CHRISTOPHAGIA.  
The MYSTERY of Eating the Flesh AND Drinking the Blood OF CHRIST.  
And the Modus, or Manner thereof DISCOVERED.  Joh. 6. 53. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, Except ye Eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and Drink his Blood, ye have no Life in you. Tale tuum Corpus nobis Divine Redemptor Quale est corporibus Panis Vinumque Virorum Cento Virg●li●nus. Eclog. 5. 
— Si quid novisti rectiùs istis  
Candidus imperti; Si non, his utere mecum.  Hor. 
By ED M. PORTER, D. D. and Prebend of Norwich.  
London: Printed by Tho. Nemcomb for Tho. Collins, at the Middle-Temple-Gate in Fleetstreet. 1680.   

TO THE READER.  
IT pleased his Gracious 
K. Charl. II.  Majesty in his Royal Prudence and Piety, by His Declaration of Octob. 14. in the 14 Year of His Reign, to direct his Clergy of this Realm, to insist chief in their Ordinary Sermons on Catechistical Doctrines. Which gracious Directions, if obeyed and performed, may (with God's Assistance) produce tranquillity and peace in this Church, and increase knowledge and comfort in the People.  
Of all those weighty fundamental Doctrines, none is more desirable and comfortable, than that of the Sacred Eucharist (if it may be rightly understood) which upon serious consideration, and in our time hath been added to our elder Catechism, about sixty years since, by the Authority of our then Royal Beauclerk King JAMES of ever happy Memory. And yet at this day, no one part of all those necessary Doctrines is less apprehended, or understood by the People.  
That Question which the Jewish Disciples moved, How can this Man 
John 6.  give us his Flesh to eat? hath never yet been so fully and clearly answered, but that People are still to seek; and it is too evidently perceived, that they do not understand one half of that Mystery: Neither do we much marvel thereat, because indeed, the whole Christian World, both anciently, and also in our days, hath been, not only exceedingly exercised, but also seem to have been posed in that Mysterious question, as may appear by the multitude of Books published upon that Subject, both by the Fathers, and also since by many Learned men of the Reformed & Unreformed Churches, wherein many passages of the Fathers are produced, which are so mystical and ambiguous, that Men of contrary Persuasions, challenge their authorities to assert their differing Interests.  
Yet of the multitude of Quotations out of the Fathers, by Cardinal Bellarmine, not one doth fully reach or extend to, and clearly prove the new doctrine of Transubstantiation; neither is that word found in any of those ancient Fathers by him alleged, nor doth the Modus, or manner of Eating the Flesh of Christ appear to have been defined, or described by them, although we find the words Mutation, Conversion, Transformation, Transfiguration and Transelementation, often used by them in the Question of the Eucharist, which come not home to the newer Invention of Transubstantion. The misunderstanding of those former words, hath been long ago blown off by the Reformed Writers; and the observation of Origen did very early, and timely preclude the dangerous acception of those ambiguous passages, which dropped from the Pens of the Fathers, who on the 10. Chapter of Leviticus, and in the 7th. Homily saith, Est & in Evangelio litera, quae occidit eum, qui non 
Orig. in Leu. n. 7.  spiritualiter advertit, ut nisi manducaveritis carnem meam, &c i There is even in the Gospel a Letter which killeth him, who doth not consider it to be spiritually meant, Except ye eat th● Flesh of the Son of Man, etc.  
Many Sentences are found in th● Fathers, which are doubtful, and seem so near the brink, that many Learne● men by misunderstanding them, hav● fallen into the ditch.  
St. Cyprian (or some other under 
Cyp. de Coena.  his name) had written, Deus usque hodiè corpus suum create, That God unto this day doth still create his own Body. And Panis iste non effigie sed natura mutatus, factus caro, i. that the Sacramental Bread is changed, not in shape, but in is nature, and is made Flesh.  
After him St. Hilary saith, Nos vere 
Hil. de Trin. l. 8.  verbum carnem, cibo Dominico sumimus, that Communicants do truly receive the Word made Flesh in the Lord's Supper.  
After him St. Ambrose said, Sermo 
Ambr. de Sacram. l. 4. c. 4.  Christi mutat species elementorum. And, Panis iste, ubi accesserit Consecratio, fit corpus Christi, i. That the words of Christ did change the Sacramental Elements, so that by the words of Consecration, the Bread is made the Body of Christ.  
After him St. Chrys●stome said, Christus 
Chrys. Hom. 2. Antioch.  carnem suam nobis reliquit, & ipsam habens, ascendit, That Christ left his Flesh with us, and yet took it with him when, he Ascended.  
But the words of St. Cyril (if they 
Cyril Hieros. Mist 4.  be his own) seem more harsh than the former, and require a more charitable gloss, to reconcile them with the truth of this Mystery, where he saith, Christus, ut aquam in vinum mutabat in nuptiis, sic vinum in Sanguinem transtulisse credendus est in Coena— And addeth, Panis qui videtur, non est panis; nec Vinum, vinum, sed Sanguis Christi, i. As Christ turned water into wine 
John 2.  at the Marriage, so it is to be believed, that he turned wine into Blood at his last Supper, wherein that which seemeth Bread, is not Bread, nor is the Wine, Wine; but it is the Blood of Christ.  
If these Fathers, by these words meant only a Sacramental change of the Elements, viz. of the use, name, signification and operation of them, we willingly assent; but if they meant a real change of the matter, substance, or essence of those Creatures, we utterly descent.  
As for those words of Mutation before mentioned, which are used in this question, both by the Latin and Greek Fathers, we say, that the word Transformatio, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth but a new formality, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or consideration and account put upon the Holy Bread, although it continueth in its own substance, bread. As when of cloth a Gown is made, or of wood a Chair, or of gold a Ring, the substances of Cloth, Wood and Gold, still remain, although a new name or appellation is put on them.  
So the word Transfiguration, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used, because the elements by Dedication or Consecration to so great, & holy an use, are made more than they were naturally of themselves before, and are considered, not as only mere Bread and Wine, but as figures and Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ, and this by Consecration or Sacramental constitution, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
So the word Transelementation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if it be meant and understood of the advancement, preferment or dignity added to the Elements of Bread and Wine, so as, that after Consecration to that Spiritual use, they are to be considered not as only Bread and Wine, or only as Elements, (so far we assent) because of mere Elements they are made Sacraments. Thus Theodoret very judiciously 
Theod. in Eranist. Dial. 1.  observeth, that Christ in the Holy Supper changed the names of the Elements, Non mutans naturam, sed adjiciens gratiam, viz. that he graced those signs or Sacraments with the title or appellation of his own Body and Blood, although they still retained their former substance, figure and form; for so he expressly declares in his third Dialogue, Manent in priore 
Id. Ibid. Dial. 3.  substantia, figura & forma.  
In like manner the words of St. Austin 
Aug. Psal. 33. hom. 1  on the 33. Psalms are to be understood, where he saith, Christus in manibus suis ferebatur, quando dixit hoc est Corpus meum, i. Christ was carried in his own hands, when he said, This is my Body: That which he then bare in his hands was only the Sacrament of his Body, which yet he called his Body, although the Sacrament is but the sign thereof, signum rei, but (as other signs often are) it is called by the name of the thing signified, Res signi. The former is mentioned and meant in the Institution of that Sacrament, Mat. 26. 26. The latter is mentioned, 
Mat. 26. 26. John 6. 53.  John 6. 53. which is the very reality of the thing itself; for by those words of Eating and Drinking, Christ declared the necessity of an Union or Conjunction of our flesh and blood with His, in order to our Redemption, and so to Life, saying, Except ye Eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, etc. ye have no life in you.  
It may reasonably be thought, that many learned Romanists, do not really believe that impossible Doctrine of Transubstantiation, who yet either for fear, or hope of profit, do profess and teach the same; for great are the privileges and profits that arise from it; and as the Prophet saith, the Priests teach for hire, and the Prophet's 
Mich. 3. 11.  divine for money. The Fathers often observed, that evil spirits used to speak from the belly of Pythonists, who are therefore called Ventriloqui, upon those words of Isaias, Quaerite ventriloquos. 
Isa. 8. 19 Orig. in Loc.  Origen saith, that the Prophet pointed at such ecclesiastics as would teach for their own belly, or profit; for ever since the Curse was laid on the Serpent, That he should go 
Gen. 3. 14 Phil. 3. 19  on his belly; Satan hath got advantage by such of his Instruments, whose god is their belly. Surely, if that doctrine were not profitable to the Teachers thereof, it would soon be as despicable at Rome, as it is now with us.  
One Cassius a Roman Judge, when 
Tul. Orat. pro Roscio Amer. n. 4  any Man was accused at his Tribunal for some heinous fact, he would first inquire, Cui bono, what profit might accrue thereby to the accused, if his accusation were true? And when Rullus a Tribune very earnestly urged for the Lex Agraria, i. for power to make sale of all the Roman Provinces, he was first required to quit himself from suspicion of his own Covetousness, Si Populo Consulis remove 
Id. Orat, contra Rullum.  te à suspitione commodi tui. If the Roman Priests would faithfully instruct the People in this gracious and comfortable Mystery, they should forbear making such gain as they do, by the consequences of their Doctrine thereof, which otherwise may be thought to be the Diana of Rome, like that other of Ephesus, a craft by which they have their wealth, for of 
Acts 19 25.  all their Legend of Romances, none are so profitable to them as this, as Pope Leo the Tenth profanely said of the whole History of Christ, Quantas opes nobis peperit illa fabula de 
Plat.  Christo? We that are but Bystanders or Looker's on, may wonder at their Priests, as Cato sometimes did at the old Aruspices, how one of 
Tul. de Divinat. lib. 2.  them meeting with another, can forbear laughing in their sleeves, considering how grossly they have abused the People.  
This little Essay concerning the Flesh and Blood of Christ, is like to find such entertainment with them, as himself had on Earth, To be for a Sign that shall be spoken against; and possibly it may find as little acceptance with some among us, particularly in that part hereof, wherein the propagation or traduction of our Souls is asserted, the denial whereof I esteem to be a Philosophical Heresy, as much disturbing the Doctrine of our Church, concerning Universal Redemption, for so Epiphanius accounts 
Epiph. Haer. 8.  the errors of Epicureans, Stoics, and Pythagoreans among his Heresies.  
But yet, because our Church doth not expressly define that, or limit and declare the Modus or Way of Eating the Flesh, or Drinking the Blood of Christ, therefore the pious and diligent Disquisition of the truth and manner thereof (without gainsaying the Doctrine established herein) I conceive, should be freely permitted, neither should any man's private Opinion (although of another Judgement) prescribe to us, or hinder this our Inquisition, seeing it is not Magisterially dictated, but humbly offered, as an Essay: And also, because many of the right Pious and Learned Fathers, have with great judgement and industry described, and directed us in this very way, as will appear to the Reader of this Book.   

THE PREFACE.  
IN order to the profitable Perusal of this Book, we are first to consider, how the Son of God came to be concerned and interested in the Affairs of Mankind; especially, in the grand work of Redemption and Salvation.  
This Work was resolved and concluded before the Creation, either of Mankind, or of the World, by virtue of a Secret, but a most Gracious Covenant, transacted between the Father and the Son from Eternity, which Covenant is often mentioned in the Gospel, under the title of the Everlasting Covenant, 
Heb. 13. 2. Eph. 3. 11 Rev. 14. 6  and is called the Eternal Purpose, which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord; and the Everlasting Gospel. In all which places the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used.  
We cannot apprehend any other Conditions in this Covenant, but only, that the Godhead in the Person of the Eternal Father, required performance of the future Laws to be imposed on Mankind, the intended Creature, with promise of Life to the Performer, and the penalty of Death to the Transgressor.  
To these covenanted Conditions, the same Godhead in the Person of the Eternal Son, restipulated and agreed, that Mankind should either perform the said Laws, or so suffer. This we conceive to be that Covenant, and also to be attested by the same Godhead, in the Person of the Eternal Spirit of the Father and the Son, who also until this day (as the Apostle speaketh) beareth witness with 
Rom. 8. 16.  our Spirit; And so do all the Three Divine Persons, all of them being but One God of Truth, as St. John saith, There are Three 
1 John 5. 7.  that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these Three are One. Upon these premised Reasons it is, (as I conceive) that the Apostle calls Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. Surety, or Fide-jussor. 
Heb. 7. 22.   
In order to the performance of this Covenant, we are next to consider that God the Son assumed our Human Nature, and became perfect Man, and in that Human Nature, did actually and perfectly perform that whole Law or Covenant, for which he was engaged, in the behalf of Mankind; whereupon it is said of the Son, In the Volume of the Book it is written of me, to do thy 
Heb. 10. 7.  will O God, (in Capite libri) that is, in notitia Praedestinationis aeternae, saith the 
Dionys. Car. in loc.  Expositor. The Writing in the Volume of the Book signifies, that he was preordained, or predestinated from Eternity so to do. He had said before, Sacrifice and Offering thou wouldst not, but a Body thou hast prepared for me— then said I, lo I come; all which words were taken out of the 40th. Psalm. From hence it is, that God the Son is called the Angel, or Messenger of the 
Mal. 3, 1.  Covenant, because he was interested and sent, for performance of the said Covenant. And therefore the whole Flock of Mankind was committed to him, as his Sheep, to be ordered and governed; for so it is expressly said, that the Father gave them to him; 
John 10. 29. 1 Pet. 2. 25.  and He is therefore called by St. Peter, the great Shepherd of the Sheep.  
This Engagement of the Son (as Surety for Mankind.) occasioned those words of the two great Apostles, for thus St. Paul writeth of God, He hath chosen us in him 
Eph. 1, 4.  (Christ) before the Foundation of the World; and, He hath saved us— according 
2 Tim. 1. 9  to his own purpose and Grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus, before the world began. And, In hope of Eternal 
Tit. 1. 2.  life, which God that cannot lie, promised before the World began. Just so St. Peter saith upon the same reason, You were not 
1 Pet. 1. 18.  redeemed with corruptible things— but with the precious Blood of Christ— who 
19 20.  was fore-ordained, before the Foundation of the World.  
These expressions of Choosing us in Christ, and of Grace given us in Christ, and of Christ fore-ordained, and of Life promised, and that before the Foundation of the World. And all these, only in, and for Christ, must needs relate to that aforesaid Eternal purpose, Covenant or Agreement, beeween God the Father and God the Son, before the Creation.  
For to whom could the Promise be made, before either Man, or Angel, or Archangel, or any Creatures were made, but only to the Eternal Word, or Son of the Father? And why to him? but only, because the Son entered into that Covenant, and thereby became the Surety and Undertaker for Mankind. Therefore to him only was this Promise made, and in him, and for him to Mankind. And by virtue of this Covenant, the Lord Jesus became necessarily obliged, both to perform the Law, and also to under go his bitter passions of death, as himself often acknowledged, 
Mat. 16. 21.  and all the four Evangelists have recorded 
Mar. 8. 31 Luke  from his mouth, that He must suffer many things, and be killed. 
24. 46. Joh. 3. 14   
All this being presumed and granted, there is yet one thing more (of the greatest concernment to us) to be considered, viz. how his Obedience in performing the Law, and his Death for the transgressions thereof, can be satisfactory to Divine Justice for us, seeing God hath often declared, that one shall not be punished for another, especially an Innocent for a malefactor; which seems to be our case, for we are the Transgressor's, but Christ is innocent, yet he is punished, and we quitted.  
Our Answer is, that Christ, and Mankind, are not to be looked on as Two, but as One. Nor is his death, the death of one for another, but of the same; He as a Surety, and we as the principal Debtor; He as the Head, and we as the Members of the same Body. The Surety and the principal, are but one Person in Law, and the Head, and the other parts are both one, and the same Body in Nature.  
Therefore, that the proceed of the Godhead, concerning the work of Man's Redemption, might appear to be contrived, not only with infinite Mercy, but also with exact Justice. God at the beginning so ordered, that the Redeemer, and the Redeemed should be united in One original Fountain, who to that end planted all the Bodies and Souls both of Christ, and of all Mankind, in that One First Man, from whose Flesh and Soul, both Christ, and all Mankind, have derived their Bodies and their Souls. In this consisteth our Union with Christ, and hence it is, that Christ and we are accounted but One, and this is that Union which was meant, and described by Christ under those figurative words, of Eating his Flesh, and Drinking his Blood. The clear demonstration and proof whereof, is the whole, and only design of this ensuing Treatise.  
The learned Romanists I conceive, do perfectly understand, that the benefits which come by Christ, cannot otherwise with justice be communicated to Mankind, but only by the Union of Christ with us, viz. of his Flesh with our flesh, and of his Soul with our souls; And therefore they have fancied this Union to be effected, by an Oral and carnal Eating of his living Flesh, and Drinking his Blood in the Sacred Eucharist, by their way of Transubstantiation.  
For the learned French Cardinal of Perron, in his Book of the Eucharist, written in French, affirmeth, that the real natural Presence of Christ in the Sacrament is to greatest purpose, because the Residence of Christ's Natural Body in our bodies, doth really and substantially join us unto God, establishing a true and real Unity between God and Men. Thus far he, which is observed by Dr. Jer. Tailor in his Book, entitled The Real Presence and Spiritual of Christ in the Sacrament, pag. 50.  
We also confess the necessity of this Union, but by another way, which is plain, evident and comfortable, as it is described in this Book, as I trust will appear to the Reader. So that no need will be of that Roman Subterfuge, and pretence of their horrid, unreasonable and impossible Mode by an Oral, gross, carnal and literal Eating of his Flesh, and Drinking his Blood, with which Imposture, a great part of the Christian World hath been a long time abused; but by the cool and sober perusal of this Discourse, the Ingenuous Romanist may happily in some measure be undeceived.  
The most complete and perfect Union of Christ with Man, consisteth in five things. 1. Carne, in Flesh. 2. Anima, in Soul. 3. Spiritu, in Spirit. 4. Vadimonio, in Covenant or Suretyship. 5. Fide in Faith.  
The Union which I shall chief endeavour to describe in this Tractate, consisteth in the two first of these, which I firmly believe to be intended, and meant in that Speech of Christ, Joh. 6. 53. Except ye Eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and Drink his Blood, etc.   

THE Flesh of Christ.  

CHAP. I.  
HE that attempteth to discover the grand mystery of Eating and Drinking the Flesh and Blood of Christ, must begin his Work very early, even at the Creation of our first Parents, or rather, before the foundation of the World. Because, the most wise, merciful, and just Godhead, had designed the redemption of Mankind from Eternity by God the Son: And did lay the foundation, and the frame, order, and method thereof in the first Man, and the first Woman, from whom every man and woman that are, were, or hereafter shall be born, with Christ himself also, have derived both their Flesh, and their Souls, that so an Union and conjunction might be made of the Redeemer with the Redeemed; without which Union, the Son of God could not be fitly qualified to perform with Justice the great Work of Redemption of Mankind.  
Concerning this Union, those words of Christ are to be understood. John 6. 53. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and 
Joh. 6. 53. Mat. 26. 26.  drink his blood; and those other words Mat. 26. 26. This is my Body, and This is my Blood; both must needs be true, because Truth hath spoken them: The former were meant of the real, and substantial Union and conjunction of our flesh with his Flesh, and of our souls with his Soul; the latter were meant of the Representation or similitude of our true, real and substantial union with Christ, in his whole humane Nature, signified to us by the Sacramental eating and drinking of Bread and Wine, as it was before represented to the Israelites in eating the flesh of the Paschal Lamb. For as with them, and with us, The Lamb, and Bread and Wine, were really to be taken into our bodies, and do really nourish us, and unite themselves with our bodies, and grow into one bulk with us: So Christ with Mankind must be united, and be One with us, otherwise he cannot with the strictness of Divine Justice be the Redeemer of Mankind, neither could man be capable of redemption by him.  
Concerning the truth and reality of eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ the Redeemer; the Reformed churches, and also the Vnreformed do both agree, and yet exceedingly differ, and disagree in the manner, and way thereof.  
1. The Roman Transubstantiators would have us believe, that Christ is eaten in the Sacrament, really; pretending, that the Bread and Wine are transubstantiated, or rather annihilated; and that the whole Christ is brought into the room thereof, and so eaten.  
But this cannot be the mode, or way of eating Christ, because the eating and drinking by him meant, must have been in all former and past Generations, and must still stand firm and true, although the Sacrament or Eucharist had never been instituted; for Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, and Adam himself must have eaten so, as is here meant, else they could not be redeemed by Christ. And this Eating of Christ was true and real, before he was actually Born or Incarnate. St. Paul saith, Our Fathers did eat the same meat, and drink of the same Rock that 
1 Cor. 10. 3.  followed, and that Rock was Christ; therefore they did eat Christ, so as he meant.  
2. The Lutheran Consubstantiators would have men believe, that the Flesh and Blood of Christ literally understood, are really, carnally, and grossly received, in, and with the Sacramental bread and wine.  
But neither can this way be true, because the Eating here meant must have been, and still is, without the Sacrament thereof; for the flesh of Christ is now, and hath been eaten by those that never heard of, nor ever did receive, or communicate in the Sacrament, for Children, Heathens, Turks and Jews, and the most profane Christians, must have eaten Christ, otherwise they could have no possibility, or be in any capacity of Redemption: Yet the Scriptures, the primitive Fathers, and the Church of England do clearly declare, that the benefit of Redemption belongeth, and is offered to 
God the Son hath redeemed me, and all Mankind.  the whole World, to all, and every Man and Woman, as our Church Catechism teacheth.  
3. The Zwinglians, who are called Sacramentarians, would have men believe thatf Eating the flesh, and Drinking the blood oh Christ, is meant only of receiving the signs, figures or Sacraments thereof, viz. by bread and wine in the Eucharist.  
But neither can this way be the right meaning thereof, because we must truly, and really receive the very thing itself; for we must corporally be united with the flesh of Christ, and really, and truly must our Souls be united with the Soul of Christ, else no redemption can possibly be, either of our bodies, or of our Souls by him. Calvin upon those words, This is my Body; very truly 
Calvin. n 1 Cor. 11. 24.  affirmeth, Neque fallax est Christus, qui vacuis figuris nos ludat— Mihi extra controversiam est— Veritatem hic, cum suo signo conjunctam esse. (1.) Christ did not delude us with empty figures, I doubt not at all, but that the truth was joined with the sign.  
4. The Church of England doth not (to my apprehension) clearly determine of the Modus, or manner of Eating the Flesh, or drinking the blood of Christ, either in the Sacrament, or out of the Sacrament; yet thus far this Church proceedeth in the mystery 
Art. Relig. 28.  of the holy Supper, and saith in the 28th Article, that it is the Sacrament of Redemption, just so as St. Cyprian had before written of the same thing in an Epistle to Coecilius, wherein he calleth the Lord's Supper Sacramentum Redemptionis; because 
Cyp. 2. epist. 3.  thereby, as by an holy sign, we are taught the manner, way, and method used by Christ in the work of our Redemption.  
The Church of England again declareth in the Office of the Eucharist, that the faithful and penitent Receivers do spiritually eat and drink the Flesh and Blood of Christ, that they dwell in Christ, and Christ in them, that they be One with Christ, and Christ with them; the meaning is, that the holy Supper is the Sacrament, or mysterious sign of our Union with the flesh of Christ, and with the blood or Soul of Christ, just as both S. Austin, and 
Aug. in John 26. Ansel. in Mat. 26.  after him S. Anselm called it Sacramentum Vnitatis. (2.) The Sacrament of Union, and the very word Communion (as this Sacrament is called) signifieth the same. Communio is all one with counio, or unio cum; because the sacramental Eating and Drinking representeth the Union, or conjunction of the flesh, and soul of Christ with our flesh and soul, without which neither our bodies, nor our Souls can be by him redeemed.  
I will not at present engage or meddle with the doctrine, or meaning of the words in the mystery of the holy Supper of our Lord, which was but the sign of the grand, and real mystery of the Eating the flesh of Christ, of which only I am now to treat, in relation to those Words of Christ in the 6. Chapter of St. John, before the Holy Supper was instituted, of which words, my purpose and earnest endeavour is to find out, and to discover the meaning, and true sense; and my hearty desire and prayer, that my Labours herein may in some measure conduce to an agreement between dissenting Parties.  
The Roman, and also the Reformed Church-Writers, men of great wisdom, Learning and sobriety, have spent their precious time and labours, something (as I humbly conceive) besides the matter, purpose and intent of those words of Christ.  
1. The Romanists have laboured too much, to assert and prove a carnal, gross and literate eating of the very flesh of Christ orally; grounding their Doctrine of Transubstantiation upon those two Speeches of Christ before mentioned; but with ill success, having so much been perplexed in answering and excusing the impossibilities, and the unprofitableness of such an Exposition, that they were forced to fly to the old Poetical refuge of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or miracles, whereof they say there are eleven in effecting their Transubstantiation; we may add a twelfth, which to me seemeth the greatest of all, viz. that so many wise, and learned men should profess and believe such unnecessary, and manifest impossibilities.  
2. The Writers of the reformed Church have employed their time and labour in a negative way, principally in confuting the impossibility of that Roman Doctrine, and in proving that we do not Orally eat the very flesh of Christ, for although they acknowledge that Speech of Christ to be true, when he said, Except ye eat the Flesh, etc. yet they truly affirm, that they are not to be understood of a gross, carnal, and oral Eating; This negative Doctrine occasioned a pretence to the adverse Party, to accuse them of an attempt to confute and gainsay the words of Christ.  
These practices on both sides, I conceive, have been the cause of hiding or obscuring the most gracious, and comfortable doctrine of our Union with the body or flesh of Christ; and consequently of the doctrine of our Redemption by him, both of them being certainly employed in those words of Eating and Drinking.  
It is therefore to be wished, that such Learned men for the future, would employ their studies in a positive Way, in showing how those Mysterious Words of Christ are true, and to be rightly understood, rather than in a negative confutation of a wrong Sense, which work solidly performed, would clear the darkness of that Mystery, and be exceedingly comfortable to pious Souls, and evidently declare the Wisdom, Righteousness and Mercy of our ever Blessed Redeemer.   

CHAP. II.  
IN order to the opening of this Mystery, we are first to inquire what our Redeemer meant by those words of Eating and Drinking my Flesh and Blood, which certainly are not to be understood literally, but figuratively.  
The Reader may observe, that the grand Mysteries of our Religion in the Holy Scripture, are represented and exemplified darkly, as under a cloud, or veiled with the similitude of Eating.  
1. The Tree of life in Paradise was planted to be eaten of; it was the figure or type of Christ, who called himself a Tree, Luk. 23. 31. and a Vine, John 15. 5. and the Life, John 14. 16. and is called Rev. 2. 7. The Tree of Life. The typical Tree was ordained to preserve and continue a worldy life, as Christ the substantial Tree to procure an Eternal, and heavenly Life.  
Although that Tree of life was permitted by the Godhead to be eaten of by our first Parents, yet they never did eat of it, because in the state of their Innocency they perceived not any need thereof, being in a condition of not dying (as Divines say) Potuit Adam non mori; nor was any malady upon them, so as to need any medicine to cure them of any disease; But afterward, when by their transgression they had incurred the curse of Mortality, they were excluded from that Tree of life, lest they should take of the Tree of Life, and live 
Gen. 3. 22. Gen. 2. 17.  for ever; whereby the Commination of God should have failed, who had said, In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.  
There was another Tree in Paradise called the Tree of Knowledge, of which the 
Gen. 2. 9  Man was forbidden to eat, although it is said, that the Woman saw that the Tree was good for food, and pleasant to the eye, and to be desired to make one wise. So though they abstained from the Tree permitted, yet 
Gen. 3. 6.  they did eat of the Tree forbidden.  
The Tree of Life represented Christ, the Tree of knowledge represented the Law, as Tertullian very judiciously affirmeth and proveth. That law concerning the Tree, 
Tert. adv. Judaeos.  was Primondialis Lex, the first Law that was imposed on Man, and had been large enough (saith he) if it had been obeyed. Lex data Adae & Aevae, est quasi matrix omnium 
Id. ibid.  praeceptorum Dei quae pullularunt postea, data per Mosem; It was as the Womb, out of which sprang the Ten Commandments given by Moses; and in that first Law, all those Moral laws are couched and implied.  
As the Tree of Life signifieth Christ with all his Evangelical mercies; And the Eating of that Tree signified the Union, conjunction and inherence of Mankind in him: So the Tree of knowledge signified the Law with all its strictness, rigour and penalties. And the forbidding to Eat of that Tree, signified, that we should not trust to, or rely on it, or expect to obtain life by performance of the law, or justification and Salvation by the works thereof: This I conceive to be the meaning of forbidding the Tree of knowledge, as relating to the Law; because I find divers passages concerning the said law, even in the Gospel, which to me signify the same, as by the works of the 
Rom. 3. 20.  Law shall no flesh be justified; and, The Law worketh Wrath; it is called also 
Rom. 4. 15.  The Ministration of death; and the Ministration 
2 Cor. 3. 7, 9  of condemnation. Therefore we are to depend on, and feed and nourish our hope and faith, only by Christ, who is the only true Tree of Life, and not to confide in the Law, because we cannot possibly by our own selves perform it, nor by any other way, but only in, by, and through Christ, and this by that interest which we have in him, by our union with his Flesh and Soul.  
2. The Manna (every one knows) signified Christ. The eating of Manna signified the union of Manna with the Bodies, or flesh of the Israelites, which was a type of the necessity of Man's union with the flesh of the Redeemer.  
3. The Paschal Lamb signified the Lamb of God; And the Eating thereof signified the conjunction or union of the flesh of the Redeemer with the Redeemed.  
4. The legal Sacrifices, represented Christ to be sacrificed on the Altar of the Cross: And they were to be eaten, (except Holocausts.) The eating of them signified man's union with the Antitype, that is Christ, even as that which we eat becomes one with us, it grows into one bulk with our bodies, and is united with us, and is animated with the same life and soul with our bodies, it lives, it dies, and is buried, and riseth again with us, and continueth with us after the Resurrection everlastingly; in like manner, the flesh of Christ is united with our flesh, without which Union there can be no Redemption of us by him, nor indeed any resurrection of our Bodies, nor Immortality of our Souls, more than of the bodies and souls of brute Creatures; (as will appear hereafter) therefore Christ said, Except 
John 6.  ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, etc. you have no life in you. And in the Sacramental sign of this real Mystery, he said, Take, eat, this is my Body (that is) my 
Mat. 26.  Body is to you such a thing, as this Bread which you eat is to be; which will be concorporated and joined in One, and united with your bodies, and will be animated with the same life and soul, wherewith all the parts of your body were formerly endued and informed.  
If it be enquired, why the very individual flesh of Christ should not be in truth, and reality, and propriety of speech confessed to be eaten, in full correspondence with the Type, viz. the flesh of the Paschal Lamb, which was really eaten?  
Our Answer is, That if there were no other way, or signification of Eating the flesh of Christ, but only Orally; or as the Letter soundeth; then of necessity, it must be so meant and understood, and must be so eaten, as the Paschal Lamb and the Sacrifices were. But there is another way and meaning thereof, wherein the flesh of Christ is truly said to be eaten, both before he was incarnate or born, and also after his Ascension into Heaven, in both which times it was, and is, impossible to be 
1 Cor. 10. 3.  eaten Orally.  
For when his Disciples were offended at the mentioning of Eating his Flesh, he said, What and if you shall see the Son of man ascend 
Joh. 6. 62  up where he was before? as if he had said, my flesh must have been eaten, so as I mean, even before I took human flesh upon me. And also, after my assumed flesh shall be ascended locally into Heaven, and not be any more upon Earth, or out of Heaven until my return at the last Judgement, and therefore far out of the reach of any mortal hand or mouth; therefore it cannot be meant literally of any oral, o● gross carnal Eating.  
If we shall rest satisfied, and seek no farther into this Mysterious Eating, than only to believe, that Christ doth daily in the Sacrament thereof vouchsafe, and condescend to exhibit his very true Body in, or under the species or appearance of Bread, or Wafer-cakes, and that his very Body is so, really existant in many thousand distant places in the same minute of time; which to human Reason is incredible, and contrary to Philosophy, and even to our senses: If we can swallow this vain, impossible and unprofitable Camel, it would be a quick expedient, and an easy or lazy gloss to unriddle this grand mystery by; which hath a long time perplexed, and posed the Christian World.  
Concerning which, (good Christian Reader) I do here tender my poor Meditations, in humility, not Magisterially; but with due submission to the judgement of my Superiors; most earnestly begging of God, instruction, illumination, and a right understanding herein, and wholly trusting and relying upon him, who by his Apostle hath thus directed and promised, that, If any want wisdom, 
Jam. 1. 5.  let him ask it of God— and it shall be given him; in hope therefore of his assistance, I proceed to examination of the particulars, of Eating the Flesh, and Drinking the Blood of our Redeemer.   

CHAP. III.  
THe words of Christ, from whose lips never any guile or untruth fell, are these. Verily, verily I say unto you, except 
Joh. 6. 53▪  ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man, and drink his Blood, ye have no Life in you; here are two Verilieses, or Amens, which are often used by S. John only, whereas the other Evangelists never use but one Amen in the weightiest narrations; this double Assertion falling from the mouth of Christ, argueth a certain, and undeniable truth, which because it is hard and mysterious, yet necessarily to be received and believed, therefore it is thus strongly and vehemently affirmed, and must be believed, although i● be not at first understood, for this is a character of Christian Faith to confess the Words of God to be true, although we do not understand them, as Prosper saith, Magna fortitudo est consentionis, cui ad sequendam 
Prosp. de Voc. Gen. l. 2. c. 2.  veritatem, autoritas sufficit, latente ratione. The valiantness of Christian Faith is, in consenting to Truth by authority of God's Word, when the reason thereof doth not appear.  
The Jews asked (whilst Christ was 
John 6. 52.  with them on earth) How can this Man give u● his Flesh to eat? We may now much rather ask the same question, seeing his Flesh is now in Heaven far remote from us, and certainly his Flesh since his Ascension, never was on Earth to this day: Therefore to eat his Flesh orally, grossly, and literally understood, is both impossible, and (as Christ affirmed) unprofitable. The Flesh profiteth nothing, or, if to eat his Flesh orally, 
John 6. 63.  were necessary and profitable, how can we come at it? The Apostle adviseth, Say not in thine heart, who shall ascend into 
Ro. 10. 6.  Heaven, that is, to bring Christ down? That which is meant by Eating his Flesh, is done already, and brought home to us.  
Eating in Scripture phrase doth not always signify Oral eating, nor doth it so signify in those Words of Christ; David, Abraham, and the Antediluvian Patriarches must so have eaten Christ, as Eating here signifieth, else they could not have been redeemable by him. Christ said, Blessed 
Mat. 5. 6.  are they that hunger and thirst after Righteousness, upon which words S. Austin asketh, Quis dilaniat justitiam? and addeth nè putetis morsibus fieri. Who can eat Righteousness, think not that this Eating is done by morsels: So, Pharisees devoured widows 
Mat. 23. 14.  houses, yet they did not Eat them. Men are often said to feed their eyes, Pascere oculos, 
Virg. Aen. 1.  and Animum pictura pascit inani in the Poet; yet neither our Eyes, nor our Souls can eat. The Church exhorteth to feed on Christ in our hearts, this is done without a Mouth-eating. The Psalmist saith, They eat up my People as bread, and They have devoured 
P. 14. 4.  Jacob, that is, saith Austin upon that place, Gentes, multos in suum malignum corpus, 
Aug. in Ps. 78.  seu Societatens transire, terrendo coegerunt; the Heathens have forced many into their malignant body and association by terrifying them, yet not by Oral eating. Ezekiel is commanded to eat the Roll, and 
Ez●k. 3. 3, 10. Rev. 10. 9  so is St. John commanded to eat the Book, which signified, that they should deeply take the words thereof into their consideration, to consider and ponder them in their hearts and minds. Peter, one of the brothers of Lombard, is commonly called Petrus Comestor, and another great Writer was called Jacobus de Voragine, Peter the Eater, and James the Gulf or devourer; not for gormondizing of meat, but because of multitude of Books, which by their Readins they had devoured and digested, as Cato was called heluo librorum, a very Glutton 
Tull. de Fin. lib. 3.  of Books by Tully.  
But above all the former Eating that Divine Ecstasy, or Trance, or Rapture of St. Peter, recorded Acts 10. doth clearly 
Acts 10. 13.  show, that there is another way and meaning of Scriptural Eating, which is not Oral; for in that Vision there was presented to St. Peter a vessel descending from Heaven, wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fouls of the air, and a Voice came to him, rise Peter, kill and eat.  
By these several creatures, the Nations, or Gentiles are signified, as formerly in the vision of Daniel, the four Monarchies were 
Dan. 7.  presented to him in the shapes and resemblances of four Beasts. The first as a Lion, the second as a Bear, the third as a Leopard, the fourth as a dreadful Beast with iron teeth, both these apparitions of those creatures, signified People and Nations.  
It is a very mean conceit, and a low gloss of some late Expositors, put upon that mysterious Vision of St. Peter, by which was signified the calling of the Gentiles to the Gospel. But those Writers would have no more meant thereby, but only a permission to eat of such Creatures as were formerly forbidden, as unclean by the ceremonial Law; yet we find not mention of any fish in the Vessel, although some sorts of fish are mentioned amongst forbidden meats as unclean, viz. such as have not fins 
Levit. 11. 10.  or scales; whereby we may reasonably conclude, that the Vision had a farther reach and project than Eating; the mention of wild beasts signified the mission of the Gospel to such People as were not then civilised, such as are now called sylvestres Populi, Savages, barbarous and lawless; some as yet are called the wild Irish. Surely the vision, under the apparition of Beasts and fowls, pointed at Men only who are conversant on the Earth, and in the Air, as beasts and fouls are, but live not in the Water.  
St. Peter was commanded to kill and eat the Gentiles, which if literally understood, would be most barbarous, and also impossible. But to kill signified to mortify them, to convert or turn them from their Idolatry, to kill their Heathenism in them, as St. Austin saith upon those words, Occiduntur, cum Christiani fiunt ex Paganis. 
Aug. in Ps. 149.  The Heathens are said to be killed, when of Pagans they are made Christians; and again upon the word kill he saith, Macta, 
Id. Ps. 30.  id est, occide quod fuerant, fac quod tu es. Kill in them what they were, and make them such as thou art. Neither is Peter commanded only, to kill or convert them, but also to take the Gentiles so mortified and converted into the Body, Fellowship and Communion of the Church; and so the same Father expounds the word Eat. Petrus recipit Gentes in communionem 
Id. lib. 50. homiliarum hom. 45. to. 10.  Ecclesiae, quasi escam, ut incorporentur. By Eating, Peter is required to receive the Gentiles into the mystical body of the Church, and to incorporate them, as meat is concorporated with our natural bodies. This Exposition is evidently confirmed by St. Peter himself, for after this Vision, he went forthwith to Cornelius a Roman and Gentile, he preached Christ to him, and converted him, and baptised him, and thereby received, and incorporated him in the Corporation of the Church.  
The Eating of the flesh of Christ in those mysterious words of Christ, is in like manner to be understood, so as to signify an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or rather a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, our Incorporation or Concorporation with Christ, or the union or conjunction of our bodies with his Body, and so doth the forenamed Father expound those very words of Christ, Except ye eat, etc. Nisi incorporentur 
Aug. in l. c.  Christo, and, Qui venit ad Christum, incorporatur ei, to eat the flesh of Christ, signifieth to be incorporated in him, as every one must be that cometh to him.  
Peter did not Orally eat the Nations, neither is it required by those words, that we should Orally eat the flesh of Christ; what frantic Fanatic will so understand those word of Christ? If thy right hand offend 
Mat. 5.  thee, cut it off, etc. as actually to the Letter, to cut off his own hand, or pull out his own eye.  
From the grounds and reasons premised, my Conclusion is, and ever will be, that the Eating of the flesh of Christ is meant, and to be understood only of the union or conjunction of our flesh with his Flesh, or our concarnation with him, so as to be flesh of his Flesh, as the Apostle saith; without 
Gal. 5. 30.  which Union there will be no possibility of Redemption of our bodies by the bitter passions, and death of his blessed Body. But how this conjunction, and union of his Body, and our bodies was contrived and effected, is next to be enquired.   

CHAP. IU.  
IT is certainly necessary for our Redemption, and in order thereto, that first there must be a true, real, and corporal union, or conjunction of our flesh with the Flesh of our Redeemer; which corporal union was contrived and effected by the most Wise, Just, and Merciful Godhead, and was by him designed, and plotted before the Creation, on purpose to put Mankind into a capacity of Redemption, his Providence foreseeing the fall of Man, and his goodness and mercy providing the cure of Redeemableness by God the Son, to be in time coincarnate with us, and to become Emanuel.  
For if it may appear, that the flesh or body of Christ was made of the same Materials of which our flesh and bodies are made, and if both he and we, have derived our Flesh from the selfsame lump of the first Man, who then can deny an Union, and conjunction of him with us in that first Lump?  
The first Man was made of a piece of Earth, and the first Woman was derived out of the Man, and not made of another piece of Earth; for the Woman could not have been in union with Christ, except she had been taken out of the Man, as Christ, and all Mankind are; nor could she, or we have been capable of Redemption by Christ, without this union with Christ in the first Man.  
Hence it is that the Apostle saith, We are Members of his Body, of his Flesh, and of his 
Eph. 5. 30, 31, 32  Bones. The like he saith of Christ and his whole Church, They two shall be one Flesh, but I speak concerning Christ and his Church. This is said, because all Men and Women, with Christ also, were originally joined and united in Adam, and therefore Prosper 
Prosp. ad Cap. Gallorum.  observeth, Nullus est hominum cujus natura non erat suscepta à Christo; there is not any Man in the world, whose Nature was not assumed by Christ. Ipse Adam toto terrarum orbe sparsus est, Aug. Ps. 95. And St. Paul saith, God hath made of one Blood all 
Acts 17. 26.  nations of Men, it is meant of the blood of the first Man, by which word Blood something more is implied than only Flesh, as will appear hereafter, and more than Blood literally taken.  
In the Old Testament, where we read of Filius Hominis, or Son of Man, the same words in the Original are Ben-Adam often. The Genealogy of St. Luke derives Christ from Adam, and St. Paul calls Christ, the Last Adam, as children are called by the 
1 Cor. 15. 45.  names of their Progenitors; therefore St. Austin, to show the original of all Men, with Christ himself, saith Omnis homo terrenus 
Aug. Retract. l. 1. c. 16.  est Adam, every Man of the Earth is Adam; for it is as easy to apprehend Christ to be the Son of Adam, as to be the Son of David, and of Abraham; and as easy 
Mat. 1. 1.  to understand that Christ was united with Mankind in the loins of Adam, as to apprehend that Levi was in the loins of Abraham 
Heb. 7. 10  when Melchisedech met him, which was long before Levi was begotten.  
Moreover, even when Adam was form, there was an original corporal union of all Mankind in that one parcel of Earth, of which Man was made, which is the reason why not only Adam, but all his Posterity are called Earth and Dust; O Earth, Earth, Earth hear the Word of the Lord. 
Gen. 3. 19 Jer. 22. 29.   
The reason why I have said, that the Redeemer must be united, and be one with the Redeemed, is, because God doth not punish or reward eternally one for another, but the same that performeth or transgresseth his Laws, is punished or rewarded. The Wise man saith, He that justifieth the 
Prov. 17. 15.  wicked, and condemneth the just, are both abominable to the Lord. The Jews had a cursed and murmuring Proverb among them, The Fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the 
Eze. 18. 2 Jer. 31. 29.  children's teeth are set on edge; their meaning was, that their Fathers had committed that sin, for which their Children were punished; but God did control that false imputation, saying, Every one shall die for his own sin; And, He that eateth sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge; and, the Soul that sinneth, it shall die. So it is said in the Gospel, Every man shall bear his own burden; 
Gal. 6. 5● 1 Pet. 1. 17.  and, God judgeth according to every Man's work. Therefore the Redeemer must be really united, and be as one man with the Redeemed, otherwise the passions, and Death of Christ the Redeemer, cannot in the exact Justice of the Godhead, satisfy for the sins of the People.  
Christ said to a young man, If thou wilt 
Mat. 19 17.  enter into life, keep the Commandments. This must be confessed to be true, that no man can be saved except he perform the Law: If it be enquired, how any mere man can enter into Life, seeing every one transgresseth the Law; We answer, that every true and faithful Member of Christ fulfilleth the Law, because Christ hath performed it, who is One with his Members.  
This weighty and necessary Doctrine of the union of Christ with Mankind, is evidently and plentifully declared, both in the Holy Scriptures, and also in the Writings of the Fathers (which I have elsewhere showed at large) in the Gospel. Christ said, I am the Vine, ye are the branches, the root, stock, and branches of the Vine are 
Joh. 15. 5  but one Tree. St. Paul saith of Christ, and of men, that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fellow Plants, or planted together, planted in Adam, and, we being many are one body in Christ; and, 
Rom. 6. 5 Rom. 12. 5.  as the Body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many are one body; so is Christ. And your 
1 Cor. 12. 12. 1 Cor. 6. 15. 1 Cor. 12. 27. Gal. 3. 28  bodies are the members of Christ, and ye are the Body of Christ, and members in particular; and therefore the same Apostle saith of the Galatians, Ye are all one in Christ Jesus.  
The union or Oneness of men with Christ doth not consist only in this, that Christ communicateth his Spirit to us men, but also, in that Christ and all Mankind were originally together in the first Man, and are all derived from the flesh and blood of him, as I noted before from the words of St. Paul, 
Acts 17. 26.  that God made of one blood all Nations of men; and that one Blood was the blood of Adam.  
For although we never were in the loins of Christ, nor derived from him, yet because Christ, and we, and all Generations of men were originally in the loins of Adam, therefore in him we were then all united.   

CHAP. V.  
IN the next place we are to inquire, what was the Doctrine of the Father's concerning the Body of Christ, and also concerning the Union of the Head with the members thereof.  
1. The Body of Christ in Scripture hath a double signification. 1. It signifieth the natural, proper and individual, or personal Body of Christ, of which it is said, a woman poured ointment on his Body, and Joseph begged 
Mat. 26. 12, 27, 58  the Body of Jesus.  
2. The Body of Christ signifieth his Body Mystical, that is, the whole Corporation of Christ and his Members, of which it is said, He is the Head of his body the Church. 
Col. 1. 18   
Christ's Natural body is but a part of his Mystical body, as our head is but a part of our natural body. And as the head, and other parts of our natural body are visibly united; so Christ, and all his Members are united, and joined by an invisible Tie or knot, both in Flesh and Soul, as will hereafter appear, as also in one Spirit, proceeding from Christ the Head, and communicating itself to every particular member of that great Mystical Body; as it is said of the precious Ointment upon the Head, 
Psa. 133.  which ran down upon the beard of Aaron, and went down to the skirts of his garments; the ointment signified the Spirit and its graces.  
In consideration of this Union, by those three knots or ligaments just now mentioned, the Fathers looked on Christ and his Members, and considered them so united, as upon one Body, or one Man, or one universal Person, because there is no one man or woman in the World whose nature Christ hath not assumed, whereof St. Ambrose saith, In Christo summa universalitatis 
Ambr. de chit. Saty. To. 4. p. 146.  est, & portio singulorum; Christ is as the total Sum of all men, and a portion or parcel of every man. To the same purpose Prosper saith, Tota Ecclesia, cum Christo capite 
Prosp. Ps. 102. Id. Ps. 131.  est unus homo, and in another place he saith, Tota civitas Dei est unus homo, in capite & corpore: The whole Church with Christ the Head, is one Man, and the whole City of God is but one Man, in the head and body. St. Austin is very plentiful and 
Aug. in Joh. Tra. 108.  plain in this matter of Union, and saith, Vnus est Christus, caput & corpus, ipsi sunt ego; and in another place, Vnus Homo caput 
Aug. Ps. 127. Id. Ps. 30.  & corpus Christi sumus, non solum Christiani; and again, Christus est multa membra, unum Corpus. The meaning of all is, that they are but one Body, and are considered as one Person, for as the Head, and the other parts altogether are but one man, so Christ, and all his mystical Members are but one whole Christ; which whole mystical Body consisting of Christ the Head, and Christians the members thereof, the same Father often calleth Christum totum, and 
Aug. in Ps. 36. & 37. & alibi.  Christum plenum, and Christum universum, and Plenitudinem Christi, and Christum diffusum, that is, the whole, full, universal, diffused Christ, or the fullness of Christ; St. Paul also useth the same expression concerning Christ and his Members: He (God) 
Eph. 1. 22, 23.  hath given him to be head over all things to the Church, which is his Body, the fullness (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) of him that filleth all in all. So that Christ himself with his Church, are here said to be the full Christ, or fullness of 
Ps. 82.  Christ.  
And as in Scripture many are called 
1 Cor. 8. 5. Psal. 105. 15.  Gods, (although there is but one God) because God distributes his Spirit to them. So many are called Christ's, (Nolite tangere Christos meos) because Christ hath united himself with them, both by his Spirit, and by his Flesh, of which union of his Flesh himself saith, He that eateth my flesh, dwelleth 
John 6. 56.  in me, and I in him; because he hath taken his flesh from the same Original, whence our flesh is derived, therefore as our flesh dwelleth in him, so his Flesh dwelleth in us.  
St. Hilary in his 8. Book de Trinitate, 
Hil. n. 3.  declareth the union of the Flesh of Christ with the flesh of Men, and those not only holy and spiritual men, but also with unholy and carnal men, in these words, Habemus in nobis carnalibus manentem per carnem, Christum: we that are but carnal men, have Christ by his flesh remaining in us. And just so writeth the venerable and blessed Martyr, Archbishop Cranmer, in his Book against Bish. Gardiner, That Christ did unite himself with us as Man by his Incarnation. But this necessary Doctrine of mutual union of Christ and Mankind, hath been too much neglected by late Divines, who have but only hinted, or lightly touched it, whereunto, in their Disputes concerning the Eating of the flesh of Christ, they have been necessarily driven; which Doctrine is of such weighty concernment, that it deserveth very serious and diligent inquisition.  
There is a very hard, and dark passage of St. Paul, concerning Christ's delivering up his Kingdom, and of his subjection to God; in the Exposition thereof, many Divines have greatly and dangerously erred, in dethroning Christ; as if those words did signify the Period, and utter ending of his Kingdom, which we are sure must last for ever.  
The words of St. Paul are these, When the end cometh, he shall deliver up the Kingdom 
1 Cor. 15. 24. 28.  to God, even the Father, and then shall the Son himself be subject to him, etc. These words cannot possibly be rightly understood, but only by considering Christ, and his Members jointly, as one full and whole Christ; for though the Man Christ, considered only by himself, in his own particular Person, and only in his Manhood always was, is, and for ever will be subject to the Godhead; yet the whole Christ, that is, not only his self alone, but his mystical Members, even his Saints, and his Elect, at, or after the final Judgement, shall be so subject, and so perfectly and completely obedient to the Godhead, as they never yet were, nor ever will be, during this World; of which Subjection and Union I have elsewhere written at large   

CHAP. VI  
BUt why doth Christ require this Eating, in these terms, and words of the Flesh of the Son of Man? Why might he not rather have said, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of God? For the flesh of Christ was the flesh of God the Son, and God the Word. St. John saith, the Word was made 
Joh. 1. 14.  Flesh, and his Blood is expressly called the Blood of God by the great Apostle, Feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with 
Acts 20. 28.  his own Blood, and St. John calls his life and death, the life and death of God, Hereby we perceive the love of God, because he hath 
1 John 3. 16.  laid down his life for us. And his Virgin Mother is often called by the Fathers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Parent or Mother of God.  
1. To this we answer. First. That the Son of God (considered only and singly, as the Son of God in his pure Godhead, and only as God the Word, and as he was in the form of God only, and without Incarnation) could not be our Redeemer, and if he had continued so, as to be only the Son of God, as he was from Eternity, and had never taken our human Nature upon him, so as to be thereby really the Son of Man, he could not be the Christ, neither could any obligation, or engagement have been upon him to perform the Law, which Law was imposed only upon Mankind; neither could he have redeemed us, because he could not die, being not mortal, otherwise then by assuming our Mortal nature, into Personal union with his Immortal and Divine nature: Therefore in order to the office of a Redeemer, he must become a Man, and his flesh must needs be the flesh of the Son of Man.  
2. Secondly. We say, That although the Son of God had really assumed a body and flesh some other way, and not from Man or Woman, as sometimes he did in the days of the Patriarches in the Old Testament, as namely, when he appeared to Jacob, of which it is said, There wrestled a Man with 
Gen. 32. 24. Josh. 5. 13.  him till the breaking of the day. And a man of War appeared to Joshua, with his sword in his hand, who is called the Captain of the Lords host, whom Joshua called Lord, and fell on his face to the earth, and worshipped 
Exod. 3. 5▪  him, and pulled off his shoes from his feet, as Moses was commanded before by God. Surely this was an apparition of God the Son, in the assumed body and shape of Man, who appeared most evidently before to the Patriarch Abraham, of whom it is written, that the Lord appeared to Abraham 
Gen. 18.  — Three Men stood by him, they talked with him, they eat with him, and traveled toward Sodom; one of the Three, certainly was the person of the Son of God (whoever the other two were, I will not dispute) who being here called a Man, no doubt, but he had then taken a body of Flesh upon him, howbeit that flesh and body was not derived, or propagated from any man or woman, as Tertullian observeth, Christus cum Angelis 
Tert. adv. Marc. lib. 3. n. 42.  tunc apud Abraham in veritate quidem apparuit, sed nondum natae, quia nondum moriturae, Christ with the other two Angels, did verily appear at Abraham's Tent in true, and real flesh; yet not in flesh born, or derived from Mankind, because he was not to suffer or die in that Flesh. Therefore he could not (by reason of that assumed flesh) be called the Son of Man, although he was like to a real Son of Man, and but only like; and if the Son of God had still retained, and continued in that assumed body or flesh, in which he then prefented himself to Abraham, and had not taken his human Nature otherwise, from his Virgin Mother, and so from the first Man, he could not have been our Redeemer.  
Such another apparition we find in the Prophet Daniel, who in his Vision, saw one like the Son of Man, who came with the 
Dan. 7. 13  clouds of Heaven. This was meant of the Son of God, who in daniel's time was not the Son of Man, or Ben-David, being than not incarnate of the Virgin; and is therefore said to be only like the Son of Man, or as it is said in another place of that Prophet, One like the similitude of the Sons of men; and One like the appearance of the Sons 
Dan. 10. 16, 18.  of Men.  
But the Redeemer must be not in similitude or appearance only, but truly, and really the Son of Man, before he could be completely qualified for our Redeemer; because the Redeemer, and the Redeemed, must be necessarily united in flesh mutually, and must be considered and looked on by Divine Justice, as if they were but one man, or one Person, which was wrought and performed by the union of Christ with all Mankind in the loins of Adam, from whom all our bodies and souls are derived.  
For the Law of God must be performed by that human Nature, upon which it was imposed, which law never hath been, and never will be perfectly kept by any mere man; therefore the Son of God made himself the Son of man, and so, to be under and subject to the Law, and a Performer of the Law in the behalf of all the Sons and Daughters of men; as both the Old and New Testaments declare. Sacrifices and offerings 
H●b. 10 5  thou wouldst not, but a body hast thou prepared for me. And, In the Volume of the Book it is written of me to do thy will O God; then said he, Lo I come to do thy will O God. And, I delight to do thy will O my 
Ps. 40. 8.  God, yea, thy Law is within my heart; and, by the which will we are sanctified (or designed for Redemption) by the Offering of the Body of Jesus Christ, once for all: And, You now hath he reconciled in the body of his 
Heb. 10. 10. Col. 1. 21, 22. 1 Pet. 2. 24.  Flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable; and his own self bore our sins, in his own body on the tree.   

CHAP. VII.  
THe Redeemer of Mankind must needs have been, both the Son of God, and also the Son of Man, and therefore is called Emmanuel or Theanthropos; because the Son of God (as only so) could not die, and therefore not redeem us. Nor could the Son of Man (as only so) satisfy Divine Justice for the sins of the World.  
None can be in a condition and state redeemable by Christ, but only Adamites, that is, Adam and his offspring Eve, and their Posterity; because they only are united with the Redeemer in the first Man.  
The Apostate Angels can have no Redemption, nor any benefit by the Incarnation or death of Christ, for want of this Union, because (as the Apostle observeth) He took not on him the nature of Angels, but he took on him the Seed of Abraham. 
Heb. 2. 16.   
We find several addresses in the Gospel, made to Christ by the title of Son of David, and we perceive by the events of them, that Christ did well approve of that Appellation, as by the two blind men Mat. 9 Thou Son of David have mercy on us; 
Mat. 9 27. 20. 3. 15. 22.  and by two other blind men Mat. 20. Have mercy on us O Lord, thou Son of David, and by the woman of Canaan, Mat. 15. for all of them obtained of Christ what they so desired. The Church of England so prayeth, O Son of David have mercy upon us; and St. Matthew gins his Gospel with Jesus Christ the Son of David. St. Luke derives Christ through many Generations of men through Adam; and Christ himself very rarely, and but secretly calls himself the Son of God, but very often, and openly, and mostly the Son of Man, because by 
Joh. 9 35. 37.  this Sonship he became Jesus the Saviour and Redeemer.  
The Athanasian Creed declares, that it is necessary to everlasting salvation, to believe rightly in the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. And the Hymn of St. Ambrose and St. Austin (daily repeated in our Churches) thus declareth the way and means used by the Son of God, to qualify his Divine Person so, as to be a fit Redeemer. When thou tookest upon thee to deliver Man, thou didst not abhor the Virgin's Womb; by all these expressions it appeareth, that the Redeemership of Christ did consist, not only in his Godhead, but also in his Manhood, in neither singly, but in both jointly. Both Christ himself, and all Generations of men must have proceeded from one Original, otherwise Christ could not be the Redeemer of all the World; And if any one Man in the World can be found, that descended not from Adam, Christ cannot be the Redeemer of that man.  
There were divers Heresies raised in the Primitive times of the Church, which depraved the Doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ, and thereby greatly disturbed, even nulled the Doctrine of Redemption, and therefore the Fathers took special notice of them, and strongly confuted them.  
1. The ancient Heresy of the Valentinians 
Epiph. haer. 31.  was, that the Flesh of Christ came from Heaven, and only passed through the Womb of the Virgin Mary, as water through a conduit pipe; But the Angel said to her, Thou shalt 
Lu. 1. 31.  conceive in thy womb; and her Cousin Elizabeth being then inspired by God, said to her, Blessed is the Fruit of thy Womb; therefore 
42.  if Christ were Conceived, and were the Fruit of the womb, he surely was not only a Passenger, or only as a Traveller in an Inn, or as a Guest or Stranger, but he is expressly called a Son, which could not be if he were not bred in the Virgin's womb.  
2. Apelles and his Sect, said, that Christ 
Epiph. haer. 44.  made himself a Body of the Elements, and that he did not receive his Flesh from the Virgin.  
3. The Manichees said, that the flesh and 
Aug. epist. 74.  body of Christ, was not a true and real body and flesh, but only a similitude or shape thereof, and a mere Phantasm. They confessed him to be God, but denied that he was Man; contrary to the blasphemy of the Jews, who knew him to be a Man, but would not confess or believe that he was God.  
4. Some Anabaptists also in the former 
Pat. Symson cent. 16.  Century sprang up in Germany, who said, That Christ took not his flesh and blood of the Virgin Mary, but brought them with him from Heaven.  
Those Anabaptists fell into this Heresy, by misunderstanding some passages of Scripture, where it is said, The Son of Man 
Joh. 3. 13 6. 38.  came down from Heaven, and where Christ said of himself, I came down from Heaven. And where St. Paul said, The Second Man is the Lord from Heaven. 
1 Cor. 15. 47. Apollinarius dixit carnem Christi ab aeterno fuisse, & de coelo descendisse. Soz. l. 6. c. 27.   
But those say which are meant properly of the Godhead of the Son of Man, yet are also truly said of the whole Person of Christ, by an Antidosis, or communication of Properties, as Divines call it, which consisteth in this, That the two distinct Natures in Christ, viz. the Godhead, and the Manhood do both of them communicate their several properties each to other, by reason of the Union of those two distinct Natures, in that one Person of Christ.  
Hence it is, that the Scripture so speaketh of the Person of Christ. They crucified the Lord of Glory. And, the blood of 
1 Cor. 2. 8 Acts 20. 28. Acts 3. 15  Christ is called the Blood of God. And, the Jews are said to have crucified the Prince of Life. And of the Thief, Christ said, This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise, 
Luke 23. 43.  yet Christ himself was not then in Paradise, as Man, but only as God. In the same sense, the words of Christ  are to be understood, The Son of Man came from Heaven, which is true, because the same Son of Man was also the Son of God, and the only God, who indeed came down from Heaven.  
Not only the Heretics, but the Heathens also, depraved, and obscured the Doctrine of Redemption, by affirming that Men at first sprang out of Trees, or grew out of the Earth,  
— Rupto robore nati, 
Juvenal Sat. 6.   
Compositique luto, nullos habuere parents.  
And the Jews also said that God made at first, two Women for Adam, although we find but one, and her taken out of the side of the first Man, flesh of his flesh; the other must have been otherwise made, whereupon the Jews feigned Genealogies, as derived from the womb of the second Woman, which are those Genealogies which St. Paul called vain, (as St. Austin thought) 
Aug. To. 6. n. 16. 1 Tim. 1. 4.  which Jewish fiction depraved the doctrine of our Union with Christ, and consequently of universal Redemption of Mankind; because that Work was limited, and confined to the Seed of Eve, who was that Woman, whose Seed should bruise the serpent's head, who was the only Woman that was taken out of Adam's side, and all Nations of men, with Christ also have proceeded from the loins and womb of that one Man, and that one Woman.  
This necessary Union was intimated by the Prophets, and also by the Apostle, by the similitude of earthen Vessels, and of bread: The Potter hath power over the clay, of the same lump to make one Vessel to honour, 
Isa. 45. 9 Jer. 18. 6. Ro. 9 21. 2 Cor. 4. 7.  another to dishonour; and St. Paul calleth our bodies earthen Vessels. Christ also, and his Members are resembled to Bread, in respect of their Union and communion one with the other. The Bread which we break, 
1 Cor. 10. 16.  is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ, for we being many are one Bread, and one Body, for we are all partakers of that one Bread: The similitude holds in this; that as many earthen Vessels are made out of one lump of clay; and many Breads or loaves, out of one dough or lump of Past, wherein they were first united, before they were extracted and severally form; just so, all Men in the world with Christ himself, were at first united in that one lump, or mass of the first Man, before they were extracted; of which Union St. Paul saith, that God hath made of one blood (whatever blood signifieth) all Nations of 
Acts 17. 26  Men.   

CHAP. VIII.  
THe Eating of the flesh of Christ certainly signifieth, only the Union of our flesh with his Flesh, which Union was from Eternity designed by the Godhead, in his merciful purpose towards Mankind, his future, and intended Creatures, as hath been before showed.  
But then if so, we are next to inquire, why it pleased our Redeemer to express, and declare this Union, by such seeming-harsh, and tragical Words, of Eating his Flesh, and drinking his Blood, which if literally and grossly understood, of Oral eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Man, are such things as all civilised People, both Christians and Heathens abhor, and those that have been observed so to do (as Pliny writeth of the ancient and rude 
Plin. hist. lib. 7. c. 2.  Scythians) are branded with a character of barbarous savageness and inhumanity; as Plutarch and Sallust noted of the Catilinarian 
Plut. in vit. Cicer. Sallust. de bell. Catil.  conspirators, that they entered a wicked Covenant by a bloody ceremony of killing a man, and tasting of his flesh, and drinking of his blood mingled with Wine, and St. Jerom writeth, that himself saw 
Hier. con. Jovin. l. 2. c. 5.  barbarous People in France feeding on human flesh.  
The Answer hereunto is, That our Saviour therefore chose this similitudinary way to express our Union with himself, because he would signify a necessity of our most near conjunction with him, so as to be one flesh with his Flesh, in order to the Redemption of our bodies by his Body, which otherwise could not be, as is showed before; for there cannot be a surer Union than such, as our food with us which unites itself, and grows into one bulk with our Bodies (as is before said) the whole stature and increase of our magnitude from 
Cap. 2.  our Nativity, our augmentation from one cubit at our Birth, to five cubits at our full and ripe Age, is wholly by our food, so that nothing is more ours than that: There was a truth in that Epitaph of the voluptuous King Sardanapalus, Haec habui 
Plut. mor. Diod. Sic.  quae edi, he accounting nothing to be his, but what he had eaten, for when all other worldly acquirements of lands, wealth, treasures, and honours at our death are utterly lost; that only, by which our Food is united with us shall be restored, and after the Resurrection will continue with us for ever, and must he accounted ours.  
Like this union, is the Union of our flesh with the Flesh of Christ in the first Man, which is the ground of our Redemption, and of the Resurrection of our bodies, without which, neither could be more than the resurrection of brute beasts; for in the first Man was the general Atonement of mankind with Christ, both in flesh and in Soul, by which Union, Mankind is made capable of claiming the benefits of his Merits, and of the Passions of his blessed Body and Soul. Christ saith, No man hath ascended 
Joh. 3. 13  into heaven but the Son of Man, etc. upon which words St. Austin saith, Si vis ascendere, 
Aug. in loc.  esto in Christo; whosoever shall ascend into heaven, must necessarily be in Christ, that is, united with Christ; for except we so eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, etc. we have 
John 6.  no life in us.  
This doctrine of Union, was represented and signified by Christ, in the Institution of his Holy Supper, by eating and drinking that sanctified Bread and Wine: That Sacrament is therefore called by St. Cyprian, the Sacrament of Redemption, and by St. Austin, the Sacrament of Union, and both 
Cap. 2.  the Scripture and the Church call it the Communion, which word clearly signifieth the mutual Union of Christ and Mankind (as is before shown) which the Primitive Fathers did so rightly apprehend, as may appear by a general usance, practised in those times in the office of the Sacrament.  
In the Sacramental Chalice, the Fathers for many Ages tempered or mixed water with the Wine, although we find neither Precept, nor Precedent for it in the holy Scriptures; yet the facto it appeareth that so it was, by many evidences in the Fathers, as in Justin Martyr, Cyprian, Ambrose, Chrysostom and Austin; which Custom is to this day continued in many Places and Churches, and (by reason of the Antiquiry thereof) it is pretended to be an Apostolical Tradition, and very early instituted as a Canon by Alexander the first, who was Bishop of Rome about the year of Christ 118. as Platina reports.  
Of this Usance St. Cyprian renders this 
Cyp. l. 2. epist. 3.  reason, and plausible account in an Epistle written to Caecilius; in the sacred Chalice (saith he) the Water signifieth the People, and the Wine representeth Christ. Vinum sine aqua, est Christus sine Populo; Aqua sine vino, est Populus sine Christo; Wine alone may signify Christ without his People, and water alone may signify the People without Christ; but both together so mingled in the Chalice, was to signify that Christ, and his People were so united, concorporated and entwined one with the other, as the wine with the water; therefore Christ said, He that eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my 
John 6.  Blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him; which is as much as if he had said, he that dwelleth in me, is he that Eateth my flesh, which dwelling is mutual; for by this Union the flesh of Christ dwelleth in us, and our flesh in him.  
There were a Sect of Heretics called 
Theod. haer. fab. lib. 1.  Hydroparastatae or Aquarii, set up by one Tatianus, mentioned in Theodoret, who consecrated water only in the Sacramental Chalice without Wine; and are therefore by St. Austin put into his Catalogue of Heretics, under the title of Aquarii, because 
Aug. T. 6. haer. 64.  water alone did not represent that mutual Union of Christ and his People, which the Church intended, as is before said, by their mixture of Water with Wine.   

CHAP. IX.  
THere were in the Primitive times some Heretics, who thought those words of Christ concerning the eating his Flesh, and drinking his Blood, were to be understood grossly and literally, of Oral eating, just as the Transubstantiators at this day pretend, and as formerly the Disciples of Capernaum thought, when they asked, how can this Man give us his flesh to eat? Upon which words St. Austin saith, Discipuli ejus 
Aug. in Psal. 25.  acceperunt id stultè, carnaliter cogitantes, quòd Dominus praescisurus erat particulas de corpore suo, & eye daturus. Those Disciples apprehended that speech foolishly, and carnally, thinking that he would cut his Body in pieces and give it them.  
The Manichees said, that when men did eat fruits, or herbs, or other food, that then they did eat the parts or Members of God, mingled with those creatures. As St. Austin 
Aug. count. Faust. l. 13. c. 6.  reporteth of them.  
The Gnostick Heretics used for their Mysteries or Sacraments, to bruise the flesh of a newborn Babe in a mortar, and to eat it with Honey and Pepper, and for this they pretended those words of Christ, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, etc. as Epiphanius reporteth. 
Epiph. h●●r. 26. Hie. Epi. ad Marcel. n. 18. Epip. haer. 48.   
The Montanists also cruelly and impiously used to prick the veins of a sucking Child, and with it to knead Meal, and of both to make their Encharist, as Epiphanius reporteth, and St. Cyril of Jerusalem nameth 
Cyril. cat. 16.  a Montanist-Woman, one Midra, who practised this cruelty in the 16th. Catechism of Illuminates, if those Catechisms be his.  
Now let the prudent Reader consider, whether the Doctrine of the Transubstantiators be not grounded on the same misunderstood Principle, on which the  Heretics founded their Errors and cruel practices, viz. on those words of Christ, Except ye eat the flesh, and drink the blood of the Son of Man, etc.  
These practices brought a great suspicion, and raised scandalous reports upon the ancient Christians, as Epiphanius observes; 
Epip. haer. 26. & 29.  for, because those Heretics, who did really in their Mysteries so do, as is said, and called themselves Christians, therefore the Jews and the Gentiles, and Persecutors thought that all true and Catholic Christians did the same. Salvianus tells us, that 
Salu. n. 6.  the Gentiles said, that Christians in their Sacrifices committed Homicide. Origen 
Orig. n. 36  saith, that the Jews accused Christians to be eaters of Humane flesh. Tertullian reports, 
Tert. Apolog. n. 2.  that they were accused as murderers of Infants. And Athenagoras, that they 
Athenagoras n. 72. 75.  were charged with Thyestian Feasts (Thyestes was maliciously trapan'd to the eating of the flesh of his own Children unawares.) Minutius Foelix confirmeth, that in his time 
Minut. in Octavio n. 99  Christians generally were accused falsely, as Murderers, and Eaters of the flesh and blood, and members of Infants, mingled and wrought up with Meal.  
In later times, Huldericus Zuinglius the 
Zuing. Sup. n. 11.  younger, in his Supplement of the Chronology of Pet. Pictaviensis, reporteth of Averro a great Philosopher, and an Heathen, who lived about the year of Christ 1149. hearing of the Doctrine of real, and carnal Eating the very flesh of Christ, as it was in his time taught by some Christians (as now it is by Transubstantiators) said, that 
Summaest insania adorare quod comeditur. Theod. in Gen. quaest. 55.  of all Religions that he had seen, he thought there was none worse than Christianity, because Christians, Deum quem colunt devorant, They professed to eat him whom they worship, and acknowledge to be their God.  
To these calumnies and false aspersions of Christians, the Fathers and the  Apologists, have left us true, satisfactory, and undeniable Answers, by any man that is judicious, and uninterested in the Heresy of carnal Eating.  
1. The Christians affirmed that their very Accusers confessed, that they never saw any such thing done by any Catholic Christian.  
2. That the true Christians suffered patiently stripes, wounds, torments, losses, yielding themselves patiently to all injuries, and also in the midst of their sufferings prayed for their very Afflictors; therefore unlikely to be Manslayers.  
3. That they could not reasonably be imagined to eat the flesh and blood of Men, except they first killed those that were so to be eaten; but Christians were so far from either kill, or eating human Flesh, which was unlawful, that they abstained from eating the flesh of other Creatures which was lawful.  
4. That their Christian Discipline, restrained them from being so much as but spectators only of the bloody conflicts of Gladiators, and even of the Bayting and slaughters of Beasts, which usually were presented in the Roman theatres by the Roman Emperors and Consuls, and by other heathen Princes; nor might they go to see the Execution of men condemned to die.  
5. That Christians accounted those Women guilty of Homicide, and liable to answer to God for murder, who used medicinal Drinks or Drugs to destroy Conceptions, or cause Abortions. Surely they would not murder Children born and perfect, who were careful to preserve unborn Conceptions.  
6. That Christians accounted those to be Infanticides or Parricides, who did but on-only expose their own Infants.  
7. That they who firmly believe a Resurrection of their bodies, cannot reasonably be thought to make those body's sepulchers of other Bodies, by eating them, who also shall certainly so rise again at the last day: These, and many more Allegations, we find in the ancient Christian-Writers to confute the slander of Anthropophagy.  
The Transubstantiators of our time, may upon more evident reasons be charged justly with such Accusations, than the Primitive Christians were, because those do not only acknowledge, but with all the cunning, and subtleties, and arguments that Man's wit and brain can invent, pertinaciously and obstinately assert the real, carnal, corporal and Oral eating of the Body, and drinking the Blood of Man, even of the best Man that ever was, the Man Jesus, whom they dare not deny to be to this day, and forever to continue Perfect Man, as well as Perfect God; and more also they affirm, that in the Blessed Eucharist they eat and drink, not only his Body and Blood, but also his Soul, and his very Godhead, although Christ had said before to his Jewish Disciples, that so to eat his Flesh (as then the Capernaitans, and our Transubstantiators now apprehended those words) profiteth 
Joh. 6. 63  nothing; And as to the Eating or drinking his Soul and Godhead, that is altogether impossible.  
St. Austin in his polemics against the 
Aug. count. Marc. l. 2. T. 6.  Marcionites, considering those words of Eating and Drinking the flesh and blood of Christ, saith, figuratè dictum, that those words are figurative. And sapienter intelligamus, we are warily to understand them; for (saith he) Horribilius videatur, humamanum sanguinem potare, quam fundere, To drink Human blood seemeth to be more abhorred, than to spill it; for the same Father had written before, Si Scriptura videtur 
Id. de Doct. Christ. l. 3. c. 15. To. 3. n. 55.  flagitium, aut facinus jubere; figurata locutio est, ut nisi manducaveritis carnem Filii Hominis, when the Scripture seemeth to command any heinous or mischievous act, it is figuratively meant, as those words are, Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man. And in that Sermon de Coena, which goes under the name of St. Cyprian, which 
Cyp. de Coen. n. 95  was not his, but written about the Year 1150. not long before Transubstantiation was first established: Upon those words, Except ye Eat, etc. it is said, If the flesh of that Person were divided into pieces, it would not suffice all Mankind, it would be consumed, and with it our Religion would cease. Therefore certainly that Eating which Christ spoke of, is not to be understood of Oral eating, as may appear also by that which follows.   

CHAP. X.  
THe learned Reader may be pleased to observe with me, that those words of Christ, John 6. Except ye Eat, being in the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are far otherwise read and rendered by all the Latin Fathers generally, than as they are now Translated with us in England; for Tertullian, Cyprian, Hierome, Austin, Prosper, and other Fathers thus read them. Nisi manducaveritis, which words signify the time past, as if he had said, Except ye have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man; just so doth the Translation of Sixtus, and Clemens render those words, Nisi manducaveritis, and biberitis. So doth Bellarmine, and generally all the Roman Writers, and the Lutheran Writers, and Calvin and Beza; and so do the Translators of the Greek Fathers, as of Origen and Epiphanius; indeed 
Orig. in Levit. c. 10. n. 7.  all, though they be of divers Persuasions in Religion, yet they agree in the said rendering of those Words, and our own right Learned Grammarians consent unto, and approve of this Reading; and St. Austin 
Aug. in Joh. Tract. 25.  seems to intimate the same saying, Crede, & manducasti.  
From whence we may observe, that Eating the Flesh of Christ, in their sense, or by their Interpretation at least, is not to be understood of any present Oral Eating, or if it were to be done only in the future, or in the present Eucharist, or as if it were not already done; for the Eating here meant, is intended generally by all Mankind, and not only by holy Men, as Prophets, Patriarches, Apostles, Israelites or Christians; but also by Infidels, by Pagans, Turks, Atheists, and the very worst of all Mankind, by such as never heard of Christ, and those that never received the Sacrament of the Body of Christ, or so much as once heard of it, and moreover by such as despised it; nor is Cain or Judas (the worst of both Testaments) excluded from this Eating of the flesh of Christ, so as it here signifieth, because they were redeemed by him.  
My reason for this Assertion is, because I firmly believe, that this Eating signifieth only the Union of the bodies of all Men in the World, with the body of Christ, in that one original Lump of Adam, wherein the worst of Men have their Interest and Participation, as truly and really as the greatest Saints on Earth; for the Son of God by his Incarnation, assumed Human flesh, which was the same, not only with the flesh which holy Men derived from the loins of Adam, but with that Flesh which Unholy, and generally all Men received thence. All Adamites of what condition soever, do communicate in the Incarnation of Christ; nor is there any Man whose flesh Christ hath not assumed, and with whose flesh the Flesh of Christ is not united; because the benefit of his Incarnation, was to be tendered to all the Progeny of Adam, that is, to the whole Adam, which is all Mankind, and only to them; from which benefit and all the consequences thereof, the Apostate Angels are utterly excluded, because (as the Apostle saith) He took not on 
Heb. ●. 16.  him the Nature of Angels, but he took on him the Seed of Abraham, and therefore he took on him the Seed of Adam, in whose loins both Abraham, and Christ, and all Mankind were united (as before is showed.)  
The time when Man doth thus Eat the flesh of the Son of Man, that is, when our flesh is united with the Flesh of Christ, is at our Conception in the Womb; for than we at first concarnate with Christ, and then we first communicate in the same Flesh which Christ, and we, by propagation have derived from the first Man; Hence it is, that David the Type of Christ, said of the Men of Juda, Ye are my Brethren, my bones and 
2 Sam. 19 12.  my flesh, which was true, only because David, and that Tribe were united in the loins of the Patriarch Juda: Just so the Apostle saith of the Ephesians, and of himself, We are Members of his body, of his 
Eph. 5. 30  flesh, and of his bones, which cannot otherwise appear to be true, but only by the Union of their bodies with the Body of christ, in the loins of the first Man; for we, nor they did descend from the Body of 
Matth. 25. 40.  Christ, nor were we ever in his loins, yet he calls us his Brethren, because we with him have one Father in the flesh, that is, 
1 Cor. 15. 45.  Adam, whose Sons we all are, and so is Christ, who is therefore called the last Adam, which is the name of his Father, as 
Aug. Retract. l. 1. c. 15. Cassander Pag. 47.  other Men are also called by the names of their earthly Fathers; as Austin saith of all Men, Omnis homo terrenus est Adam, every man on earth is Adam; and Cassander in his Book de duabus Naturis in Christo, very truly observeth, Christus juxta carnem, est consubstantialis universo humano generi, Christ according to the flesh, is consubstantial with all Mankind.  
There are yet some few Questions to be examined and discussed, in this weighty Mystery concerning the Union of our flesh with the flesh of Christ, which is here signified by Eating, of which we are next to inquire.   

CHAP. XI.  
IT being granted, that our flesh and the Flesh of Christ are so united or entwined, and mingled one with the other, as is said; it may be enquired what virtue, or efficacy hath the Flesh of Christ, more than the flesh of the Patriarches, Prophets and Apostles? with whom we are as really united in the first Man, as we are with Christ; for we know that the flesh of Christ is a Creature, and so is the flesh of those who all descended from Adam, as Christ did.  
To this Query we answer and grant, that the flesh, or body of Christ was, and still is a Creature, for he took upon him the 
Phil. 2. 7.  form of a Servant, a servant must needs be a Creature, and every creature is a servant to the Godhead, only the Godhead is neither a creature, nor a servant; therefore the flesh of Christ being considered alone, and only by itself being a Creature, doth not ennoble Christ, nor entitle him higher, than to be styled only the Son of Man, the Son of the Virgin Mary, and of David, of Abraham, and of Adam.  
But withal we are to consider, that this Son of Man, and this form of a Servant, was personally united with the Son of God, and with the Form of God, the flesh of Christ was the flesh of God the Word, of which it is said, the Word was made Flesh, and the 
John 1. 1, 14. 1 Tim. 3. 16. Rom. 8. 3▪  Word was God, therefore Christ is called God manifested in the flesh, and of him it is said, that God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful Flesh. The flesh which the Son of God assumed, was true and real Flesh, yet not sinful flesh, but only in similitude, viz. like to the flesh of other Men which is sinful: This Son of God by Incarnation, being made the Son of Man, is called Emanuel, 
Isa. 7. 14.  and this because he is God, personally united with Man, and is Theanthropos, 
9 6.  and though he is very Man, yet he is also very God, and is therefore by the same Prophet called the Mighty God, and the Everlasting Father.  
True it is that the flesh of Christ is a Creature, but not singly, and solely, and only a mere Creature, but such a Creature as was always united, and personally joined with the Creator; for the flesh of Christ never was consisting, or existing alone without his Godhead, his Humanity was ever united with his Divinity. The good Rule of Divines is, Humana natura in Christo, non est 
Cass. n. 1. Fol. 11.  Persona appellanda, quia non subsistit per se, there never was any minute of time since the first Conception of Christ, wherein his flesh, body or Manhood was alone disjoined, or separated from his Godhead; therefore the single human Nature of Christ may not be called a Person. Cassander saith very truly, Non primùm natus est Homo 
Cass fol. 32.  communis de Virgin, & demum post habitavit in eo Verbum, sed in ipso utero Virginali, secum Carnem conjunxit, We are not to think, that Christ was first born a common Man, and that afterwards, God the Word united himself with his flesh, for that was done in the Virgin's Womb, his Flesh was never existing alone, but ever was the Flesh of God, his Body always was Corpus Dei, the Body of God, as the Scripture calls his Blood, the Blood of God, Acts 20. 28. And 
Acts 20. 28. 1 John 3. 16.  his Death, the Death of God, as St. John saith, Hereby we perceive the love of God, because he hath laid down his life for us. The laying down of the life of Christ, is called the laying down the life of God.  
The virtue and efficacy of the Flesh of the Son of Man, and that which makes his flesh so beneficial to Mankind, consisteth in this Union, viz. Because his Flesh is joined, and personally united with the Word or Son of God; for his Flesh, if it were nothing else but only flesh, it could not profit us, as Christ said, the Flesh profiteth nothing; for it is the Union of his Divine Spirit with his Flesh, that maketh his flesh Vivifical or Quickening, as Christ said, It is 
Joh. 6. 63  the Spirit that quickeneth, the Flesh profiteth nothing, the Words that I speak, they are Spirit, and they are Life; the meaning is, that the whole efficacy of his Flesh consisteth only, in and by the conjunction of his Divine Spirit with it, who is not only Vivifical, but also Life itself, therefore the Apostle saith, the last Adam was made a quickening 
1 Cor. 15. 45.  Spirit. The last Adam signifies Christ, who is called Adam, only because his Human nature was derived from Adam, which human Nature was made Vivifical, by being united with the Divine quickening Spirit, and because this last Adam, and the Divine Spirit or Godhead, were personally united in Christ; therefore he saith of him, The Second Man is the Lord from Heaven. The flesh 
Vers. 47.  of Christ thus being sweetened by his Divine Spirit, is like that Leaven mentioned 
Mat. 13. 33.  in the Gospel, wherewith the whole lump of Mankind is seasoned; the efficacy, power, and operation whereof may more easily be apprehended by this similitude.  
As wood, or a dead coal, or iron do no● of themselves alone burn, or heat a man but if they be joined with fire, and made red hot thereby, they will heat and burn. The flesh of the Son of Man alone, is like the wood and iron, and the Divine Spirit united with the flesh, is like the fire (as he once appeared in Cloven tongues, like as of 
Acts 2.  fire) by which Spirit only, the flesh is actuated, and made operative, hence proceed those effects, and productions mentioned in the Gospel, where Christ said, I am the Bread which came down from Heaven, and 
John 6. 33, 41, 51  giveth life to the World; we know that only his Divine Spirit came from Heaven, not his flesh, of which effects we shall say more in their due place.   

CHAP. XII.  
ANother Question to be disputed concerning the Modus, the way, or manner of this mysterious Eating, is, how Men can be truly said to eat the Flesh of Christ? And this, because those that disavow, and abhor the Dream of Transubstantiators of a gross, carnal, and Oral eating, have conceived another way, which they call Eating Spiritually; which word is used in this question by the Church of England, declaring to the penitent and faithful Communicants, that They Spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ, and drink his Blood, They dwell in Christ, and Christ in them, They be One with Christ, and Christ with them, which is true.  
By those words of Dwelling in Christ, and being One with him, and Eating his Flesh, this Church declareth.  
1. First, a true and real Union of our flesh with his very Flesh, although she utterly denieth the gross and Oral eating, and tearing of his Flesh.  
2. Secondly, she declareth by the word Spiritually; That this Eating is to be understood only Mystically or Spiritually, and not carnally or Orally; for Oral eating is only of the Sacrament, but not of the very real Substance, which is signified by that Sacrament. So we are now to inquire, what is meant by the Eating the flesh of Christ spiritually.  
To this we Answer, That this word Spiritually hath a double signification, for 
D. Ushers Serm. ad Parl. 1620.   
1. First. It is by many Learned Men thought to signify, only the Receiving the Spirit of our Lord Jesus, by which we are united with him; because the same Spirit which is in Jesus, is from him the Head derived, and communicated to his Members. Of this Union of the Spirit, or spiritual Union of us with Christ, the great Apostle often speaketh, He that is joined to the Lord, 
1 Cor. 6. 17. 12. 13. Eph. 4. 4.  is one Spirit; and, By one Spirit ye are all bapzed into one Body; and, There is one Body, and one Spirit. By virtue of this one Spirit so communicated, the whole multitude of the Church, or Members of Christ, are accounted but one Mystical Body.  
But this Spiritual Union, or Union in Spirit, although it is true and real, yet this alone may not be thought to be so plenary, or so sufficient an Union, as is necessarily required for expediting that great Work, for which the Blessed Godhead designed Man's Union with Christ, as may appear by the Reasons following.  
1. First. If to eat Spiritually, should signify to receive the Spirit of Christ only, and no more, and be only so by us apprehended, utterly disowning the eating, or the real Union of his Flesh with our flesh, in truth and reality; we shall thereby disturb and null the Order of the grand, and merciful work of Redemption, which could not be wrought, only by an union or conjunction of the Spirit of the Son of God with us, but also with the Union of his blessed Flesh and Blood with our flesh and blood, because the Spirit alone is not a Redeemer; for the Spirit could not suffer, and die for us as a Redeemer must, it was the vital blood and death of the Redeemer, that was necessarily required for Man's Redemption.  
2. Secondly. The Son of God (as only so) was a Spirit from Eternity (for God is a Spirit.) But if the Son of God will vouchsafe to become a Redeemer, he must needs be first the Son of Man, and Emanuel, as the Church in her Hymn confesseth, When thou tookest upon thee to deliver Man, thou didst not abhor the Virgins Womb.  
For if God the Son, or God the Word, had so continued in his pure Divinity, and had not assumed our Human nature, so as to be the Son of Man, and the Word made Flesh, he could not have been Christ, nor Jesus, nor Priest, nor Sacrifice, nor Redeemer; for otherwise, we might as well say, that the Person of the Father, or the Person of the Holy Ghost were our Redeemers, although neither of those Persons assumed our nature, as Austin, or rather Gennadius observed, 
Aug. T. 3. n. 72.  Nec Pater, nec Spiritus assumpsit carnem, sed Filius tantúm. So all Divines will assent to this Theological Axiom, Divina 
Cassander Fol. 30.  natura non est Redemptrix, quia pati non potuit, the pure and single Divine nature could not be the Redeemer, because it could not suffer or die. And we know that Redemption was confined and limited, so as to be only by the Seed of the Woman; but the Spirit, or Holy Ghost is not the Seed of the Woman, therefore God the Son took on him that Seed, and that form of a Servant, and therein he became our Redeemer, because thereby he became Mortal, and could suffer and die.  
Neither could the human Nature of Christ, considered singly and alone, without his Divine Nature, and by itself only have redeemed us, because no mere Creature could possibly be of sufficient worth to ransom the World, or to satisfy Divine Justice for the sins of Mankind.  
3. A third Reason is, That other Creatures (besides Mankind) have the Spirit of God (which is the same Spirit with the Spirit of Christ) yet those other creatures have no benefit by the Incarnation and Passion of Christ. For the blessed Angels are plentifully endowed with the Spirit, yet because they are not united with the flesh and blood of Christ, they cannot be capable of any benefit thereby, or of Redemption (if need were) more than the evil, or Apostate Angels are; because the Son of God dit not assume the nature of Angels, nor 
Heb. 2. 16.  did any Angels assume the nature of Man. Besides, other inferior Creatures are not destitute of the Spirit of God, which is said to fill Heaven and Earth. The Psalmist 
Jer. 23. 24. Ps. 139. 6 Joel 2. 28  could not tell, whether he should go from the Spirit, and God by his Prophet had said, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, which is truly performed, not only on Mankind, but also on other inferior Creatures; for by the virtue and vigour of the Spirit, they live, and move, and have their being; yet 
Acts 17. 28.  they are not thereby capable of the benefits or effects which come by the Incarnation, because they are not so united with Christ as our Nature is. For these reasons I conceive it may appear, that the Eating, or the Union with the Flesh of Christ, is not meant of Receiving only the Spirit, or of eating his Flesh spiritually, in that sense which is abovesaid.  
2. Secondly. Those words of Eating spiritually, in the sense of the Church I conceive to signify such a kind of Eating, as is distinct and different from the literal or Grammatical signification thereof, and from any gross, carnal or Oral eating; and that it signifieth to Eat according to the Spirit, that is, according to the intent, purpose and true inward meaning and sense of the Spirit. For we know that the word Spirit, in Scripture is often opposed to the word Letter, as may appear by those words of St. Paul, God hath made us able Ministers of the 
2 Cor. 3. 6.  New Testament, not of the Letter, but of the Spirit. Upon which words St. Athanasius 
Athan. To. 3 n. 26  thus writeth to Serapion, Vos si sacras literas evolveritis, invenietis Spiritus vocabulum in hoc usurpari, ut mentem verborum significet, If you will peruse the Holy Scriptures, you will find that the word Spirit is used to signify the Mind, or meaning. Now the spirit, mind or meaning of those words, is to be really united with Christ, yet without any Oral manducation literally taken. The Psalmist saith, God hath spoken once, twice 
Psal. 6●. 11.  have I heard this, Duo haec audivi, that is, saith Isychius, that he considered not only 
Isych. in Levit.  the Letter, but also the Spirit, or meaning of the words; for the Letter is but folium Spiritus, as the same Father saith, like to the leaf which covereth the fruit, or like unto the Veil, wherewith the shining face of Moses was shadowed, or as the shell is to the kernel. Origen, in his Tractates upon St. Matthew, calls the Letter sepulchrum Prophetarum, 
Orig. Tract. 3. & 26.  like a sepulchre in which the prophetical Mysteries are hid, but the signification and meaning of the Letter is (saith he) Regalis, & dignior intellectus, which he calls animam & spiritum Literae, the more noble, and more worthy understanding of the Prophetical Writings, and the very life and spirit of them.  
In the Levitical Law those Creatures are 
Leu. 11. 3  accounted clean, which divided the hoof, and chewed the Cud, which in the Spirit or meaning, signified those Persons, who in their Meditations on Scriptural Figures, did distinguish or divide the outward Letter, from the inward Spirit or meaning thereof. And St. Austin was bold to say, 
Aug. in Ps. 103.  Quaedam quasi absurda miscet Spiritus sanctus, ut ex eo quod non possumus accipere ad literam, cogat nos spiritualiter quaerere, It hath pleased the Holy Ghost to mingle some passages with his Word, which seems uncomely and absurd, that thereby he might compel us to search out the Spirit, or meaning of that, which we cannot conceive fit or true according to the bare Letter. As, If thy right eye offend thee, etc. or 
Mat. 5.  If thy right hand offend thee, etc. The great Orator observeth, Scriptum sequi Calumniatoris 
Tul. pro Caecina N. 14.  est, boni judicis voluntatem scriptoris, He is but a Wrangler, who urgeth only the bare letter of a Writing, but a good Judge will consider the will and meaning of the Writer. So say we, that because to eat the flesh of Christ literally taken, is impossible, and unprofitable, and undecent, therefore we deny that way, and acknowledge the other way of Eating spiritually, which (according to the intent, Spirit and meaning of Christ) signifieth the real Union of us with him, both in flesh and soul, so as is above showed, and will be more hereafter.   

CHAP. XIII.  
THere are others that think, that the Eating and Drinking the flesh and blood of Christ, is by Believing in him, which they call Eating by Faith, without any consideration of any other Union with his Flesh and Blood: But these men do not rightly weigh and ponder the order and method, which our most wise, most just, and most merciful God designed for the acquitment of lapsed Mankind, that their Redemption might be wrought, not only by his Mercy, but also with a strict observance of exact Justice, which could not be performed without an Union of the Redeemer, and the Redeemed, as is before showed.  
This Union (which Christ called Eating) is not performed only by Faith or Believing, for the Blessed Angels believe, yet cannot be said to eat his Flesh, or to be united so with him, as is here required; even the Apostate Angels do also believe every Article of the Christian Faith, and this upon more certainty and evidence, than many good Christians have knowledge of, and with their believing they tremble, and although they believe as we do, yet they have not so eaten, nor are so united with Christ, as Mankind is: I may truly say of Angels, Credunt, sed non edunt; because they are not so united, they are utterly uncapable of the benefit of Christ's Incarnation, and therefore of Redemption by him.  
There have been, and still are many Millions of People in the World, who never believed the Christian Faith, as Pagan-Infidels and Jews, and such as are , 
Cap. 10.  and many barbarous and uncivilized People, that still sit in darkness, and in the shadow of death, who never so much as heard of Christ. Yet all these, being the 
redemption is as broad as Human nature, Bish. Bedels' Letter pa. 26.  race and posterity of Adam, have every one so eaten the flesh of the Son of Man, as is here meant, that is, they are united with the flesh of Christ in the loins of the first Man; which Union was actuated at their conceptions, in the Wombs of their mothers, although they never were, or perhaps never will be Believers; of all such I may say, Edunt, sed non credunt; therefore this Eating cannot be meant only of Believing.  
St. Austin in his 25. Tractate on St. John, 
Aug. in Joh.  writing upon those words in the 6. Chapter, This is the work of God, that ye believe 
Joh. 6. 29  on him whom he hath sent; saith, Quid paras dentes & ventrem? crede, & manducasti, Why preparest thou thy teeth, and thy stomach? believe, and thou hast eaten; by which passage, some have thought that St. Austin meant, that Believing was the only way of Eating the flesh of Christ.  
But the contrary is proved before, and if St. Austin were of that Opinion, he is not to be followed therein; yet I am confident that he did not so mean, because I find that this learned Father, hath divers times otherwise expounded those words, which mention the Eating and Drinking the flesh and blood of Christ to be meant of our Incorcorporation in him, which must signify the union of our flesh with his Flesh; for so he 
Aug. lib. 3. con Pelagian. c. 4. to. 7. n. ●9.  saith of those words, John 6. Nisi manducaveritis carnem, nemo potest vitam aeternam habere nisi incorporetur Christo, No man can have Eternal life except he be incorporated in Christ. And in another place he bringgeth in Christ saying, Qui venit ad me, incorporatur 
Id. in Joh. Tract. 25. Ibid. Tract. 27.  mihi, he that cometh to me, is incorporated in me. Again he saith, Manducare illam escam, est manere in Christo, & Christum manentem in se habere, to eat that Food is to abide in Christ, and to have Christ abiding in him. And in the same Tractate, he thus showeth the union or conjunction of Christ's Flesh with our flesh, Siquis liquefactae cerae, etc. If a man shall 
Id. ibid.  melt wax, and then put other melted wax into it, he wholly mingleth the one with the other. Just so is it with the flesh of Christ and our flesh, whereby it comes to be truly said by Christ, He that eateth my 
Joh. 6. 56  Flesh, and drinketh my Blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him; for certainly, that God the Creator might effect this Union of Mankind with the Redeemer, he extracted all out of one, as Prosp. very judiciously observeth, Deus ex uno fecit omnes, ut in Christi corpus 
Prosp. de Prov. n. 39  venirent, God made men (Christ and all) out of one Adam, that all Men might come into the Body of Christ.  
If now it be granted, that St. Austin did intent those words to signify so as is above said, than they will amount no farther than this which to me seemeth a true gloss, and as much as if he had said, think it not needful to prepare thy mouth to eat the Flesh of Christ, for, Crede & manducasti, thou hast so eaten his Flesh already, as he meant, by being united with him in the very Conception: only believe in him, and thereby that Eating or Union shall be profitable for thee, and not otherwise; because the Union or Concarnation of our flesh with his, without Faith cannot reach so far as to Salvation, for the very worst of men (as is said before) are united in flesh, with the Flesh of Christ.  
The Wisdom of the Godhead, with Justice and Mercy designed this our Union with the flesh of God the Son, on purpose to qualify and prepare our foreseen lapsed Nature, so, as by this way to put Mankind into a condition, and capacity of Redeemableness, and so of Salvation possibly, which could not otherwise be consistent with Divine Justice; as neither could it become his Mercy to have created Mankind, on purpose to torment us for ever in Hell. Our perdition is not from him, but from ourselves, for he would not the death of a 
Ezek. 18. 32.  sinner; therefore hath he set us into this way, and possibility of Life.  
For the Nature of Mankind hath been in three several conditions, which Divines express by these three words. 1. Natura Instituta. 2. Natura Destituta. 3. Natura Restituta. By which they mean the state of Innocency, the state of our Fall, and the state of our Recovery by Christ.  
The first was, whilst our first Parents (who were created pure and holy) continued in that Original Integrity without sin.  
The second was after their Fall or Sin, by which they became destitute, and were deprived of their prime Graces and Purity, and we by them.  
The third condition, is our restitution to Grace and Pardonableness by Christ, who being the Son of God, to effect this Restitution, became the Son of Man, by assuming the same Nature which we have; and in that Nature perfectly performed that Law of God (which was imposed upon us) in our behalf, and for us, and moreover bare in his own Body the punishments due for the sins of our lapsed Nature.  
All the wisdom of Men and Angels could not find out a way, whereby lapsed Mankind could with justice be restored; but the merciful Godhead effected it by God the Son, to become Emanuel; this was the Lords doing only.  
Or if any creature had known, or discovered the same means; what Man or Angel, or Archangel, durst presume to have suggested it to the Godhead, so as to say, Thou O God hast imposed a Law on man, which, Mankind by all its own power (being lapsed) cannot possibly perform. And thou hast threatened death for transgression thereof, which no Man possibly by himself can escape; therefore do thou O God, thine own self perform thine own Law, and to this end abase thyself, and assume man's Nature on thee, and suffer the punishment due to Man; for otherwise, the whole Generation of Mankind must perish everlasting. How unlikely, or rather impossible would this suggestion seem to any Creature ever to take effect?  
Yet the merciful Godhead in great power and wisdom, did just so perform that great Work. Well might St. Paul say, We preach Christ crucified, the Power of God, and 
1 Cor. 1. 23, 24.  the Wisdom of God; Christ signifieth God, yet not only his pure Godhead, but as God is Incarnate, and made Man. The Wisdom of his Godhead appointed this way of ransoming the whole World from death, by the death of one Man; and the Power of his Godhead enabled and empowered one Man to perform that Work with full satisfaction to Divine Justice. When Christ had miraculously cured a Paralytic; St. Matthew tells us, that the multitude glorified God, 
Mat. 9 8.  which had given such power unto Men; and we for weightier reasons, shall be ever obliged to say, Glory, and honour, and thanks be to the Son of God, for so enabling and impowering the Son of Man.  
Thus far we have proceeded in showing the Modus or way, which we conceive of the Eating the flesh of Christ; If this Exposition be approved (which is easily understood) it will quit us from the multitude of impossibilities, and the Labyrinth of subtleties and intricacies, wherein that other way of Transubstantiation hath entangled many Learned men; for mine own part I am persuaded, that if this way (which I have here described) be slighted, we shall never by any other way attain to any certain, or but probable understanding of this Mystery.  
In the next place (by God's assistance) we will endeavour to discover the other part, and more difficult Mystery, which is called the Drinking of the Blood of Christ.  
My whole Design (Good Reader) in the former Chapters of this Book, was to show and prove the Union of our flesh or body, with the Flesh or Body of Christ, as being necessary to the Redemption of our bodies by his Body.  
In the following Chapters, I am to show the Union of our souls with his Soul, to be altogether as necessary to the Redemption of our souls by his Soul; which that I may perform truly and plainly, I humbly implore the Divine, and Illuminating assistance of the Spirit of our Lord Jesus, our Blessed Redeemer.   

CHAP. XIV.  

The Blood of Christ.  
THe Words of Christ, which concern and import the Drinking of his Blood, 
John 6.  are meant, and are to be understood in like manner, as we said of Eating his Flesh, for both those expressions signify only the Union of our flesh and blood with the Flesh and Blood of Christ, or with that, which is by him called his Blood.  
For the word Blood, hath a more high and noble signification in that speech of Christ, than the outward and literal sound expresseth; for to drink his Blood, literally and grossly understood, is as impossible as unprofitable for us, as hath been before showed of the Oral eating of his Flesh.  
Besides, if we will suppose it possible, whilst he conversed with Men on Earth, or at the time of his death, & the real shedding of his Blood; we say that in that time the eating or drinking of Blood was forbidden by God in the Jewish Law, and afterwards 
Leu. 17. Acts 15.  by the Apostles in the Gospel; therefore certainly in those words of Christ, some other thing is meant by Blood, which liteterall and properly is not very Blood. The blessed Virgin Mary, and Mary Cleophas, and 
John 19  Mary Magdalen, and St. John the Evangelist, stood by the Cross when Christ was crucified, and although his Blood trickled down from his Hands, and Feet, and Side, yet there was no care taken by any of those holy and zealous Persons to catch, or preserve his Blood in any vessel, for any present or future use, which would not have been so carelessly neglected, if the Oral and literal Drinking thereof had been profitable or useful; therefore surely there is some other mystical meaning of Drinking his Blood. Mr. Fox reporteth, that one Johannes de Mountziger wrote, that Christ 
Act. & Mon. sub Edw. 3. n. 38.  at his Resurrection resumed to himself all the Blood which he had shed in his Passion, the Writer (it seems) thought that the stock of his Blood needed to be carefully husbanded, for if at this day his Blood were literally, and orally to be received by Communicants, how many Tunn of blood would be sufficient to Communicate the whole Christian World? But the word Drink, and the word Blood signify something else, and not as they sound, as is next to be showed.   

Of the word Drink.  
We know that this Word hath other significations in the Holy Scriptures, besides oral Drinking, for Christ himself, when he said, If any man thirst, let him come to me 
Joh. 7. 37  and drink, he did not mean or intent it, of any oral Drinking, as the same Evangelist immediately thus declareth, saying, This he spoke of the Spirit, which they that believe 
39  on him should receive; Surely no Believer can orally Drink the Spirit or Holy Ghost. So when Christ was apprehended by the Soldiers, and St. Peter attempted to rescue him; Christ declared that he would not be rescued, saying, The cup which my 
John 18. 11.  Father giveth me, shall I not drink it? This cup, and this drinking he meant of his Passions; and that speech also, when he prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible; 
Matth. 26. 39  let this cup pass from me; and when he foretold some of his Disciples, that they should drink of the same cup that he drank of, he 
Mar. 10. 39  meant it of his own, and of their Passions; we read of drinking Iniquity, and of drinking 
Job 15, 16. 21. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the wrath of the Almighty. The old Greek Poet Anacreon fancied, that the Sun drinketh the Sea, and that the Moon drinketh the Sun. The Sun and Moon properly do not drink, neither are Iniquity, wrath of God, persecutions and passions, such things as Men can properly be said to drink Orally; therefore surely these speeches are but figurative, and by them we are to understand some other way of Drinking, which is not Oral.   

Of the word Blood.  
Neither is the word Blood, in that speech of Christ, to be taken or understood properly and literally, according to the mere Grammatical signification thereof, as if Christ had intended that Men should drink his very Blood: this could not be his meaning, as may appear by these Reasons following.  
First, Because (as is beforesaid) Blood was forbidden in the Old Testament, Flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, 
Gen. ●. 4.  ye shall not eat; this inhibition was by God, afterwards by Moses, being directed by God, He that eateth any manner of Blood, 
Leu. 17. 10.  I will cut him off from among his People This Judaical and Ceremonial Law, was in force at that time, when Christ spoke those words.  
Secondly, Because Blood was forbidden in the New Testament, by that holy and unerring Council of the Apostles, assisted by the Spirit of their Master Jesus, It seemeth 
Acts 15. 28.  good to the Holy Ghost and us, that ye abstain from Blood. This Decree was directed to the Gentiles, for the Jews were then, and before zealous enough in abstaining from Blood, by virtue of the old Law; and the Christian Gentiles by virtue of this Apostolical Decree, did absolutely forbear Blood for some Ages of the Church, and it became one of the common Disciplines of Christians, and was so esteemed in the days of Tertullian, and after him.  
Thirdly, It being granted that the Christians, upon this reason did abstain from the blood even of beasts (which is true, and easily proved) how can it be imagined, that they should eat or drink the blood of Man, or (which is less credible) the Blood of that Man, whom they believed, and knew to be their most High, and only Lord God. Fourthly, If it were possible for us Men, now to drink the very Blood of Christ, orally and literally understood, it could not in the least advantage us in order to our Redemption, because it was not the mere Blood of Christ literally taken; that was the price of our Redemption (although one drop of his precious Blood was worth more than the whole World) for he shed his Blood at his Circumcision, but that Blood was not Redemptive; suppose he had opened a vein, and presented or offered that Blood, yet this could not have redeemed us; neither could that Blood, which issued out of his Body in Agony and bloody Sweat, or at his Scourging or Crowning with thorns, or that at the piercing of his Hands and Feet; all these Bloodsheddings together could not redeem Mankind, but the Blood of Christ, which was really redemptive, was his Vital Blood, whereof the words of St. Peter are rightly to be understood: Ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible 
1 Pet. 1. 18.  things, but with the precious Blood of Christ, as of a Lamb; and St. John declareth that it was of a Lamb, considered as a Lamb slain, and we know that the Paschal 
Rev. 13. ●▪  Lamb slain, was the Type or figure thereof.  
It was not then his mere Bloodshedding that redeemed us, but it was the pouring out of his Life and Soul, that was the ultimate act and consummation thereof, of which all the four Evangelists have carefully informed us. St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, after the narration of all his grievous Sufferings, adds this as the principal, and most concerning and beneficial to us, that he gave up the Ghost, for Christ himself had said before, The good Shepherd layeth 
John 10. 11, 17  down his life for the Sheep; and, Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life; for the Redeemer was engaged, not only to perform the Law actively in his life time, but also passively, by his death to undergo the penalty due to the Transgressor's of the prime Original Law, which was, In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt 
Gen. 2. 17.  surely die. The great Apostle often mindeth us of this great Truth, saying, We are reconciled to God by the Death of his Son; 
Ro. 5 10. 8. 34. Phil. 2. 8.  and Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died; and, He became obedient to death. And for our remembrance and acknowledgement thereof, the holy Sacrament was set up, as the same Apostle saith, Ye show the Lords death till he come, and Christ had before 
1 Cor. 11. 26. John 15. 13.  declared, Greater love than this hath no Man, than to lay down his Life for his friend; surely his own love was the greatest love.    

CHAP. XV.  
THe Law of abstaining from Blood was enacted by God, in a typical reference to the Blood of Christ, which was to be shed in after times upon the altar of the Cross, for Expiation of the sins of Mankind, which Expiation was (before the death of Christ) typically represented by the death and blood of certain Creatures appointed by God, whereby the legal or ceremonial Atonement was to be performed, for which purpose God did except, and reserve the blood of those Sacrifical Creatures from being eaten by Men, which reason is declared by God himself evidently (as to me seemeth) in these words, I will set my face against that Soul that eateth Blood, and 
Leu. 17. 10, 11.  will cut him off from among his People, for the life of the flesh is the Blood, and I have given it to you upon the Altar, to make an atonement for your Souls, for it is the Blood that maketh an Atonement for the Souls, this was the law for the Blood of the Sacrifical Creatures.  
And as for the blood of other Creatures which were profane, and not to be used for Sacrifices, their blood was also forbidden to be eaten by Men, but by another Law 
Leu. 17. 13. Deut. 12. 16.  was commanded to be poured out upon the earth as water, and to be covered with dust: this Law being but a ceremonial and Typical law must be confessed to become void and antiquated, when the Type was fulfilled by the bloodshedding and death of Christ, and that fully declared and published.  
But then we are to inquire, what moved Quest. the Apostolical Council to revive that Antiquated law of abstaining from Blood, more than the other Ceremorials, of Sacrifices, Circumcision, Paschal Lamb, Sabbatizing, etc. And why they imposed this Decree or Canon upon the converted Gentiles?  
1. To this we answer. First, That the Answ. Apostles, directed by the Holy Ghost, did impose this Abstinence on the converted Gentiles in the Pedagogy of the Church, on purpose for compliance with the converted Jews, lest they should be soandalized or offended with Christianity itself, when they should see Christians eating Blood, from which, themselves in the time of their Judaisme, were by their law debarred, and could not suddenly be withdrawn from so old a Custom, until they were more fully instructed in Christian Religion; for it might seem to them a disparagement, and a contempt of Moses and his Laws: which reason is intimated by St. James, in that he said, Moses is read in the Synagogues every 
Acts 15. 21.  Sabbath day, which he spoke in that very Council; so we ourselves at our Tables, forbear the setting on of certain meats, which ourselves like, because they would be offensive to some of our invited Guests, as Swine's flesh, Cheese, and such like. Yet this Discipline of abstaining from Blood, was not intended to be a continual, and standing Law in Christianity, but only a temporary Ordinance, and to last no longer than there was danger apparent, of occasioning a Schism, or Division between the Converted Jews, and the Christian Gentiles.  
2. This Discipline did as well become the mildness of Christianity, as that old Law did the Religion of the Jews, whereby they were restrained from using such cruelties to Creatures, as possibly might be practised by Eating some parts of the bodies of Beasts, whilst other parts were preserved alive; which kind of cruelty was acted by the Romans upon the bodies of the captive Jews, at the last destruction of Jerusalem, when they were condemned to be devoured by Lions, or other Beasts, and were so cruelly used by the Beast-masters, that as Josephus reported, one half of their 
Jos. de Bello Ju. Lib. 7.  bodies were eaten, and the other half kept alive in warm blood, for a second meal for the Beasts.  
3. This Discipline was needful in Christianity, especially in those primitive times of Persecution, to confute those calumnies and false accusations, which the Heathens, and Persecutors raised against Christians of their Thyestean Feasts; as if in their Sacraments they had used to Eat the flesh and blood of Children, which they had for that use murdered, which thing the Christians abhorred, and to show that they were far from any such bloody practices (by direction of that Apostolical Canon) they abstained even from the blood of Beasts, during the whole time of the Persecutions.  
4. That Discipline which was intended to continue but for the abovesaid time, is needful, and of great concernment to be seriously considered and pondered in these times, as a clear evidence against the semiuniversal deluge of Transubstantiation, whereby the Eating and Drinking of the living flesh and blood of Christ, is so fiercely and pertinaciously maintained, although the Apostles who forbade Blood, certainly in those very times did often communicate in the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ: Therefore they did not think that Sacrament to be turned into blood, nor did they in the least believe that Doctrine thereof, which is now taught; they did really and orally drink the blood of the grape, but in no wise orally the Blood of Christ. porphery sometime a Christian, but afterwards 
Soc. l. 3. C. 19  an Apostate Idolater, as Socrates reporteth, said Sanguis est esca Daemonum, that Blood is the food of his Idol-Devils, in his 
Porphy. n. 13.  Book de Sacrificiis.  
We should in the next place inquire, what Christ meant by those words of drinking his Blood which he spoke, both before the Eucharistical Sacrament was set up, and also at the Institution thereof, which we must respite for a little time, until we have cleared some Questions concerning the Apostolical Decree against Blood, which I have said was but a Temporary Canon, at least in part.  
In that Council, and in their Rescript to the Gentiles of Antioch, three things are forbidden. 1. Idol-meats. 2. Blood. 3. Fornication, in these words, That ye abstain 
Acts 15. 29.  from meats offered to Idols, and from Blood, and from Fornication (for those other words, things Strangled, are implied in the word Blood.)  
The first of these three we are well assured, was but Temporary, because S. Paul did soon after permit the eating of Meats brought from the Shambles, although they had been offered to Idols, as the common custom of the Gentile-Idolaters was in those times; and also, although the Christians did know, that those meats had been offered to Idols; only in case any Christian Brother should take offence thereat, than he adviseth to abstain, saying, whatsoever is sold in the 
1 Cor. 10. 25.  Shambles eat, ask no question for conscience sake; and though they are bid to a feast by an unbeliever, yet eat; But if any man 
27. 28.  shall say unto you, this is offered unto Idols, eat not for his sake that shown it.  
The second concerning Blood, was also Temporary, for the reason's .  
The third concerning Fornication was not Temporary, for it was forbidden by the 7th. Precept of the Moral Law, and by the Levitical Law, Leu. 19 29. Deut. 23. 17. and by the Gospel often. Neither Fornicators nor Adulterers, etc. shall inherit the Kingdom of God; and, Whoremongers 
1 Cor. 6. 9, 18. Heb. 13. 4 Eph. 5. 3.  and Adulterers God will judge, by which laws, both Jews and Christians were restrained, and also the very Heathens by the Law moral, although they took no notice thereof; therefore this law against Fornication was in force before that Council sat, and will so continue, as long as the World endures.  
But then our Question must be, why it pleased that Council to impose that Canon Quest. or Decree upon the Gentiles, seeing they were restrained before?  
1. Our Answer is, that it was so ordered Answ. to direct not only those Gentiles which were already converted, but all others which afterward should be converted.  
2. Because those Gentiles, which then continued in their Heathenism, did not account Fornication to be a vice or sin, having no commerce with the Mosaical, or Moral, or Evangelical Laws, neither had they any Civil, or Municipal law in force against it, as may appear by the most civilised, and best governed Commonwealth of Rome, whilst it was Heathen. Even Tully himself in one of his Orations delivered in Open Court, said, Si quis est qui meretriciis 
Tull. pro Caelio n. 31.  amoribus interdictum Juventuti putet, est ille quidem valdè severus— And, Abhorret ab hujus seculi licentia, & à majorum consuetudine atque concessu— And, Quando hoc non factum est? quando reprehensum? quando non permissum? quando fuit, ut quod licet, non liceret? He that thinks Fornication interdicted to young Men is very severe, it is contrary to the licentiousness of this Age, and the custom of our Ancestors, and their Concessions. When was it not done? when was it reprehended? when was it not permitted? when was it unlawful to act that which was lawful? thus he; And for former times, we find this licentiousness to have been proclaimed in their theatres. Plus est scortorum 
Plaut. in True. Curcul. Poen. n. 37, 62, 74  ferè, quam muscarum olim cùm caletur maximè; and, Publicâ viâ nemo ire vetat— and, Mercatus meretricium apud aedem Veneris; That there were more Harlots than flies, that Fornication was a common highway, wherein no man was forbidden to walk, that the Temple of Venus was the market for Harlots, thus Plautus: And a little after him Terence 
Ter. Adelph.  saith, Non est flagitium in Adolescente scortari, etc.  
The Christian Writers also took notice of this piece of Heathenism, as St. Austin 
Aug. To. 10. n. 38.  testifieth, De verbis Apostoli, Ser. 4. Fornicari, inebriari licitè committuntur, sed non Dei legibus, quis enim ad Judicem ductus est, quia meretricis lupanar intravit? si uxorem habens, vitiavit ancillam, quis crimen habet? etc. After him Salvianus saith, Fornicatio 
Salu. de Gub. li 7.  nondum prohibita per leges Romanas, and Lupanaria aedisicant, timent nè Homines nimis casti essent, he addeth, That the Roman laws which forbade Adultery, for removing that corruption from Matrons, yet permitted Fornication with the unmarried Women. This Heathen practice continueth even to this day in Rome-Christian, and so it did here in England, for by K. Hen. 2. and his Parliament, the Stews or Bordello was 
Stow's Survey.  permitted, and continued all the time that England held Correspondence with Rome, until it was put down by K. Hen. 8. they had certain Signs painted on the walls of those Houses to be known by, whereof one was a Cardinal's Hat, as J. Stow reports. Now let us return to the signification of Blood.   

CHAP. XVI.  
IT will not (I suppose) be denied, that the Apostolical Council did forbid the Eating of Blood, so as is said; And that the Apostles, and the Converted Jews, and the Christian Gentiles, did abstain from blood by virtue of this Decree; Add yet (notwithstanding that Apostolical Constitution) the Apostles themselves, and other Christians did drink the Blood of Christ, in that sense which Himself meant before the Sacrament, John 6. And also in the Sacrament, of which he said, This is my Blood, and, Drink ye all of this.  
All this being true and confessed, we are next to inquire diligently, what our Redeemer meant by this word Blood, which certainly did not signify his own very natural Blood, literally and grammatically taken; but some other thing, which for some weighty reason he was pleased to call Blood.  
That other thing which he meant by Blood, we confidently affirm to be his Soul, his Human or reasonable Soul, and this we doubt not to make clear and apparent (with God's Assistance) by the Holy Scripture, because we find by many overtures and plain expressions, that the Life or Soul in Holy Writ, by the Mouth of God is called Blood.  
At the Creation of Man, God appointed to Adam, and so to the Ante-diluvian Patriarches for their food, only the herbs bearing seed, and every tree, in which is the 
Gen. 1. 29.  fruit of a tree yielding seed. But after the Flood, he gave to the Patriarch Noah, and his Sons, every Moving thing that liveth, to be 
Gen. 9 3.  meat for them; and although he gave them the flesh of his Creatures, yet so early he forbade the Eating of the blood with the flesh, giving this reason; Flesh with the life thereof, which is the Blood thereof shall you not eat. V 4  
The Blood (we see) is there called Life, although we know that Blood in propriety of speech, is not the Life or Soul of Man or Beast, but only signifieth the Life or Soul; for one may lose some Blood by a wound, or otherwise, yet the life may continue, and because the Soul itself is invisible, therefore that which is visible is named for the Soul; and because the blood is the companion, and also the chariot of the Soul, and because the letting out, or spilling the Vital blood, carrieth out with it the life and Soul, therefore God presently after called Man's Blood, the Blood of our lives, which V 5 he will require at the hand of every Beast, and at the hand of every Man (who shall commit homicide) at the hand of every man's Brother, will he require the life of Man, by which words it appeareth, that Blood and Life here signify only the Soul.  
In another place, where Blood is forbidden, it is said, The life of the flesh is in the Blood, and, The life of all flesh is the Blood 
Leu. 17. 11, 14  thereof, and more plainly God saith, The blood is for the life thereof; whereby it may appear, that Blood was not esteemed to be really the life or Soul, but only to represent, or signify, or to stand for the life or Soul. St. Austin considering that place in Deut. 
Deut. 12. 23.  where it is said, Be sure thou eat not the blood, for the Blood is the life; saith, Sanguis 
Cont. Adimant. C. 12. T. 6  pecoris ejus anima, sc. in signo, The blood of the creature is the Soul, but only in sign, he addeth, Our Lord doubted not to say, this is my body, when he gave the sign of his Body. The same Father on the like words Leu. 17. 14. saith, Anima est sanguis, non 
Aug. con. Adu. legis L. 2. c. 6.  quia hoc erat, sed quia significabat, sicut dicitur Petra est Christus, Blood is the Soul, not that blood is really the Soul, but because blood signifieth the Soul, even as St. Paul speaketh, the Rock was Christ; and it is usual 
1 Cor. 10. 4.  in Heathen Writers, to put blood for the Soul, and the Soul for blood, as in Virgil.  
Purpuream vomit ille animam— And, 
Virg. Aen. 9   
Sanguine, quaerendi reditus, Animâque litandum,  
As Hugo Grotius hath observed to be frequent, 
Grot. de Satisf. n. 10. 14.  that because that Blood is instead, or place of the Soul often put, therefore it is called the Soul; so that by offering the blood of Beasts, they meant the life, or Vital blood of those Creatures killed and sacrificed.  
When the Scripture saith, Whoso sheddeth Man's blood, by Man shall his blood be shed; 
Gen. 9 6.  every one knows, that by shedding of Blood in that place, is meant the taking away a Man's life; Est animae non parcere, 
Isych. in Leu.  saith Isychius upon these words. Judas said, I have sinned in betraying Innocent 
Mat. 27. ●  Blood, he meant his betraying his Master's life to death. The Jews said, His Blood be 
25.  upon us, and our children, that is, let his death or murder be laid to our charge. The Apostle saith to his Hebrews, Ye have not yet 
Heb. 12. ●  risisted unto Blood, that is to Martyrdom, or loss of your lives. So when Christ spoke of drinking his Blood, he spoke of his Soul, for so his Blood signified, and must necessarily be so understood.  
But how we can be truly said to drink a Soul, seeing the soul of Man is a mere Spirit, and incorporeal, and therefore not literally drinkable; and yet that these words of Christ must really be performed: How both these can stand together, is next to be enquired.   

CHAP. XVII.  
THat the Blood of Christ (in those words) signifieth the human Soul of Christ, I nothing doubt, and to drink his Soul orally, is as impossible▪ as it is for us to drink his Blood literally taken, which is now in Heaven; therefore (as I have showed before) that the Eating of his Flesh signifieth only the Union of his Flesh with our flesh; so the Drinking of his Blood or Soul signifieth, only the union of his Soul with our Souls, which two Unions, viz. of our flesh and souls with his Flesh and Soul, are so necessary, in order to the redemption of our bodies by his Body, and of our souls by his Soul, that otherwise we could not with Justice be redeemed by him.  
This Union which seemeth so secret and mysterious, is declared to us by Christ in this Figurative or Metaphorical speech of Drinking his Blood, which is all one, as if he had said, except my Soul be united with your Souls; so as that wine which you drink for your food and nourishment, is turned into your Blood, and then is joined and united with your Persons, and becomes One with you, otherwise your Souls cannot be redeemed by me; for the word Blood signifies the Soul of Christ, and drinking his Blood certainly signifies the conjunction, or union of his Soul with our Souls, in order as a necessary way or method, to put us into a capacity of redemption of our souls by his Soul. For we cannot be capable of the benefits of the Passions, death, and Obedience of Christ, except we be One with him, both by the union of our flesh with his Flesh, and of our souls with his Soul; because God doth neither punish, nor reward one for another, as is at 
Chap. 4.  large showed before.  
Therefore, that the Son of God might be every way fitly qualified to be a Redeemer of Mankind, he assumed human Flesh from the same Original that we had our flesh, that thereby he might be a Redeemer of our flesh or bodies; and he assumed an human Soul from the same Fountain, from which all our Souls sprang, that thereby he might be a Redeemer of our souls, as Athanasius hath observed in his 
Athan. T. 3. n. 23.  Book of the Incarnation, In Redemptione corpus pro corpore, & anima pro anima reddenda fuit, & integrum aliquid pro integro homine; He was to give his Body for the redemption of our bodies, and to yield up his Soul for our Souls, and his whole Man for our whole Man.  
There are three Ingredients to be considered in the Redeemer. 1. His Divinity or Godhead (for he was and is God, the most High, and the only God.) 2. His human Flesh or Body. 3. His human Soul. By the two latter by him so assumed, as is said, he became Perfect Man; as by the former he was, and is Perfect God.  
His pure Godhead alone, and considered without his Human nature assumed, could not be a Redeemer, because the law was not imposed upon God, or the Son of God, as only so, but upon Mankind or Sons of Men: Nor could the pure Godhead suffer death, which was to be suffered by the Redeemer.  
Or if the Godhead had assumed only an human Body or Flesh, without an human Soul; this could have been but a Redeemer of the Body, at most (if that) but not of the Soul.  
Or if the Godhead had assumed only an human Soul without a Body, it could not have redeemed our bodies, nor our whole Man, as the Axiom of Divines teacheth us. Divisus Christus non est Salvator, viz. 
Beza Cat. Part. 2. p. 18.  If Christ had not united all these Ingredients in his one Person, his Godhead, his Flesh and his Soul, we could not have him for our Saviour.  
Or if Christ had been only a mere Man, consisting of Soul and Body, as we all do, and had not been God, he could not have been our Redeemer; because it was only his Divinity, joined with, and united personally with his Flesh and Soul, that gave lustre, worth, and infinite value to his human Nature, so that (for the great work of man's Redemption) it was necessary that the Redeemer should be, not only Perfect Man of a reasonable Soul, and Human flesh subsisting, but also with them Perfect God.  
Or if Christ, being very God, had really assumed a Body, and also a Soul otherwise, and not from his Virgin Mother; but had made a Body, and also created a Soul for himself, which had not been derived from Mankind, and so not united with our bodies and souls; or if his Body or Soul had come down from Heaven (as some Heretics said) and passed through the Virgin's Womb only, as water doth through a pipe, and had been only for a time an Inhabitant, or Inmate of the Womb, and had not been really the Seed of the Woman, and the Son of the Virgin, and the very Fruit of the Womb both in Soul and in Body, and derived from the first Man, and the first Woman, as we all are; he could not have been our Redeemer, because he could not be united otherwise with all Mankind in flesh and soul, nor we with him.  
For as our Union with his Flesh (which is called the Eating of his flesh) must needs be with it, as it is the flesh of the Son of Man, which signifieth, that it must be with that Flesh or Body of his, which he assumed and derived from Mankind, by being conceived in the Womb, and not from any other flesh or body, which the Son of God had sometime taken on him, otherwise than by Conception and Birth, (as is before observed in his Apparition, and converse with the Patriarch Abraham) so likewise the union 
Gen. 18. Suprac. 6, 7.  of our Souls with his Soul (which is called the Drinking of his Blood) must be with that Soul of his, which was so derived from the first Man, and the first Woman by Propagation, as all our Souls are, otherwise we cannot be united in our Souls with his Soul, neither could he be a Redeemer of our Souls.  
This Doctrine of our Union with Christ, both in our Bodies, and also in our Souls was intimated, though something darkly (as to me seemeth) at the Institution of his holy Eucharistical Supper, which is next to be very briefly touched.   

CHAP. XVIII.  
WHen our Saviour had a long time concealed the Mysterious way, or manner how our Redemption was to be effected by him; and how his own proper and personal Death, might be satisfactory to Divine Justice, for, and instead of the deserved deaths of all Men: Yet (that he Might not leave his Disciples altogether ignorant in so weighty a Concernment) he was pleased a little before his death, in some measure to reveal that Secret to his Apostles, and by them to his succeeding Church, for which purpose only, he instituted his last Holy Supper, to be a visible Sign or Sacrament, and also a Memorial thereof in all Generations, until his Coming again.  
First therefore, He took Bread, and gave it to them, and said, Take, Eat, This is my 
Luke 22. 19  Body which is given for you; as if he had said, my Body is already to you, such as this Bread will be to you; for by Eating and Digesting it, the Bread will be your nourishment, it will be joined and united with your Bodies, and grow into one flesh with your flesh, and be one Body with you.  
Christ calleth himself Bread, (Ego sum 
John 6.  Panis) because, as bread being eaten and digested, becomes incorporate or incarnate with us; so is Christ Incarnate, or rather Concarnate with us. We receive our Flesh from our Mothers, the bread which the Mother eateth, is converted into milk, with which the Infant is nourished, and thereby is fleshed and groweth; so that the Bread and the Child become united, and grow into one Body.  
St. Austin saith concerning this very thing; Quod manducat mater, hoc manducat 
Aug. Psa. 33. Ser. 1.  Infans; sed quia minùs idoneus est Infans, qui pane vescatur, ipsum panem Mater incarnate, & per humilitatem mamillae, & lactis succum, de ipso pane pascit Infantem, That which nourisheth the Mother, the same nourisheth the Infant, but because the Infant is not able to eat bread, therefore the mother doth first digest, and so incarnate the bread, and uniteth it with her own body, and of it, by her mild and tender Breast she produceth milk, by which the Infant is mediately so fed with the said bread.  
Such is the Union of the Flesh of Christ with our flesh, because both he, and we received our flesh from that one Original lump of the first Man, wherein both he and we were united, and thereby he and we became one Body, just as our food becomes one flesh and one body with that Body of ours, which we had, before any new Addition was made to it by any new food, which is the reason why the Scripture accounteth Christ and his Members to be but one Body, as the Apostle saith; We being many, are one 
Ro. 12. 5. 1 Cor.  Body in Christ; and, We are the Body of Christ and Members in particular, and, Ye are all one in Christ Jesus; and, We are Members 
12. 27. Gal. 3. 28 Eph. 5. 30  of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. By virtue of this Union, the obedience of Christ, both Active and Passive, is, and justly may be accounted ours, because Christ and his Members are One. And for this consideration only, and for this resemblance only, Christ said of the Sacramental Bread, This is my Body which is given for you.  
Likewise of the Wine Christ said, This is my Blood— Drink ye all of this. We know that by Blood, the life or soul is signified (as is before proved) therefore the Sacramental Wine represented his Soul; the Wine which we drink (as well as the Bread which we eat) becomes our nourishment, and so unites itself with our Persons, and grows into one bulk with us, and is really one with us, and thereby it becomes to us such as the Soul of Christ is already to us; for our souls and the Soul of Christ are really united, because his Soul, and our souls, and the souls of all our Ancestors and Posterities ever were, and still will be derived, and propagated from that one Original Soul of the first Man, in whose Soul at its very Creation and Insufflation, the Soul of Christ, and all our Souls are virtually included and united: Therefore surely, the meaning of those words of Christ must be this, that his Soul and our Souls must have been so united, as well as his Flesh and our flesh, that so he may be fitly the Redeemer both of our Bodies and of our Souls; for certainly, no man can have Redemption by him, except (as a necessary Preparative thereunto) he be really united with him, both in Flesh and in Soul, which is that very thing which Christ called the Eating of his Flesh, and Drinking his Blood.  
This Doctrine is not new, but hath been long ago taught by the School, in those times when Truth might be declared without danger of the Faggot: For Pet. Lombard, 
Sent. 4. Dist. 11.  about the year of Christ 1150. (which was before Transubstantiation was established in the Church of Rome) thus writeth, Christ (saith he) took on himself the whole Nature of Man, that he might redeem the whole Man, therefore his Assumption is celebrated in the Holy Supper, by the two Elements of Bread and Wine. Panis ad carnem refertur; Vinum ad Animam, ut animae & carnis susceptio in Christo, & utriusque liberatio in nobis significetur; The Bread representeth the Flesh, and the Wine the Soul, that thereby the Assuming of a Body and a Soul by Christ, and the Deliverance or Redemption of our Bodies and Souls by him, may be signified. So Clemens Romanus long before, Christus dedit carnem suam pro carne nostra, & animam suam pro anima nostra, vid. f. n. 3. in Clem. Rom.  
Those that imagine that the Sacramental Chalice, representh only the Blood of Christ, and that those words of Christ, This is my Blood signified only the mere natural Blood of Christ, Grammatically, properly, and literally taken; such do greatly err, and mistake the Mystery, for this cannot possibly be the meaning thereof, because (as is before said) his mere Blood was not Redemptive; for the Act of Redemption, consisted 
Sup. cap. 14.  only in the pouring out his precious Life and Soul for us; so that by the Blood, the Soul must needs be meant, and the Sacramental Wine, must needs relate to the Life or Soul of Christ.  
Those likewise that teach the withholding of the Sacramental Chalice from the People, or Lay-Communicants, do misunderstand the meaning thereof; they pretend, that after the pronouncing of the words of their Consecration, the Wine is not Wine, for that the substance of Wine is quite gone and annihilated, leaving nothing behind but only the mere Accidents, viz. the colour, taste, and quantity of the Wine, but not the Wine itself, and that the Chalice doth contain only the Blood of Christ instead of the Wine; and because they make the People believe, that in their little Wafer-Host, the whole Christ is contained, viz. his Body and Blood, therefore in Receiving the Host, they receive both the Flesh, and the Blood by Concomitancy. But herein they err, in that they think that by the word Blood, only mere blood is meant, which indeed doth signify not literally Blood, but the Soul of Christ, in which Soul if the People do not really Communicate, that is, if their Souls be not really united with the Soul of Christ, they cannot be in a full capacity of the Redemption of their souls by his Soul. Besides, what need was there, that Christ should require with the Eating of his flesh particularly, as another thing, the Drinking of his Blood; if by Blood he had meant only mere Blood, seeing that the living Flesh of Christ must needs include his Blood, as themselves acknowledge.  
The laborious and tedious Disputes of Divines, of contrary Persuasions in Religion concerning the presence of Christ in the Sacrament, whether it be a carnal and corporal Presence, or only a Spiritual Presence, I conceive (with submission to Superiors) to have been as needless, as we have found them to be fruitless and endless; their various glosses upon the Scriptural words in that business, have more obscured the question, as Origen said of the Exposition of a passage of St. Paul. Hic sermo non sui nanatura, 
Orig. in Ro. 12. 16  sed interpretatione obscurior fact us est. And Maldonate, a learned Jesuit of 
Mald. in Lu. 2. 34.  late observed concerning a place in St. Luke, Nescio an facilior hic locus fuisset, si nemo eum exposuisset. They both conclude, that some Scriptures would be more easily understood, if Expositors had not too much tampered with them, and so verily I think of those words, which mention the Eating and Drinking the Flesh and Blood of Christ.  
The real and true Presence of the Flesh, and Blood, or Soul of Christ, is not to be thought to be in the Elements, or Sacramental signs of Bread and Wine, neither is there any need of, or benefit by such a Presence; but the true, and concerning, and beneficial Presence of Christ is in, and with the Communicants, which Presence is effected by the Union of his Flesh and Soul with our flesh and soul, so as hath been before showed.  
Wherefore, if we will be content, and rest satisfied with this plain, and easy Exposition of those words of Christ (which I firmly believe to be true,) viz. that the Eating and Drinking of His flesh and blood, signifieth only the union or conjunction of his Flesh and Soul with our flesh and soul; all difficulties and obscurities will be cleared without any violence to those words of Christ. And the order and method, in which the just and merciful Godhead proceeded in preparing, and in making a way to the Redemption of our lapsed Nature, will be (to our great Consolation) made manifest to us.  
We have seen before, how our flesh, and the Flesh of Christ have been united; in the next place, we are now to show, how the Union of our souls with his Soul hath been wrought, and really performed.   

CHAP. XIX.  
IN order to the understanding of the Union of our Souls with the Soul of Christ (which is mysteriously vailed, by an obscure description under a Figurative Speech of Drinking his Blood,) we are first to inquire of, and to find out the Original or Spring, whence both Christ, and we have derived and received our Souls; For if it may appear, that the human Soul of Christ did proceed from the very same Fountain, from which all Men in the world have received their Souls; than it cannot be denied, that his Soul and our souls, were joined and united in that one Original Fountain, which is the Soul of the first Man.  
For, why should it seem less credible or harder to conceive, that all Human Souls are derived, and have proceeded from that one Soul of the first Man, than to believe and acknowledge, that all Human Bodies, Christ's and all, are derived and propagated from the body or lump of the said first Man? Surely no Learned, or but Intelligent Christian will deny, that Christ, and all Men were united in the Loins of Adam.  
Now if it be enquired whence, or from whom Christ immediately received his Soul? We answer, that he received it from his Blessed Virgin Mother, and in her Womb, and that it was derived and propagated from her Virgin Soul, for he had no Earthly Father, from whose Thigh his Soul could be propagated.  
If it be again enquired, whence the blessed Virgin received her Soul? We answer, that she also received it from her Mother's Soul, and in the Womb, and so we affirm of all the souls of Men and Women, that they are propagated from the souls of their Mothers, and that this Propagation ascendeth ultimately unto Eve the first Woman, from whose Soul the Soul of Christ, and the Souls of all her Posterity are descended.  
If it be farther enquired, when Eve had, and received her Soul? We answer, that she received her Soul with her Body also from the first Man, her Body from his Body, and her Soul from his Soul; and whence Adam received his Soul, the Scripture evidently declareth, that his Soul was immediately Created and Inspired by God, in these words, God breathed into his nostrils the 
Gen. 2. 7.  breath of Life, and Man became a living Soul.  
We farther affirm, that the Soul of Adam was the only Soul that was created by God; and also, that from that one Soul, all human Souls from that time till now, and also until the end of the World are, and will be derived and propagated. We read not of any other particular Soul in the Holy Scriptures, that was immediately created by God, because, indeed all Human Souls were Originally couched, and virtually included in that one Prime Soul of the first Man, Inspired by God.  
Good Reader, observe with me (that 
Bucan. p. 86. 88 Woolnor. p. 77.  which hath been formerly observed by other Writers) that those words, which our English Translation renders the breath of Life, Gen. 2. 7. might, and should more fitly and truly have been rendered the breath of 
Gen. 2. 7. Chaiim. of Lives.  Lives, Spiraculum Vitarum: Because in the Original, the word which is translated Life, is a word Plural, and signifieth Lives, it may therefore reasonably be conceived, that the most wise Spirit of God, intended to signify by that Plural word, that the whole multitude of human Lives and Souls, were potentially and virtually residing in that one created Soul of Adam, and were to be derived and propagated from thence to all Mankind, Christ and all; as being the Spring and Fountain of all future Souls; for of him only, and of none other it is said, that God breathed into him the Breath of life or lives.  
We know that the first Woman had a Soul proper to herself, but we find not that God did newly Create, or Breath into her a new and several Soul, because she did receive her soul from the Man, and so it must have been produced for weighty Reasons, and not any other way; her soul was derived from his soul; the Godhead did not create two Originals, or Fountains of souls, nor of bodies, for both the flesh and the soul of Eve, and of all Men with Christ also, were necessarily to be derived from the flesh and soul of Adam; for otherwise, although the first Man, and the first Woman were united in flesh, yet they had not been united in Soul, except Eve's soul had been derived from the soul of Adam, nor could the soul of Christ by any other way have come from Adam's soul, and consequently he could not have been the Redeemer of the souls of Adam's Posterity. Certainly all Men in the World are Adamites, both in respect of their bodies, and also of their souls, so is Christ himself Ben-Adam, therefore the Apostle calls him the Last Adam, because he was the Son of 
1 Cor. 15. 45.  Adam, therefore he is called by his Father's name.  
By reason of the Union of our bodies with Christ's Body in the loins of Adam, the Apostle saith we are members of his Flesh, and by reason of the Union of all men's souls in that one Original Soul of Adam, the same Apostle said to the Athenian Philosophers, that God hath made of one Blood 
Acts 17. 26.  all Nations of Men. Blood in Scripture signifieth the soul, as hath been proved before, and so I believe it doth in that place, and so the meaning must be, that God hath made of one Soul all the souls of all nations of Men, which surely is true.  
For if their was a necessity, in order to the Redemption of our Bodies, that the Redeemer must have received his flesh by Propagation from the first Man; the like necessity must needs be for the Redemption of our Souls, that the Redeemer must have received his Soul by Traduction from the Soul of the same first Man, in whom the Redeemer and the Redeemed, were necessarily to have been united in soul, as well as in body, otherwise he could be but an Half-Redeemer, and we but Semiredempti, i. e. redeemed but in one part, or half-redeemed, for it would prove but a Redemption of our Bodies only, and not of our Souls.  
Gregory Nazianzen in an Epistle to Cledonius 
Naz. Orat. 51.  a Priest, which goes under the title of the 51 Oration, thus writeth; The Son of God took upon him the Nature of Man, and all that of Man, which needed help and recovery; therefore he must needs have taken the Soul, as well as the flesh from Man, for otherwise, he would be like to a Man, who having a sore eye, and a sore foot, and should apply a Medicine to the foot only, and quite neglect the eye. Thus he, so that although our bodies were well provided for by having a Redeemer, yet the souls would want a Redemption for themselves, and so the sentence of God would be executed on them, The Soul that sinneth, it shall die. 
Eze. 18. 4   
But the Merciful Godhead took care, both of our bodies, and of our Souls, and therefore sent God the Son (as the Apostle saith) in the likeness of sinful Flesh, and 
Rom. 8. 3.  for sin condemned sin in the flesh. So likewise did he send the same Son of God in the likeness of a sinful Soul, thereby to condemn sin in the Soul; the Lord Jesus is a Saviour, not only of bodies, but of souls also, and is therefore called by the Apostle, the Shepherd and Bishop of Souls, 
1 Pet. 2. 25.  as Moses and Aaron had formerly styled him, The God of the Spirits (or Souls) of all 
Num. 16. 22.  Flesh. The Son of God was the Creator, not only of bodies, but also of souls, and the Son of Man was, and is the Redeemer of both.  
For this gracious purpose only, God did unite himself with Mankind, not only in Flesh, but in Soul also, and thereby he became a Complete Emanuel: And this union or conjunction of God with Man, was effected by the Propagation, or Traduction of the Flesh and Soul of Christ, from the flesh and soul of the first Man, as all our Bodies and Souls have been, and now are, and will be to the end of the World. Of the Traduction of our bodies no Man boubteth, but of the Original and Traduction of Souls great disputes have been, and yet are, of which we are next in order to consider.   

CHAP. XX.  
THE Doctrine of the Original of the Soul of Christ, and of all human Souls, and consequently the Doctrine of the Redemption of our souls by the Soul of Christ, hath been much obscured by the vain, and trifling Arguments of some natural Philosophers; and as much by the frivolous Queries of some late Theologues, whereas some learned Physicians (to whom 
Jacobus Horstius. Geor Horstius! Animas propagari ab animabus parentum putat Keckerman Phys. p. 630.  Truth is more beholding in this point) have with great judgement, and by their Experiences showed and proved, that our Souls are derived by Traduction, from the Souls of our Mothers in the Womb, (as the Soul of Christ certainly was) and as one of them saith, Instar surculi ex trunco, as a young grift sucketh life from the stock. And the Souls of all Mothers (as is beforesaid) are derived from the Soul of the first Man; unto which Doctrine all men, who do rightly apprehend and understand the order and method of Redemption, to consist in the Union of Christ with Mankind, will be driven at last to consent.  
Those Men that oppose the Traduction of Souls from the Soul of Adam, demand how it is possible, that such an innumerable company of Souls can be derived from one single Soul, seeing the Soul is a Spirit, and indivisible, and therefore not to be parted by Decisions, and mincings into such several parcels; for so in time it would have nothing left to itself, but would be utterly annihilated.  
But these Men may as reasonably doubt, how so many thousands of Bodies could proceed from that one single Body of the first Man, during the 930 years of his life, without any diminution of the quantity or dimensions of his Body, seeing they were all Originally in his Loins. Or how the Sun communicates his light to every star in Heaven, without any diminution or lessening his Light; nothing is more like the Soul than light. The Philosophers called the Soul of Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, propter cognationem cum lumine, as Plutarch saith, because it is 
Plut. con. Colot.  so like to light, and Christ is said to Enlighten every Man, because he hath given a 
John 1. 9  reasonable Soul to all Men, as Expositors agree. St. Austin resembles the traduction of the Soul to the Light of a lamp. Ignis 
Aug. count. Pelag. T. 7. n. 63  lucernae integer manet, licet altera de illa accendatur; Millions of Tapers may receive light from one single Taper, without diminishing the light of that one Taper; and so our Souls are propagated from that one Original Soul, without any division or diminution thereof.  
Let it be considered, that the Soul of the first Man was created immediately by God, of which it is said, God breathed into his 
Gen. 2. 7. Bucan. p. 86. 88  nostrils the breath of Life, or of Lives; this Breath of God, was Spiraculum Omnipotens, of which the Psalmist saith, By the Breath 
Psal. 33. 6  of the Lord the Heavens were made, and all the Host of them by the Breath of his mouth. The human Soul hath a prerogative of its Original, above other inferior Animals, of whom it is never said, that God breathed into them the Breath of life. That first Soul of Man especially, was like unto Fire, as one saith of all Human souls, Igneus est Ollis 
Virg. Aen. 6.  vigour— It surely had the vigour of fire, and did extend itself into the grand Corporation of all Mankind; as one spark of fire may inflame a whole City.  
The brute Creatures, ever since their first Creation, did propagate their Souls to their kind; and to this day those Creatures do receive their souls by Traduction from their Dams. The greatest Sciolists in Natural Philosophy, cannot reasonably prove any other Original of those brute Souls, but only by propagation, which yet they deny to human Souls.  
It must be confessed (by Christians) that the souls of brute Creatures were at the beginning created by God, as the reasonable Soul of Adam was; yet the souls of Brute Creatures are mortal, but the reasonable Souls of Men are immortal; the reason is, because the Divine Nature did personally unite itself with our whole human Nature, which is the only reason why human Souls do not die, and that human Bodies after death, shall rise again to Life, at the general Resurrection. But the Divine Nature, did not so unite itself with the nature of those other inferior Creatures, which are therefore left to perish utterly: Of which something hath been 
Cap. 11.  said before, and more will be said in its due place.  
The prime cause of the propagation of Human souls,, is the gift of God by his Benediction, recorded in these words, God blessed them, and said unto them, be fruitful, 
Gen. 1. 28.  and multiply, and replenish the Earth. Can we imagine that this Benediction of fruit-fulness and multiplying, should extend to flesh, or bodies only, and not to Souls? Whereas the like blessing of fishes and fowls, enabled them to produce and propagate not only bodies, but the whole Creatures, viz. both the bodies, and the souls of their Kind's, of which Benediction we thus read, God created Whales, and every living creature 
Gen. 1. 21.  which moveth, and every winged fowl; and God blessed them, and said, be fruitful, 
22.  and multiply, etc. By virtue of this Benediction, those Creature are enabled unto this day, to produce their kinds, both in bodies and in souls. This gift and blessing of fruitfulness both of fowl, and of cattle, is also again renewed after the Flood, and repeated, Gen. 8. 17. and also of Mankind, 
Gen. 8. 17. 9 1.  Gen. 9 1. God blessed Noah and his Sons, and said unto them, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the Earth.  
It may seem strange that those Divines, who confess the Traduction of our bodies with the Body of Christ, from the loins of the first Man, as being necessary for Redemption of our bodies; yet that they should deny the Traduction of our Souls, with the Soul of Christ from the first Man, which is altogether as needful for the Redemption of our Soul.  
In the Holy Scripture, care is taken to declare the derivation of our souls from our Parents, rather than of our Bodies, because that of Souls is more secret than the other of Bodies. Gen. 46. 26. it is said; 
Gen. 46. 26.  All the souls which came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, (or thigh) all the Souls were sixty and six.  
How Souls can be truly said to come from the loins, or thigh of the Man (without a Figure or Metonymy) is hard to be understood, except we will thus apprehend it, viz. that although the Souls of Mankind, being in the Womb, are immediately, and truly derived from the souls of the Mothers; yet they are here said to come from the loins of the Man, because the seed of Conception, which came from the Man, hath it itself Potentiam receptivam, a power or capacity of receiving the soul or life, (though it hath not Potentiam productivam, any power of itself to produce, or introduce the Soul:) And because the Womb alone, without that seminal conception from the Man, cannot produce a soul or life, therefore are the Souls said to come from the loins of the Man; for there never was, nor ever will be a Childbearing Woman, without the Cooperation of Man or Malekind, except only that miraculous Childbirth of Christ by his blessed Virgin-Mother, which was wrought by the Holy Ghost. Nor was there ever any Soul derived immediately from Man, but only the soul of Eve, which accompanied her flesh 
The reports of Buddas & Plaeto are Fables, Hier. n. 14.  at her Production out of the side of the Man. But ever since Eve, all her Posterity have received their lives or souls in the Womb, from the lives or souls of their Mothers, as may appear probably by the time, when the Conception is first animated in the Womb, which is next to be considered.   

CHAP. XXI.  
COncerning the time when the said Conception in the Womb, is first animated, or enlivened with a Soul, which is called Quickening; both Philosophers and learned Physicians, and also our experienced Matrons, who have born, and brought forth many children, have informed us; That some Conceptions are not quickened, but about the end of 20 Weeks, others at 15 Weeks, and some at 10 Weeks, and surely at the first instant, or beginning of the Conception, the Soul is not presently Infused: So Aristotle acknowledgeth, that the soul is not 
Arist. de Gen. Ani. l. 2. c. 3.  then Actually in the conceived Seed, but only Potentially, so as is before said. Now if it be granted, that our souls come from the Souls of our Parents, and also, that they are not transmitted with the Seed from the Father; it will follow, that they cannot in reason be thought to be propagated from the Father; because no Man will believe, that after so long a time, whilst the Conception remains in the womb without life or soul, and also the Man being absent, in a far remote distance of place from the Woman (as it may, and doth many times happen) I say it cannot be imagined, that at the instant of Quickening, the Soul or Life should wander from the Father, by a kind of Metempsychosis, or Transmigration, unto the mother's Womb. This being impossible, it must follow, that the Soul necessarily doth proceed, and is derived only, and immediately from the Soul of the mother, wherein, if she fail, by reason of some continued Indisposition of the Womb, she is called Barren, and because the Animation of the Conception is only from the Woman, therefore (because of her failing therein) Barrenness is imputed only to the 
Jer. 22. 30.  Woman, and not at all to the Man, though Childless.  
It is so with the Seed of Man, which is conceived in the Womb, as it is with meat received into the stomach, which hath no life in itself Actually, but it hath a power or capacity to receive life, which life it will afterwards actually receive, when it shall be really united with the former parts of the Body, for then the life and soul will enter into it, as they did before, into all the additional parts of our Bodies; for we see that our bodies have been augmented by our food, and have grown into so great a bulk, from our so small dimensions at our Birth.  
This being evidently true, why should it seem less credible, that the Soul of the mother entereth into, and enliveneth her Conception in the womb; than it is to believe and acknowledge, that the Soul doth enter into and enliven the new acquired parts of our Bodies, which have been added by our food?  
The time and manner of the Soul's entering into the Conception, is thus described by that learned Physician before mentioned; when (saith he) the parts of the Embryon are once shaped, form, and perfected 
Jac. Horstius.  to that use in the womb, then doth the life or soul of the Mother, together with the Vital Spirit, proceed from her heart, and enter into that fruit of her womb. This is the time when we receive our Souls, by traduction from the souls of our Mothers; and this is the time of the Union of our souls with the Soul of Christ, which Christ himself called Drinking his Blood.  
That common saying concerning the Original of the Soul, Creando infunditur, & infundendo creature; if it be meant of every particular human Soul, is very erroneous and untheological, and will appear anon to be Heretical; because it is destructive of the Doctrine of Redemption, except we will confine it, and understand it to be spoken only of the Soul of Adam, which was the first, and the only human Soul, that ever could truly and properly be said to be so created and infused.  
Neither is the time of Drinking the Blood of Christ to be confined, or thought to be first performed, when we receive the Sacrament thereof, because the Blood of Christ is not really in the Sacramental Chalice, neither is his Soul there, but his blood or Soul are in the Communicants, for this drinking of his Blood (which is really intended by those words) must have been performed, although the Sacrament had never been set up; for we drink the Blood of Christ at our quickening in the Womb, because than our blood or souls, are united with the Blood or Soul of Christ, when we are not in any capacity of Receiving the Sacrament thereof: Therefore all the Latin Fathers, and all later Theological Writers, although they are of several and opposite Persuasions in Religion, yet they generally Read those words of Christ, Nisi Biberitis, which I conceive to signify a Tense of the time past, Except ye have drank, as is observed before of the word Eat. The flesh and blood of Christ is not now to be eaten and drank really, for that was actually performed before, even at our Union with his Flesh and Soul, in our Mother's Wombs.  
St. Austin upon those words, Psal. 22. 
Aug. in Psal. 21.  10. Thou art my God from my Mother's belly, observeth, that although God the Father, was the Father of God the Son before his Incarnation, and from Eternity: Yet that he could not be called the God, or the Lord of the Son, but only in consideration of his intended Incarnation. And because, the Son in the womb of the Virgin, assumed the whole Human Nature, and not only Flesh, nor only a Soul, but both, therefore God the Father became his God, and his Lord, the God and the Lord, both of his Body and of his Soul: This the same Father divers times observeth, as namely on the 136 Psalms, and also in his 
To. 6. n. 17. & 19  polemics against the Arians.  
The Church of England evidently declareth the same Doctrine, in the 2 Article of Religion, in these words.  
Christ took Man's Nature in the Womb of 
Art. Rel. 2.  the Blessed Virgin, of her Substance, so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead, and the Manhood, were joined together in one Person.  
It being granted, that Christ took the whole and perfect Human Nature upon him in the Womb; it must needs be consequently granted, that he there received his Human Soul, because neither the Flesh alone, nor the Soul alone, can be truly, and severally called the Perfect Human Nature. We know that the Ancient Church accounted 
Athan. de Incar. n. 22. Epip. haer. 77.  them to be Heretics, who taught that Christ assumed only his Flesh, but not his Human Soul, in the Womb of the Virgin.  
The Athanasian Creed also declareth, 
Athan. Symb.  that Christ was Man, of the Substance of his Mother— Perfect God, and Perfect Man. He could not be Perfect Man, of the Substance of his Mother, except he had received both his Flesh and his Soul from her, otherwise by her, he could have been but Semivir, i. an imperfect or half-man.  
The true and real Union of the Son of God with Mankind, consisteth in the assumption of his Flesh and Soul from Mankind, by which assumption, the Son of God became the Son of Man, and by it only he is styled Emanuel. And the Union of Mankind with Christ (which is called Eating the Flesh of the Son of Man, and Drinking his Blood) consisteth only in the propagation or derivation of our Bodies and Souls, with the Body and Soul of Christ, from that one Original Mass and Fountain of all Human Bodies and Souls, viz. from Adam, in whose loins and Soul all Mankind, with Christ himself, were in the beginning United.   

CHAP. XXII.  
THE Doctrine of this Union, is so necessarily to be joined, and considered with the grand Doctrine of our Redemption by Christ, that it cannot reasonably be by us apprehended, how our bodies or our souls, can with Divine Justice be redeemed by him, without the mutual Union of his Body and Soul with our bodies and souls. For if Christ must necessarily have taken his Flesh of Man, because he might not otherwise destroy, or condemn sin in the flesh; the like reason will hold concerning the Soul, that he might not condemn sin in the Soul, but by assuming his 
Rom. 8. 3  Soul from Man. The Soul by sin fell as much as the Body, or rather much more; for the transgression of God's Command, was principally or solely the act of the Soul, the body did but only execute that which the Soul prescribed and dictated. The body by itself could not sin, more than a sword by itself can wound, or a pen alone can write. St. Austin often tells us, and truly, Non peccat, nisi Anima, only the Soul 
Aug. de Gen. lib. 10. c. 11.  sinneth.  
The same kind of Arguments, by which the Fathers answered and confuted those Heretics, who denied the traduction of the Body of Christ, from the body of the first Man, are as firm and strong to confute the other sort of Heretics, who denied the propagation of the Soul of Christ from the Soul of the first Man; both which Heresies depraved, and indeed destroyed, and nulled the Doctrine of Redemption of our Bodies and Souls, by the Body and Soul of Christ.  
Epiphanius, and after him St. Austin report this as the Heresy of Apollinarius, 
Epip. haer. 77. Aug. in Joh. Tract. 47.  that he affirmed, that Christ had no Human or Intellectual Soul, but that his Godhead supplied all the Offices, and actions of a reasonable Soul in his Body.  
St. Jerome and St. Austin charge Origen, 
Hier. n. 42. Aug. Epist. 27.  that he had taught, that the Souls of Men were more Ancient than their Bodies, and that they were created before their Bodies, and that they came from Heaven, this error of Origen appeareth in his Third Book 
Orig. Per. Arch. l. 3. c. 3. & Lib. 4. c. ●  Perj. Archoon, in which he agreeth with the Opinions of Plato and Aristotle, who had said, that the Souls of Men were not derived from their Ancestors, but came from without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
These erroneous Opinions, disturbed the doctrine of our redemption by Christ, which Redemption necessarily presupposeth an Union of our souls with the Soul of Christ, which Union cannot otherwise be found, but only in the Original Fountain of all our Souls, viz. in the Soul of the first Man.  
Let it now be considered, whether the present vulgar Opinions, and the Doctrines of some Divines and Neoterick Writers, be not altogether as destructive of the doctrine of Redemption, as those Errors of the abovesaid Ancient Heretics were, seeing these Men affirm, that human Souls are by thousands daily and newly Created, whereby they busy the Godhead with new Creations of Souls upon the quickening of every Conception, whereby they manifestly declare, that they deny the Union of our Souls, with the Soul of Christ in the first Man, and consequently deprave and nullify the doctrine of the Redemption of our souls by his Soul. Certainly there must be a real Union of our Souls, as well as of our bodies with the Body and Soul of Christ, for otherwise he could not be a Redeemer of our bodies and souls.  
Yet in this Doctrine concerning the Union of the Soul of Christ, with the Souls of us Men (which we have here asserted) we are not so to be understood, as if we meant or affirmed, that there is but one particular Soul of all Men, which was the error of Averro an Ethnic Philosopher, about 1150 Years of Christ, as Tolet reporteth; 
Tolet. in 3. Phy.  neither do we approve of the Opinion of some Ancient Platonics, who said, there was but one universal Soul of all Creatures in the World, which they called Animam 
Euseb, de Prae. Naz. Orat. 37. Aust. de de Temp. Ser. 143.  Mundi, which error is taken notice of by Eusebius, Nazianzen, and Austin, who said, that those Heathens having a glimmering apprehension of the Ubiquity and general Cooperation of the Divine Spirit with all Creatures, called it a Soul.  
But our Assertion doth not in the least gainsay the Plurality of the Souls of Men, more than the Plurality of their Bodies; for as multitudes of fruits and flowers, may grow and proceed from one Tree, or one Stalk, and yet, we say not that they are but One fruit, or but one Flower: So, although all our Bodies, and all our Souls, sprang from that One Body, and that One Soul of the first Man, yet there are, and will be innumerable particular Bodies and Souls. We affirm only this, that all human Bodies are but the offspring of that One first Body; and all human Souls, are but as the Daughters of that One Original Soul of Adam; neither doth the Plurality of particular Souls, hinder the Union of that multitude in their prime Original Fountain, wherein they were radically joined.  
The Jews used to say, that Adam's Soul was in David, and the Scripture saith, that The Soul of Jonathan was knit with the Soul 
1 Sam. 18. 1. Acts 4. 3●.  of David; and that the multitude of Believers were of one Soul. These say may be rightly understood of Union, not only in regard of mutual Love, Concord and Affection, but also in consideration of that one Original Soul, from whence all of them sprang; for the Soul of Adam branched out not only to David, but to Christ, and also to all Men in the World, and in this consideration the Soul of Jesus our Redeemer, is One with our Souls, being so knit and united with ours as is said, therefore the holy Man Macarius thus writeth 
Macar. Hom. 14.  thereof. una anima est Ecclesia apud Deum, quia habet Communionem cum Sponso coelesti, The Church is as one Soul with God, having Communion with her Heavenly Spouse, or one Soul is a Church, as St. Paul saith of the Husband and Wife, (as the resemblance of Christ and his Church.) They two shall be one flesh— and, I speak of Christ and his Church, and Nazianzen calls Basil, Dimidium 
Eph. 5. 31 Naz. Orat. 19  animae.  
As for those speeches concerning Union of Souls, which fell from Heathen Writers, I take to be meant only, of the amity and concord of Friends, as that of Horace and Virgil, 
Hor. Od. 3. Pers. Sat. 5.  — Animae dimidium meae. And of Persius,  
— Quant aque nostrae  
Pars tua sit cornute animae— And of Ovid,  
Qui duo corporibus, mentibus unus erant. 
Ovid de Trist.   
And of Aristotle concerning two Friends, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For these Heathens 
Diog. in Vit. Arist  did not understand the mystery, nor the great concernment of the Union of our souls, with the Soul of Christ, our God Incarnate.   

CHAP. XXIII.  
WE have showed before, that by reason of the Union of the flesh of Christ with our flesh, Christ and his Church are looked on, and considered as one Body, and are so called by the Apostle, Ye are the Body of Christ. Much rather may we 
1 Cor. 12. 27.  be said to be One with Christ, by reason of the Union of his Soul with our Souls; for otherwise the great Mystical Body, or Church of Christ, wanting the life or soul of her Head, would be but as a Carcase or lifeless Body, neither could we be perfectly and completely so, as the Apostle saith of the Galatians, Ye are all one in Christ Jesus, except 
Gal. 3. 28  our souls be united with his Soul; nor can this Union of Souls, be any other way apprehended, or possibly effected, but only by the Propagation of His and our Souls, from the Original Soul of the first Man.  
The Doctrine of the Propagation of all human Souls, from that one, and only created Soul of Adam, is not new, but was anciently taught and received very early, in the Primitive Church, although it was not fully established by general consent.  
Tertullian in his Book de Anima, clearly 
Tert. de Anima. Cap. 27.  declareth, Animas ab Adamo esse, that our Souls are derived from Adam; and again in the same Book he saith, Omnis Anima in Adamo 
Id. ibid. Cap. 40.  censetur, donec in Christo recenseatur, Every Soul is censed, or accounted in Adam, until it is new enroled and accounted in Christ. St. Jerome acknowledgeth this to be the Doctrine and judgement of Tertullian, and he farther addeth, Animas 
Hier. ad Marcellinum Ep. 82. To. 2. p. 254.  ex traduce, maxima pars Occidentalium autumant, ut quomodo corpus ex corpore, sic anima nascatur ex anima, etc. The greatest part of the Western Church holdeth, that as our body was derived from the Body, so our souls do spring from Souls. St. Austin also disputeth very eagerly for the Traduction of Souls, yet neither he, nor St. Hierome 
Aug. Epist. 28.  would then presume to determine that difficult question.  
Pelagius the Heretic was one of them, 
Aug Epist. 157.  who denied the Traduction of Souls from the first Man, and presuming thereon, used that denial as a principle Argument against Traduction of Original sin from our Parents, for surely, if our Souls be not derived from them, and so originally from Adam, we should not be liable to the guilt of his sin, because the Soul only is the seat of sin, as is before showed.  
They that affirm and believe, that God doth yet daily create new Souls, may consider whether they do not thereby manifestly fall into the Heresy of Pelagianism, 
Aug. To. 3. n. 72.  for by denying the propagation of the Soul (which they confess of the Body) they consequently disbelieve the Traduction of Original sin, which cannot be derived by the body alone, because only the Soul is the seat, and subject of sin.  
Let them also consider, whether (by affirming, that God doth daily create new Souls) they do not thereby charge God to be the Author of sin, seeing sin is only in, and by the Soul?  
Those Scriptures, which they use to allege for the daily creation of Human Souls, will in no wise serve their turn. As God giveth life to all, and, In him we live, 
Acts 17. 25. 28.  and move, and, We are his offspring; for it is true, that God giveth life, although it be by Propagation of life, and we live by his gift, and we are his offspring; because the first Soul was created by Him immediately, from which first Soul, all succeeding Souls were, are, and still will be derived.  
That Saying in Ecclesiastes, the Spirit (or Soul) shall return to God who gave it. This 
Eccles 12. 7.  doth not in the least gainsay the Doctrine of Propagation of souls from Adam's Soul, nor doth it at all prove a daily Creation of new Souls. We confess that God gave the first Soul to the first Man, immediately by himself, and we affirm, that God daily gigiveth Souls, but this daily Gift is not by way of any new Creation, but only by way of Propagation from that First Soul, which Propagation is effected by his daily Concurrence, and Divine Cooperation with his Creatures, and not otherwise. And so also, God daily is Operative in making Human bodies, although not by way of Creation, but by his Concurrence, and Assistance with the ordinary means of Generation; So that if we be asked, who made us? We may truly answer God.  
These are the ways whereby God hath wrought from the Beginning, until this Day, and this upon a most Merciful design, viz. To make us capable of Redemption, by the Union of our bodies and Souls with the Body and Soul of the Redeemer.  
Hitherto (Good Reader) we have endeavoured to show the Union of Christ with Mankind, which we have said to consist in this, that Christ hath assumed both his Body and his Soul, from that One, and the same Root and Fountain, from which, all Men with Him received their Bodies and Souls, and wherein He, and we were originally united.  
Now we are necessarily to inquire, how Christ can be quitted (more than we) from that stain of corruption, which is propagated from the loins of the First Man, and is called Original sin, of which we are next to consider.   

CHAP. XXIV.  
CHrist being the Redeemer, must necessarily be untainted, and free from all sin, not only Actual (which no Christian will deny him to be) but also from Original sin, otherwise he cannot take away the sins of others, but would require another to take away his sin.  
The legal Type of the Redeemer was, a Lamb without blemish, and himself being 
Ex. 12. 5:  the Evangelical Antitype, is just so described by St. Peter, A Lamb without blemish 
1. Pet. 1. 19  or spot; he is described by the Prophet, to be lead like a Sheep to the slaughter. Sheep 
Isa. 53. 7. 2 Cor. ●. 21. 1 John 3. 5.  have no sin; St. Paul saith, he knew no sin. St. John saith, In him was no sin. And that it was needful for us, that he should be so, we are taught by the Apostle; Such an High Priest became us, who is holy, harmless, 
Heb. 7. 26. John 8. 46.  undefiled. Christ challenged his most malicious Censurers, the Jews, Which of you convinceth me of sin? But how it came to pass, that Christ could be free from that Universal contagion, wherein all the other whole Race of Mankind are involved, is now our Question.  
To this Question, I have answered at large in one of my former Books, and I trust Satisfactorily, which I shall not need 
Lib. 3. c. 11. De Incarn.  to rehearse fully in this place, but only to point at the most concerning, and principal Passages thereof summarily, and as briefly as I can.  
The First sin, that was charged on our first Parents, was their eating of the forbidden fruit; but that sin was not by them transmitted to their Posterity, for we did not eat thereof; nor can their Posterity be charged with the Sin, but only with the Curse: For that first sin made them, and all their Offspring, Christ and all, liable and subject to the Curse denounced upon sin, which was Mortality; In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Hence 
Gen. 2. 17.  it is, that not only we, but Christ also, by taking his Flesh and his Soul from them, became liable to death, yet He without sin; therefore the Apostle saith, Christ was made 
Gal. 3. 13▪ 1 Cor. 15. 21, 22.  a Curse for us; and, by Man came death; and, in Adam all die. The Curse was Death, and that Curse fell not only upon us, but also upon Christ, as St. Austin very truly observeth, that Christ derived mortality, from the substance and mortality of his 
Aug. count. Julia. Pelag. l. 5. Ro. 6. 23.  Mother, but not sin. The Apostle saith, The wages of sin is Death; the Death of Christ, was the wages of the sin of Adam and Eve, but not of the sin of Christ, for he had no sin; therefore the Apostle very warily declareth, That God sent his Son in the likeness 
Rom. 8. 3  of sinful flesh, he doth not say, in the likeness of flesh, for his Flesh was real and true flesh, not only a bare similitude thereof, as the Manichees said, but he saith, 
Aug. Epist. 74.  in the likeness of sinful flesh, that is, although the Flesh of Christ was not sinful, yet it was like the flesh of other Men, which is sinful in them, He was in all parts tempted 
Heb. 4. 15.  like as we are, yet without sin.  
The second sin of our first Parents, which is properly, that Original sin, which is from them propagated, and transmitted into all their Posterity, which have proceeded from the loins of Adam, and the womb of Eve, by the ordinary natural way of Copulation and Generation, is that sin, which the Scripture calleth Concupiscence or Lust, in which lust or concupiscence, all children are begotten, and the lust wherein they are begotten, is transmitted into them from their Parents, and remaineth in them as long as they live.  
He that will carefully peruse the History of our first Parents, both before and after their fall, may discern, what sin of theirs that was, which they left as an inheritance, entailed upon all their Posterity, which naturally proceeded from them. We find that before the Fall, they were both naked, 
Gen. 2. 25.  and were not ashamed; but after the Fall, they were ashamed and afraid, because they were naked, and hid themselves, and to cover that, of which they were most ashamed, they made them Aprons of fig-leaves, Perizomata, which served to cover 
Gen. 3. 7, 10.  only their Secret parts, not their breasts, or faces, or hands, and this they did, because in those Parts their lust or concupiscence appeared, for before their Fall, lust had not entered into them, neither had the Man known the Woman till after the Fall, which is noted first, Gen. 4. 1. where it is first said, Adam knew Eve his Wife, and she 
Gen. 4. 1.  conceived and bare Cain, who was the First-fruit of their Concupiscence. Afterwards it is said, Adam begot a Child in his own likeness 
Gen. 5. 3.  — and called his name Seth, (that is) in a condition of sin, like unto his Father, for although Seth was a good Son, yet he, as much as his brother Cain, was begotten in sin, in lust and concupiscence, wherein also, all the succeeding Generations from Adam and Eve, unto this day are begotten, viz. in lust and concupiscence. And this Concupiscence is that Original sin, whereof the Psalmist saith, I was shapen in iniquity, 
Psal. 51. 5  and in sin did my Mother conceive me. The Apostle saith the same of all Men, in consideration of this Original sin: Death passed 
Ro. 5. 12.  on all Men, for that all have sinned. Divers Expositors put this gloss upon those words (excepto Christo) they meant that all have sinned, except only Christ, which is true, and may thus be cleared.  
The Generation of Christ, was far different from all other Generations of Mankind, for it was without Copulation and carnal Concupiscence, because he was born of a Virgin, without the Cooperation of Man, which was so designed by the Godhead, on purpose to preserve the most holy Body and Soul of the Redeemer without sin; which being of so great concernment for our comfort to be known, was foretold by God himself first, then by his Prophets, then by his Angel; The Seed of the Woman must bruise the Serpent's head, no 
Gen. 3. 15  mention of a Man, Behold a Virgin shall conceive, 
Isa. 7. 14. Jer. 31 22.  and bear a Son; And, The Lord hath created a new thing in the earth, a Woman shall compass a Man. 1. A Woman only, without a Man. 2. Created, therefore it was the Extraordinary and Omnipotent work of the Creator. 3. A new thing, for it never was so before with any Woman, nor will ever be so again. 4. To compass a Man, 1. to enclose a Manchild in the womb of a Woman, and she a Virgin, utterly unknown by Man, this is the peculiar Work of the Godhead. Although Turks say, they have always such Births among them; therefore Christ's Birth of the Virgin was no 
Balaeus n. 54. Hier. con. Jovinian. n. 14. Mat. 1. Luke 1.  marvel. So Buddas the Indian was falsely said to be the Son of a Virgin.  
This Prophetical Woman, was the blessed Virgin Mary, who was declared by the Heavenly Angel Gabriel, to be a pure Virgin after her Espousals, and after the Conception, and after the Birth of her Son Jesus. And because the Mother of the Redeemer, was necessary to have been a Virgin, therefore all our Church Creeds declare the same, That Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, That he was Incarnate by the 
Symb. Apostol. Nicaen. Athanas. Ambros.  Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, That he was Man, of the Substance of his Mother; and in the Symbolical Hymn of S. Ambrose, and St. Austin, it is said of him, When thou tookest upon thee to deliver Man, thou didst not abhor the Virgins Womb. In all these, notice is given of the Woman, and Virgin, without any mention of Man; the Redeemer was to be answerable to Melchisedech, 
Heb. 7. 3. Aug. To. 7. n. 3.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as St. Austin saith, Sine Matre Deus, sine Patre Homo, he was God from Eternity, of the Substance of the Father, but Man, of the Substance of his Virgin Mother only, from whom he received both his Fesh and Soul.   

CHAP. XXV.  
IT being granted or presumed, that Christ received both his Flesh, and his Soul from the blessed Virgin Mother, and she hers from our first Parents. We are yet farther to inquire, how his Flesh and Soul 
Dominicani & Franciscani differunt in hac r●.  could be free from that Original sin, except we will also grant, that his Mother was conceived without sin, which I suppose, no Learned, or but Intelligent Divine will affirm, it being accounted by St. Austin, one of the Pelagian Heresies, who yet refused 
Aug. count. Pelag. T. 7. n. 50.  to dispute against her in that Question, Propter honorem Domini, as he saith.  
Our Answer is, that although Christ derived both his Flesh and his Soul from the Virgin, and although his Virgin Mother was certainly conceived in sin, and therefore not without Original sin, during her whole life; yet Christ did not with his Flesh and Soul, derive any sin from her, because he was not by her conceived in sin, viz. in lust or concupiscence. For Original sin is 
Aug. T. 3. N. 73.  not derived into us, by receiving our Flesh and our Souls from our Mothers, but only by concupiscence and lust, whereby ordinary Conceptions are produced. But Christ was conceived of the Virgin, by the Holy Ghost, without man, and so without lust, and therefore without any sin, which is the reason rendered by S. Austin, Nulla concupiscentia carnali 
Aug. in Enchir. T. 3. n. 58  seminatus est Christus, ergo nullum peccatum Originaliter traxit, i● That because Christ was not begotten, or conceived in carnal lust, therefore his Conception was without sin; so Isychius answereth, Christi humanitas munda est, ut quae non genita est ex Viri 
Isych. in Levit. Cap. 14.  immunditia, Christ's whole human Nature was clean, because not begotten in uncleanness; so that although both the Flesh, and the Soul of the Virgin Mother were stained with Original sin, yet the Flesh and Soul of Christ sprang from her, without her sin, because he was conceived without carnal Copulation and Lust.  
Sometimes (we know) worms are bred in men's Bodies, and derive their flesh and bulk from them, yet it would be ridiculous to say or imagine, that these worms draw original sin from those Human bodies, because they are therein bred, without any copulation or carnal concupiscence. Herod was eaten of worms, which were bred 
Acts 12. 23.  in his own body, yet those worms by that Generation, did not derive any sin from Herod. And if now any Man should be miraculously produced, and form out of another man's Body, he should not thereby attract any sin, because such a Production would be without copulation and lust, as 
Aquin. 1. 2, 9, 81. Art. 4. Orig. T. 2. N. 44. Aug. in Psal. 21.  Aquinas determined.  
Origen in his 14 Homily on St. Luke, and St. Austin on the 21 Psalms, and in other places, both of them do expound those words of David, Psal. 22. 6. I am a worm, and no Man; to be meant of the Conception of Christ. Quia vermis non aliunde, sed in corpore Origo est, because Christ was bred in the Body of his Mother without Copulation, as worms are in other Bodies, and therefore without sin. Eve herself was made of Adam's Body and Soul, without any Copulation or lust, and therefore without any derivation of sin; indeed her Extraction was before the Fall, and before Concupiscence was entered into the Man, which yet (I conceive) would have so been, although the Woman had not been so made, till after the Fall of the Man.  
For certain then, the blessed Mother of our Redeemer was a pure Virgin, until the Birth of her Son Jesus; but whether she continued and persevered in her Virginity, until her death is not necessary, or much pertinent to be considered in this Question, it being a full, and sufficient argument of the pure and sinless Conception, and Birth of Christ, that he was born of the Virgin Mary, during her Virginity. Mariam Joseph concubitu nec cognoverat, nec cogniturus erat. August. To, 7. N. 52.  
Yet in the Primitive Church, both Eastern and Western, it was generally received as a Truth, that she persisted in her Virginity to her death. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Greeks said, and the Latins, as Austin declares, 
Aug. de Catechi. Rudib. c. 22. Tc. 4.  Maria Virgo, concipiens, pariens, moriens. It was so near an Article of their Faith, that such as denied her perpetual Virginity, as Helvidius in St. Jerome, and Jovinian 
Hier. con. Helu. Au. To. 7. n. 55. Epiph. Haer. 78.  in St. Austin, were accounted Heretics, and such are out by Epiphanius in his Catalogue of Heresies, under the title of Antidicimarianitae with us, since her departure, she is called to this day the Virgin Mary.  
There is a Prophetical Allegory recorded 
Isa. 29. 11.  by the Prophet in these words, The Vision of all is become unto you, as the words of a Book that is sealed, which Men deliver to one that is Learned, saying, Read this I pray thee, and he saith I cannot, for it is sealed. This Allegory is thus unriddled by St. chrysostom, 
Chry. n. 59 Greg. Neo. n. 2.  and before him by Gregory Neocaesaria (except one of them, or his Scribe borrowed it from the other) they expound it of the Virgin Mary, and Lyranus saith, it was indeed 
L●ra in Ice.  meant of the secret Coming of Christ.  
The Book signifieth the Virgin Mother, the Sealing of it was the design of God, to preserve her in a Virgin Estate to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a living Palace, and Temple to entertain God; the Man to whom this Book was delivered, signified Joseph, who is said to be Learned (sciens literas) because he had a former Wife, and also Children by her, (as some say) yet he could not, or might not open or read this new Book, because it was sealed, or kept shut, for a great and Heavenly purpose, such as is before said. Thus they, just so St. Ambrose and St. Austin, expound that Vision of Ezechiel, concerning t●e shut Gate, by which 
Ezek. 44. 2.  no Man might enter, because the God of Israel hath entered in by it. This Gate signified Mary, who was semper intacta, Joseph vir non 
Ambr. n. 49. Aug. T. 10. n. 51.  transit per eam, Deus Israel ingressus est eam. The Virgin Mother, is often called by the Father's Porta Coeli, and a Book hath the name of the Writer, as the Eunuch read Isaias, Acts 8. 28. And Moses is read every Sabbath-day. 
Acts 15. 21. Aug. Ps. 121.  St. Austin calls himself a Book, Nos sumus Codex eorum qui legere non noverunt. So the Virgin Mary is that Book.  
This I trust is enough, to show the meaning of those Mysterious words of Christ, concerning the Eating of his Flesh, and Drinking his Blood.   

The CONCLUSION.  
HItherto we have showed the Real Union of Christ with Mankind, both in Flesh, and in Soul, and the Modus or manner, how it is brought to pass. And that it doth not consist in Eating, and Drinking the Sacramental Bread and Wine, for without that Men may be Redeemed and Saved; but not, except they Eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and Drink his Blood.  
Now for Conclusion, I shall only inquire, what effects and issues are produced by this Union, which is signified by Eating and Drinking.  
And these I find to be Two. 1. Immortality of all Human Souls whatsoever, because all Men, good and bad, are united with Christ in Soul. 2. The Resurrection of all Human Bodies, both of holy and unholy Persons, because all are united with Christ in Flesh. Both the effects may clearly appear by the words of Christ.  
For First he saith, Except ye Eat the Flesh, 
John 6. 53.  etc. ye have no life in you; therefore they that have so eaten his Flesh, etc. have life in them.  
Secondly, In the very next words he saith, Whoso eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood, 
54.  hath Eternal Life, and I will raise him up at the Last day. 1. Eternal Life, is meant of the Immortality of all Human Souls. 2. Raising up at the Last day, signifieth the Resurrection of Human Bodies at the last Judgement.  
From these Premises we may easily collect, that because all Men, both Good and Bad, are really united with Christ, both in Soul and Flesh (as hath been proved before) therefore all Men, both good and bad, shall have Eternal life, viz. Immortality of Souls, and Resurrection of Bodies.  
If it be questioned, whether the Damned may be said to have Eternal life, because they have been united with Christ, so as is said?  
We answer Yes. For their Souls are Immortal, as really as the Souls of the Blessed, and their Bodies shall be raised to Life at the general Resurrection, as truly as the Bodies of the Saints; both the Blessed and the Damned, in Bodies and in Souls, shall then have Everlasting life, the one in happiness, the other in Misery.  
And although the Miserable State and condition of the Damned (as Beza saith) 
Bez. Cat. p. 31.  is not worthy to be called Life, and is therefore called Eternal Death, and Everlasting Damnation, yet it is such a death as is called Mors sine morte, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it 
Aug. T. 13. n. 31. Letan. Longa sic morte necabat, Virg. Aen. l. 5. 1 Cor. 15. 26.  is a living death, and endless living in misery; it is a life, though worse than death, or annihilation, and such an everlasting life as Devils have. The mention of Everlasting fire, implieth everlasting Bodies, and in that it is said, that Death is to be destroyed; this argues, that then there will be no more Dying, and therefore it is said, The Dead shall be raised incorruptible; And this mortal shall put on Immortality, and this is true, both of the Good, and of the Bad, for all must stand before the Judgment-Seat of Christ; and 
Rom. 14. 10. Apost. Nicaen. Athan.  this is confessed in all our Church Creeds. The Resurrection of the Body, and Life Everlasting, and that we look for both, and that all Men shall rise with their Bodies, and shall give an account; All, therefore Good and Bad.  
This being evident, we are further to inquire, what is the efficient, or true cause of the Immortality of Human Souls, and of the Resurrection of Human Bodies, more than of the souls and bodies of other inferior Creatures, although their bodies and souls were at first Created by God, as ours were; and therefore the Mahometans say, that there shall be a Resurrection of Brute creatures, as Armachanus reporteth; and 
Arm. f. 161.  Heathens said, that in their Elysium, a place was for Birds, as Ovid. Amorum, L. 2. Eleg. 6.  
Colle sub Elysio nigra nemus illice frondet, 
Ovid. Amorum li. 2. El. 6.   
Vdaque perpetuo gramine terra viret.  
Si qua fides dubiis volucrum locus ille piarum  
Dicitur, obscoenae quo prohibentur Aves.  
To this our Answer is, That because Human bodies and Souls, are united with the Body and Soul of Christ, in the first Original Soul and Body, therefore our Souls are Immortal, and our Bodies shall rise immortal; but so shall not the other Creatures, because they are not so united. The reason is clearly declared by Christ himself in these words, He that eateth me, even he shall live 
John 6. 57  by me. For as the Body and Soul of Christ are now Immortal, because united with the Divine Spirit, as himself saith, I live by the 
Ibid.  Father, so our Souls are, and our Bodies shall be Immortal, because they are united with the Body and Soul of the Son of God; and this, not by virtue of his mere Soul, and his mere Flesh, both of them being of themselves but Creatures, but because his Soul and Body are, and ever were personally united with the Divine Spirit, or Godhead; that is it only, which caused this kind of Vitality in all Mankind, for of his mere Flesh alone Christ saith, The Flesh profiteth nothing. 
Joh. 6. 63  But of the Spirit or Godhead, united with his Flesh, he saith, It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are Life; and therefore the Apostle saith of the whole Person of Christ, The last Adam was made a quickening 
1 Cor. 15. 45.  Spirit, that is, He was made so by Union with the Godhead, for the Flesh of Christ alone was mortal, but by this Union, it became both Vital and Vivifical.  
They that say, that our Souls are Immortal only by Creation, being Reasonable Souls, and should have been Immortal, though God the Son had not united himself with our Nature. These to me, seem to gainsay the words of Christ, for it is not by the Reasonabless, but their Union with the Soul of Christ, that makes them immortal: I suppose, they will not say, that our Bodies shall rise from death, only because they are human Bodies: No, for both these are the effects of this Union, which Christ called the Eating his Flesh, and Drinking his Blood, and nothing else; and therefore St. John saith, God hath given to us Eternal Life, and this 
1 John 5. 11. 12.  Life is in his Son; he addeth, He that hath the Son hath Life, and he that hath not the Son hath not Life.  
To this most Holy Son of God, and Son of Man, our ever blessed Redeemer and Saviour, together with the Eternal Father, and the Divine Spirit of both, Benediction, Honour and Thanksgiving for ever and ever. Amen, Amen.   
FINIS.   

THE CONTENTS.  

Chapter. 1. THE Union of Christ with Mankind in Adam, in order to our Redemption, signified by the Eating and Drinking the Flesh and Blood of Christ; the different understanding thereof, by Romanists, Lutherans and Zwinglians, from the Church of England.  
2. The signification of eating of the Tree of Life, of the Tree of Knowledge, of Manna, of Sacrifices, and of the Paschal Lamb.  
3. That Eating the Flesh of Christ, is not meant of Oral Eating, of St. Peter's Eating, paralleled with our Eating of Christ.  
4. That the necessity of our real Union with the Flesh of Christ, is called Eating; how we are united with his Body, and the benefit thereof.  
5. The Doctrine of the Father's concerning our Union with the Body of Christ; of his Body natural & mystical. Of the Subjection of Christ  
6. Why this Union is described, by eating the Flesh of the Son of Man, and not rather of the Son of God.  
7. That the Redeemer was necessarily to be the Son of Man, and also the Son of God.  
8. Why this Union is expressed by such Tragical words, of eating his Flesh, and drinking his Blood. Why the Primitive Church mingled water with Wine in the holy Chalice.  
9 The practice of some Heretics, in eating Human flesh in their Sacrament, compared with the Doctrine of Transubstantion. The calumny of Anthropophagy charged upon Christians, and removed.  
10. That this Eating the Flesh of Christ is now to be done, for that it was performed at our first Conception in the Womb; that the Fathers, and all other Latin Translators, render those words of Eating the Flesh of Christ, otherwise than we do.  
11. How our Union with the Flesh of Christ, is more beneficial to us, than our Union with the flesh of the Patriarches, Prophets and Apostles.  
12. Of Eating the Flesh of Christ Spiritually, what is meant by it, and whether such an Eating be sufficient to the right end.  
13. Of Eating by Faith; whether believing the Articles of Faith be that Eating, which is thereby meant. Of those words of St. Austin, Crede & Manducasti, how to be rightly understood. The three states of Mankind.  
14. Of the Blood of Christ, that it is not literally to be understood, nor to be drank Orally.  
15. Of the forbidding of Blood, by the Law and the Gospel; that it was but a Temporary Discipline. Why Fornication was forbidden to the Gentiles converted by the Apostolical Council.  
16. That the Blood of Christ, signifieth the Life, or Soul of Christ.  
17. That Drinking the Blood of Christ, signifieth only the Union of our Souls with his Soul. Of the 3 Ingredients in Christ, The Godhead, Flesh and Soul.  
18. To what end, and special purpose the Holy Supper was instituted; the abuse by withholding the Chalice from the People; that the corporal Presence of Christ is not in the Saments, but in the Communicants.  
19 That the Soul of Christ, and all other Human Souls are derived from the Original soul of Adam; that the Doctrine of daily Creation of new Human Souls is erroneous; that our Souls proceed immediately from our Mothers, and in the Womb.  
20. Of the Traduction or Propagation of the Soul of Christ, and of all other Human Souls from Adam. Some doubts and objections cleared; The true cause of the Immortality of Human Souls, and of the Resurrection of our Bodies, more than of brute Creatures.  
21. Of the time when Conceptions receive life and soul in the Womb, which is called Quickening. Of Barrenness. That the Union of our souls with the Soul of Christ, is at our Quickening in the Womb; the Doctrine of the Church of England therein.  
22. That the Soul of Christ must as necessarily have proceeded from Adam, as his Flesh; Of some Heresies, which gainsayed the Traduction of Souls; The Doctrine of daily Creation of new Souls examined.  
23. The judgement of the Father's concerning Traduction of Souls; The error of the Pelagians therein, and the evil consequences thereof.  
24. That Christ was free from Original sin, although his Soul and Body were derived from Adam.  
25. That although the Mother of Christ were conceived in sin, yet her Son Jesus was free from her Sin, and how. That she was a pure Virgin at the Birth of Christ. That her perseverance in Virginity to her Death, though it is true, yet it is not necessarity pereinent to this question.  
Conclusion. The Effects of our Union with Christ, viz. 

1. The Immortality of all Human Souls.  
2. The Resurrection of all Human Bodies, which are called Eternal Life, and Raising at the last Day.     
FINIS.