But if it be true, My Lord, that the Sacrament really contains the Body and Blood of Chrift, and not Figuratively, or Typically only; Is it not a plain and natural Confequence, that his Body and Blood are there truly and fubftantially together with his Soul and Divinity? For to be really there, is furely to be truly and fubftantially there; and that his Body and Blood fhou'd be really there without his Soul and Divinity, that are never more to be separated, Chriftus jam non moritur, Mors illi ultra non dominabitur; wou'd in effect be monitroufly abfurd. Again, My Lord, if his Body and Blood are really in the Sacrament, Is it not a Confequence founded in Evidence, that either they are there, together with the Subftance of the Bread and the Wine, or without it? If together with the Subftance of the Bread and Wine; then follows the Doctrine of Martin Luther, Conjubftantiation; But if the Body and Blood of Chrift, be in the Sacrament without the Subftance of the Bread and Wine, then follows the Doctrine of Tranfubftantiation; So that all thofe other Words, truly, Subftantially, Soul and Divinity, whole Substance of the Bread, &c. Are only ftronger Expreffions of the real Prefence of Chrift's Body and Blood in the Sacrament, and of Tranfubftantiation; and were inferted in the Decrees of the Council of Trent, to obviate the Evafions of fuch as wou'd maintain, that the Body and Blood of Chrift, were in the Sacrament only typically, figuratively, facramentally.

All the Difficulty then lies in proving the real Prefence and Tranfubftantiation, to have been the Doctrine of the Catholick Church in all Ages. For might not an Arian ask juft fuch

ano

ན་

L

another Question of his Orthodox Contemporaries as your Grace in this Paragraph asks of us? viz. Did the Apofiles every where teach the Christian Church, under Pain of Damnation, to believe, that the Son was Confubftantial with the Father; that there were three Perfons in the Trinity, really diftinct from one another, and yet but one God; that there was but one divine Nature in the three Perfons, and that each of thefe, were from all Eternity, equal in Power, equal in all Perfections without Beginning or End? What better Anfwer, cou'd any Orthodox Believer have then made to fuch Arian, than to tell him, that it was the Doctrine of the Catholick Church in all the preceding Ages; that Jefus Chrift was the Son of God, that God was one; that the Apoftles, and the Apoftolical Bithops in an uninterrupted Succeffion taught then to baptize all Nations in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft; to believe in God the Father, to believe in Jefus Chrift, to believe in the Holy Ghoft. That it naturally flows from this Doctrine, and is a plain Confequence of the fame, that the Son is Confubftantial with the Father, that the Father, Son and Holy Ghoft are three Perfons really diftinct from one another, that each being God, the Attributes of Eternal, Immenfe, Omnipotent, were alike to be given to all three; that, in fine, the Catholick Church taught him to be. lieve all these plain Confequences of the bleffed Trinity; and decreed them among the principal or Chief Articles of the Chriftian Faith.

In like Manner, My Lord, I may answer your Grace's Queftion, and Reason, as the Orthodox Believer did, or might have have done;

But

But in Order to give your Grace ftill farther Sa tisfaction, I will in the firft Place, endeavour to prove the real Prefence and Tranfubftantiation, in Confequence of it; From the Words of Chrift recorded by the Evangelift, and by St. Paul. In the fecond Place, from the antient Liturgies of the Primitive Church, and laftly from the primitive Fathers..

To begin then with the Words of the Promife, which Chrift made to the Jews, of giv ing them his Flesh to eat, as Recorded in the fixth Chapter of St. John, v.v. 48. 49. 50.51. 52. I am that Bread of Life. Your Fathers did eat Manna in the Wilderness, and are Dead. This is the Bread which cometh down from Heaven, that a Man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living Bread, which came down from Heaven: If any Man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever: And the Bread that I will give is my Flefb; which I will give for the Life of the World. The Jews therefore ftrove among themfelves, faying: How can this Man give us bis Flef to eat? By this laft Verfe (My Lord) your Grace may fee that thefe Words of Chrift: This is my Body, this is my Blood; Are not so fairly to be accounted for in a figurative Senfe, as when he faid: I am the Vine, ye are the Branches, John, 15. 5. I am the Door, John, 10. 7. I am the good Shepherd, v. 11. For when he faid: I am the Vine, &c. The Jews were no way furprised at his Words; his Meaning was obvious, and the Metaphors eafy: But when he said: The Bread that I will give is my Flefb, They were aftonifh'd, they took Offence, They ftrove among themselves. They ask'd one another How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat?

They

They undoubtedly underfood that he meant his real Flefh, elfe there wou'd have been no Room for Debate. They were fhock'd at the feeming Cruelty and Difficulty of the thing, and this Occafion'd that Strife among them, that we read of, when he faid, that the Bread he wou'd give was his Fleb. Whereas there is not the leaft Doubt made when he fays: I am the Vine. I am the Door. The Relation between these Signs or Figures, and the things figured, or fignified is eafy and familiar, and the Meaning obvious; fo that no Difficulty cou'd arife thereupon: But when he faid: The Bread that I will give is my Flefb. There was no Room for understanding or accounting for his Words in a figurative Senfe; for befides that he spoke of his last Teftament (an Act wherein all Men of found Reafon speak as diftinctly and clearly as they poffibly can) the Figure wou'd have been violent, unnatural, and ftrain'd, and fuch as our Saviour had never made Ufe of before: For what Relation, or even improper Similitude is there between a Bit of Bread, and the entire Body of a Man?

The Jews therefore took it, as to the reality of the Thing, in the very Senfe in which our Saviour meant it: For had they miftaken his Meaning in fo important a Point, or turn'd his Words to another Senfe; fure he wou'd, in Vin. dication of his own Veracity; and for their Inftruction, for whofe Redemption he came to fuffer Death, have immediately fet them right, especially when the Matter he spoke of, was no lefs than his laft Teftament and Covenant with them, which was to hold good to the End of the World. Did not he know their Doubts, did not he know they were fhock'd at the Extraordina

rinefs of the Thing? Did not he hear them pro, and con it among themselves, fome for, and fome against it? Litigabant ergo Judai. In a Word, did not he hear them exprefs their Dif like of his Doctrine, not only in a loud and contentious Manner, but in a Manner injurious to his own Power and Veracity, faying: How can this Man give us his Fiefh to eat?

Why therefore did not he tell them, they miftook his Meaning; that his Words were to be understood figuratively, and to be accounted for in the fame Manner, as when he before told them, he was the Vine, the Door, &c.? Cou'd any thing have, been more reasonable, nay juft and easy than to have done fo? But on the Contrary, does not he infift upon it in the very Senfe wherein they took it? And instead of explaining his Words, which neither the Myfterious Nature of the thing, nor the Weakness of human Understanding cou'd bear; does not he with fome Warmth, nay with an Oath and Commination require the eating of bis Flesh, and the drinking of his Blood, under no less a Penalty than Lofs of eternal Life. Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and Drink bis Blood, ye have no Life in you? How then can we Ac count for our Saviour's Words otherwise than by faying and believing, that the Bread he gave is truly and really his Flesh?

And to speak ingenuously, My Lord, was it not happily providential that the Jews fhou'd at the very firft Promife of this divine Inftitution oppose it to our Saviour's own Face, and fay as much against it as Berengarius or any other of his Followers in the latter Ages have faid: How can this Man give us his Flefe to eat?

Are