In the institution of the other part of the Sacrament the words are yet more plain, Matth. xxvi. 27, 28: 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 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.

35

34

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

23 Luke xxii. 18.

24 Matth. xxvi. 29; Mar. xiv. 25.

35 Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ή καινή διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι. 1 Cor. xi. 25.

of speech, Gen. xvii. 10: 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: It shall be a SIGN of the Covenant betwixt me and you. And generally for all sacraments the rule is thus laid down by St Augustine, in his Epistle to Bonifacius: 663 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 afterward allegeth that saying of the Apostle, Rom. vi. 4: We are buried with Christ by baptism into death; and then addeth: "39 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: 40 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

36 Καὶ αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη ἣν διατηρήσεις ἀνὰ μέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ ὑμῶν. Gen. xvii. 10.

37 Καὶ ἔσται ἐν σημείῳ (vel εἰς σημεῖον) διαθήκης ἀνὰ μέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ ὑμῶν. Gen. xvii. 11.

33 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. 23.

30 Non ait, Sepulturam significamus :

sed prorsus ait, Consepulti sumus. Sacramentum ergo tantæ rei non nisi ejusdem rei vocabulo nuncupavit. Id. ibid.

40 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. Qu. 57.

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 signifieth the soul, after the manner of sacraments it is called the soul." Our argument therefore out of the words of the institution standeth thus:

If it be true that Christ called bread his body and wine his blood, then must it be true also, that the things which he honoured with those names cannot be really his body and blood, but figuratively and sacramentally. But the former is true; therefore also the latter.

The first proposition hath been proved by the undoubted principles of right reason, and the clear confession of the adverse part; the second by the circumstances of the text of the Evangelists, by the exposition of St Paul, and by the received grounds of the Romanists themselves. The conclusion therefore resteth firm; and so we have made it clear, that the words of the institution do not only not uphold, but directly also overthrow, the whole frame of that which the Church of Rome teacheth touching the corporal presence of Christ under the forms of bread and wine.

If I should now lay down here all the sentences of the Fathers which teach that that which Christ called his body is bread in substance, and the body of the Lord in signification and sacramental relation, I should never make an end. Justin Martyr, in his Apology to Antoninus the Emperor, telleth us that the bread and the wine, even that "41 41 sanctified food wherewith our blood and flesh by conversion are nourished," is that which "we are taught to be the flesh and blood of Jesus incarnate." Irenæus, in his 4th book against Heresies, saith that our Lord, "42 taking bread of that condition which is usual among us, confessed it to be his body;" and "the cup" likewise, containing "that

* Εὐχαρισθεῖσαν τροφήν, ἐξ ἧς αἷμα καὶ σάρκες κατὰ μεταβολὴν τρέφονται ἡμῶν, ἐκείνου τοῦ σαρκοποιηθέντος Ἰησοῦ καὶ σάρκα καὶ αἷμα ἐδιδάχθημεν εἶναι· Just. Apolog. II.

Quomodo autem juste Dominus, si alterius patris existit, hujus conditionis,

quæ est secundum nos, accipiens panem, suum corpus esse confitebatur; et temperamentum calicis suum sanguinem confirmavit. Iren. lib. iv. cap. 57.

48 Calicem, qui est ex ea creatura quæ est secundum nos, suum sanguinem confessus est. Id. lib. iv. cap. 32.

And in his

creature which is usual among us, his blood." 5th book he addeth: "That cup which is a creature, he confirmed to be his blood which was shed, whereby he increaseth our blood; and that bread which is of the creature, to be his body, whereby he increaseth our bodies. Therefore when the mixed cup and the broken bread doth receive the word of God, it is made the Eucharist of the blood and body of Christ, whereby the substance of our flesh is increased and doth consist." Our Lord, saith Clemens Alexandrinus, " 45 did bless wine, when he said, Take, drink, this is my blood, the blood of the vine." Tertullian : 46 Christ,

taking bread, and distributing it to his disciples, made it his body, saying, This is my body; that is, the figure of my body." Origen: "That meat which is sanctified by the word of God and by prayer, as touching the material part thereof, goeth into the belly, and is voided into the draught; but as touching the prayer which is added, according to the proportion of faith it is made profitable, enlightening the mind, and making it to behold that which is profitable. Neither is it the matter of bread, but the word spoken over it, which profiteth him that doth not unworthily eat thereof. And these things I speak of the typical and symbolical body," saith Origen. In the Dialogues against the Marcionites, collected for the most part out of the writings of Maximus, who lived in the time of the Emperors Commodus and Severus, Origen, who is made the chief speaker therein, is brought in thus disputing against

44 Eum calicem qui est creatura, suum sanguinem qui effusus est, ex quo auget nostrum sanguinem; et eum panem qui est a creatura, suum corpus confirmavit, ex quo nostra auget corpora. Quando ergo et mixtus calix et fractus panis percipit verbum Dei, fit Eucharistia sanguinis et corporis Christi, ex quibus augetur et consistit carnis nostræ substantia. Id. lib. v. cap. 2. edit. Colon. ann. 1596.

45 Εὐλόγησέν γε τὸν οἶνον, εἰπων, Λάβετε, πίετε· τοῦτό μου ἐστὶ τὸ αἷμα, aîμa τis dμπéλov. Clem. Alex. Pædag. lib. ii. cap. 2.

46 Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis, corpus suum illum fecit, Hoc est

corpus meum dicendo, id est, figura corporis mei. Tertul. advers. Marcion. lib. iv. сар. 40.

47 Ille cibus, qui sanctificatur per verbum Dei perque obsecrationem, juxta id quod habet materiale, in ventrem abit, et in secessum ejicitur: ceterum juxta precationem quæ illi accessit, proportione fidei fit utilis, efficiens ut perspicax fiat animus, spectans ad id quod utile est. Nec materia panis, sed super illum dictus sermo est, qui prodest non indigne Domino comedenti illum. Et hæc quidem de typico symbolicoque corpore. Origen. in Matth.

cap. xv.

the heretics: 48 If Christ, as these men say, were without body and blood, of what kind of flesh, or of what body, or of what kind of blood, did he give the bread and the cup to be images of, when he commanded his disciples by them to make a commemoration of him ?" St Cyprian also noteth, that it was wine, even the fruit of the vine, which the Lord said was his blood; and that 50 flour alone, or water alone, cannot be the body of our Lord, unless both be united and coupled together, and kneaded into the lump of one bread." And again, that "the Lord calleth bread his body, which is made up by the uniting of many corns; and "wine his blood, which is pressed out of many clusters of grapes, and gathered into one" liquor. Which I find also word for word in a manner transcribed in the Commentaries upon the Gospels, attributed unto 52 Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch; whereby it appeareth, that in those elder times the words of the institution were no otherwise conceived than as if Christ had plainly said, This bread is my body, and, This wine is my blood; which is the main thing that we strive for with our adversaries, and for which the words themselves are plain enough; the substance whereof we find thus laid down in the Harmony of the Gospels, gathered, as some say, by Tatianus, as others, by Ammonius, within the second or the third age after Christ: 6653 Having taken the bread, then afterward the cup of wine, and testified it to be his body and blood, he commanded them to eat and drink thereof, forasmuch as it was the memorial of his future passion and death.”