did more rely upon the pretences of sense than of other arguments, and, distrusting them, did fly to these as the greater probation: so we rely upon that way of probation, which they would have counterfeited, but which indeed Christ, in his institution, hath still left in the nature of the symbols, viz., that it is that which it seems to be, and that the other superinduced predicate of the body of Christ is to be understood only in that sense, which may still consist with that substance, whose proper and natural accidents remain, and are perceived by the mouth, and hands, and eyes, of all men. To which this may be added, that, by the doctrine of the late Roman schools, all those pretences of real appearances of Christ's body or blood, must be necessarily concluded to be impostures, or airy phantasms and illusions; because themselves teach that Christ's body is so in the sacrament,—that Christ's own eyes cannot see his own body in the sacrament: and in that manner by which it is there, it cannot be made visible; no, not by the absolute power of God. Nay, it can be neither seen, nor touched, nor tasted, nor felt, nor imagined. It is the doctrine of Suarez, in 3. Tho. disp. 53. sect. 3., and disp. 52. sect. 1., and of Vasquez, in 3. tom. 3. disp. 191. n. 22., which, besides that it reproves the whole article, by making it incredible and impossible, it doth also infinitely convince all these apparitions, if ever there were any, of deceit and fond illusion. I had no more to say in this particular, but that the Roman doctors pretend certain words out of St. Cyril's fourth mystagogique catechism,' against the doctrine of this paragraph: "Pro certissimo habeas," &c. "Be sure of this, that this bread, which is seen of us, is not bread, although the taste perceives it to be bread, but the body of Christ: for under the species of bread, the body is given to thee; under the species of wine, the blood is given to thee."-Here if we will trust St. Cyril's words, at least in Bellarmine's and Brerely's sense, and understand of them before will believe your own eyes, you may. you For St. Cyril bids you not believe your sense. For taste and sight tells it is bread, but it is not. you 2. For himself plainly explains his meaning in his next catechism. Think not that you taste bread and wine,' saith he.No, what then? Αλλὰ ἀντίτυπα καὶ σώματος καὶ aluaros, but the antitypes of the body and blood:' and in

But here is no harm done.

"It

this very place he calls bread τύπος, ' a type;” ἐν τύπῳ ἄρτου Sidotai σoi Tò oãμa, and, therefore, it is very ill rendered by the Roman priests by species,' which signifies accidental forms: for rúros signifies no such thing, but eidos; which is not St. Cyril's word. 3. He says it is not bread, though the taste feel it so; that is, it is not mere bread,' which is an usual expression among the fathers, Non est panis communis,' says Irenæust; où yàp ŵs noivòv äprov, says Justin Martyr ; just as St. Chrysostom says of baptismal water, it is not common water;' and as St. Cyril himself says of the sacramental bread, οὐκ ἔτι ἄρτος λιτός, “ it is not mere bread, ἀλλὰ σῶμα Kupiov, but the Lord's body.'-For if it were not that, in some sense or other, it were still mere bread, but that it is not. But this manner of speaking is not unusual in the holy Scriptures, that restrained and modificated negatives be propounded in simple and absolute forms. "I have given them statutes which are not good"." "I will have mercy and not sacrifice*." They have not rejected thee, but me." is not you that speak, but the Spirit of my Father." "I came not to send peace, but a sword"." "He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me." And, "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true"," which is expressly confronted by St. Johnb: "Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true;" which shows manifestly, that the simple and absolute negative in the former place, must, in his signification, be restrained. So St. Paul speaks usually: "Henceforth I know no man according to the flesh." "We have no strife against flesh and blood"." And in the ancient doctors, nothing more ordinary than to express limited senses by unlimited words; which is so known, that I should lose my time, and abuse the reader's patience, if I should heap up instances. So Irenæus: “He that hath received the Spirit, is no more flesh and blood, but spirit."-And Epiphanius affirms the same of the flesh of a temperate man: "It is not flesh, but is changed into spirit:" so we say of a drunken man, and a furious person: "He is not a man, but a beast.”—And they speak thus particularly

t Lib. iv. contr. Hæres. c. 34. Psal. xxii. homil. 16.

6

6

in the matter of the holy sacrament, as appears in the instances above reckoned, and in others respersed over this treatise. But to return to the present objection, it is observ able that St. Cyril does not say 'it is not bread,' though the sense suppose it to be so, for that would have supposed the taste to have been deceived, which he affirms not; and if he had, we could not have believed him; but he says, ' though the sense perceive it to be bread,' so that it is still bread, else the taste would not perceive it to be so; but it is more,' and the sense does not perceive it; for it is the body of our Lord.' Here then is his own answer plainly opposed to the objection; he says, it is not bread,' that is, it is not mere bread;' and so say we: he says, that it is the body of our Lord, avtíruzov, the antitype of the Lord's body,' and so say we; he says, the sense perceives it to be bread;' but it is more than the sense perceives; so he implies, and so we affirm; and yet we may trust our sense for all that it tells us, and our understanding too, for all it learns besides. The like to this are the words of St. Chrysostom, where he says, "We cannot be deceived by his words; but our sense is often deceived; look not at what is before us, but observe Christ's words. Nothing sensible is given to us, but things insensible, by things sensible," &c. This, and many higher things than this, are in St. Chrysostom, not only relating to this, but to the other sacrament also. "Think not thou receivest the body from a man, but fire from the tongue of a seraphim;" that for the eucharist:-and for the baptism this: "The priest baptizes thee not, but God holds thy head." In the same sense that these admit, in the same sense we may understand his other words; they are tragical and high, but may have a sober sense; but literally they sound a contradiction; that nothing sensible should be given us in the sacrament; and yet that nothing insensible should be given, but what is conveyed by things sensible; but it is not worth the while to stay here: only this, the words of St. Chrysostom are good counsel, and such as we follow; for, in this case, we do not finally rely upon sense, or resolve all into it; but we trust it only for so much as it ought to be trusted for; but we do not finally rest upon it, but upon faith, and look

Homil. 83. upon St. Matt.

not on the things proposed, but attend to the words of Christ, and though we see it to be bread, we also believe it to be his body, in that sense which he intended.

SECTION XI.

The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is wholly without, and against Reason.

6

1. WHEN We discourse of mysteries of faith and articles of religion, it is certain that the greatest reason in the world, to which all other reasons must yield, is this,- God hath said it, therefore it is true.' Now if God had expressly said, 'This which seems to be bread, is my body in the natural sense,' or to that purpose, there had been no more to be said in the affair; all reasons against it had been but sophisms; when Christ hath said, 'This is my body,' no man that pretends to Christianity, doubts of the truth of these words, all men submitting their understanding to the obedience of faith: but since Christ did not affirm, that he spake it in the natural sense, but there are, not only in Scripture, many prejudices, but in common sense much evidence against it, if reason also protests against the article, it is the voice of God, and to be heard in this question. For,

Nunquam aliud natura, aliud sapientia dicit a.

And this the rather, because there are so many ways to verify the words of Christ, without this strange and new doctrine of transubstantiation, that in vain will the words of Christ be pretended against reason; whereas the words of Christ may be many ways verified, if transubstantiation be condemned: as, first, if Picus Mirandula's proposition be true, which in Rome he offered to dispute publicly, that Paneitas possit suppositare corpus Domini,' which I suppose, if it be expounded in sensible terms, means, that it may be bread and Christ's body too;' or, secondly, if Luther's and the ancient schoolmen's ways be true, that Christ's body be present together with the bread;-in that sense Christ's

a Juven. Sat. xiv. 2.

6

<

words might be true, though no transubstantiation; and this is the sense, which is followed by the Greek church. 3. If Boquinus's way be true, that between the bread and Christ's body there were a communication of proprieties, as there is between the Deity and humanity of our blessed Saviour; then, as we say, • God gave himself for us,' and the blessed virgin is Jeorónos, the mother of God,' and God suffered and rose again,' meaning, that God did it according to his supposed humanity,—so we may say, this is Christ's body,' by the communication of the idioms or proprieties to the bread, with which it is united. 4. If our way be admitted, that Christ is there after a real spiritual manner; the words of Christ are true, without any need of admitting transubstantiation. 5. I could instance, in the way of Johannes Longus, in his annotations upon the second apology of Justin Martyr, "Hoc est corpus meum," that is, "My body is this," 'is nourishment spiritual, as this is natural.' 6. The way of Johannes Campanus would afford me a sixth instance, “Hoc est corpus meum," that is, meum' as it is mea creatura.' 7. Johannes à Lasco, Bucer, and the Socinians, refer hoc' to the whole ministry, and mean that to be representative of Christ's body. 8. If Rupertus the abbot's way were admitted, which was confuted by Algerus, and is almost like that of Boquinus, that, between Christ's body and the consecrate symbols there was an hypostatical union, then both substances would remain, and yet it were a true proposition to affirm of the whole hypostasis, this is the body of Christ.' -Many more I could reckon; all which, or any of which, if it were admitted, the words of Christ stand true and uncontradicted; and, therefore, it is a huge folly to quarrel at them, that admit not transubstantiation, and to say, they deny the words of Christ. And, therefore, it must not now be said, Reason is not to be heard against an article of faith;' for that this is an article of faith, cannot nakedly be inferred from the words of Christ, which are capable of so many meanings. Therefore, reason, in this case, is to be heard by them, that will give a reason of their faith;' as it is commanded in Scripture; much less is that to be admitted, which Fisher or Flued, the jesuit, was bold to say to king James; that because transubstantiation seems SO much against reason, therefore it is to be admitted, as if faith were more

VOL. X.

6

C