L. Pray, Sr, what Figure is there in thefe Words of St Mathew, This is my Body This is the Blood of the new Teftament, which shall be shed for Many for the Remission of Sips. C. 26. V. 26. 28. I prefume you will not deny thefe to be the Words of the Inftitution. And if St Luke has made Choice of Figures to express the fame Thing muft Figures expound plain Words, or plain Words the Figures?

a

However that be, I cannot but pity the hard Shifts you are put to, in being forced to make this an Ar gument of importance, viz. Amongst the Words of the Inftitution as deliver'd by St Luke, there are fame Fi gures; therefore the whole Inftitution is to be understood in a Figurative, or Symbolical Senfe. Suppofe a Mafter should fpeak thus to his Servant, This Bottle is not good, bring me a better Bottle of the fame Wine; Here is the very Meronymie you fpeak of: Yet I believa the Servant would not be fuch a Blockhead as; to think his Mafter demanded a Bottle of Figurative, pr Symbolical Wine. In like Manner therefore, when St Luke ufes the aforefaid Metonymie in thus Delive ring the Words of the Inftitution, this Cup is the nex Teftament in my Blood, tho Cup and Teftament be Figures, a Man must be either very Weak or very pere verfe to conclude, the Evangelift means Figurative or Symbolical Blood', and if he do's not, what Matter is it, whether Cup and Teftament be Figures or not?. I

If Chrift had faid, this Cup is the new Testament in Wine, would the Metonymie have hinder'd you from taking the Word Wine, in it's Literal Senle And why then should it hinder, you from taking the Word Blood in it's Literal Senfe, when he fays, thi Cup is the New Testament in my Blood? You may as well fay, that if there be fome Metaphors imany Sen as thus, the Furnace of Tribulation, and the Rod of Reproof make Men Wife, every Ward in that

tence

Sentence must be understood Metaphorically; which would turn all fuch Ways of Speaking into rank Nonfenfe, tho they be used even in the moft familiar Difcourfes. And the Realon is, becaufe all Fi gures of this Nature are fo eafy and familiar, that no Man of common Senfe can misunderstand them, and the foremention'd Words of St Luke are as plain to all but profefs'd Triflers, as thefe Words of St Mathew, This is the Blood of the New Teftament), which shall be shed for many for the Remiffion of Sins. But to call Bread a Living Body, or line Blood, that is, to give Things Names, they were never known by in the World; and that in the very Institution of a Sacrament, and without any previous or concomitant Intimation, of their Meaning, is fuch an abfurd, unnatural, and Equivocating Way of Speaking that we candon without Impiety Judge, Chrift capable of it.

V

Asita.the third pretended Figure, which you fay we have boldly, amoided in the Maß St, I either have a Pair of very bad Spectacles, or the Latin Verfion has effundetur in St. Mathew 26.V.28. and fundetur, that is, shall be shed in. St Luke 22.20 And fo the Maß being in Latin, and many hundred Years older, than the English Proteftant Bible has boldly follow'd the Latin Verfion, which had the Approbation of the Ca thalick Church many Ages before Reforming came into Fashion..

misusilal ads to skin 77 sudi boll

G..My Lord, to convince you that the Words of Chrift are .Figurative, and that the Elements do not!& lofe their. Nature by the Confetration, they are call'd by their own Names after the Confectation, as Wine is call'd the Fruit of the Vine after the Confecration. « Math. 26. V. 29. Mark 14. V. 25. And it is call'dvà Bread, which they cat in the Sacrament, and we are call'd Bread, because we partake of that Bread 1.Cor.10.17. Cor. i.46.27. 18. We are a

Bread by the fame Figure, that Bread is Flesh: And » we are no more fure, that we are not Bread, than » that the Sacrament is not Bread. pag. 146.

L. Pray, Sr, forget not your Catechism, but vouchfafe to remember, that the Body of Chrift is received Verily and indeed in the Lord's Supper. This therefore we are fure of. But I hope we are not equally fure, that either you or I came out of a Meal-tub, or were baked in a Oven VERILY and INDEED. I shall anfwer your Texts immediately.

3 G. But fee now the Arbitraring of your Inter»pretation. When it is faid of Bread, this is Flesh,

that is fo very plain, it must be taken literally: »But when it is faid of Bread in the Sacrament, this » is Bread, the Expreffion is so obfcure, that it muft » be taken Figuratively. Is not this Destroying the » Meaning of all Expreffions to take Words Figu ratively or Literally Juft as you think fit, and contrary to the common Ufage, as understood in all » other Things? » pag. 147.

L. Sr, to take Words Figuratively or Literally just as a Man thinks fit is certainly Destroying the Meaning of all Expreffions, and if you will but ftand to this one Principle, there is an End of the Difpute between you and me concerning Tranfubftantiation. For then you will find yourself obliged to underftand the Words of the Inftitution Literally; fince they cannot poffibly be otherwife underfood but by the most strain'd and Arbitrary Interpretation; as I have clearly proved. Nay your own Church underftands them fo by Declaring, that the Body and Blood of Chrift are VERILY and INDEED taken and received by the Faithful in the Lord's Supper; to which Words you can give no Figurative Senfe without the moft Arbitrary Interpretation in the World: And if Chrift's Body and Blood are received Verily and indeed

in the Sacrament, there must be either a Subftantial Change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Chrift; or they must be join'd together; as Luther holds.

1

But, as an Arbitrary Way of taking Words Fi guratively deftroys the Meaning of all Expreffions, fo it is no lefs deftructive to the Common Laws of Speech to conclude from thence, that therefore Figures which are easy and Natural, and taken for fuch by the Generality of Mankind, are likewife Arbitrary. Because it is morally impoffible either to write or fpeak without the Ufe of fuch Figures; and they are fo far from Obfcuring, that they give the greatest Beauty, Strength, and Luftre to any Sort of Difcourse. Now then let us confider, whether Calling the Elements by their own Names after the Confecration be not Figures of this Sort, or whether there be any Arbitrarineß in the Use of them.

I prove there is no Arbitrarinefs in it, because it is the common Custom of Mankind to give a Thing the Name of that, out of which it is made. Thus it was faid to Adam Gen. 3. Y. 19. Dust thou art; because tho then a Living Man he had been made of Duft. Thus the Person's Name is given to his Corps; as Jofeph defires Leave to bury HIS FATHER. Gen. 5o. .5. And, behold there was a DEAD MAN carried out, the ONLY SON of his Mother. Luke 7. V. 12. The Serpent was made by a fubftantial Change from Aaron's Rod, which even loft it's former Appearance, yet is till call'd a Rod, because made from it. They caft down every Man his Rod, and they became Serpents; But AARON'S ROD Swallow'd up their Rods. Exod. 7. V. 12.

Thus it is plain we are not guilty of Arbitrarines either in taking the Words of the Inftitution literally, or the Words Bread and Wine after the Confecration in a Figurative Senje. Nay Nothing but one ob

ftinately refolved to be in the Wrong can understand either of them in any other Senfe..**

G, My Lord, we are call'd Bread-1. Cor. 10. .17. And we are call'd Bread by the fame Figuré, that Bread is Flesh..

L. St, both thefe Propofitions, we are Bread, and Bread is Flesh are literally false. And if Christ had said, this Bread is my Body, the Expreffion would have been' Figurative. Becaule it is equally Nonfenfe to say that Broad is a living Body literally, as it is to fay, that, we are Bread literally. But Christ did not fay, this Bread is my Body, but only, this is my Body: which, according to the common Way of Speaking, fignified no more, than that the Thing prefent, which he gave to his Apostles, was his real Body.

G.

M

Y Lord, every one abounds in his own Senfe, But I appeal to that of the Ancient Fathers Da

L. With all my Heart, Sr. Panda 21

» G. Tertullian fays, that Chrift made the Bread his Body, by Saying, this is my Body, that is, the Fi "gure of my Body. Contra Marcion. Lib. 4. C. 40.

L. St, Tertullian's true Meaning is, that Christ made the Bread (which before was but a Figure of his Body) become his real Body by Saying, this is my Body, The Inftitution therefore did not make it a Figures but changed it into the Reality, whereof it

was