Chapter XIII.--That the literal and proper sense of "This is my body," and other words belonging to the blessed Sacrament, destroys both transubstantiation and Mass.
I should not need to add more than what I have already said, were it not charity to undeceive the world of a gross popular error; as if the direct and plain meaning of the words our Saviour uttered when he instituted this holy Sacrament, did cast a favourable aspect upon transubstantiation and Mass. There are millions of simple souls, who are either kept in, or drawn away to, the Roman communion, upon this account, that Christ said, "This is my body:" and, thereupon, will rather believe that Christ's body is in the priest's hand, than either give themselves any further trouble about it, or run the hazard, as they think, to extenuate the full sense of it by any kind of metaphors. Never men were enchanted with a more palpable mistake, than Roman Catholics are in this matter. For the sense of Christ's words with us, is both full and literal, and as Papists do take it, it is both so perplexed and obscure, that their best interpreters confess, they can scarce agree among themselves about one word; [Catharin. de verbis quib. etc. Tract. 2. Gabr. Vasquez. Disput. 201. c. 1] and, withal, so improper and unfit for their turn, that before it can be applied to Transubstantiation, or Mass, every word must be racked out of its proper signification, by many unusual and strange tropes, or figures.
This is the plain and literal construction, which we make of Christ's words, Matth. xxvi. 26, &c. Jesus took bread, true substantial bread; and blessed it, that is, both with prayer and thanksgiving He consecrated this bread, and made it a holy Sacrament; and brake, and gave it, &c., that is, after He had broken in pieces, and distributed among his disciples, this same bread by Him blessed and consecrated, He bids them to eat it in that proper and real manner that bread can be eaten, telling them withal, that this bread which He hath thus taken, blessed, broken, and given them to eat, was his body, in as real and elevated manner of being, as a great and holy sacrament can be said to be the very thing, which it hath been instituted to represent and exhibit. So that the sacred Eucharistical act of receiving this holy Sacrament with faith and contrition, must not be less accounted of than the very real communion of Christ's body. All this is both said and done literally and really, without scarce so much as one figure. For the particle "is," as the best Roman Catholics will sometimes acknowledge, [Janson. Liturg. l. iv. c. 8.] including all manner of beings, whether substantial or accidental, whether of quality, or cause, or effect, or relation, &c., common sense and reason can teach any man to choose either this or that, (and no other) which he sees to be proper to the condition of the subject he hath in hand. So when Christ says, that God is a Spirit, it is evidently so by a being of substance. When He says of Himself, that He is the resurrection, it is by a causal being. When St. Paul says the rock was Christ, it is a being of similitude. Thus when here he says that the bread, which He took, blessed, and gave; was his body; it is confessed on all hands, [Bell. de Euchar. l. iii. c. 19. § Sed haec nullo negotio. Vasquez. Disp. 201. c. 1. Suarez. Disp. 57. sect. 7. § Prima sententia.] that the bread cannot be Christ's body by a substantial being, or that the substance of that bread, cannot be the body of Christ; therefore here "is" must be understood of some other kind of being that is suitable to the matter in question. Now, the matter Christ there speaks of, is a true representing Sacrament, namely, the consecrated bread: and a represented truth, namely, the true natural body of Christ. Where "that" must needs be said to be "this," by a being of similitude, or as Jansonius calls it, [Janson. supr.] a similitudinary being, that is, a being of resemblance.
But if you please to call it a figure, as most of our Reformed Churches do; first, it is but one; secondly, one as plain and intelligible, as God ever was pleased to make use of in the institution of all his other most solemn Sacraments. The Paschal Lamb is the Passage, Exod. xii. The Circumcision is the Covenant, Genes. xvii. 10. This Cup is the New Testament, &c., Luke xxii. Thirdly, it is such an ordinary kind of figure, as all men commonly love to use in their most ordinary and clearest expressions. Thus, if a father will part his estate amongst his children, delivering into their hands the titles or deeds of what he gives, he says, my son, here is the land which my father left me, and this the house which I bought since, &c. This way of speaking is both so plain, and so usual, in all languages and countries, that it can drive none but distracted men to miracles and transubstantiations, for fear of any such figure.
Therefore, what can be thought of them, who willingly entangle themselves into a labyrinth of improper, inconvenient, and unusual expressions, the better to involve themselves into transubstantiation, and a necessity of miracles? Be content with one most intelligible and most usual figure, if you are pleased to call it figure: it leads you directly to the blessed Eucharist; whereas, either you must force every one of these words out of their proper, and ordinary signification, or else you can never find Mass. It is worth the considering, how almost every word of Christ's institution, is turned upside down by Roman priests, to make it fit for their business.
1. As soon as Christ hath taken the bread, presently they invent a figure, that turns blessing into cursing. For whereas all other things thrive and prosper, when God blesses them, bread decays worse than the fig-tree when it was cursed, Mark xi. 21, for as they take it, it presently loses its whole substance, by this blessing, as far, at least, as it relates to consecration. In this Catholic sense, to bless or consecrate the bread is utterly to destroy it.
2. The word "breaking" must be understood by another quite contrary figure. For whereas blessing is with these masters of new language, the destroying of the whole substance; breaking spares all; or if it concerns any substance, it is in that strange figure wherewith one is said to break the bones, when he scratches only the skin. For they say the body of Christ is broken, only because the forms and colours that wrap it about are broken.
3. Whereas the literal construction of these four words, He took, blessed, brake, and gave, relates visibly to one and the same, thing, namely the bread, as Bellarmine, dazzled with evidence of truth, confessed once. The Lord says, He took the bread, [Bell. de Euchar. l. 3. c. 19. § Primum autem.] blessed the bread, gave the bread, and said of the bread that it was his body; and so no transubstantiation; for the bread cannot be the body of Christ, but in our sense; to save transubstantiation they must run to a distracting or distracted figure, whereby what Christ takes is true bread, what He breaks is nothing, (at least no bread) and what He gives, is flesh.
4. When the blessed Evangelist adds "saying" which is an evidence that he means only to relate what Christ said, and many learned Roman Catholics. are forced to take it so; [Innocent. 3. de Myst. Miss. l. 4. c. 17. Durand. 4. d. 8. q. 2. Suarez. Disp. 58. sect. 4. § Dico ergo primo.] priests who seem better to mind the concerns of their Mass, must put it to another use, for they make of it a prologue, to usher in a greater figure next following, which is called prosopopeia, and prepare the priest to personate Christ at the altar, [Gabr. Vasquez. Disp. 200. c. 3. § Veluti cum quis inducens Personam.] as if a player would act a king upon his stage. This prosopopeia, or comical acting, which the most attentive scholar may very well not observe once, though he read the gospel twice, is the main support both of Mass, priesthood, and sacrifice. For it is by virtue of this elevated fiction, that every priest must be fancied to be at his altar, what Christ was at his last supper, and to have in his hand the same bread, the same body, &c., which He shewed above 1600 years since to his disciples; and because all this is notoriously untrue, (for neither the thin wafer, which the priest consecrates, is the same unleavened bread which Christ blessed, and shewed when He said this; nor is the priest's body, Christ's body) this brave figure must needs be brought to countenance these two or three lies. [Vid. Vasq. ibid.]
5. To come from the narrative to the significative and more essential words, "this is my body." This, in its proper and usual construction, is a demonstrative that must relate to what our Saviour took, shewed, and gave to his disciples, and as truth will out sometimes, they cannot hold out but confess that it was bread. [Bell. supr.] But when they better mind their business, they must put it to signify something else. Some say, therefore, that "this" must signify, this bread, [Alexand. 4. q. 10. m. 4. a. 2. Referente Vasque.] that shall be presently transubstantiated into my body, is my body. Which, if it be no figure, is certainly a huge incumbrance upon a poor monosyllable. With some, "this" is as much as "under this," or "this which is consecrated under this." Which may be true or false of any thing. But, however "this" for "under this" is no literal interpretation. [AEgidius. Theorem. 42. Palud. in 4. d. 8. q. 3. a. 1.] With some, "this" signifies an individuum vagum, that is somebody, [Durand. Capreol.] or something; which is not so much a figure, as an absurdity that destroys the nature of a demonstrative, which stands to signify either the thing spoken of before, or somewhat determinate and present to sense, or both. Hence it is that Thomas Aquinas [Thom. 4. Sent. d. 11. q. 2. a. 1.] says, that a priest may, if he please, transubstantiate all the loaves in the market, which he can conveniently shew: but not all the loaves in the town, because he cannot point at them, nor fetch them into the compass of the proper signification that "this" hath. Others will have "this" to signify the Body of Christ in heaven. [Major apud Suarem. Disp. 58. sect. 7. § Tertia Sententia.] Which is worse, because further from the priest than all the bread of a great town. Besides, no sense can be less literal than this, "this body which is in heaven, is under this." Others, finally, take "this" for something else, but what that is, whether accidents or substance of bread, or some other general substance, they cannot agree among themselves, nor any one with his own self, every one taking what he says upon this matter, not as certain, but only as more probable to his thinking, [Vasquez. Disp. 101. c. 1. 2. 3. 4. Catharin. De verbis quib. &c. Tract. 2.] and less liable to difficulties, than what his neighbour hath said before him. Meanwhile, none of them dares take this word in its natural and literal signification.
6. The next word "is," is used as bad. For many translate it, "is made," [Soto in 4. Sent. Dist. xi.] as if Christ had said this thing is made my body. Others will have it, "is transubstantiated into my body." [Wideford against Wief. ad. Art. 1.] Others, "passes into my body." [Bonavent. 4. Sent. d. 8.] Cornelius a Lapide is worth them all, for without mincing the matter, he makes "is" first, operative, to signify this is made; [Corpel. a Lap. 1. Corinth. c. xi. pag. 272.] secondly, declarative to signify that, it is so, in the end of consecration; and thirdly, transubstantiative, to signify, that this substance of bread is transubstantiated and converted into my, body. In the first, "this" signifies little or nothing. In the second, it signifies the Body of Christ. In the third, it signifies the bread. Others are ashamed of all this, as being figures and manners of speaking never heard of in the world, which is most true. [Bell. de Euchar. l. i. c. 10. § Secundo Consideranda est.] But what they themselves make of this word "is" comes to the same. For if it be left to its proper and material institution, which is only to signify existence, and being, and not any operation or conversion at all, it cannot operate transubstantiation, or conversion. For this is among Mass-priests a known certain maxim, that the words of consecration, [Suarez. Disp. 58. Sect. 4. § Ad hanc. Vasquez. Disp. 202. c. 2. § Mihi igitur.] namely, "this is my body," are operative and practical by their signification, and not otherwise. Now the word "is," signifies turning or conversion, neither formally and expressly, as it appears; nor virtually, that is, by any implicit necessity: neither if you take "this," as they do, for "that which is contained under this," since the body of Christ can be contained under the accidents of bread, without transubstantiation, as well as with it: therefore of necessity they must either part with transubstantiation, as not signified, and therefore not wrought by these words, (which to them would be a sad parting) or have it be signified by "is," which they confess to be a figure never heard of. But let them take this "is" after their own mind, for a substantial being; yet will this be worse than a figure, for either it will be an untruth, or at least a signification never fancied, or heard of in any case like this; viz., when a sacrament, or a memorial, or an image, is said to be the very thing which it represents, unless it appears otherwise to be also a containing vessel, as well as a representing sacrament, which here it doth not.
The other part of the blessed Eucharist is by Roman priests dragged towards their Mass with as many and the same tortures, or extraordinary tropes, and with these besides and above.
1. It is a most unusual expression to say, [Bell. de Miss. l. i. c. 12. § Praeter illa.] as they do, that Christ's blood is shed or poured out, when it remains all in his veins.
2. And that it is really poured out under any other than its own outward form or shape, [Bell. ibid. § Ad secundum.] just as if a madman should complain that all his bones were found in his skin, but most pitifully broken under his cloak.
3. That this way of pouring out blood, [Bell. ibid. § Praeterea.] and breaking bones, is both properly and visibly sacrificing.
4. To omit intelligible and usual figures, (as when St. Luke, xxii. 20, and St. Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 25, call the wine, cup; and say that this wine, or cup of wine is the covenant, that is, the sacrament of the covenant) this is a pretty odd one, which some of them do take for a very proper expression [Becan. de Euchar. q. 5. § Respondeo primo.] "This cup is my blood," that is, after their interpretation, my blood in this cup; as if a cup that is in the wine and the wine that is in the cup, were all one to signify a cup of wine.
5. What follows is a great deal worse. "This cup is the new covenant in my blood," that is, this blood (for so they take the cup to be) is in my blood. Cardinal Bellarmine hopes to shift off this impertinency, with this distinction, [Bell. de Euch. l. i. c.11. § Ad quartum dico.] that the cup signifies the blood shed at the last Supper; and the other blood, that which was to be shed upon the cross which is, first, such an equivocation as none but a Jesuit would invent; and when it is invented, few could uncypher. 2. It is a notorious contradicting of himself, who, in another place, refers this bloodshed [Bell. de Miss. l. i. c. 12. § Tertio, quia Lucas.] to this of the cup, thereby to countenance his Mass-sacrifice: and here refers the same to that of the cross, thereby to save his Transubstantiation like that wise man in Plutarch, who taught a parrot to sing, God save Augustus, or God save Anthony, according as the success of the battle, and his occasions should require. 3. It is a strange figure, if not rather folly, to make a thing not seen, as the blood in the cup, a representation of any thing that is seen, as the blood was upon the cross.
6. The like impertinency of language appears in their interpreting "the cup of blessing, and the bread which he brake," &c., to this sense, the blood of Christ is the communion, or communication of the blood of Christ. And that which seems to be bread, and is not, but is the real body of Christ, which we break by no means, [Bell. de Euch. l. 1, c. 12, § Secundum Argumentum.] but really offer to God, is the communication of the body of Christ. This Roman literal sense includes three notable figures: 1. A contradiction to the text; for the bread is not broken at all, as they take it. 2. An untruth; for the body is not the communion of the body. 3. A battology, or impertinent repetition; the blood, is the blood; the body, the body.
7. To blanch somewhat these black figures, some other Roman interpreters take the "cup" for drinking, [Cornel. a Lapide, 1 Cor. 10.] and "the bread which we break," for eating the body which we do not break, but sacrifice; which is somewhat beyond any poetical license.
8. The very eating and drinking Christ's Body and Blood, is by their own confession extraordinary, [Bell. de Euch. l. 1, c. 7, § Ad primum Argument.] and tropical: [Vasq. Disp. 193. § Deinde cum praedictis.] for to eat bread or flesh properly and without a figure, is not only to get it down the throat, as a pill, which is swallowed and not eaten; but to taste and chew, and by little and little convey it into the stomach. Drinking, likewise, hath something proper to distinguish itself from eating, which they visibly confound, and by an unnatural figure, make eating and drinking to be all one.
Nevertheless, after all this, the Roman priests; clogged as they are most prodigiously with these many and strange figures, can laugh at us for having one, and an ordinary and easy one; such is their personal valour. And as to their cause, you must observe, that after they have used their utmost skill, and all both ordinary and extraordinary tropes and tortures, to force out of the words of our Saviour and his Apostles, anything that may but nod towards transubstantiation, or Mass: at last, they themselves are forced to confess, there is nothing in [Gabr. Biel. Lect. 40.] Canone Biblico, that is in the whole bible, to their purpose: And after some wondering [Id. Lect. 41, G.] why the Church would fasten this difficult and intricate sense, upon words, which otherwise might be easily understood; at last they fall like fanatics to revelations, and say, [Id. Lect. 41, I.] That the same Holy Ghost who hath revealed all Scriptures, hath also revealed such interpretations to the Church, although it was a good long while after the institution of this Sacrament.
Well then, whereas the sense of nature can suggest, that no pious man will ever think of sacrificing his Saviour, upon less evident motives, than were those which Abraham had to sacrifice his own son; that is, such express orders as evidently come from God, and cannot be interpreted otherwise: And whereas it appears, that Roman priests, instead of such demonstrations, have scarce so much as a shadow of any probable conjecture; this bold and stupendous attempt, which they call Mass, without any further dispute, falls by its own weight to the ground, unless they support it upon this fanatic account, (as certainly Papists are in this age the first and primitive quakers, not only in the setting up their orders, as Dr. Stillingfleet hath shewed already, but also in their most fundamental and conspicuous doctrines, as he, and any man, although of less abilities, could easily shew) that their Church had her best revelations, during those ages in which she had the least leaning: And that. pope Nicholas the second was moved with an excellent spirit, when in the presence of his 1,300 Bishops he forced Berengarius to blaspheme, [Alger. l. i. c. 19. Gratian. de Consecr, Dist, ii. § Ego Berengarius.] that besides the Sacrament, the true body of Christ was really broken, by the hands of the priests, and bruised by the teeth of communicants. It is true, Papists seem now somewhat ashamed of this doctrine: but however, they must insist upon new revelations, without which, neither Mass nor transubstantiation can be (as they confess) [Scotus 4. Dist. ii. q. 3. § Ad Argumentum. Gabr. Biel. in Can. Lect. 40. Occham. de Corpore Christi, c. 3. Bell. de Euchar. l. 3. c. 13. Suarez. Disp. 50. Sect. 1. § Dico ergo primo.] demonstrated out of Scripture.
Here, therefore, I undertake to demonstrate, that the revelation of their spirit is false; by this token, that it is against the plain revelation of Scripture. I prove it to be against Scripture, because it is against these words, "this is my body:" and, to see how far men may be deluded sometimes by an empty sound of words, when they do not attend their proper signification; though all other Scriptures were silent, I will maintain that this one saying of Christ, "this is my body," contains as many infallible reasons, as essential words, to destroy both transubstantiation and Mass.
The first demonstration appears in the first word, "this," which evidently relates to what our Saviour had in his hand, when He said, "this," and therefore signifies is much, as if He had said, "this bread." I therefore reason thus: that which is substantial bread, is not substantially the Lord's body; but that which Christ hath in his hand, and gives to his disciples, when He says, "this," is true substantial bread; therefore it cannot be substantially the Lord's body, but by resemblance only. Of these two propositions, the first is confessed by all parties to be true; insomuch, that Bellarmine [Jansenius in Concord. c. 131, page 900. Suarez. Disp. 58. Sect. 7. § Prima sententia. Alanus de Euchar. l. 1. c. 22. Vasques. Disp. 201. c. i. Parag. Cum superiori.] acknowledgeth, [Bell. de Euchar. l. 3. c. 19. Parag. Sed haec nullo.] that if of two different things, as bread and body, one can be said to be the other, we might say darkness is light, and Christ is Belial. The second proposition, namely, that what Christ had in his hand, when He said, "this," was bread; and therefore "this" denotes the bread, and is this bread. I make it evident by these four ways
1. By the very evidence of the words: Christ takes bread, blesseth it, breaks it, gives it, and then says, "take, this is," doubtless the thing he had taken and blessed, &c., and that was bread. To which they have nothing to say [Bell. de Euchar. l. 1. c. 11. Ad ultimum.] but that between taking and giving, comes in blessing, which they say, changes the bread: as if one should say, he struck Peter, killed him, and then buried him: hence to prove, that he buried him alive, because he was alive when he struck him. Thus they make blessing to be to the bread, what killing is to a man alive: whereas it is evident that blessing, especially that of Christ, makes every thing better, and killing, worse. However, as one may say, he struck Peter, killed him, and buried him: therefore he buried Peter, not alive, as he was when he struck him, but dead, as he was after he had killed him; so one may say, Christ took bread, blessed it, and gave it to his disciples: therefore He gave them bread, not such as it was when He took it, for it was but ordinary bread; but such as it was, after He had blessed it, that is, much better. Thus my demonstration is true, as long as Christ's blessing is a blessing: and Roman priests are put to hard shifts, since their Mass cannot stand, unless they can prove that life is death, and blessing a destroying curse.
2. By the interpretation of St. Paul, 1 Cor. x. 16, who explains these words, this is my body," by this paraphrase, the bread which we break, is the communion of the Lord's body: and after consecra-tion, calls it constantly bread, chap. xi. 28, 29. The same interpretation justifies the sense of "this is my blood," that is, as St, Paul and St. Luke take it, this cup.
3. By the unanimous consent of holy fathers, who either in express terms interpret "this" of the bread, [S. Irene. l. 4. c. 32. sub fin. Tertul. adv. Judaes. c. 11. pag. 222. Edit. Rigalt. S. Cyprian. l. 1. Ep. 6. pag. 41. Edit. Lugd. 1537. Origen. in Matth. Tract. 35. S. Cyrill. Hieros. Catech. Mystag. 3. et 4. S. Chrysost. 1. Cor. c. 10. v. 17. Hom. 24. S. Theodoret. Dialog. 1. pag. 18. Edit. Paris. Facund Herm. l. 9. c. ult.] or most evidently presuppose it, whensoever they call the Holy Communion, as they do commonly, by the names of types, antitypes, images, &c., of the body and blood of Christ: for neither accidents of bread can properly represent any other thing than bread: nor the body of Christ, which they say lies hidden and invisible under those accidents, can, being hidden and invisible, be the representation, or memorial, or type, or sacrament of any thing.
4. By the very confession of many Roman priests, who, some purposely, as Bonaventure; [Bonav. 4. Sent. Dist. viii.] and some, when they do forget their cause, being dazzled with clear truth, [Bell. de Euch. l. 1. c. 11. § Haec Explicatio.] as Bellarmine and others say, that when one shews a thing as it were with his finger, as our Saviour did when He uttered these words, presenting bread withal, and saying, "take, this is," &c. it were a silly thing to take it for any thing else than bread. And disputing against Luther, the Lord, says he, took bread and blessed it, and gave it to his disciples, and said of it, this is my body: therefore He took the bread, He blessed the bread, He gave them that bread, and said of the bread, this is my body. [Idem de Euch. l. 3. c.19. § Primum autem argumentum. Salmero. Tract. 19. pag. 134.] So, until Roman priests will agree among themselves what it is that "this" can signify besides bread, and prove, that to bless bread, is as good as to destroy it, (which are two terms likely to last till the very end of the world) this first word which they make use of for transubstantiation, will stand as a clear demonstration and judgment against their Mass.
The second demonstration appears in the second word "is," this is. Which being capable of as many interpretations, as there are kinds of being determinable by the different condition of things, which they are applied unto; the question is now, whether it stands here for a substantial, or for a similitudinary and sacramental being. Hereupon I reason thus. The words of our Saviour must be understood in that sense which they have always, and not in that which they have never; now this word of our Saviour, "is," for is sacramentally and by similitude, between a sign and the thing signified, (as here the bread and the body of Christ) is a sense which it hath always, and for "is essentially," never; therefore, "is" here must be understood, for "is significatively and sacramentally," and not "essentially." The first proposition is clear; for what madness were it to put upon words significations which they never had. The second is evident by an universal induction of all languages and speeches, whensoever "is" stands between any manner of sign, memorial, evidence, &c., and the thing it represents, in any way. Run over all, whether sacraments or signs, in the Old and New Testament. The lamb is the Passover. Exod. xii. Circumcision, the covenant. Genesis xvii. The seven kine, seven years. Genesis xli. The rock, Christ. 1 Corinth. x. Sarah and Agar, two covenants. Galat. iv. See St. Matth. xiii. Revelat. i., &c. Walk in a gallery, where you may find hundreds of pictures or statues. This is Alexander the Great: and this, Constantine, the first Emperor of Christians, &c. Discourse with a lawyer of parchments, deeds, evidences. This is the land you bought of your neighbour; and this is the estate which I thought to mortgage, &c. Come nearer home among sacred figures, and ask Moses, ask Joseph, ask the Apostles, what the ears of corn, what the lambs slain when Israel went from Egypt, what the candlestick, what the stars, Revelat. i., are? None of all these, whether holy or unholy, if not brainless men, have a mind to persuade you, that a brazen statue is essentially a man, or a parchment essentially a house; or any sacred, or civil image, essentially the very thing that it represents or makes sure; they mean only to tell you, they are such and such things by a sacramental or similitudinary being, grounded upon some resemblance, as St. Augustine [St. August. Ep. 23. ad Bonef.] teaches expressly. Roman priests are the only masters, who, to set up such prodigies as never came into the thoughts and hearts of men, must impose upon words such new significations as, in the like construction, were never found in any language or speech of men. Where, nevertheless, they will also forget themselves sometimes so far, as to grant this very truth, [Vasquez. Disp. 179. c. 7. § Secunda igitur ven.] that in examples of this kind purposely instituted to signify, (as is bread and wine in the blessed communion) "is" is the same with "signifies," when they are said to be the very things by them signified.
The third demonstration is taken from the third essential word body, "This is my body;" which neither in the blessed sacrament, nor in the pretended sacrifice, which they call Mass, must appear as living, and glorious, but as slain and broken, and therefore actually dead: and so the blood likewise as violently shed out of the veins. They cannot deny but [Bell. de Euchar. l. 4. c. 21. § Sed haec sententia.] both sacrament and sacrifice are ordained to represent it so: and the words "This is my body, which is given, or broken;" and "This is my blood, which is shed," signify expressly the same. Hence, I make this clear argument; the body and blood of Christ are in the sacrament in the same way and manner, as they are broken and shed. Now, the body and blood of Christ are not broken and shed in the sacrament really, (otherwise transubstantiation would kill Christ) but in a sacramental representation only. Therefore, &c. To this, Mass-priests make a strange reply, [Bell. de Miss. l. 1. c. 27. § Haec sententia non.] that, by the strength of their words of consecration, the body is without blood, and the blood without the body. So blood and body being severed, the one from the other, the words would make a real destruction, in order to a real sacrifice, but that the strength of what they call concomitancy (that is a new device in behalf of transubstantiation) keeps the body and blood still together. By this means, Christ in the priests' hands both lies dead by virtue of the consecrating words, and stands living, by virtue of this concomitancy. And because it is certain Christ dies no more, the concomitancy being, in this behalf, stronger than consecration; these words "This is my body broken" &c. signifying both what is not, and what they cannot effect, (namely that the body is really separated from the blood) become upon this pretended literal interpretation, utterly false. Such antipathy hath Holy Scripture (as well as right reason, common sense, and well ordered nature) against Mass, that the very words which Mass-priests choose to seal and support it, do destroy it: not unlike that holy ground, whereupon the temple of Jerusalem once stood; which being abused by Jews, towards the dishonouring of Christian religion, and the founding of another temple, burst [Theodoret. Eccles. Hist. l. 3. c: 20. Sozom. l. 5. c. 22.] in flames, and threw up every stone which had been laid, against those impious builders.