which indeed he frequently so expresses. Now I desire it may be observed, that oftentimes when St. Austin speaking of the eucharist, calls it the body and blood of Christ; he oftentimes adds, by way of explication, that he means it, in the sacramental, figurative sense; but whenever he calls it, the figure or the sacrament of Christ's body, he never offers to explain that by any words, by which he may signify such a real or natural being of Christ's body there, as the church of Rome dreams of; but he ought not, neither would he have given offence or umbrage to the church, by any such incurious and loose handling of things, if the church in his age had thought of it, otherwise, than that it was Christ's body in a sacramental sense.

Though I have remarked all that is objected by A. L. yet E. W. is not satisfied with the quotation out of Gregory Nazianzen,not but that he acknowledges it to be right, for he sets down the words in Latin; but they conclude nothing against transubstantiation. Why so? because, though the paschal was a type of a type, a figure of a figure, yet'in St. Gregory's sense, Christ concealed under the species of bread may be rightly called a figure of its own self, more clearly hereafter to be shewed us in heaven.'-To this pitiful answer the reply is easy. St. Gregory clearly enough expresses himself, that in the immolation of the passover Christ was figured; that in the eucharist he still is figured; there more obscurely,. here more clearly, but yet still but typically, or in figure; ⚫ nunc quidem adhuc typicè;'' here we are partakers of him typically.' Afterward we shall see him perfectly,' meaning, in his Father's kingdom.-So that the saint affirms Christ to be received by us in the sacrament, after a figurative or typical manner and therefore, not after a substantial, as that is opposed to figurative. Now of what is this a type ?—of, himself to be more clearly seen in heaven hereafter. It is very true, it is so; for this whole ceremony, and figurative, ritual receiving of Christ's body here, does prefigure our more excellent receiving and enjoying him hereafter; but then it follows that the very proper substance of Christ's body is not here; for figure or shadow and substance cannot be the same;

a P. 41.

6

bOrat. 2. in Pascha. Jam verò paschalis participes erimus, nunc quidem adhuc typicè, tametsi apertiùs licet quam in veteri; legale siquidem pascha (nec enim dicere verebor) figura erat obscurior.

to say a thing that is present, is a figure of itself hereafter, is to be said by no man but him that cares not what he says. Nemo est sui ipsius imago,' saith St. Hilary; and yet if it were possible to be otherwise, it is a strange figure or sign of a thing, that what was invisible, should be a sign of what is visible. Bellarmine", being greatly put to it by the fathers calling the sacrament'the figure of Christ's body,' says, it is in some sense a figure of Christ's body on the cross; and here E. W. would affirm out of Nazianzen that it is a figure of Christ's body glorified. Now suppose both those dreamners say right, then this sacrament, which whether you look forwards or backwards, is a figure of Christ's body, cannot be that body of which so many ways it is a figure. So that the whole force of E. W.'s answer is this; that if that which is like be the same, then it is possible that a thing may be a sign of itself, and a man may be his own picture; and that which is invisible, may be a sign to give notice to come see a thing that is visible.

I have now expedited this topic of authority in this question. Amongst the many reasons I urged against transubstantiation (which I suppose to be unanswerable, and if I could have answered them myself, I would not have produced them), these gentlemen my adversaries are pleased to take notice but of one; but by that it may be seen how they could have answered all the rest, if they had pleased. The argument is this: Every consecrated wafer (saith the church of Rome) is Christ's body; and yet this wafer is not that wafer, therefore either this or that is not Christ's body, or else Christ hath two natural bodies; for here are two wafers.' To this is answered, The multiplication of wafers does not multiply bodies to Christ, no more than head and feet infer two souls in a man, or conclude there are two Gods, one in heaven, and the other in earth, because heaven and earth are more distinct than two wafers. -To which I reply, that the soul of man is in the head and feet as in two parts of the body which is one and whole, and so is but in one place, and consequently is but one soul. But if the feet were parted from the body by other bodies intermedial, then indeed, if there were but one soul in feet and

head, the gentleman had spoken to the purpose. But here these wafers are two entire wafers, separate the one from the other; bodies intermedial put between; and that which is here is not there; and yet of each of them it is affirmed, that it is Christ's body; that is, of two wafers, and of two thousand wafers, it is at the same time affirmed of every one that it is Christ's body. Now if these wafers are substantially not the same, not one, but many; and yet every one of these many is substantially and properly Christ's body, then these bodies are many, for they are many of whom it is said, • Every one distinctly, and separately, and in itself, is Christ's body.' 2. For his comparing the presence of Christ in the wafer, with the presence of God in heaven, is spoken without common wit or sense; for does any man say that God is in two places, and yet be the same one God? Can God be in two places that cannot be in one? Can he be de termined and numbered by places, that fills all places by his presence? or is Christ's body in the sacrament, as God is in the world, that is 'repletivè,' filling all things alike, spaces void and spaces full, and there where there is no place, where the measures are neither time nor place, but only the power and will of God. This answer, besides that it is weak and dangerous, is also to no purpose, unless the church of Rome will pass over to the Lutherans and maintain the ubiquity of Christ's body. Yea, but St. Austin' says of Christ "ferebatur in manibus suis," &c. "he bore himself in his own hands:" and what then? Then though every wafer be Christ's body, yet the multiplication of wafers does not multiply bodies for then there would be two bodies of Christ, when he carried his own body in his hands.'-To this I answer, that concerning St. Austin's mind we are already satisfied, but that which he says here is true, as he spake and intended it; for by his own rule, the similitudes and figures of things are oftentimes called by the names of those things whereof they are similitudes: Christ bore his own body in his own hands, when he bore the sacrament of his body; for of that also it is true, that it is truly his body in a sacramental, spiritual, and real manner, that is, to all intents and purposes of the Holy Spirit of God. According to the words of St. Austin cited by P. Lombard: "We call that the body of

f In Ps. xxxiii.

Christ, which, being taken from the fruits of the earth, and consecrated by mystic prayer, we receive in memory of the Lord's passion; which when by the hands of men it is brought on to that visible shape, it is not sanctified to become so worthy a sacrament, but by the Spirit of God working invisibly "If this be good catholic doctrine, and if this confession of this article be right, the church of England is right; but then when the church of Rome will not let us alone in this truth and modesty of confession, but impose what is unknown in antiquity and Scripture, and against common sense, and the reason of all the world; she must be greatly in the wrong. But as to this question, I was here only to justify the Dissuasive; I suppose these gentlemen may be fully satisfied in the whole inquiry, ifthey please to read a book I have written on this subject entirely, of which hitherto they are pleased to take no great notice.

SECTION IV.

Of the Half-Communion.

WHEN the French ambassador in the council of Trent, A. D. 1561, made instance for restitution of the chalice to the laity, among other oppositions the Cardinal St. Angelo answered; that he would never give a cup full of such deadly poison to the people of France, instead of a medicine, and that it was better to let them die, than to cure them with such remedies.' The ambassador being greatly offended, replied; that it was not fit to give the name of poison to the blood of Christ, and to call the holy apostles poisoners, and the fathers of the primitive church, and of that which followed for many hundred years, who with much spiritual profit have ministered the cup of that blood to all the people:' this was a great and a public, yet but a single person, that gave so great offence. One of the greatest scandals that ever was given to Christendom, was given by the council of Constance; which

* Lib. 3. de Trin. c. 4. in fine P. Lombard dist. 11. lib. 4. ad finem lit. C. h Christ's Real and Spiritual Presence in the Sacrament, against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation printed at London by R. Royston. iSess. 13.

having acknowledged that Christ administered this venerable sacrament under both kinds of bread and wine, and that in the primitive church this sacrament was received of the faithful under both kinds, yet the council not only condemns them as heretics, and to be punished accordingly, who say it is unlawful to observe the custom and law of giving it in one kind only; but under pain of excommunication forbids all priests to communicate the people under both kinds. This last thing is so shameful and so impious, that A. L. directly denies that there is any such thing: which if it be not an argument of the self-conviction of the man, and a resolution to abide in his error, and to deceive the people even against his knowledge, let all the world judge: for the words of the council's decree, as they are set down by Carranza, at the end of the decree, are these; "Item præcipimus, sub pœna excommunicationis, quod nullus presbyter communicet populum sub utraque specie panis et vini." I need say no more in this affair to affirm it necessary to do in the sacraments what Christ did, is called heresy; and to do so is punished with excommunication. But we who follow Christ, hope we shall communicate with him, and then we are well enough; especially since the very institution of the sacrament, in both kinds, is a sufficient commandment to minister and receive it in both kinds. For if the church of Rome upon their supposition only, that Christ did barely institute confession, do therefore urge it as necessary, it will be a strange partiality, that the confessed institution by Christ of the two sacramental species, shall not conclude them as necessary, as the other upon an unproved supposition. And if the institution of the sacrament in both kinds be not equal to a command, then there is no command to receive the bread, or indeed, to receive the sacrament at all: but it is a mere act of supererogation, that the priests do it at all, and an act of favour and grace, that they give even the bread itself to the laity.

But besides this, it is not to be endured that the church of Rome only binds her subjects to observe the decree of abstaining from the cup 'jure humano,' and yet they shall be bound jure divino,' to believe, it to be just, and specially since the causes of so scandalous an alteration are not set down in the decree of any council; and those which are set

Lugduni. A. D. 1600. apud Horatium Cardon. p. 440.