1. THE blessed sacrament is the same thing now, as it was in the institution of it: but Christ did not really give his natural body in the natural sense, when he ate his last supper; therefore neither does he now. The first proposition is beyond all dispute, certain, evident, and confessed; "Hoc facite" convinces it: "This do;" what Christ did, his disciples are to do. I assume,--Christ did not give his natural body properly in the last supper, therefore neither does he now; the assumption I prove by divers arguments.

2. First: If then he gave his natural body, then it was naturally broken, and his blood was actually poured forth before the passion; for he gave to swma klwmenon, to pothrion, or aima excunomenon, 'his body was delivered broken,' 'his blood was shed:' now those words were spoken either properly and naturally; and then they were not true, because his body was yet whole, his blood still in the proper channels; or else it was spoken in a figurative and sacramental sense, and so it was true (as were all the words which our blessed Saviour spake): for that, which he then ministered, was the sacrament of his passion.

3. Secondly: If Christ gave his body in the natural sense at the last supper, then it was either a sacrifice propitiatory, or it was not; if it was not, then it is not now, and then their dream of the mass is vanished: if it, was propitiatory at the last supper, then God was reconciled to all the world, and mankind was redeemed before the passion of our blessed Saviour: which, therefore, would have been needless and ineffective: so fearful are the consequents of this strange doctrine.

4. Thirdly: If Christ gave his body properly in the last supper, and not only figuratively and in sacrament, then it could not be a representment or sacrament of his passion, but a real exhibition of it: but that it was a sacrament only, appears by considering that it was then alive; that the passion was future, that the thing was really to be performed upon the cross, that then he was to be delivered for the life of the world. In the last supper, all this was in type and sacrament,--because it was before, and the substance was to follow after.

5. Fourthly: If the natural body of Christ was in the last supper under the accidents of bread, then his body, at the same time, was visible and invisible in the whole substance,--visible in his person, invisible under the accidents of bread: and then it would be inquired, what it was which the apostles received, what benefits they could have by receiving the body naturally; or whether it be imaginable, that the apostles understood it in the literal sense, when they saw his body stand by, unbroken, alive, integral, hypostatical.

6. Fifthly: If Christ's body were naturally in the sacrament, I demand, whether it be as it was in the last supper,--. or as upon the cross,--or as it is now in heaven? 'Not as in the last supper;'--for then it was frangible, but not broken; but typically, by design, in figure and in sacrament, as it is evident in matter of fact. 2. 'Not as on the cross;'--for there the body was frangible and broken too, and the blood spilled; and if it were so now in the sacrament, besides that it were to make Christ's glorified body passible, and to crucify the Lord of life again: it also were not the same body, which Christ hath now; for his body that he hath now, is spiritual and incorruptible, and cannot be otherwise; much less can it be so and not so at the same time properly, and yet be the same body. 3. 'Not as in heaven,'--where it is neither corruptible nor broken; for then in the sacrament there were given to us Christ's glorified body; and then, neither were the sacrament a remembrance of Christ's death, neither were the words of institution verified, "This is my body, which is broken;" besides, in this we have Bellarmine's confession; "Neque enim ore corporali sumi potest corpus Christi, ut est in coelo." [De Euch lib. 1. c. 13. sect. 1.] But then if it be remembered, that Christ hath no other body but that which is in heaven; and that can never be otherwise than it is, and so it cannot be received otherwise properly; it unanswerably follows, that if it be received in any other manner (as it must if it be at all), it must be received, not naturally or corporally, but spiritually and indeed. By a figure, or a sacramental, spiritual sense, all these difficulties are easily assoiled, but by the natural never.

7. Sixthly: At the last supper, they ate the blessed eucharist, but it was not in remembrance of Christ's death; for it was future then, and therefore not then capable of being remembered any more than a man can be said to remember what will be done to-morrow; it follows from hence that then Christ only instituted a sacrament, or figurative, mysterious representment of a thing, that in the whole use of it was variable by 'heri' and 'eras,' and therefore never to be naturally verified, but on the cross by a proper and natural presence, because then it was so and never else; at that time it was future, and now it is past, and in both it is relative to his death; therefore it could not be a real exhibition of his body in a natural sense, for that as it could not be remembered then, so neither broken now; that is, nothing of it is natural, but it is wholly ritual, mysterious, and sacramental. For that this was the sacrament of his death, appears in the words of institution, and by the preceptive words, "Do this in remembrance of me."--And in the reason subjoined by St. Paul, "For so often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye shew the Lord's death till he come." Therefore, when Christ said, 'This is my body given,' or 'broken' on my part, 'taken, eaten,' on yours, it can be nothing else but the eikwn, 'the sacramental image of his death;' to effect which purpose it could not be necessary or useful to bring his natural body, that so the substance should become his own shadow: the natural presence be his own sacrament, or rather the image and representment of what he once suffered. His body, given in the sacrament, is the application and memory of his death, and no more; that as Christ in heaven represents his death in the way of intercession, so do we by our ministry: but as in heaven it is wholly a representing of his body crucified, a rememoration of his crucifixion, of his death and passion, by which he reconciled God and man: so it is in the sacrament after our manner, "This is my body given for you," that is, "This is the sacrament of my death, in which my body was given for you." For, as Aquinas said, in all sciences, words signify things; but it is proper to theology, that things themselves, signified or expressed by voices, should also signify something beyond it. 'This is my body," are the sacramental words, or those words by which the mystery or the thing is sacramental; it must, therefore, signify something beyond these words, and so they do; for they signify the death which Christ suffered in that body. It is but an imperfect conception of the mystery to say, it is the sacrament of Christ's body only, or his blood; but it is 'ex parte rei,' a sacrament of the death of his body: and to us a participation, or an exhibition of it, as it became beneficial to us, that is, as it was crucified, as it was our sacrifice. And this is so wholly agreeable to the nature of the thing, and the order of the words, and the body of the circumstances, that it is next to that which is evident in itself, and needs no further light but the considering the words and the design of the institution: especially since it is consonant to the style of Scripture in the sacrament of the passover, and very many other instances; it wholly explicates the nature of the mystery,--it reconciles our duty with the secret,--it is free of all inconvenience, it prejudices no right,--nor hinders any real effect it hath or can have: and it makes the mystery intelligible and prudent, fit to be discoursed of, and inserted into the rituals of a wise religion.

8. Seventhly: He that receives unworthily, receives no benefit to his body or to his soul by the holy sacrament, that is agreed on all sides; therefore, he that receives benefit to his body, receives it by his worthy communicating; therefore the benefit, reaching to the body by the holy eucharist, comes to it by the soul; therefore by the action of the soul, not the action of the body; therefore by faith, not by the mouth: whereas on the contrary, if Christ's body natural were eaten in the sacrament, the benefit would come to the body by his own action, and to the soul by the body. All that eat, are not made 'Christ's body,' and all that eat not, are not disentitled to the resurrection; the Spirit does the Work without the sacrament; and in the sacrament when it is done, "the flesh profiteth nothing," and this argument ought to prevail upon this account: because, as is the nutriment, so is the manducation. If the nourishment be wholly spiritual, then so is the eating. But by the Roman doctrine the body of Christ does not naturally nourish; therefore neither is it eaten naturally; but it does nourish spiritually, and therefore it is eaten only spiritually. And this doctrine is also affirmed by Cajetan, though how they will endure it, I cannot understand: "Manducatur verum corpus Christi in Sacramento, sed non corporaliter sed spiritualiter. Spiritualis manducatio, quse per animam fit, ad Christi camera in sacramento existentem pertingit:" "The true body of Christ is eaten in the sacrament, but not corporally, but spiritually. The spiritual manducation which is made by the soul, reaches to the flesh of Christ in the sacrament;"--which is very good Protestant doctrine. [Opusc. tom. 2. tract, 2. de Euch. c. 5.] And if it be absurd to say, Christ's body doth nourish corporally, why it should not be as absurd to say, we eat it corporally, is a secret which I have not yet been taught. As is our eating, so is the nourishing, because that is in order to this; therefore, if you will suppose that natural eating of Christ's body does nourish spiritually, yet it must also nourish corporally; let it do more if it may, but it must do so much; just as the waters in baptism, although the waters are symbolical and instrumental to the purifying of the soul, yet because the waters are material and corporeal, they cleanse the body first and primarily: so it must be in this sacrament also; if Christ's body were eaten naturally, it must nourish naturally, and then pass further: but, "that which is natural is first, and then that which is spiritual."

9. Eighthly: For the likeness to the argument, I insert this consideration; By the doctrine of the ancient church, wicked men do not eat the body, nor drink the blood, of Christ. So Origen [In Matt. xv.]: "Si fieri potest, ut qui mains adhuc perseveret, edat verbum factum camera, cum sit verbum et panis vivus, nequaquam scriptum fuisset, 'Quisquis ederit panem hunc, vivet in reternum:' ""If it were possible for him that perseveres in wickedness, to eat the Word made flesh, when it is the Word and the living bread, it had never been written, 'Whosoever shall eat this bread shall live for ever.'"--So St. Hilary [Lib. S. de Trinit.]: "Panis qui descendit de coelo, non nisi ab eo accipitur qui Dominum habet, et Christi membrum eat:" "The bread that came down from heaven, is not taken of any but of him who hath the Lord, and is a member of Christ."--"Lambunt petram," saith St. Cyprian [De Coena Dom. aut quicunque auctor est], "They lick the rock," that is, eat not of the food, and drink not of the blood that issued from thence when the rock was smitten. They receive 'corticem sacramenti, et furfur carnis,' saith St. Bernard, 'the skin of the sacrament, and the bran of the flesh.'-- But Venerable Bede [Super Exod. de Agno Pasc.] is plain without an allegory: "Omnis infidelis non vescitur carne Christi:" "An unbelieving man is not fed with the flesh of Christ;" the reason of which could not be any thing, but because Christ is only eaten by faith. But I reserved St. Austin [Lib. 21. de Civit. Dei, c. 25] for the last: "So then these are no true receivers of Christ's body, in that they are none of his true members. For (to omit all other allegations) they cannot be both the members of Christ and the members of a harlot; and Christ himself saying, 'He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him,' sheweth what it is to receive Christ, not only sacramentally, but truly; for this is to dwell in Christ and Christ in him. For thus he spoke, as if he had said, He that dwelleth not in me nor I in him, cannot say, he eateth my flesh or drinketh my blood." In which words (if the Roman doctors will be judged by St. Austin for the sense of the church in this question, and will allow him in this point to be a good catholic), 1. He dogmatically declares, that the wicked man does not eat Christ's body truly. 2. He does eat it sacramentally. 3. That to eat with effect, is to eat Christ's body truly; to which, if they please to add this, that to eat it spiritually is to eat it with effect, it follows by St. Austin's doctrine, that 'spiritually is really,'--and that there is no true and real body of Christ eaten in the sacrament, but by the faithful receiver: or, if you please, receive the conclusion in the words of St. Austin [Serm. 2. de Verb. Apost.]: "Tunc erit unicuique corpus et sanguis Christi, si quod in sacramento sumitur, in ipsâ veritate spiritualiter manducetur, spiritualiter bibatur:" "Then to each receiver it becomes the body and blood of Christ, if that which is taken in the sacrament, be, in the very truth itself, spiritually eaten and spiritually drunk:" which words of St. Austin, Bellarmine, [Lib. 1. Euch. c. 14. sect. Respond, apud Augustinum] upon another occasion being to answer, instead of answering, grants it, and tells that this manner of speaking is very usual in St. Austin [the truest answer in all his books]: but whether it be for him or against him, he ought to have considered. Neither can this be put off with saying, that the wicked do not truly eat Christ, that is, not to any benefit or purpose; but that this does not mean, 'they receive him not at all.' Just as we say when a man eats but a little, he does not eat: for as good never a jot, as never the better. This, I say, is not a sufficient escape. 1. Because St. Austin opposes sacramental receiving to the true and real, and says that the wicked only receive it 'sacramentally;' but not the thing whose sacrament it is; so that this is not a proposition of degrees, but there is a plain opposition of one to the other. 2. It is true St. Austin does not say that the wicked do not receive Christ at all; for he says they receive him sacramentally: but he says, they do not at all receive him truly, and the wicked man cannot say he does: and he proves this by unanswerable arguments out of Scripture. 3. This excuse will not, with any pretence, be fitted with the sayings of the other fathers, nor to all the words of St. Austin in this quotation, and much less in others which I have [De Serm. de Verb. Apost. Pauli supr.] and shall remark, particularly this; that he calls that, which the wicked eat, nothing but 'signum corporis et sanguinis.'--His words are these: "Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo, et in quo non manet Christus, procul dubio non manducat spiritualiter camera, non bibit sanguinem, licet carualiter et visibiliter premat dentibus signum corporis et sanguinis:" [Tract. 26. in Joh. vid. etiam. Bellarmine, lib, 1. Euch, c. 14. sect. Respondeo St. August.] "He does not eat the body and drink the blood spiritually, although carnally and visibly he presses with his teeth the sign of the body and blood."--Plainly, all the wicked do but eat the sign of Christ's body, all that is to be done beyond, is to eat it spiritually. There is no other eating but these two: and from St. Austin [Tract. 59. in Joh.] it was that the schools received that famous distinction of 'panis Dominus,' and 'panis Domini;' Judas received 'the bread of the Lord' against, the Lord: but the other apostles received 'the bread which was the Lord,' that is, his body. But I have already spoken of the matter of this argument in the third paragraph, Number 7., which the reader may please to add to this to make it fuller.

10. Ninthly: Lastly,--In the words of institution and consecration, as they call them, the words, which relate to the consecrated wine, are so different in the evangelists, and St. Paul respectively, as appears by comparing them together; that, 1. It does not appear which words were literally spoken by our blessed Saviour: for all of them could not be so spoken as they are set down. 2. That they all regarded the sense and meaning of the mystery, not the letters and the syllables. 3. It is not possible to be certain, that Christ intended the words of any one of them to be consecratory or effective of what they signify, for every one of the relaters differs in the words, though all agree in the things; as the reader may observe in the beginning of the fourth paragraph, where the four forms are set by each other to be compared. 4. The church of Rome, in the consecration of the chalice, uses a form of words, Which Christ spake not at all, nor are related by St. Matthew, or St. Mark, or St. Luke, or St. Paul, but she puts in some things and changes others: her form is this: "Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei Novi et æterni Testamenti, mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissienem peccatorum:" "For this is the chalice of my blood, of the New and eternal Testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins:" what is added is plain, what is altered would be very material, if the words were consecratory: for they are not so likely to be operative and effective as the words of Christ recited by St. Matthew and St. Mark, 'This is my blood f and if this had not been the ancient form used in the church of Rome long before the doctrine of transubstantiation was thought of; it is not to be imagined, that they would have refused the plainer words of Scripture, to have made the article more secret, the form less operative, the authority less warrantable, the words less simple and natural. But the corollary, which is natural and proper from the particulars of this argument, is, that the mystery was so wholly spiritual, that it was no matter by what words it were expressed, so the spirit of it were retained; and yet if it had been an historical, natural, proper sense that had been intended, it ought also, in all reason, to have been declared, or (much more) effected by a natural and proper and constant affirmative. But that there is nothing spoken properly, is therefore evident; because there are so many predications, and all mean the same mystery: "Hic est sanguis meus Novi Testamenti;" and "Hic calix est Novum Testamentum in meo sanguine;" and "Hic est calix sanguinis mei," in the Roman missal: all this declares it is 'mysterium fidei,' and so to be taken in all senses: and those words are left in their canon, as if on purpose either to prevent the literal and natural understanding of the other words, or for the reducing the communicants to the only apprehensions of faith: it is 'mysterium fidei,' not' sanguis naturalis,' 'a mystery of faith,' not 'natural blood.' For supposing that both the forms used by St. Matthew and St. Luke, respectively, could be proper and without a figure; and St. Matthew's 'Hic est sanguis testameiiti,' did signify, 'This is the divine promise' (for so Bellarmine [Lib. 1. de Euch. c. 11. sect. Ad tertiam dico.] dreams that testament there signifies), and that in St. Luke's words, 'This cup is the testament,' it signifies 'the instrument of the testament' (for so a will, or a testament, is taken either for the thing willed, or the parchment in which it is written); yet how are these, or either of these, affirmative of the wine being transubstantiated into blood? It says nothing of that, and so if this sense of those words does avoid a trope, it brings in a distinct proposition; if it be spoken properly, it is more distant from giving authority to their new doctrine; and if the same word have several senses, then in the sacramental proposition, as it is described by the several evangelists, there are several predicates, and therefore it is impossible, that all should be proper. And yet besides this, although he thinks he may freely say any thing, if he covers it with a distinction, yet the very members of this distinction conclude against his conclusion; for if 'testament' in one place be taken for the 'instrument of his testament,' it is a tropical locution; just as I say, 'My bible' (meaning 'my book') 'is the word of God,' that is, contains the word of God, it is a metonymy of the thing containing, for that which it contains. But this was more than I needed, and therefore I am content it should pass for nothing.

Project Canterbury