1. THUS I have by very many arguments taken from the words and circumstances and annexes of the institution or consecration, proved, that the sense of this mystery is mysterious, and spiritual,--that Christ's body is eaten only sacramentally by the body, but really and effectively only by faith,--which is the mouth of the soul; that 'the flesh profiteth nothing,' but 'the words which Christ spake, are spirit and life.' And let it be considered, whether besides a pertinacious resolution that they will understand these words as they sound in the letter, not as they are intended in the spirit, there be any thing, or indeed can be, in the nature of the thing, or circumstances of it, or usefulness, or in the different forms of words, or the analogy of the other discourses of Christ, that, can give colour to their literal sense? against which so much reason, and Scripture, and arguments from antiquity do contest. This only I observe, that they bring no pretence of other scriptures to warrant this interpretation, but such which I have or shall wrest out of their hands; and which to all men's first apprehensions, and at the very first sight, do make against them, and which, without curious notions and devices, cannot pretend on their side: as appears first in the tenth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, verses 16, 17.

2. Out of which I have already proved, that Christ's body is not taken in the natural sense, but in the spiritual. But when Bellarmine [Sect. 5. n. 6. lib. 1. Euch. c. 12.] had, out of the same words, forced for himself three arguments proving nothing; to save any man the labour of answering them, he adds at the end of them these words: "Sed tota difficultas est, [Sect. Sed tota difficultas] an corporaliter, realiter, proprie sumatur sanguis et caro, an solum significative et spiritualiter. Quod autem 'corporaliter et proprie probari posset omnibus argumentis, quibus supra probavimus proprie esse intelligenda verba ilia institutionis, Hoc est corpus meum."--That is, after his arguments out of the First Epistle to the Corinthians were ended, all the difficulty of the question still remained; and that he was fain to prove by 'Hoc est corpus meum,' and the proper argument of that; but brings nothing from the words of St. Paul in this chapter. But to make up this also ho does 'corrodere," 'scrape together' some things extrinsical to the words of this authority; as, 1. That the literal sense is to be presumed, unless the contrary be proved;--which is very true: but I have evidently proved the contrary concerning the words of institution; and for the words in this chapter, if the literal sense be preferred, then the bread remains after consecration, because it is called bread. 2. 'So the primitive saints expounded it'--which how true it is, I shall consider in his own place. 3. "The Apostle calling the Gentiles from their sacrificed flesh, proposes to them a more excellent banquet-- but it were not more excellent, if it were only a figure of Christ's body;"--so Bellarmine: which is a fit cover for such a dish; for, 1. We do not say, that, in the sacrament, we only receive the sign and figure of Christ's body; but all the real effects and benefits of it. 2. If we had, yet it is not very much better than blasphemy, to say that the apostles had not prevailed upon that account. For if the very figure and sacrament of Christ's body be better than sacrifices offered to devils, the Apostle had prevailed, though this sentence were true, that in the sacrament we receive only the figure. And thus I have, for all that is said against it, made it apparent that there is nothing in that place for their corporal presence.

3. There is one thing more, which, out of Scripture, they urge for the corporal presence, viz. "He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body:" and, "He shall be guilty of the body and blood of Christ." Where they observe, that they, that eat unworthily, do yet eat Christ's body; because how else could they be guilty of it, and condemned for not discerning it?

4. To this I answer many things. 1. St. Paul does not say, "He that eateth and drinketh Christ's body and blood unworthily," &c., but indefinitely, "He that eateth and drinketh %" &c., yet it is probable he would have said so, if it had been a proper form of speech, because, by so doing, it would have laid a greater load upon them. 2. Where St. Paul does not speak indefinitely, he speaks most clearly against the article in the Roman sense; for he calls it pothrion Kuriou, 'the cup of the Lord,' and arton touton, 'this bread,' and, 'He that eats this bread unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of Christ':' and now these comminatory phrases are quitted from their pretence, but yet have their proper consideration: therefore, 3. 'Not discerning' the Lord's body, is, 'not separating it' from profane and common usages, not treating it with addresses proper to the mystery. To which phrase Justin gives light in these words:--"We do not receive it as common bread and common drink;" but "nourishment made eucharistical, or blessed, by the word of prayer;" and so it is the body and blood of the Lord. 4. It is the body of the Lord in the same sense here as in the words of institution, which I have evinced to be exegetical, sacramental, and spiritual; and, by despising the sacrament of it, we become guilty of the body and blood of Christ. "Reus erit corporis et sanguinis Christi, qui tanti mysterii sacramentum despexerit," saith St. Jerome [In 1 Cor. xi]. And it is in this, as Severianus said concerning the statues of Theodosius broken in despite by the Antiochians: "If you abuse the king's image, the affront relates to your prince."--5. The unworthy receiver is guilty of the body and blood of Christ; not naturally, for that cannot now be; and nothing is a greater probation of the spiritual sense of the words in this place, than this, which they would entice into their party; for Christ's body is glorified, and not capable of natural injury: but the evil communicant is 'guilty of the body and blood of Christ;' just as relapsing Christians are said by the same apostles, 'to crucify the Lord of life again, and put him to an open shame,' which, I suppose, they cannot do naturally or corporally. One is as the other, that is, both are tropical or figurative.

5. These are all that they pretend from Scripture; and all these are nothing to their purpose; but now, besides what I have already said, I shall bring arguments from other scriptures, which will not so easily be put off.

Project Canterbury