A55302:253
Christus in corde, or, The mystical union between Christ and believers considered in its…
Christus in corde, or, The mystical union between Christ and believers considered in its resemblances, bonds, seals, privileges and marks by Edward Polhil ..., Esq.Christus in corde, or, The mystical union between Christ and believers considered in its resemblances, bonds, seals, priviledges and marks by Edward Polhil ..., Esq.
London: printed by A.M. and R.R. for Tho. Cockerill, 1680
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
The one is this; It is a Doctrine cross to the description of the Eucharist which we have in 1 Cor. 11. The Bread was not blessed that it might be destroyed; nor given to be eaten, that it might cease to be before it was eaten. Never did God put forth his miraculous power to make his command impossible, such as the eating of Bread, which is not, must ⟨p. 216⟩needs be; in those words (this is my body) in which, if in any, Transubstantiation may be found, there is no imperative word, no mention at all of conversion, which yet, being a very wonderful thing, would in all reason, if it were true, be fully opened: it is not only said, this is my body, but it is added, which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me. In the Eucharist Christs Body is not considered as a glorious Body, but as broken and crucified; neither is there only his Body, but the memorial of it; And how should there be a conversion of the Bread into the Body? A conversion of it into the glorious Body, doth not suit with the Sacrament; a conversion of it into a broken crucified Body doth not suit with a state of glory; or, if there were a conversion, how should there be a memorial? the Bread, which is not, cannot be a memorial of the Body, neither can the Body be a memorial of it self: after all, it is no less than three times called Bread, to assure us, that it is Bread after consecration, as well as before.
The one is this; It is a Doctrine cross to the description of the Eucharist which we have in 1 Cor. 11. The Bread was not blessed that it might be destroyed; nor given to be eaten, that it might cease to be before it was eaten. Never did God put forth his miraculous power to make his command impossible, such as the eating of Bread, which is not, must ⟨p. 216⟩needs be; in those words (this is my body) in which, if in any, Transubstantiation may be found, there is no imperative word, no mention at all of conversion, which yet, being a very wonderful thing, would in all reason, if it were true, be fully opened: it is not only said, this is my body, but it is added, which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me. In the Eucharist Christs Body is not considered as a glorious Body, but as broken and crucified; neither is there only his Body, but the memorial of it; And how should there be a conversion of the Bread into the Body? A conversion of it into the glorious Body, doth not sute with the Sacrament; a conversion of it into a broken crucified Body doth not sute with a state of glory; or, if there were a conversion, how should there be a memorial? the Bread, which is not, cannot be a memorial of the Body, neither can the Body be a memorial of it self: after all, it is no less than three times called Bread, to assure us, that it is Bread after consecration, as well as before.