ledged a difference betwixt the body of Christ in its natural form of a human body and that mystic body present in the sacrament, yet he chose rather to put that difference in the manner of presence and exhibition than in the subject itself, that is, the real body and blood of our Saviour; being it is most certain, that no other body is given to the faithful in the sacrament than that which was by Christ given to death for their redemption. Lastly, he affirms, "according to the unanimous consent of the fathers, that this matter must be understood in a spiritual sense, banishing all grosser and more carnal thoughts."*

5. To Bishop Poinet succeeded in the same see the Right Reverend Doctors T. Bilson and L. Andrews, prelates both of them throughly learned, and great defenders of the primitive faith; who made it most evident, by their printed writings, that the faith and doctrine of the Church of England is in all things agreeable to the holy

[* Satis igitur constat, aliter intelligendum Christi corpus in sacramento, aliter quod in aliquo loco cœli esse necessarium est. p. 23; see also pp. 25, 28, 30, 50.-Docui de Christi carne edenda spiritualem ab illis [sc. patribus] intelligentiam requiri, et carnalem omnem cogitationem ablegari. p. 72.-Veritatem, naturam, et virtutem veri corporis Domini nostri se in illo pane sumere credebant. p. 74.— Ex his et aliis multis locis patet quod eucharistia quantum ad sacramenti naturam attinet vere corpus et sanguis est Christi. p. 77.]

Scriptures, and the divinity of the ancient fathers. And as to what regards this mystery, the first treats of it in his answer to the apology of Cardinal Alan,* and the last in his answer to the apology of Cardinal Bellarmine; where you may find things worthy to be read and noted, as follows: "Christ said, This is my body: in this, the object, we are agreed with you; the manner only is controverted. We hold by a firm belief that it is the body of Christ; of the manner how it comes to be so, there is not a word in the Gospel; and because the Scripture is silent in this, we justly disown it to be a matter of faith. We may, indeed, rank it among tenets of the school, but by no means among the articles of our Christian belief. We like well of what Durandus is reported to have said: We hear the word, and feel the motion; we know not the manner, and yet believe the presence:' for we believe a real presence, no less than you do. We dare not be so bold as presumptuously to define any thing concerning the manner of a true presence; or rather, we do not so much as trouble ourselves with being inquisitive about it; no more than in baptism, how the blood of Christ washeth us; or in the incarnation of our Redeemer, how the divine and human nature were united together: we put it in the number of sacred things or sacrifices (the [* Bilson's Christian Subjection, p. 657, sq.]

6

eucharist itself being a sacred mystery), whereof the remnants ought to be consumed with fire, that is (as the fathers elegantly have it), adored by faith, but not searched by reason."*

6. To the same sense speaks Is. Casaubon, in the epistle he wrote by order from King James to Cardinal Perron.† So doth also Hooker, in his Ecclesiastical Polity;‡ John bishop of Rochester, in his book of the Power of the Pope;§ R. Mount

[* Dixit Christus, hoc est corpus meum; non, hoc modo hoc est corpus meum. Nobis autem vobiscum de objecto convenit; de modo lis est omnis. De hoc est, fide firma tenemus quod sit; de hoc modo est (nempe transubstantiato in corpus pane), de modo quo fiat ut sit; per sive in, sive con, sive sub, sive trans, nullum inibi verbum est. Et quia verbum nullum, merito a fide ablegamus procul. Inter scita scholæ fortasse, inter fidei articulos non ponimus. Quod dixisse olim fertur Durandus neutiquam displicet [Neander, Synop. Chron., p. 203]: Verbum audimus, motum sentimus, modum nescimus, præsentiam credimus. Præsentiam (inquam) credimus, nec minus quam vos, veram. De modo præsentiæ nil temere definimus: addo nec anxie inquirimus; non magis quam in Christi incarnatione, quomodo naturæ divinæ humana in eandem hypostasin uniatur. Inter mysteria ducimus (et quidem mysterium est eucharistia ipsa), cujus, quod reliquum est, debet igne absumi; id est, ut eleganter, imprimis patres, fide adorari, non ratione discuti.]—Andrews, Resp. ad Apologiam Card. Bellarmini, ch. i. P. 11.

Casaub. Epist. [p. 925. ed. 1656.]

Book v. § 67.

[§ Buckeridge De Potestate Papæ, in] præf. ad lect.

ague, bishop of Norwich, against Bullinger; * James primate of Armagh, in his answer to the Irish Jesuit;† Francis bishop of Ely, and William Laud archbishop of Canterbury, in their answer to Fisher; John Overall, bishop of Norwich; § and many others in the Church of England, who never departed from the faith and doctrine of the ancient Catholic fathers, which is by law established, and with great care and veneration received and preserved in our Church.

7. To these also we may justly add that famous prelate, Antonio de Dominis, archbishop of Spalato, a man well versed in the sacred writings, and the records of antiquity; who, having left Italy (when he could no longer remain in it either with quiet or safety), by the advice of his intimate friend, Paulus Venetus, took sanctuary under the protection of King James of blessed memory, in the bosom of the Church of England, which he did faithfully follow in all points and articles of religion. But being daily vexed with many affronts and injuries, and wearied

* Montac. in Antidiatrib., Art. 13.

[t Usher's Controversy with a Jesuit, ch. iii.] [ White's Reply to Fisher, p. 179, 390.

Fisher, p. 246, ed. 1839.]

Laud against

§ In a manuscript shortly to be printed. [Never printed, except it be the same, or extracts from it, as printed by Nichols in his edition of the Common Prayer.]

by the unjust persecutions of some sour and overrigid men, who bitterly declaimed every where against his life and actions, he at last resolved to return into Italy with a safe conduct. Before he departed, he was, by order from the king, questioned by some commissionated bishops what he thought of the religion and Church of England, which for so many years he had owned and obeyed, and what he would say of it in the Roman court? To this query he gave in writing this memorable answer: "I am resolved, even with the danger of my life, to profess before the pope himself, that the Church of England is a true and orthodox Church of Christ." This he not only promised, but faithfully performed; for though, soon after his departure, there came a book out of the Low Countries, falsely bearing his name, by whose title many were deceived even among the English, and thereby moved to tax him with apostacy, and of being another Ecebolius;* yet when he came to Rome (where

[* One of the persons commissioned to examine him (which was in itself a strange proceeding) was Bishop Neile, Cosin's patron, who wrote an account of the examination, and published it under the title of Alter Ecebolius, or M. Ant. de Dominis' Shiftings in Religion, 1624. A particular, but unfavourable, account of De Dominis will be found in Fuller's Church History, to which I have added information from some MS. papers in my edition.]