is, by conversion and substantial transmutation, my body:' so as pretending to stick to the letter, they only keep the sound of the words; and to give them sense for their purpose, they, unawares, produce a trope, or something darker-a paradox, repugnant to human reasoning, and no ways coherent with the context.

We all agree in calling the holy Eucharist a Sacrament; why should we not then agree in taking the expressions touching it in a sacramental way? A Sacrament, in common, is a sign of a sacred thing: Signum rei sacræ, as Divines ordinarily define it. Why may not the Sacrament of Christ's body be called a sign of his body? Why may not we understand that to be the meaning of Christ's words, when taking the bread, he said, This is my body? to wit, this is the sign of his body? it being usual to call sacramental signs by the name of the things signified by them ; as St. Augustine testifies, saying,* Sacraments are signs, which often do take the name of those things which they do signify and represent. And to our purpose adds, that after a certain manner the Sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ. So the lamb, being a sign of the Passover, is called the Passover (Matt. xxvi. 17; Exod. xii. 11.) The rock, being a sign of Christ's sufferings for us, is called Christ; and that rock was Christ, (1 Cor. x. 4;) and baptism, the sign of Christ's burial, is called Christ's burial, which St. Augustine applies to our purpose, saying, As baptism is called Christ's burial, so is the Sacrament of the body of Christ called his body.

Besides Bellarmine and all other Romish writers confess, not being able to deny it, that the words of our Saviour, touching the second part of this Sacrament, to wit, the cup, are figurative: This cup is the New Testament of my blood; where they acknowledge a trope in the word cup or chalice, taking it for that which is in the cup. Why will not they likewise admit the former words, relating to the bread, to be figurative?—such pressing reasons moving to it, and such terrible inconveniences attending their construction, as hereto has been, and shall be yet further declared.

Epist. 98, tom. 2, col. 267.

"Non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere, Hoc est corpus meum, cum signum daret corporis sui." August. contra Adamant. cap. 12.-" Non negamus in verbo calix tropum esse." Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 1, cap. xi. oct. arg.

Now that the most Reverend Fathers of that happier age, taught by Christ and his Apostles, were of opinion, that the words of our Saviour should be taken in a figurative sense, and the Eucharistical bread be a type or sign of his sacred body, is clearly seen by their writings, such as could escape the blots of the Roman Expurgatory [Index.] Venerable Denis Arcopagita was ignorant of Transubstantiation; and so distinguished between the substantial signs and Christ signified by them, saying, "By those reverend signs and symbols Christ is signified, and the faithful made partakers of him."* He calleth the Sacrament a type, even after consecration, as Bellarmine himself confesses. So that, according to St. Denis, the elements of the bread and wine in this sacrament are types and symbols; that is to say, figures and signs of the body and blood of Christ; though not bare signs, but really exhibiting Christ and his spiritual grace to the faithful duly disposed; which being St. Denis's expression, fully agrees with the Church of England in this particular.

So Chrysostom delivers clearly the same doctrine, saying, that "before the bread is sanctified, we name it bread; but the Divine grace sanctifying it, by the means of the priest, it is freed from the name of bread; but is esteemed worthy to be called the Lord's body, although the nature of bread remains in it." But St. Austin is most eminent in clearing this point, where he brings in Christ thus speaking to his disciples :§ "You are not to eat this body which you see, nor to drink that blood which my crucifiers shall pour forth. I have commended to you a Sacrament which being spiritually understood shall quicken you." And again he says, that "Christ brought them to a banquet, in which he commended to his disciples the figure of his body and blood. For he did not hesitate to say, This is my body, when he gave the sign of his body." And in another place he says; "that which by all men is called a sacrifice, is the sign of the true sacrifice, in which the

* Dionys. Areopag. Eccles. Hierar. cap. 1. Imo et Dionysius cap. Hier. 3, [par. 3.] This of course was not written by Dionysius the Areopagite. see Rivet. Crit. Sac. 1, cap. 9.

+ Eucharistiam vocat antitypon Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 2, cap, 15, §. sed hæc. Chrysost. Epist. ad Monach. Cæsar. contra, hæres. Apollinar. [tom. 3, p. 897, edit. Paris, 1835.]

§ August. in Psal. XCVIII,

flesh of Christ, after his Assumption, is celebrated by the Sacrament of Remembrance."*

Theodoret is more emphatical upon this subject, saying," Christ honoured the symbols and the signs which are seen with the title of his body and blood; not changing the nature, but to nature adding grace. For neither do the mystical signs recede from their nature; for they abide in their proper substance, figure, and form, and may be seen and touched," &c.t

I will conclude these testimonies with one that may haply carry more weight, if not be deemed infallible, I mean of Pope Pelagius, speaking thus: "Truly the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ which we receive is a Divine thing; for that by it we are made partakers of the Divine nature: and yet it ceases not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine. And truly an image or similitude of the body and blood of Christ is celebrated in the action of the mysteries."

I am to suppose it will be replied (for some exception must be conceived against evidences so clear and consecutive) that these testimonies of the Fathers are not to be seen thus in their more corrected editions; which I have reason to believe; having seen the venerable writings of the most ancient and grave Fathers of the Church, both Greek and Latin, defaced with large blots, wheresoever they were found opposite to the present tenets and practice of the Roman Church, according to the direction of the Roman Expurgatory [Index.] They pretend that Protestants have inserted into the books of the Fathers those clauses favouring their own doctrine; but who can believe that so many weighty volumes, making up great libraries, should be newly printed to receive such supplies? that so many clear sentences, concording with the context, should be so artificially conveyed into the very heart and marrow of the Homilies of the Fathers? The contrary is the more credible to me; I having seen very ancient libraries, which never came under the hands of a Protestant, expurged

Aug. contra Adamantium, cap. 14; Ibid contra Faustum Mauichæum, lib. 4, cap. 5.

Theodoret. Dialog. c. 34. [dial. 1, cap. 8, p. 54, Tiguri, 1593.]

Pelagius Papa de duabus natures contra Eutychem et Nestorium: vide Picherel. in dissert. de missa et expositione verborum institutionis cœnæ Domini, p. 14, Lug. Bat. 1629.

of such clauses and sentences, according to the rule of the Roman Expurgatory [Index.]

Besides this, Scotus, Ocham, Biel, Fisher Bishop of Rochester, Bassolis, Cajetan, Melchior Canus, and many others, eminent Schoolmen, have affirmed, that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible.* And certainly it was no article of faith, before the Lateran Council declared it for such 1200 years after Christ, as Scotus and others affirm. And even after this declaration, several of their chief teachers continued affirming that article not to be contained in Scripture; especially Bassolis, Cajetan, Melchior Canus ;† and so they coined it out of their own heads; for they could not declare it to be revealed, if it was not in Scripture.

Their doctrine of Transubstantiation and Corporal Presence of our Saviour, in the sacrament of the altar, being thus grounded, consider how desperate is their resolution in giving to the consecrated wafer the worship of Divinity; nay, greater than ever they give to the true undoubted God, as is well known to such as have seen the sumptuous pomp of Spain, and other Popish countries, in adoring the consecrated Host. Even standing to their own principles, they can never be absolutely certain of Christ's corporal presence under these forms of bread, that depending, as themselves teach, upon the intention of the Priest consecrating and his due ordination; and this latter again depending upon the intention of the Bishop who ordained him and his legal ordination; and so upward of endless requisites impossible to be known certainly upon any occasion, as Bellarmine, Vega, and all their writers commonly confess. What blindness therefore is it, to

Scot. in 4 dist. 11, q. 3; Ocham, ib. q. 6; Biel Lect. 40 in Canon Missæ ; Roffens. contra. capt. Babylon. cap. 10, §. 2.

Bassolis, Cajetan, apud Suarez, tom. 3, disp. 40, §. 3; Canus loc. com. lib. 3, cap. 3—[John de Bassolis was a Franciscan, who flourished about the year 1466. He obtained the name of Ordinatissimus, and wrote, as usual, a very lucid Commentary upon the 4 books of Peter the Lombard, which was printed at Paris in 1517. (Possevin Apparat. Sac. 1, 824,) only, according to Peter Crabbe, the Lectures upon the sentences were delivered in 1322. Vide Mirai auct. de Scripp. Eccles. p. 77; edit. Hamb. 1718.

Bellarm. de Justificat. lib. 3. c. 8; Vega, lib. 9. de Justif. c. 17. As the cor. rectness of a statement on this point has been discredited in reference to Bellarmine, by Dr. Brown of Downside College, though Dr. Sall appears to have had no doubt of the subject being one of Catholic belief, the passage is here adduced

give divine worship to a thing which they do not know certainly to be more than a piece of bread!

Some, pressed with this argument, would answer that they were free from idolatry in their practice herein, because they believed that Host to be God. But upon this ground, the Egyptians in worshipping the sun for God, and the Israelites in adoring the golden calf, believing it was the true God which brought them out of Egypt, and the grossest idolaters that ever were, may plead an excuse from idolatry, alleging unwilful mistakes. To this again some of them reply, that they do not barely suppose Christ to be really present under the form of bread; but they know and believe it upon the same ground and motives, upon which they believe that Christ is God, and consequently to be adored. Whereby certainly they give great advantage to the enemies of Christ's Divinity; seeing they make the truth of these two things equal, that is the Divinity of Christ, and Transubstantiation. : and of the untruth of this bold assertion, I will take learned Bellarmine for judge, who, when he is proving the Divinity of Christ,* goes through nine several classes of arguments (of which six are wholly taken out of Scripture,†) with uncontrolable strength and clearness. But being to prove Transubstantiation out of Scripture, his only argument is from those words of our Saviour, Matt. xxvi. 26. Take eat, this is my body. And finding that proof not clear enough, he appeals to the authority of Councils and Fathers, ‡ concluding the chapter thus: Though in the words of the Lord there may be some obscurity, or ambiguity, that is removed by the Councils and Fathers of the Church, and so passes on to that kind of proof.

from the original, to supersede any "acute and clear-headed" remarks from any other quarter:-At neque potest quis certus esse, certitudine fidei, se non ponere obicem cum possit ex ignorantia crassa gerere affectum ad peccatum; nequé potest certus esse, certitudine fidei, se percipere verum sacramentum cum sacramentum sine intentione ministri non conficiatur, et intentionem alterius nemo videre possit. Editio Lugduni, 1596, in 3 vols.

* Bellarm. de Christo, lib. 1. cap. 4.

This discussion occupies nearly 40 columns from p. 240. to 249. edit. Paris, 1613. Compare this with the jejunity of supposed Scriptural evidence in favour of a corporal change in the Lord's Supper, even when puffed out by a Bellarmine. De Sacr. Euchar. lib. 3, cap. 19.

|| It might prove an investigation of some benefit to the Church, and to the world, would Mr. Newman examine, whether there be as strong and satisfactory