?0 Tit &NSU BSTA.?TIAT?ON, [Boox lI. that the lmsnge does not favmir transubstantiation; nay, they contend that it does not respect the sacrament at all. Cardinal Cajetan gives exactly the same gloss that moat Protestants do: "To eat," says he, "the flesh of Christ, and to drink his blood, is faith in the death of Josus Christ; 8o that the sense is this: If ye use not the death of the Son of God as meat and drink, ye have not the life of the Spirit in you." And he afterward denies that these word8 are to be understood of eating and drinking in the sacrament. (2.) The Roman Catholic is confounded in the commencement; for Christ says, that he is the bread which came dou? from heaven. Now this cannot mean his body, for he did not bring it down from heaven, but took it of the Virgin, according both to Scripture and the primitive creeds. (3.) Nothing was more common among the eastern nations than to use the metaphor of eating and drinking to express spiritual supplies for the soul. This is already proved. (4.) That it is the same thing in this chapter, to eat of the bread that came down from heaven and to l?lieve in Christ, (yet. 35, 40, 47.) (5.) That the bread whicA CArist gave is the same with A/sfle?A w]de.A he #Aall ?ve for the l?fe of the world, (ver. 51.) And because eating this bread of life imported only believing on him, (vet. 35,) therefore eating his fi?h doth import the same spiritual action. And as the phrnes, g/v/ng bread to eat, and ?/v?,?.fie?A to eat, mean the same: so also eating the flesh of Christ, and eating bread which he gives, entitle equally to eternal life; the meaning must be precisely the same. And as none could say that Christ could be properly eaten as bread; so neither can we eat his flesh except in a spiritual sense. (6.) It will be impossible to interpret these word8 in the Roman Catholic sense, because Christ here speaks of such an eating of his flesh and drinking his blood as was actually necessary at tAat time for every man's salvation. "Except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood, ye have no life in you." This shows that it was necessary for all that heard him even then to eat his flesh and drink his blood. But the eucharist was not then instituted, until at least a year after, therefore they could not then partake of it. Either, therefore, the aposfieo had no life in them at that time, but were in a state of condemnation, or they ate the flesh of Christ and drank his blood even then, when there was no eucharist in use; and consequently they could not eat it in the gross and literal sense which they contend for. (7.) But should we suppose a p,'o/?0r/s or anti?at?o,z in these words, that is, that though Christ expressed himself in the present time, yet he meant in the future, after the sacrament should be instituted; it ?would be impossible to restrain the eating of Christ's flesh and drinking his blood to eating and drinking in the sacrament, as to exclude all other means of partaking of them. For according to this, what will become of those who never have an opportunity of oartaking of Christ's body in such a way ? What will be?o' me of'all b'?ptizod?nfants who die before they' come to years of maturity, or of mature persons who are cut off by death before they receive the eucharist ? If these words must be understood of this sacrament only, all such have no life in them, but are in a state of condemnation and death, notwithstanding diey.?mve been b8? and truly regenerated.
�
