R. ABBOT.
If M. Bishops argument be good against vs, we will re∣turne it to himselfe againe. Christ gaue vs in the Sacrament that which should be put to death for vs; but not the forme of bread: but Christs true body was giuen to death for vs, therefore Christ gaue vs to eate, not the forme of bread, but his true reall body. And doth M. Bishop beleeue so? If he doe not, then let him answer his owne argument, and wee shall thereby finde a way to answer him. It is true that Christ in the Sacrament giueth his body, but he giueth not onely his body, but also the Sacrament of his body. He gi∣ueth the Sacrament of his body externally and corporally to be receiued by the mouth: hee giueth-his true bodie in∣ternally and spiritually to be receiued by faith. He giueth vs then that bodie that was giuen to death for vs, but hee doth not giue it to the swallowing of the throat, but to the meditation of the heart. And this S. Austin notably decla∣reth, when for exposition of the words of Christ, Except yee eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud, &c. he saith, or rather maketh Christ to say: a 1.1 Vnderstand spiri∣tually that which I haue said; Yee shall not eat this bodie which yee see, nor drinke that bloud which they shall shead that crucifie me: I haue commended vnto you a Sacrament, which vnderstand spiritually, and it shall giue you life. Where vnderstanding eating and drinking properly with the mouth, hee denieth the very body and bloud of Christ to this eating and drinking, and leaueth onely the Sacrament to be appertaining thereto. Now in this meane while M. Bishop hath slipped M. Perkins argument, and let it goe without answer that the Sacrament is not simpl••e the body