was a Figure before. Now that this is the true Meaning of his Words I prove from the very Subjec of his Difpute with Marcion, who held that our Saviour came to destroy the Law: but Tertullian proves, he came to perfect it by Fulfilling the Prophecies and Figures and brings this Inftance, that Chrift changed Bread (which in the old Law was a Figure of his Body) into his Body. Which is a plain Proof, that thefe latter Words of the Paffage quoted [that is, the Figure of my Body] are tranfplaced, and cannot be referr❜d to any Thing but the Bread.

G. But, My Lord, the Tranfpofition you speak of, is but an odd Sort of Figure; and by the Help of it you may do wonderful Feats, and make the Fathers fay what you please.

one,

L. Sr, I don't pretend to commend Tertullian's Stile, or propofe his Writings as the Standard of good Latin. But Fact is Fact, and 'tis an undeniable that Tertullian frequently made Ufe of that Figure out of Refpect to the Word of God, which he would not interrupt by Interpofing his own Words. This made him fay Lib. contra Prax. C. 29. Chriftus mortuus eft, id eft, unctus; Christ is Dead, that is annointed; instead of Saying, Chrift, that is the annointed. is Dead. And in the very Book against Marcion, C. 2. he writes thus, aperiam in Parabolam aurem meam, id eft Similitudinem. I will open to a Parable my Ear, that is, a Similitude. Where his Meaning is undoubtedly this, I will open to a Parable, that is, to a Similitude my Ear. So that let the Tranfpofition be as odd a Figure as you please, tis manifest Tertullian has frequently made Use of it; Nor can you explain him otherwife without making him talk wide from the Purpose.

ORIGE N.

G. Origen lays of the Sacrament, that it go's into II. Part.

V

§. 26. ≫ the Belly like other Meat, and fo into the Draught. » But fays, he (peaks concerning the Typical and Symbolical Body of Chrift in the Sacrament. in Math. » C.

"It was faid of the Body of Christ, Pfal. 16. .10. " that it should not fee Corruption. But we know the » Sacrament will corrupt; therefore it is not the fame. 35 pag. 147.

L. Sr, when I was a Young Schollar, I remember I anfwer'd this Argument by Diftinguishing, that the outward Part of the Sacrament, viz, the Ac cidents of Bread and Wine will corrupt, but not the inward Part, which is Verily and Indeed the Body and Blood of Chrift. And, tho I know you to be an Enemy to Popish Diftinctions, I must desire you to accept of this for your Answer.

As to Origen, you have clipp'd his Words, and conceal'd that Part, which fully explains his Meaning. I prefume your Reason for fo Doing is, becaule the Words, you have omitted, imply the very Diftinction I have now given. For his genuine Words are these, This Food confecrated by the Word of God and Prayer, AS TO THE MATERIAL PART OF IT, go's into the Belly, and fo into the Draught, This shews that Origen fpeaks not of the Sacrament abfolutely, but with this Limitation, as to the ma terial Part of it; meaning the Accidents of Bread and Wine which he calls the Typical and Symbo lical Body; because the Accidents of Bread and Wine are a Sign, Type, or Symbol of Chrift's Body nourishing our Souls.

THEODORET.

» G. Theodoret likewife calls the Sacrament the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Chrift: and says

that upon their Confecration they are changed in- « deed, and made other Things, but still remain in « their own proper nature and fubftance, and Shape « and Form: and are visible and tangible as they were « before. Dial. 2. pag. 147. 148. «

L. Sr, as to the firft Part of your Quotation, Theodoret never calls the Sacrament meer Symbols of the Body and Blood of Chrift: and if he do's not call it fo, he fays nothing to ferve your Turn. Do not we allo call it the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Chrift? And what is a Sacrament but a Sign or Symbol? But I hope you will not conclude from thence, that therefore we believe it to be a meer empty Sign or Figure of Chrift's Body and Blood.

The latter broken Piece, as you have quoted it, is wholly unintelligible. I shall therefore cite the whole Paffage, which is taken out of Theodoret's fecond Dialogue; where under the Name of Orthodoxus he maintains the Catholick Cause against an Eutychian, whom he calls Eraniftes. His Words faithfully tranflated are as follows.

ERANISTES. What do you call the Gift, which is of fer'd, before Confecration ? ORTHODOXUS. Food made of certain Grains, ERAN. And how do you call the other Symbol? ORTHOD. We give it a common Name, which fignifies a Drink. ERAN. How do you call them after the Confecration? ORTHOD. The Body and Bload of Christ. ERAN. And do you believe, that you receive the Body and Blood of Chrift? ORTHOD. I do believe it. ERAN. As therefore the Symbols of Chrift's Body and Blood are one Thing before Confecration, but are changed, and made other Things after Confecration, fo Chrift's Body after his Afcenfion was changed into the divine Substance. ORTHOD. You are taken in your own Nets. For the Myftical Signs depart not from their own Nature by Confe cration. For they remain in their former Substance, and

S.26 Form and Shape, and are Visible and tangible as before But they are understood to be the Things, which they are made, and fo they are believed, and they are adored, being the Things, which they are believed.

Thefe are Theodoret's Words. But if any Man can conclude from them that he denies either the Real Prefence or Tranfubftantiation without Making him contradict himself, I will own he has a Talent at Reconciling Contradictions, which I am yet a Stran ger to.

The Reafon hereof is clear, because he grants first, that the Gift, which was Bread and Wine before Confecration is after the Confecration call'd the Body and Blood of Christ, 2dly, that he believes it to be the Body and Blood of Chrift. And 3dly, that they are adored, as being the Things, which they are believed. Now if this be not Profeffing the real Prefence and Tran fubftantiation, no Papist has ever made a Profeffion of that Article of his Faith. Nay Eranistes lays it down as a Principle agree'd on by both Sides, that the Mystical Symbols of Bread and Wine are changed, and made the Body and Blood of Christ by Confecration, and concludes from it, that in the fame Manner Chrift's Body was after his Afcenfion changed into the Divine Subftance which Argumentation would be wholly im pertinent if both Orthodoxus and Eranistes did not believe the Change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

"G. My Lord, Theodoret writes, as you have ob» ferved, against the Eutychians, who faid, that the » human Nature of Christ was abforpt, or swallow'd up

in the Divinity. So that there remain'd now none but " the Divine Nature in him, and that he was no more » a Man; and used this Comparison, that it was in »like Manner as in the Sacrament, where the Bread » was changed into the Body of Chrift. Yes, faid Theo

doret, it is in the fame Manner, that is, in no Man- « ner at all. For that the Bread, tho changed in it's e Ufe and Significancy, yet loft not it's Nature, but « remain'd truly and properly Bread as before. But had « he believed Tranfubftantiation, this had been a full « and abfolute Confirmation of the Eutychian Herefy inftead of a Confutation. For then there had re- « main'd no more of the humane Nature in Christ, « than you believe the Substance of the Bread to re- « main in the Sacrament. This explains the Meaning of Theodorer even beyond his Words. pag. 148.

L. Beyond his Words indeed. For furely never were a Man's Words more fouly mifreprefented. First, instead of Theodorer's Saying, you are taken in your own Nets; you make him fpeak thus, yes it is in the fame Manner; that is, in no Manner at all: Which (befides the Falfification of his Words) is a manifest Contradiction to his Profeffing immediately before, that he believed the Gift, which was Bread and Wine before Confecration, to be the Body and Blood of Chrift after the Confecration. 2dly, Your Fixing upon Theodoret this Meaning, viz, that the Bread is changed only in it's Ufe and Significancy, but remains truly and properly Bread, is no lefs a Contradiction to his Words immediately following, wherein he declares that the Symbols after the Confecration are understood to be the Things which they are made; that they are believed to be fo, and are adored as being the Things they are believed. For I appeal to common Sense whether all this can be spoken of a Change barely in Ufe and Significancy.

I add, that if Theodoret meant no more than a Change in Ufe and Significancy, it will follow contrary to all Probability, that he has made his Euty chian Adverfary argue the most childishly imaginable. For his Argument would run thus, as the Bread