A REPLY то T. B's. ANSWER, ΤΟ H. N's. First PAPER AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. §. I. M Y first Argument against Tranfubftantiation was, T. B. -That the Words, This is my Body, is no better Proof of it, than I am a Vine, the Rock is Christ. What does T. B. return for Anfwer? Why? Tho' thofe are, there are other Expreffions in the Scripture that are not Figura tive. And what follows thence? But that, This is my Body, may be Figurative, or not Figurative for what T. B. pretends to prove. Sure it does not follow that all Scripture must be underftood Literally, because some must. For then the Rock is Christ, must import a Tranfubftantiation. And if fome Scripture must be taken Figuratively, there is no abfolute Neceflity of taking thefe Words, This is my Body, Literally. Chrift fays, I am the true Vine.. What glorying had there been had he faid, This is my true Body? And yet if he had faid fo, this as well as that Expreffion might have been taken figuratively. I defire T. B. here to confider, how common this facramental Metonymie is in the Scriptures. In Eating the Pafchal Lamb, the Jews fay, This is the Lord's Peffover: In Eating the bitter Herbs, they fay, Thefe are the bitter Herbs which our Fathers did Eat in the Wilderness. Did they thereby mean a Tranfubftantiation or a Commemoration only? Circumcifion is call'd the Covenant, which was only the Seal of it. And in Pharoah's Dream, the seven Cows are call'd Seven Years. And if figurative Expreffions are fo common about fuch Matters, what neceffity can there be of excluding a Figure from Chrift's Inftitution? Nay, the other part of this InItitution is unavoidably figurative. The Cup is the new Teftament only by a facramental Metonymie, and not by any substantial Change: And what Reafon can there be to deny fuch a facramental Metonymie of the Bread? Let T. B. consider what St. Vol. 9. Hom. Chryfoftome fays on thofe Words, The Rock is Chrift; and then 22. in 1 Cor. tell me ferioufly, whether his Words do not found more for a P. 525. Edit. real and fubftantial Prefence of Chrift in the Rock, than all he Commel. 2603. hath cited out of him concerning the Eucharift. The Rock was §. 2. (2.) My second Argument is, That Tranfubftantiation is not only not Countenanc'd by, but Repugnant to this ScripT. B. §. 2. ture, This is my Body. But for this fays T. B. Not Scripture, but Reason is produc'd. And is it not a very proper Method to produce Reafons to prove, That thofe Words cannot be underitood in the Senfe of Tranfubftantiation? And if I have prov'd by good Reafon, That thofe Words are repugnant to Tranfubftantiation, Have not I prov'd Tranfubftantion contrary to Scripture? If If indeed my Reafons had been what T. B. Mifreprefents them, I fhould be afham'd to call them Good, as he ought to be for Mifreprefenting me. Where do I argue, That Tranfubftantiation is contrary to Scripture, becaufe the Eucharift is a Sacrament? What is this but a Man of Straw T. B. hath made himself, to fhew his Dexterity in beating it in Pieces? Where do I argue, That Tranfubftantiation is contrary to Scripture, because the Eucharift was Inftituted while the Old Law was in force? It's eafie to make filly Arguments, and then answer them; but then T. B. answers himself, not me. §. 3. My Arguments then under this Head were these, which that T. B. may not over-look them again, I will mention diftinétly, and illuftrate a little. This is my Body cannot fignify Tran-fubftantiation. (1. Because it is a grofs Abfurdity to fuppofe Christ had his whole entire Body in his Hand, and gave it to his Difciples, and yet kept it whole to himself. This T. B. hath not touch'd. In his Teftimonies out of the Fathers, the Paflage out of St. Augu Fine on Pf. 33. may perhaps be intended against this by T. B.. but how little to his purpofe, I have fhew'd in my Anfwer to it.. And that he may the better comprehend it, I will illuftrate it by an Inftance. Suppofe a Teftator having his Will in his Hand, and reaching it to his intended Heir, fhould fay, Take this, it is my Houfe. Would it not be abfurd to fay, The Teftator meant this Paper is my Houfe made of Brick and Timber? And would it not be a good Reafon against that abfurd Interpretation, That in that literal Senfe, it was impoffible for him to hold his Houfe in his Hand? I may add, fince Chrift as a Teftator (fo T. B. urges it) faid, This is my Body: If he understood it in the Senfe of Tranfubftantiation, why did he not Explain himfellf, and answer thefe fo obvious Objections, which T. B's own. Rule fuppofes should have been done according to Sincerity and... Ingenuity. S. 4. (2. If thefe Words This is my Body, are to be under-ftood ftrictly according to the Letter, then the fame recited by St. Paul. This is my Body which is broken for you, must be underfood as ftrictly too. But how without a Figure could his Body at the Inftitution be faid to be broken, fince it was not broken till afterward at his Paffion? This was my Argument, and all T. B. fays to it, is the citation of two or three figurative Expreffions which does his Caufe no Service, but confirms my Argu-. ment, That the Words of Institution are to be taken figu-ratively. true Vine.. What glorying had there been had true Body? And yet if he had faid fo, this a preffion might have been taken figuratively. to confider, how common this facramental Scriptures. In Eating the Pafchal Lamb, the Lord's Paffover: In Eating the bitter E are the bitter Herbs which our Fathers did Did they thereby mean a Tranfubftantia tion only? Circumcifion is call'd the Cove Seal of it. And in Pharoah's Dream, 1 Seven Years. And if figurative Expref fuch Matters, what neceffity can the gure from Chrift's Inftitution? Nay. ftitution is unavoidably figurative. ment only by a facramental Metonyn tial Change: And what Reafon ca cramental Metonymie of the Bread Vol. 9. Hom. Chryfoftome fays on thofe Words, 22. in 1 Cor. tell me ferioufly, whether his V P. 525. Edit. real and fubftantial Prefence of Commel. 1603. hath cited out of him concern Christ. It was not (fays he) out the Water, but another spin: Chrift, who was prefent ev'ry n derful Works. If without re. T. B. can interpret this Pal! the Rock into Chrift, I may my firft Argument rema touch'd) That this is my I defire T. B. in his next ledge this as well as ma Answer he gives to th from it? Or at least e Deference to Dr. Forbes S. 2. (2.) My fecon is not only not Counter T. B. §. 2. ture, This is my Bou but Reafon is produc'd. produce Reasons to " tood in the Senfe of by good Reafon, ftantiation, Have Scripture ? ires the This 2 King's it and of his Cub a Sacrament, ving it to his Poft plain ad Joy. And after ets with a literal .it Him. That the Difciples a Chrift faid, This is Eating and Drinking they imagin'd that he d, fo directly contrary anted, it is probable they did at Eating unclean. All T. B's Anfwer to this, Comparison of Chrift to unServe, I only compare Eats as equally abominable to a ceea ferupled by St. Peter as the tubftantiation. But not to , 1. B. will have fomething to We think (fays he) that we imi Perfon that acquiefc'd to this thon haft the Words of eterne of his Difciples, boggl'd at it. clearly difclaims the grofs Senfe Words, giving the reafon why he or what he had taught of Eating his , because he knew it was meant Faith, thon haft the Words of eternal eve thy Word we eat thy Flesh and Lite. And I defire T. B. to give Argument. Jo. 6. 54. Chrift faith, Danketh my Blood, hath eternal Life. Scarift in the Senfe of Tranfubftantia Is well as the Faithful, according to rch of Rome, eat Chrift's Flesh and drink his Blood? I earn then of St. Peter to underthe Doctrin of Chrift's IncarAnd herein you will not onCitan in his Comment on Jo. 6. 3. de doct. Chrif. To Fat the Flesh of tebing us to partake of Chrift's PaffiMemories with Delight and Profit, that rus. ore I proceed, I defire it may be obferv'd, a firit that Tranfubftantiation is no. part of 1, before I produc'd Arguments against it from a. For this fhews the Abfurdity of flying to stence, and the Obfequioufuefs of Faith for that matter of Faith, and about which God hath no ard that he will over-rule Nature. 11 a Word, When a Doctrin is propos'd and Scripture r it, if it seem to oppofe Senfe and Reafon and include d Contradictions, and if a more rational Interpretation ofe Scriptures may be found out, whereby all thofe Inconnces are avoided; it is very reasonable that we embrace it rational Seafe, and it is unreafonable to charge us with opng the Teftimony of Senfe to the Word of God; when we only oppofe it to a nonfenfical Interpretation thereof. Which premis'd, I proceed, §. 9. (3) To vindicate my third Argument againft Tranfub-T. B. §. 3. ftantiation, that the Truth of Chriftian Religion ftands or falls with the Credibility of the Teftimony of Senfe. Sure T. B. does not think us all fo ignorant, as not to know that our Senfes may deceive us, when the Organ or Medium is not duly difpos'd: And I thought I had prevented his childish trifling Objections from the Tarpawlin's Oar and the Child's Stick, when in my former Paper I declar'd, That we fpake of the concurring Testimony of our Senfes in plain Jenfible Matters. I dare fay T. B. knows well enough, that we fuppofe the Organs must be rightly difpos'd, converfant about their proper Objects, placed at a due diftance, and receiving their Impreffions thro' proper Mediums; and that we have leifure enough to examine them, and all-Senfes agree in their Teftimony, when we affirm that the Teftimony of our Senfes ought to be credited, and that they do not, cannot deceive us. Now the contrary Allertion to this, I Ff have |