Jes in a Tranf-fubftantial Senfe, and why should they the fame Words when Chrift fpoke. them, following the very Form of the Words of Mofes ? This made it Familiar and Eafie to the Apostles, who called many things Hard fay ings which were not fo Difficult as this, and yet Exprefted ho Wonder or Aftonifhment at thefe Words of Chrift, which had been impoffi ble for them not to have done, if they had taken them in the Senfe of Tranf-fubftantiation, for it was a new Thing never before Heard or Thought of in the World! To deny all their Senfes at once!

L. I wonder you should stand so much upon this, you Object your Senfes and your Reafon, and yet you must give them both up in the Myftery of the Trinity, Incarnation, &c.

G. No, My Lord, I muft give neither of them up, for I cannot believe any Revelation but by my Reason, upon the Evidence that ap pears for it: And my Reafon tells me that there must be many things in the Infinite Nature which I cannot Comprehend, and therefore I acquiefce in the Revelation, being once fully fatisfied of it. This I have Difcourfed already. But for the other Point that of Contradicting my outward Senfes, Ithink it an Invincible Objection.

L. Why? Muft you not give them up too, as to the Trinity, and Incarnation?

G. Not at all, My Lord, they Contradic none of my Senses. Pray tell me, which of K 3 chem

them do they Contradict? Is it the Senfe of Seeing, Hearing, or Smelling?

L. They are not Objects of Senfe.

G. Therefore they Contradict them not. But in Tranf-fubftantiation they are every one Contradicted. And I ftand upon it, That fince the Creation of the World God never Did or Said any thing which Contradicted the Senfe of any Man. It would be Deftroying the Certainty of every thing. Miracles are Appeals to our Senfes, and without believing our Senfes, we can Trust to no Miracle, and Confequently to no Revelation.

L. I mean not a general Difbelief of our Senfes in every thing, bnt if a Revelation (you are fatisfied is true) should bid you difbelieve your Senfes, in fuch a Particular only

G. It is a needlefs Suppofition, for there is no fuch Revelation. But if there were, if an Angel fhould Appear to me, and bid me believe that I faw Him, but not to believe any thing else that I faw of a hundred things I faw round about him; I fhould without more a do either believe that I faw the other things I did fee, or if I must not believe I faw them, I fhould not believe I faw Him. And I take it as a Certain Rule, that we muft either believe our Senfes in Every thing or in Nothing. Had not the Apoftles at the Lord's Supper as much Reason to Doubt whether it was Chrift they faw, and that He spoke to them, as that it was Bread which they Saw and Eat? If you come once to deceptio Vifus, it will go quite through, and

you

you cannot be fure of one thing more than of another; because the Fault is in the Eye, not in theObjects. So that if Tranf-fubftantiation betrue, there is nothing else in the World true but it!

And it is no fmall Prejudice to this Miracle of Miracles, and Contradiction to it felf and to all other Miracles, and to Every thing else in the World, That it fhould be put upon us just for

nothing --but to Stagger our Faith, and

make us Doubt of Every thing!

For if all the Benefits of the Death of Chrift be Conveyed to us in this Sacrament, by a Fi gurative and Symbolical Reprefentation of his Body and Blood, and that it be fo inftituted for this End; it is to all Intents and Purposes as Beneficial to us, as if we had Eat the Fleb of Chrift off his Bones, or Drank the very Blood, that came out of His Side; which is abhorrent to think, and to Avoid which you call this an Unbloody Sacrifice. But how is it Unbloody, if it be Real Blood, even the felf fame Blood that was shed the Cross? Yet you your felves allow, that this must be taken in a Spiritual not a Carnal Senfe, because Chrift Himself faid, fpeaking of this Sacrament (as you own) and to folve that hard faying at which many were offended, of giving them his Fleb to Eat, He made it eafie to them by this Explanation, (a) It is the Spirit that Quickneth, the Flesh profiteth nothing the Words that I speak unto you they are Spirit, and they are Life. May we not then take his Words in a Spiritual Senfe?

(a) Joh. vi. 63.

upon

K 4

L. But

L. But

you would have the Words of Inftitution taken Figuratively, as when Chrift faid, I am a Vine, I am a Door, &c.

G. There is not one Man in your Communion but must own that the Words of Inftitution are Figurative, for Example, (a) This Cup is the New Teftament in my Blood, which is fed for you. Here is first, the Cup for the Wine, by a Metonymie, called Continens pro Contento. Then the Cup being the New Teftament, I fup. pofe you will allow is another Figure. And it is another, to fay which is fbed, for which shall be bed, for his Blood was not then bed. This laft Figure you have Boldly avoided in your Mafs, where it is put Effundetur, fhall be fhed, instead of Effunditur, or Effufum, according to the Greek En voor. However the Two Former Figures ftand Unalterable.

But to fhew that the Words were Figura. tive, and that the Elements did not lofe their Nature by the Confecration, they are called by their own Names after the Confecration, as the Wine is called the (b) Fruit of the Vine, after the Confecration. And it is called Bread which they Eat in the Sacrament. And we are cal-. led Bread because we partake of that Bread. We are Bread by the fame Figure that Bread is Flefh.

L. We believe that there is no Bread in the Sacrament, but we are fure we are not Bread.

G..

(a) Luk. xxii, 20, () Matth, xxvi. 29. Mark xive 25. 1 Cor. 17. xi. 26, 27, 28,

G. You are no more fure of the one, than of the other. But fee now the Arbitrarinefs of your Interpretation, 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 the Bread in the Sacrament, This is Bread, the Expreffion is fo Obfcure, that it must be taken Figuratively! Is not this Destroying the Meaning of all Expreffions, to take Words Figuratively or Literally just as you think fit, and contrary to the common Usage as understood in all other things?

L. No, it is not as we think fit, but as the Ancient Church and Fathers did Understand it. Here we Stick.

G. And to this we Appeal. Tertullian fays, that Chrift made the Bread His BODY, by fay ing, (a) This is My Body, that is, the Figure of My Body

Origen fays of it, that it goes into the Belly, like other Meat, and fo into the Draught, but fays he speaks (b) concerning the Typical and Symbolical Body of Chrift in the Sacrament.

It was faid of the Body of Chrift,, that it (c) should not fee Corruption. But we know the Sacrament will Corrupt, therefore it is not the Same.

Theodoret likewife calls it the (d) Symbols of the Body and Blood of Chrift. And fays, that (a)

(a) Hoc eft Corpus Meum, id eft, Figura Corporis Mei. Contr Marcion, . iv. c. xl. (b) Hac quidem de Typico Symbolicoque Corpore. In Matth. c. xv. (c) Pfal. xvi. 10 Act. ii. 27.31. (4) I'à' quμCona Tool Asalný se aimal. Dial,z.