could not righteously sacrifice himself, especially when we consider
that the Romanists would have a right to say, that Christ himself had
commanded it? But Bellarmine's conceit [9] is so absurd that it scarce
deserves the compliment of a serious confutation. For if sacramental
being be opposed to natural or material, as 'noumenon' to 'phaenomenon',
place is no attribute or possible accident of it 'in se'; consequently,
no alteration of place relatively to us can affect, much less destroy,
it; and even were it otherwise, yet translocation is not destruction;
for the body of Christ, according to themselves, doth indeed nourish our
souls, even as a fish eaten sustains another fish, but yet with this
essential difference, that it ceases not to be and remain itself, and
instead of being converted converts; so that truly the only things
sacrificed in the strict sense are all the evil qualities or
deficiencies which divide our souls from Christ.


Ib. p. 218.

That which we do is done in remembrance of that which was then done;
for he saith, 'Do this in remembrance of me.'

This is a 'metastasis' of Scripture. 'Do this in remembrance of
me', that is, that which Christ was then doing. But Christ was not
then suffering, or dying on the cross.


Ib. p.223.

That the Saints do pray for us 'in genere', desiring God to be
merciful to us, and to do unto us whatsoever in any kind he knoweth