thought fit to set down the words of Eusebius, to convince my adversary that Eusebius is none of theirs, but he is wholly ours in the doctrine of the sacrament.

St. Macarius is cited in the Dissuasive in these words; "In the church is offered bread and wine, the antitype of his flesh and blood, and they that partake of the bread that appears, do spiritually eat of the flesh of Christ." A. L. saith, 'Macarius saith not so, but rather the contrary, viz. bread and wine exhibiting the exemplar [or an antitype], his flesh and blood.' Now although I do not suppose many learned or good men will concern themselves with what this little man says; yet I cannot but note [that they who gave him this answer, may be ashamed], for here is a doublesatisfaction in this little answer. First, he puts in the word 'exhibiting, of his own head; there being no such word in St. Macarius in the words quoted. 2. He makes oаρκòs to be put with ȧvríruπov, by way of apposition, expressly against the mind of St. Macarius, and against the very grammar of his words. And after all, he studies to abuse his author, and yet gets no good by it himself; for if it were in the words as he hath invented it, or somebody else for him, yet it makes against him as much, saying, Bread and wine exhibit Christ's body;' which is indeed true, though not here said by the saint, but is directly against the Roman article, because it confesses that to be bread and wine by which Christ's body is exhibited to us : but much more is the whole testimony of St. Macarius, which, in the Dissuasive, is translated exactly, as the reader may see by the Greek words cited in the margent.

There now only remains the authority of St. Austin, which this gentleman " would fain snatch from the church of England, and assert to his own party. I cited five places out of St. Austin, to the last of which but one, he gives this answer; that St. Austin hath no such words in that book, that is, in the tenth book against Faustus the Manichee.' Concerning which, I am to inform the gen

αὐτοῦ παρεδίδου μαθηταῖς, τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ ἰδίου σώματος ποιεῖσθαι παρακελευόμενος. Οὐκέτι τὰς δ' αἱμάτων θυσίας οὐδὲ τὰς παρα Μωσεὶ ἐν διαφόρων ζώων σφαγαῖς νενομοθετη μένας προσίετε, ἄρτῳ δὲ χρῆσθαι συμβόλῳ τοῦ ἰδίου σώματος παρεδίδου. Ὅτι ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησία προσφέρεται ἄρτος καὶ οἶνος, ἀντίτυπον τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵματος, καὶ οἱ μεταλαμβάνοντες ἐκ τοῦ φαινομένου ἄρτου, πνευματικῶς τὴν σάρκα τοῦ Κυρίου ἐσθίουσιν. • Macarias, homil. 27.

VOL. XI.

t P. 22.
I

u Ibid.

tleman a little better. These words, " that which by all men is called a sacrifice, is the sign of the true sacrifice,”—are in the tenth book of St. Austin de Civitate,' cap. 5. and make a distinct quotation, and ought by the printer to have been divided by a column, as the other. But the following words, "in which the flesh of Christ after his assumption is celebrated by the sacrament of remembrance," are in the 20th book, cap. 21, against Faustus the Manichee*. All these words and divers others of St. Austin I knit together in a close order, like a continued discourse; but all of them are St. Austin's words, as appears in the places set down in the margent. But this gentleman cared not for what was said by St. Austin, he was as well pleased that a figure was false printed; but to the words he hath nothing to say. To the first of the other four only he makes this crude answer; that 'St. Austin denied not the real eating of Christ's body in the eucharist, but only the eating in that gross, carnal, and sensible manner, as the Capharnaites conceived.' To which I reply, that it is true, that upon occasion of this error St. Austin did speak those words: and although the Roman error be not so gross and dull as that of the Capharnaites, yet it was as false, as unreasonable, and as impossible. And be the occasion of the words what they are, or can be, yet upon this occasion St. Austin spake words, which as well confate the Roman error as the Capharnaitical. For it is not only false which the men of Capernaum dreamt of, but the antithesis to this is that which St. Austin urges, and which comes home to our question, I have commended to you a sacrament, which being spiritually understood shall quicken you :' but because St. Austin was the most diligent expounder of this mystery among all the fathers, I will gratify my adversary, or rather indeed my unprejudicate readers, by giving some other very clear and unanswerable evidences of the doctrine of St. Austin, agreeing perfectly with that of our church": "At this time, after manifest token of our liberty hath shined in the resurrection of our Lord Jesus, we are not burdened with the heavy operation of signs: but some few instead of many,-but those most easy to be done, and most

* Hajus sacrificii caro et sanguis ante adventum Christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur: in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur,_post ascensum Christi per sacramentum memoriæ celebratur. Lib. 20. c. 21. contr. Faustum Manich. De Doctr. Christ. lib. 3. cap. 9.

glorious to be understood, and most pure in their observation, our Lord himself, and the apostolical discipline, hath delivered such is the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of our Lord, which, when every one takes, he understands whither they may be referred, that he may give them veneration, not with carnal service, but with a spiritual liberty. For as to follow the letter, and to take the signs for the things signified by them, is a servile infirmity; so to interpret the signs unprofitably is an evil wandering error. But he that understands not what the sign signifies, but yet understandeth it to be a sign, is not pressed with servitude. But it is better to be pressed with unknown signs, so they be profitable, than, by expounding them unprofitably, to thrust our necks into the yoke of slavery, from which they were brought forth." All this St. Austin spake concerning the sacramental signs, the bread and the wine in the eucharist; and if by these words he does not intend to affirm, that they are the signs signifying Christ's body and blood; let who please to undertake it, make sense of them for my part I cannot.

To the same purpose are these words of his"; "Christ is in himself once immolated, and yet in the sacrament he is sacrificed not only in the solemnities of Easter, but every day with the people. Neither indeed does he lie, who being asked, shall answer, that he is sacrificed: for if the sacraments have not a similitude of those things of which they are sacraments, they were altogether no sacraments; but commonly for this similitudethey take the names of the things themselves, sicut ergo secundum quendam modum,' &c. As ⚫ therefore after a certain manner' the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ, the sacrament of the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ, so the sacrament of faith (viz. baptism) is faith."-Christ is but once immolated or sacrificed in himself, but every day in the sacrament; that properly, this in figure; that in substance, this in similitude; that naturally, this sacramentally and spiritually. But therefore we call this mystery a sacrifice, as we call the sacrament Christ's body, viz. by way of similitude or after a certain manner, for upon this account the names of the things are imputed to their very figures. This is St. Austin's sense:

* Epist. 23.

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 ty-. pical 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.

b Orat. 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 dreamers 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 d De Euchar. lib. 2. c. 15. sect. Est igitur tertia. e. E. W. p. 42.

* Lib. de Synod.