Roman tradition examined, as it is urged as infallible against all mens senses, reason,…

3. To leave us that Body which was true Flesh and Blood, capable of breaking, shedding, pain, and death, is one thing; and to give us his glorified Body, is another thing: This is not capable of breaking, shedding, pain, or death, being a spiritual, immortal, incorruptible Body. Therefore indeed, the Eucharist is Christs Body and Blood representative, but not of such a Body as he hath now glorified, but such as was truly Flesh and Blood, which he once offered; the benefits of which Sacrifice are really given us in and by the Eucharist. But to have left us a Body to be broken and slain, which cannot be slain, and Flesh and Blood which is not Flesh and Blood, but spiritual, is a Contradiction. But if Christ have two Bodies, or one consisting of parts spiritual, glorified, and of real Flesh and Blood, then indeed one part of this may be still a Sacrifice.

4. But taking it (as you here do) abstractedly from Gods Will, and as in it self considered; what reason can you give us, why Christ's true offering of himself in Sacrifice once for all, should not be as great a Benefit and Love-Token, as our offering him daily? The holy Scripture (Heb. 10. 14. telleth us, that [by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified] and v. 10, 11, 12. that by the Will of God we are sanctified through the once offering of the Body of Jesus Christ: and every Priest standeth daily ministering, and offering oftentimes the same Sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but this Man after he had offered one Sacrifice for sins, for ever sate down on the right-hand of God.] But you will tell us what a benefit it would be to offer Christ often? Do you really break, wound, hurt, and kill him in your offering, or do you not? If not, how is it a Sacrifice? and how is he the slain Lamb of God that taketh away ⟨p. 15⟩the sins of the World? And what Sacrificing, or satisfactory use can it have, to be offered without breaking, hurt, or death? Is it a living, or dead Body of Christ that you offer? If a living Body unhurt, it is none of the Sacrifice the Scripture mentioneth of Christ: And how is it propitiatory for sin? If it be a dead Body, was it ever alive? If not, 'tis not Christ's: If yea, who killeth him? And if it be his living, glorified, impassible Body that you offer, how unlike is that to Christ's offering? And why calleth he the Bread and Wine, his Body and Blood, which a glorified Body is not? It's most evident that Christ speaketh of his suffering Body, and not of his glorified Body that cannot suffer: And if so, shall we tell God what a benefit it would be to us, if every Priest may become as the Jews, the killer of Jesus Christ; that he may break his real Flesh, and let out his real Blood? Christ did not this himself. He consented to be killed, but he killed not himself. And what Man of Sense can doubt but he speaketh of a Representative Body, and Blood at his last Supper, when his real Body was not broken, nor slain, nor his Blood, till after; unless Christ had two Bodies, one first killed by himself, and eaten by his Disciples; and the other killed after by the Jews.