eucharist, which succeeded that, as baptism did circumcision; and there is nothing of sense that hath been, or I think can be, spoken, to evade the force of this instance; nor of the many others before reckoned.

8. Fifthly: And as it is usual in all sacraments, so particularly it must be here, in which there is such a heap of tropes and figurative speeches, that almost in every word there is plainly a trope. For, 1. Here is the cup taken for the thing contained in it. 2. Testament, for the legacy given by it. 3. This, is not in recto,' but 'in obliquo.' This, that is, 'not this which you see, but this which you do not see.' This which is under the species, is my body. 4. My body,' but not 'bodily;' 'my body,' without the forms and figure of my body; that is, my body,' not as it is in 'nature,' not as it is in 'glory,' but as it is in sacrament;' that is, my body sacramentally.-5. Drink ye;' that is also improper; for his blood is not drunk properly, for blood hath the same manner of existing in the chalice as it hath in the paten, that is, is under the form of wine as it is under the form of bread; and therefore it is in the veins, not separate, say they, and yet it is in the bread, as it is in the chalice, and in both, as upon the cross, that is, poured out, so Christ said expressly; for else it were so far from being his blood, that it were not so much as the sacrament of what he gave; so that the wine in the chalice is not drunk, because it is not separate from the body; and in the bread it cannot be drunk, because there it is not in the veins; or if it were, yet it is made as a consistent thing by the continent, but is not potable: now that which follows from hence is, that it is not drunk at all properly, but figuratively: and so Mr. Brerelya confesses sometimes, and Jansenius". There is also an impropriety in the word 'given,' for shall be given;' 'is poured out,' for 'shall be poured out;' in 'broken,' for then it was not broken when Christ spake it, and it cannot be properly spoken since his glorification. Salmeron allows an enallage in the former, and Suarez a metaphor in the latter: "Frangi

z See Brerely Liturg. tract. 4. sect. 8. Glossa in c. si per negligentiam, dist. 2. de consecrat. in hæc verba [de sanguine] ait de sanguine, i. e. de sacramento sanguinis. Sanguis enim Christi à corpore Christi separari non valet, ergo nec stillare nec fluere potest.

a See Brerely Liturg. tract. 4. sect. 8.

b Concord. in eum locum.

e Salmer. in 1 Cor. xi. Gregor. de Valent. lib. 1. de Missa, c. 3. sect. igitur. tom. 3. disp. 47. sect. 4. sect. exempla tertiæ. Ruard Tapper in art. 13.

cùm dicitur, est metaphorica locutio." And this is their excuse, why, in the Roman missal, they leave out the words "which is broken for you;" for they do what they please, they put in some words which Christ used not, and leave out something that he did use ;-and yet they are all the words of institution! And upon the same account there is another trope in 'eat;' and yet with a strange confidence, these men wonder at us for saying, the sacramental words are tropical or figurative, when even, by their own confession and proper grounds, there is scarce any word in the whole institution but admits an impropriety. And then concerning the main predication; "This is my body,'-as Christ called 'bread his body,' so he called 'his body bread;' and both these affirmatives are destructive of transubstantiation; for if, of bread, Christ affirmed, it is his body,-by the rule of disparates it is figurative; and if, of his body, he affirmed it to be bread, it is certain also and confessed to be a figure. Now concerning this, besides that our blessed Saviour affirmed himself to be the bread that came down from heaven,' calling himself bread,' and, in the institution, calling 'bread' his body;' we have the express words of Theodoret: Τῷ μὲν σώματι τὸ τοῦ συμβόλου τέθεικεν ὄνομα, τῷ δὲ συμβόλῳ τὸ τοῦ σώματος ; " Christ gave to his body the name of the symbol, and to the symbol the name of his body;" and St. Cyprian speaks expressly to this purpose, as you may see above, sect. 5. n. 9.

9. Sixthly: The strange inconveniences and impossibilities, the scandals and errors, the fancy of the Capernaites, and the temptations to faith, arising from the literal sense of these words, have been, in other cases, thought sufficient by all men to expound words of Scripture by tropes and allegories. The heresy of the Anthropomorphites and the Euchitæ, and the doctrine of the Chiliasts, and Origen gelding himself, proceeded from the literal sense of some texts of Scripture, against which there is not the hundredth part of so much presumption as I shall in the sequel make to appear to lie against this. And yet no man puts out his right eye literally, or cuts off his right hand, to prevent a scandal. Cer

d Dico quòd figura corporis Christi est ibi, sed figura corporis Christi non est ibi figura corporis Christi. Holcot. in 4. sent. quæst. 3.

e Anselm, Lombard, Thomas, Lyran, Gorran, Cajetan, Dion. Carth. Catharinus, Salmeron, Bened. Justinian, Sà in 1 Cor. xi. et innumeri alii.

f Dial. 1. c. 8.

tain it is, there hath been much greater inconvenience by following the letter of these words of institution, than of any other in Scripture: by so much as the danger of idolatry, and actual tyranny, and uncharitable damning others, and schism, are worse than any temporal inconvenience, or an error in a matter of speculation.

10. Seventhly: I argue out of St. Austin's grounds thus: As the fathers did eat Christ's body, so do we under a diverse sacrament, and different symbols, but in all the same reality; whatsoever we eat, the same they did eat; for the difference is this only, they received Christ by faith in him that was to come, and we by faith in him that is come already; but they had the same real benefit, Christ as really as we, for they had salvation as well as we. But the fathers could not eat Christ's flesh in a natural manner, for it was not yet assumed and though it were as good an argument against our eating of it naturally, that it is gone from us into heaven; yet that which I now insist upon is, that it was cibus spiritualis,' which they ate under the sacrament of manna; therefore we, under the sacrament of bread and wine eating the same meat, eat only Christ in a spiritual sense, that is, our spiritual meat. And this is also true in the other sacraments of the rock and the cloud: "Our fathers ate of the same spiritual meat, and drank of the same spiritual drink, that is, Christ;" so he afterward expounds it. Now if they did eat and drink Christ, that is, were by him in sacrament, and, to all reality of effect, nourished up to life eternal, why cannot the same spiritual meat do the same thing for us, we receiving it also in sacrament and mystery? 2. To which I add, that all they, that do communicate spiritually, do receive all the blessing of the sacrament, which could not be, unless the mystery were only sacramental, mysterious, and spiritual. Maldonate, speaking of something of this from the authority of St. Austin, is of opinion that if St. Austin were now alive, in very spite to the Calvinists, he would have expounded that of manna otherwise than he did it seems he lived in a good time, when malice and the spirit of contradiction were not so much in fashion in the interpretations of the Scripture.

11. Now let it be considered, whether all that, I have said, be not abundantly sufficient to outweigh their confi

✔ Tract. 26. in S. Johan.

h In S. Johan. 6. 49.

dence of the literal sense of these sacramental words. They find the words spoken,-they say they are literally to be understood; they bring nothing considerable for it; there is no scripture that so expounds it; there is no reason in the circumstances of the words; but there is all the reason of the world against it (as I have and shall shew), and such, for the meanest of which very many other places of Scripture are drawn from the literal sense, and rest in a tropical and spiritual. Now, in all such cases, when we find an inconvenience press the literal expression of a text, instantly we find another, that is figurative; and why it is not so done in this, the interest and secular advantages, which are consequent to this opinion of the church of Rome, may give sufficient account. In the meantime, 1. we have reason not to admit of the literal sense of these words, not only by the analogy of other sacramental expressions in both Testaments (I mean that of circumcision and the passover in the Old, and baptism, as Christ discoursed it to Nicodemus, in the New Testament); but also, 2. Because the literal sense of the like words, in this very article, introduced the heresy of the Capernaites; and, 3. Because the subject and the predicate, in the words of institution, are diverse and disparate, and cannot possibly be spoken of each other properly. 4. The words, in the natural and proper sense, seem to command an unnatural thing, the eating of flesh. 5. They rush upon infinite impossibilities; they contradict sense and reason, the principles and discourses of all mankind, and of all philosophy. 6. Our blessed Saviour tells us, that the "flesh profiteth nothing," and (as themselves pretend) even in this mystery, that his words were " spirit and life." 7. The literal sense cannot be explicated by themselves, nor by any body for them. 8. It is against the analogy of other scriptures. 9. It is to no purpose. 10. Upon the literal sense of the words, the church could not confute the Marcionites', Eutychians, Nestorians, the Aquarii. 11. It is against antiquity. 12. The whole form of words, in every of the members, is confessed to be figurative by the opposite party. 13. It is not pretended to be verifiable without an infinite company of miracles, all which being more than needs, and none of them visible, but contestations against art and the notices of two or three sciences, cannot be sup

i Vide infra, sect. 12. n. 22. 32. &e. et sect. 10. n. 6.

posed to be done by God, who does nothing superfluously. 14. It seems to contradict an article of faith, viz. of Christ's sitting in heaven in a determinate place, and being contained there till his second coming. Upon these considerations, and upon the account of all the particular arguments, which I have and shall bring against it, it is not unreasonable, neither can it seem so, that we decline the letter, and adhere to the spirit in the sense of these words. But I have divers things more to say in this particular from the consideration of other words of the institution, and the whole nature of the thing.

SECTION VII.

Considerations of the Manner and Circumstances and Annexes of the Institution.

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 τὸ σῶμα κλώμενον, τὸ ποτήριον, οι αἷμα ἐκχυνόμενον, ' 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