tution. For the better clearing whereof, the reader may be pleased to consider, First, that the words are not, This shall be my body: nor, This is made, or, shall be changed into my body: but, This is my body. Secondly, that the word THIS can have relation to no other substance, but that which was then present, when our Saviour spake that word; which, as we shall make it plainly appear, was bread. Thirdly, that, it being proved that the word THIS doth demonstrate the bread, it must of necessity follow that Christ, affirming that to be his BODY, cannot be conceived to have meant it so to be properly, but relatively and sacramentally.

The first of these is by both sides yielded unto: so likewise is the third. For "this is impossible," saith the Gloss upon Gratian, "that bread should be the body of Christ." And "it cannot be," saith cardinal Bellarmine," that that proposition should be true, the former part whereof designeth bread, the latter the body of Christ: forasmuch as bread and the Lord's body be things most diverse." And therefore he confidently affirmeth that, if the words, This is my body, did make this sense, This bread is my body, this sentence "must either be taken tropically, that bread may be the body of Christ significatively; or else it is plainly absurd and impossible: for it cannot be," saith he," that bread should be the body of Christ." For ith, is the nature of this verb substantive est, or, is, saith Salmeron his fellow-Jesuit," that, as often as it joineth and coupleth together things of diverse na

e Hoc tamen est impossibile, quod panis sit corpus Christi. De consecrat. dist. 2. cap. 55. Panis est in altari. Gloss.

f Non igitur potest fieri, ut vera sit propositio, in qua subjectum supponit pro pane, prædicatum autem pro corpore Christi. Panis enim et corpus Domini res diversissimæ sunt. Bellarm. de eucharist. lib. 3. cap. 19.

s Ibidem scripsit Lutherus, verba evangelista, Hoc est corpus meum, hunc facere sensum, Hic panis est corpus meum: quæ sententia aut accipi debet tropice, ut panis sit corpus Christi significative; aut est plane absurda et impossibilis. nec enim fieri potest, ut panis sit corpus Christi. Id. lib. 1. de eucharist. cap. 1. h Quarto ducimus argumentum a verbo illo substantivo Est: cujus ingenium et natura est, ut quoties res diversarum naturarum, quæ Latinis dicuntur disparata, unit et copulat, ibi necessario ad figuram et tropum accurramus. Alphons. Salmeron. tom. 9. tractat. 20.

tures, which by the Latins are termed disparata, there we must of necessity run to a figure and trope;" and therefore" should we have been constrained to fly to a trope, if he had said, This bread is my body, This wine is my blood: because this had been a predication of disparates, as they call it." Lastly, doctor Kellison* also in like manner doth freely acknowledge, that "if Christ had said, This bread is my body, we must have understood him figuratively and metaphorically." So that the whole matter of difference resteth now upon the second point: whether our Saviour, when he said This is my body, meant any thing to be his body, but that bread which was before him: a matter which easily might be determined, in any indifferent man's judgment, by the words immediately going before," He' took bread, and gave thanks, and brake, and gave it unto them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you; this do in remembrance of me.' For what did he demonstrate here, and said was his body, but that which he gave unto his disciples? What did he give unto them but what he brake? What brake he but what he took? and doth not the text expressly say that he took bread? Was it not therefore of the bread he said, This is my body? And could bread possibly be otherwise understood to have been his body, but as a sacrament, and (as he himself with the same breath declared his own meaning) a memorial thereof?

If these words be not of themselves clear enough, but have need of further exposition, can we look for a better than that which St. Paul giveth of them", "The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" Did not St. Paul therefore so understand Christ, as if he had said, This bread is my body? And if Christ had said so, doth not Kellison confess, and right reason evince, that he must have been understood figuratively?

i Cogeremur ad tropum confugere, si aliter dixisset, nempe; Hic panis est corpus meum, Hoc vinum est sanguis meus: quia esset prædicatio disparatorum, ut vocant. Id. ib.

k Matt. Kellison, survey of the new religion, lib. 8. cap. 7. sec. 7. m 1 Cor. chap. 10. ver. 6.

Luke, chap. 22. ver. 19.

considering that it is simply impossible, that bread should really be the body of Christ. If it be said that St. Paul, by bread, doth not here understand that which is properly bread, but that which lately was bread, but now is become the body of Christ; we must remember that St. Paul doth not only say The bread, but The bread which we break; which breaking being an accident properly belonging to the bread itself, and not to the body of Christ, which being in glory cannot be subject to any more breaking, doth evidently shew, that the apostle by bread understandeth bread indeed. Neither can the Romanists well deny this, unless they will deny themselves, and confess that they did but dream all this while they have imagined that the change of the bread into the body of Christ is made by virtue of the sacramental words alone, which have not their effect until they have all been fully uttered. For the pronoun THIS, which is the first of these words, doth point to something which was then present. But no substance was then present but bread: seeing by their own grounds, the body of Christ cometh not in, until the last word of that sentence, yea and the last syllable of that word be completely pronounced. What other substance therefore can they make this to signify, but this bread only?

In the institution of the other part of the sacrament the words are yet more plain"; "He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, drink ye all of it: for this is my blood of the new Testament:" or, as St. Paul and St. Luke relate it, "this cup is the new Testament in my blood." That, which he bid them all drink of, is that which he said was his blood. But our Saviour could mean nothing but the wine, when he said, "Drink ye all of it:" because this sentence was uttered by him before the words of consecration; at which time our adversaries themselves do confess, that there was nothing in the cup but wine, or wine and water at the most. It was wine therefore which he said was his blood: even the fruit

"Matt. chap. 26. ver. 27, 28.

VOL. III.

F

66

of the vine, as he himself termeth it. For as in the delivery of the other cup, before the institution of the sacrament, St. Luke, who alone maketh mention of that part of the history, telleth us, that he said unto his disciples; "I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come:" so doth St. Matthew and St. Mark likewise testify, that at the delivery of the sacramental cup, when he had said, "This is my blood of the new Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins;" he also added: "but I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." Now seeing it is contrary both to sense and faith, that wine, or the fruit of the vine, should really be the blood of Christ; there being that formal difference in the nature of the things, that there is an utter impossibility that in true propriety of speech the one should be the other: nothing in this world is more plain, than when our Saviour said it was his blood, he could not mean it to be so substantially, but sacramentally.

And what other interpretation can the Romanists themselves give of those words of the institution in St. Paul? "This cup is the new Testament in my blood." How is the cup, or the thing contained in the cup, the new Testament, otherwise than as a sacrament of it. Mark how in the like case the Lord himself, at the institution of the first sacrament of the Old Testament, useth the same manner of speech, "This is my Covenant or Testament;" for the Greek word in both places is the same: and in the words presently following, thus expoundeth his own meaning, "its shall be a SIGN of the covenant betwixt me and you." And generally for all sacraments, the rule is thus

4 Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι. 1 Cor. cap. 11. ver. 25.

• Καὶ αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη ἣν διατηρήσεις ἀνὰ μέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ ὑμῶν. Gen. cap. 17. ver. 10.

• Καὶ ἔσται ἐν σημείῳ (vel, εἰς σημεῖον) διαθήκης ἀνὰ μέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ vμv. Gen. cap. 17. ver. 11.

laid down by St. Augustine, in his epistle to Bonifacius: "If sacraments did not some manner of way resemble the things whereof they are sacraments, they should not be sacraments at all. And for this resemblance they do oftentimes also bear the names of the things themselves. As therefore the sacrament of the body of Christ is after a certain manner the body of Christ, and the sacrament of Christ's blood is the blood of Christ; so likewise the sacrament of faith is faith." By the sacrament of faith he understandeth baptism, of which he afterwards allegeth that saying of the apostle", "we are buried with Christ by baptism into death:" andt hen addeth: "he" saith not, We signify his burial; but he plainly saith, We are buried. Therefore the sacrament of so great a thing he would not otherwise call, but by the name of the thing itself." And in his questions upon Leviticus: "The thing that signifieth," saith he, "useth to be called by the name of that thing which it signifieth, as it is written: The seven ears of corn are seven years; for he said not, They signify seven years: and the seven kine are seven years: and many such like. Hence was that saying, The rock was Christ. For he said not, The rock did signify Christ; but as if it had been that very thing, which doubtless by substance it was not, but by signification. So also the blood, because, for a certain vital corpulency which it hath, it

t Si enim sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum, quarum sacramenta sunt, non haberent, omnino sacramenta non essent. Ex hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt. Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est, sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est; ita sacramentum fidei fides est. Aug. ep. 98. op. tom. 2. pag. 267.

u Rom. chap. 6. ver. 4.

w Non ait, Sepulturam significamus: sed prorsus ait, Consepulti sumus. Sacramentum ergo tantæ rei non nisi ejusdem rei vocabulo nuncupavit. Id. pag. 268.

Solet autem res quæ significat, ejus rei nomine, quam significat, nuncupari, sicut scriptum est : Septem spicæ septem anni sunt; non enim dixit ; Septem annos significant; et septem boves septem anni sunt: et multa hujusmodi. Hinc est quod dictum est: Petra erat Christus. Non enim dixit, Petra significat Christum; sed tanquam hoc esset, quod utique per substantiam non hoc erat, sed per significationem. Sic et sanguis, quoniam propter vitalem quandam corpulentiam animam significat, in sacramentis anima dictus est. Aug. in Lev. quæst. 57. op. tom. 3. par. 1. pag. 516.