ hath purchased for us by his death because that life principally consists in the remission of sins and sanctification as we have proved But the spiritual eating and drinking by faith and not the corporal by the mouth is that action whereby we obtain remission of sins and sanctification as we have also proved Therefore the spiritual eating and drinking by faith is the action whereby we have that life which Jesus Christ hath purchased for us by his death and not the corporal eating and drinking by the mouth And consequently seeing in St. John 6. a certain eating and drinking is spoken of whereby we have that life which Jesus Christ hath purchased for us by his death it is evident that a spiritual eating and drinking is there spoken of and not a corporal 5. From what hath been said it appears that when Jesus Christ saith my flesh is meat indeed c. the figure falls upon the word meat which is taken not for corporal but spiritual meat The reason whereof is that corporal food is that which is appointed for the nourishment of the body as spiritual food is that which is appointed for the nourishment of the soul so that although corporal food be taken by the mouth of the body yet that only doth not make it to be corporal food except it be taken for the nourishment of the body otherwise poison medicine a bullet c. which a man should swallow would be corporal food which is absurd to affirm But the flesh of Christ which is pretended to be eaten in the Eucharist by the mouth of the body is not appointed for the nourishment of the body because that food which is appointed for the nourishment of the body is changed into the substance of the body but the body of Christ is not changed into the substance of our bodies Therefore the flesh of Christ is not a corporal food but his flesh broken and his bloud shed on the cross is a spiritual food which nourisheth the souls of those who by a true and lively faith do embrace this flesh broken and this bloud shed that is who do wholy rest and rely on the merit of his death and passion for obtaining mercy from God And certainly seeing that the life which Jesus Christ gives us by his death is spiritual that the nourishment is spiritual that the eating his body and drinking his bloud is spiritual as hath been proved it follows that his flesh must be spiritual meat and his bloud spiritual drink And this flesh of Christ is incomparably better and more truly meat indeed in regard of its effects than corporal food can be because it doth better and more perfectly nourish the souls of Believers then corporal food
sign should have some similitude and analogy with the thing signified And he quotes St. Augustine in Epist 23. to Boniface speaking thus If Sacraments had not some similitude of the things whereof they are Sacraments they could be no Sacraments But in the Sacrament of the Eucharist neither the accidents of the Bread and Wine nor the Body and Bloud of Christ whether jointly or severally have that similitude and analogy to the thing signified which is required but only the Bread and Wine in substance because that which is principally signified and represented by the signs in the Sacrament of the Eucharist is the nourishment of our souls in the hope of eternal life for as Baptism is the Sacrament of our Regeneration and spiritual birth so the Eucharist is the Sacrament of our spiritual nourishment as Card. Bellarmin confesseth in Book 3. of the Eucharist chap. 9. and in Book 4. chap. 19 he saith that the Sacrament of the Eucharist was ordained to preserve spiritual life which cannot be represented and signified but by signs which can nourish our bodies for the analogy and similitude consists in this that as the signs have vertue to nourish our bodies for the preservation of temporal life so the things signified have a vertue to nourish our souls in the hope of eternal life But neither the accidents of the Bread and Wine nor the Body and Bloud of Christ whether severally or jointly with the accidents can nourish our bodies nourishment being essentially the conversion of aliment into the substance of a living body and it is certain that neither the accidents of Bread and Wine nor the Body and Bloud of Christ whether separately or jointly with them can be converted into our substance but only the substance of Bread and Wine and other aliments which we take Therefore neither the accidents of the Bread and Wine nor the Body and Bloud of Christ whether separately or jointly with them are the true signs but the Bread and Wine only which being the ordinary nourishment of our bodies do represent to us the spiritual nourishment of our souls by the Body and Bloud of Christ received by Faith 10. Secondly The Council of Trent in Session 13. commands that the Sacrament of the Eucharist shall be adored with Latrie which according to our Adversaries is the sovereign worship due to God only But the accidents of the Bread and Wine ought not to be adored because they are creatures and that God only must be adored Therefore the accidents of the Bread and Wine are not the Sacrament of the Eucharist Thirdly A Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace as the Council of Trent defines it in Sessions 6 and 13. But in the Eucharist the Body and Bloud of Christ are not visible Therefore in the Eucharist the body and bloud of Christ are not the signs Lastly I say that in every Sacrament the sign relates to the thing signified and Relation is always between two different things because nothing relates to it self and consequently nothing can be both the sign and thing signified But the Body and Bloud of Christ are the things signified Therefore the Body and Bloud of Christ are not the signs And it is to no purpose to say that Jesus Christ in the Mass is the sign and figure of himself on the Cross for Jesus Christ wheresoever he is is one and the same yesterday to day and for ever And therefore Jesus Christ not being different from himself cannot be relative to himself nor the sign of himself Other reasons which are usually alledged against Transubstantiation will be more properly mentioned in the next Chapter CHAP. IV. Against the real presence of Christs Body in the Host or consecrated Wafer 1. THe Romish Doctors affirm That immediately after the Priest in the celebration of the Mass hath pronounced these words this is my body the body of Christ is really present in the Host and that it is whole and entire in every part and point of the Host which doctrine I destroy by these following Arguments the first whreof is this 2. If a thing be created in a place either it must be produced there or it must come or be brought thither from some other place for it is impossible to find out a third way of putting any thing in a place And the Romish Doctors have hitherto been able to invent but one of these two ways of putting Christs Body in the Host the Jacobins telling us that it is brought thither from some other place and the Jesuites that it is produced there But the body of Christ can neither come nor be brought thither into the Host nor can it be produced there Therefore the body of Christ is not in the Host 3. First The body of Christ cannot come or be brought into the Host from any other place because it can come from no place but Heaven being no where but in Heaven But Christs body neither comes nor is brought from Heaven into the Host which I prove thus When a body comes or is carried from one place to another it must leave its first place For example if a man would go from Paris to Rome he must leave Paris But the body of Jesus Christ never leaves Heaven for the heavens must contain him until the time of the restitution of all things Acts 3. Therefore Christs body neither comes nor is brought from Heaven into the Host Besides it is impossible that Christs body should come or be brought into the host without passing through the space that is between Heaven and Earth where the consecrated Hosts are because a man cannot pass from one extream to another without passing through the space that is between them But the space between Heaven and Earth is too vast to be passed through in a moment for these Doctors will have it that immediately after the pronouncing of these words this is my body the body of Christ is brought into the Host Moreover it must in a moment be in all the Heavens and in all the Airs between the highest Heaven and this Earth where the Hosts are because a man cannot pass through a place without being there and then it would have three sorts of existences at once viz. one natural and glorious existence in Heaven one sacramental existence in the Host and one airy existence in the Air. But seeing all these things are absurd we must conclude that Christs body neither comes nor is brought into the Host 4. Secondly Christs body cannot be reproduced in the consecrated Host because a thing that is produced already cannot be produced again without a preceding destruction for as a dead man cannot be killed nor that be annihilated which is annihilated already so neither can that be produced which is produced already nor that receive a being which hath one already This common conception of all men is founded upon this principle That every action whether it produceth or destroyeth a thing must necessarily have
die there and at the same time not be hurt at Rome but alive and making merry there Besides Peter might be divisibly at Paris and indivisibly at Rome as Christs body according to our Adversaries is divisibly in heaven and indivisibly in the host But if at Paris where he should be divisibly his head should be cut off he would die and cease to be a man and at Rome where he should be indivisibly and in a point his head should not be cut off and so he should remain at the same time a living and real man which is a contradiction In a word Peter might be at Paris in the midst of flames and be burnt and reduced to ashes and consequently should die and be no man whereas at the same time he might be at Rome in the River Tiber sound and brisk and consequently be a true living man whence it follows that he might be a man and no man which is a contradiction 14. To this may be added other absurdities that would follow from this Position that one body may be in divers places at once viz. That one Candle lighted might give light to all the World if it were reproduced in all places of the World That a great Army might be made of one man reproduced in a hundred thousand adjoining places That all the debts in the World might be paid with one Crown reproduced as many times as there be Crowns due That all the people in the World might quench their thirst with one Pottle of Wine reproduced as many times as there be inhabitants in the World That all the men in the World might drink in one and the same Glass reproduced as many times as there be men in the World whereupon a man might be so curious as to ask whether if this Glass should be broken at Paris it would also be broken at Rome Constantinople and other places That one man reproduced in an hundred thousand places might at the same time marry an hundred thousand wives and lie with them whereupon a man might desire to know whether these women might not conceive and every one of them be delivered of a child at the end of nine months and consequently it may be said that one man did in one night beget a hundred thousand children c. 15. The seventh Argument is this If Christs body were in the host it would be seen there for being there in its glory as the Romish Doctors say it is it would be there more visibly then it was when he conversed amongst men here below because the glory of Christs body doth principally consist in the brightness and splendor of an extraordinary light like to that which it had upon Mount Tabor but who dares affirm that such a glorious body is not visible wheresoever it is and yet it is certain that Christs body is not to be seen in the host which is an evident sign that it is not there But it may be said that Christs body is under the accident of the Bread and that these accidents hide it from us To this I answer that according to our Adversaries Christs body is in the place where the substance of the Bread was But the substance of the Bread was not under the accidents and the accidents of the Bread were not upon their substance for then the substance of the Bread and its accidents had been in two different places above and under being two several differences of place and that which is under is not above c. Therefore Christs body cannot be under the accidents of the Bread and consequently the accidents do not hide it from us And seeing as our Adversaries say Christs body is in every part and point of the host it must needs be in the superficies and consequently cannot be hid or covered by the accidents of the Bread Here again it may be said that Christs body is glorious luminous and visible of it self but God hinders us from seeing it To this I answer That if God hinders it is only because he is pleased so to do and consequently if he were pleased not to hinder he would not do it but would permit it to be seen in the same posture as it is in the host Whereupon I would ask our Adversaries in what posture it would be seen there whether sitting standing lying or in any other posture or whether it would be in any posture at all If it be in no posture it must be without any external form because posture or situation absolutely depends upon external form But how can a man be seen without an external form of a man and without being in any posture of a man and how can Christs body be without posture and without external form seeing as our Adversaries say it is whole and entire in the whole host and occupies the whole space of a great host But if it be sitting or standing or in any other posture and with the external form of a man and if as they say it be whole and entire in a point of the host then it will follow that a man may be seen sitting or standing in a point and seeing a man that is standing hath his head above and his feet below it will follow that Jesus Christ will be seen in a point of the host with his head above and his feet below though in a point there be nothing above or below To this I add That if it could be seen in the host it would appear as big as the host because it would occupy the whole space of the host and it would appear round because it would be bounded by the space that the host occupies which is round Besides if the host should be divided into two equal parts it would appear less by one half and in the form of a half circle because it would be whole and entire in the half of the host and occupy the space of it It would also appear a hundred thousand times less and in a hundred thousand several forms for as they say it is whole and entire in a hundred thousand parts of the host and occupies the spaces of them In a word There was never such a monstrous thing seen in the World as Christs body would be if it were really in the host in such a manner as our Adversaries affirm it to be 16. The eighth Argument is this Either the Manhood of Jesus Christ which is pretended to be in the host can act there or it cannot if it cannot act then it follows that it cannot see hear know or love or exercise any other function of the sensitive or rational soul But if the Manhood of Christ in the host knows nothing nor loves nothing then it follows that it will not be happy because happiness chiefly consists in the knowledge and love of God Also the Manhood of Christ in the host will be different from his Manhood in heaven for it will know in heaven and at the same time know