this True Body and Blood Where That the Bread and Wine are upon Consecration turn'd into the True Body and Blood of Christ c. Which truly are Where 's indeed and one should think that so many Where 's were not without a Wherefore And because the Gentleman desires to know the Where he shall also know the When Mat. 26.26,27,28 Jesus took BREAD and Blessed it and Brake it and gave it to the Disciples and said TAKE EAT THIS IS MY BODY and He took the CVP and gave Thanks and gave it to them saying Drink ye All of It for THIS IS MY BLOOD And There it was and Here it is by Power of these Words of God THIS IS MY BODY THIS IS MY BLOOD that the Bread and Wine are turn'd into the Body and Blood of Christ He doth no say Here as He did when He spake the Parable of the DOOR the VINE and the rest That this Parable spake He unto them or that this BREAD is Like or Likened unto his BODY or a Figure of his BODY but absolutely TAKE EAT THIS IS MY BODY And for such we ought to take it and believe it till the Protestant Answerer be able to produce as plain Scripture against it as I have done for it The Gentleman proceeds and Pag. 11. tells you what their Church holds he should have said of the Real Presence for that was the Quaere and delivers their Opinion in different manners to wit 1. Our Church holds says he That Transubstantiation is Repugnant to the plain Words of Scripture and overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament Art. 28. 2. That the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain after Consecration in their natural Substances and the natural Body and Blood of Christ are in Heaven and not Here. Rubr. after the Com. 3. That the Body of Christ is Given Taken and Eaten in the Supper only after an Heavenly and Spiritual manner and the means whereby the Body of Christ is Received and Eaten is Faith Art. 28 29. And in three Lines after he tells you That there is no other Substance distributed among the Communicants than that of Bread and Wine And these put together make such a Medley that a Man knows not what to believe of it First 'T is Repugnant to the plain Words of Scripture tho' they are not able to produce one Syllable out of the whole Bible to disprove it Secondly The Natural Body and Blood of Christ are in Heaven and not Here tho' at the same time they tell you That the Body of CHRIST who had but One Body is Given Taken and Eaten in the Supper after an Heavenly and Spiritual manner and in Three Lines after denies it again which are such Contradictions that a Bushel of Figures will ne're reconcile 'em For If the Body and Blood of Christ be confin'd in Heaven and not in the Sacrament at all How can the Body of Christ be Given Taken and Eaten in the Supper after any manner Heavenly or Vnheavenly if the Body of Christ be not There at all to be Given Taken or Eaten or how can the Body of Christ be as he says Given Taken and Eaten in the Supper when at the same time he tells you There is no other Substance distributed to the Communicants than that of Bread and Wine As to the Words Heavenly and Spiritual Manner I would They did truly believe it so for then They would believe it as We do that is That the Body of Christ is truly Given Taken and Eaten in the Sacrament after an Heavenly and Spiritual Manner for after a Carnal Sensual Manner We receive it not but this Heavenly and Spiritual Manner We believe to be a True and Real Manner and not a Deceitful Figurative Fictitious Manner as if all that is Heavenly were but Figure and Fancy If You grant the Body and Blood of Christ to be in the Sacrament after a Spiritual Manner you must also grant it There after a True Manner or to be There after a Spiritual Manner is not to be There after a Real Manner If Christ be There in Spirit He is also There in Truth and if There in Spirit and Truth all my Arguments are granted by the Gentleman 's own Concessions as well as Mine Of CHRIST's being Not but where he is Intire Wherefore if Christ be in the Sacrament after any Manner He is There after such an Intire Real and Substantial Manner as We believe and profess Him or He is in no Manner There at all for Christ is Not at all but where He Truly and Intirely is In the Twelfth and Thirteenth Pages of the Protestant Answer the Gentleman produceth all the Scriptures he had or at least all the chiefest Texts he could to disprove our Doctrine of the Real Presence and Being of CHRIST's BODY and BLOOD in the Sacrament Which Scriptures by Him produced Against it together with those by Me alledged and assigned For it are as followeth The Catholick Texts for the Real Presence I. St. John 6. v. 48. I am that Bread of Life says Christ II. Vers 49. Your Fathers did eat Manna in the Wilderness and are Dead III. Ver. 50. This is the Bread which cometh down from Heaven that a Man may Eat thereof and not Die. IV. Vers 51. 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 Flesh which I will give for the Life of the World. V. Vers 54. Whoso Eateth my Flesh and Drinketh my Blood hath Eternal Life and I will raise him up at the last Day VI. Vers 55. For my Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is Drink indeed VII Vers 56. He that Eateth my Flesh and Drinketh my Blood dwelleth in Me and I in Him. VIII Vers 57. As the Living Father hath sent Me and I live by the Father so he that Eateth Me even he shall Live by Me. IX Vers 58. This is that Bread which came down from Heaven Not as your Fathers did eat Manna and are Dead He that Eateth of this Bread shall Live for ever X. St. Matt. 26. v. 26. And as they were Eating Jesus took Bread and Blessed it and brake it and gave it to the Disciples and said Take Eat This is my Body XI Vers 27. And he took the Cup and gave Thanks and gave it to them saying Drink ye all of it XII Vers 28. For This is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins XIII St. Mark 14. v. 22. And as they did Eat Jesus took Bread and Blessed and brake it and gave to them and said Take Eat This is my Body XIV Vers 23. And He took the Cup and when he had given Thanks he gave it to them and they all Drank of it XV. Vers 24. And He said unto them This is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many XIV St. Luk. 22. v. 19.
to be the BODY of the LORD or how doth he say Condemn'd not discerning the LORD 's BODY if the Body of the LORD be not there to be discerned Wherefore St. Paul speaketh not but in Confirmation of its being the Body and Blood of CHRIST or 't would be hard a Sinner should be Damn'd meerly for Moderate Eating and Drinking of bare Bread and Wine For according to the Protestant Answerer the Sacrament is no more who tells you Pag. 11. That there is no other Substance distributed among the Communicants than that of Bread and Wine And Pag. 15. That they are as really and properly Bread and Wine after Consecration as before And further The said Texts are laid before You for that in some of them it is said THIS DO IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME To which I Answer and say That those Words This do in Remembrance of Me do no way Relate to the Laiety who only receive the Sacrament but to the Priests who Consecrate and Administer the same for it is no where said This Eat This Take This Receive but This do in Remembrance of Me whereas it is not at all the Office of the Laiety nor have they the Power to do as our Saviour then did Bless and Administer the Sacrament of his Body and Blood to Themselves or Others but the Office of the Priests to whom was given by these Words This do c. a particular Power to do the same as Christ then did Take Bread and Wine Bless it and Administer it as he did for his Body and his Blood. Nor do the Words IN REMEMBRANCE any way serve Their turn for as You unanswerably have observed Pag. 7. of your Request That the Remembrance of its Being doth no way make it cease to Be which Argument the Protestant Answerer would fain Confute where Pag. 19. he tells You Tho' the Remembrance of its Being do no way make it cease to Be yet says he it supposeth the Absence of the Being which is to suppose the Body to be Present and Absent at the same Time A piece of Sophistry so weak as I admire a Man of Sense should insist thereon as if my Remembrance of your being with me when present did any way suppose your Absence from me at the same time It is surely Nonsense to think That the Remembrance of a Thing present did or could in the least suppose the Absence of the same Thing at the same time for tho' it be confess'd we may Remember the Being of a Thing when Absent yet the Remembrance of the same Thing when Present doth not at all suppose the Absence and the Presence too of the same Thing at one and the same time Wherefore the Remembrance of Christ's Body and Blood 's being Present in the Sacrament doth no ways suppose the Absence of the Being nor make the Being cease to Be. And further The said Scriptures are produced for that in some of them it is said THIS IS MY BODY which is Broken for you Before says he Pag. 14. it was Broke Whence he concludes it not to be the Body of CHRIST because as he conceives the Body of CHRIST was not Then Broke But before We proceed 't is requisite to inform your Self whether CHRIST had Two Bodies One Figurative and the Other Real I suppose 't will be resolved that CHRIST had but One Body and that was a True Real and Substantial Body and not a Figurative or Delusive Body Wherefore if CHRIST had but One Body 't was of that Body he spake when He said THIS IS MY BODY which is Broken for you and to doubt that what CHRIST said was either Improper or Untrue is to profess our selves Infidels and Jews at once for none but such can question GOD's Veracity Wherefore as what he said was certainly true so it was undoubtedly proper when he said Which is BROKEN FOR YOV For proof whereof I answer That tho' his Natural Body be There yet the manner of its Being is Spiritual and Sacramental and the manner of its Breaking follows the manner of its Being his Body is There Broken in the Sign not in the Substance Moreover those Words WHICH IS BROKEN do prove as the Holy Catholick Church always did and ever will hold it to be a True and Proper Sacrifice for the Being Broken does explain the nature of a Sacrifice which imports the destruction of the Thing Offered if Corruptible and lyable to Destruction But the Body of CHRIST being Incorruptible and Immortal can't be really hurt therefore the manner of Breaking is only Mystical and Representative But if this manner of Breaking do not please the Gentleman let us to verifie the Words of Christ whose Truth he so much doubts see whether the Body of Christ were not otherwise Broke before He Instituted the Sacrament or rather whether his Body had not been Pierced and his Blood had not been Spilt for that it is written John 19.36 A Bone of Him shall not be broke And another Scripture saith Ibid. Ver. 37. They shall look on Him whom they Pierced Wherefore the Body of CHRIST was not otherwise Naturally Broken than by Piercing of his Body and Spilling of his Blood. Now that his Body at that time had been Pierced and his Blood had been Spilt appears c. when at Eight Days Old He began to smart for us Which Piercing of his Flesh and Spilling of his Blood at his Circumcision was followed by Vnspeakable Pains Restless Labours Travels and Fastings insomuch that his whole Life from the Hour of his Birth to the Moment of his Death was but One Passion-continued What I pray his Agony in the Garden What His being Crown'd with Thorns and Bloody Whipping at the Pillar That in the Opinion of this Gentleman his Body was not at all Broke nor his Blood in the least Shed till Consummate for us upon the Cross Wherefore with Truth our Saviour might have said of his Body which is Broke and of his Blood which is Shed without supposing that any thing he said was either Improper or Untrue And the said Scriptures are produced for that it is said I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the Vine until I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdom which our Saviour might have said and not at all Recal his first Assurance for we do not deny the use of Figures in Expression as the Word CVP for his Blood contain'd in it and the Word BREAD for his Body contain'd under that Form But there is no Figure in this Mystery which excludes but asserts the Reality of CHRIST's Body and Blood in the Sacrament For the terms CVP and BREAD sometimes used by the Apostles after the Institution as by us at this day do not at all destroy the Substance for which our Saviour gave them when he said EAT THIS IS MY BODY DRINK THIS IS MY BLOOD Nor do I see what Reason they have to Carp at either of the said Terms CVP or BREAD seeing Both are
of the Church for the true Sense and Meaning thereof But if so as we must go to the Determination of the Church for the Sense of Scripture what then becomes of their Bible-only Rule-of-Faith The Gentleman go's on and Pag. 5. adviseth You to Consult even Those who are most concern'd and particularly says he The Author of your Catholick Answer who has Vndertook what the abovesaid Learned Persons despair'd of to Prove Transubstantiation to the full of your Request by Express and Plain Texts of Scripture And in the same Page tells you Your Catholick Answerer it seems has Read That which Cardinal Bellarmine had not seen and that he had found out a great Part of a Chapter which the Cardinal had Over-look'd But to turn his own Cannon upon Himself I may with more Truth Retort on him That he has Read it seems in my Answer what I never Writ and has found a great part thereof for which You and I are yet to Stek For I do not find the Word Transubstantiation so much as Mentioned in either your Request or my Answer for Justification whereof I refer to Both Wherefore how Sincere the Gentleman has been in this particular let the World Judge Indeed the Title of my Answer says Proving the Real Presence by Scripture only and so doth the Current throughout the whole Discourse but not one Word of Transubstantiation For that the Controversie was not about the Word Transubstantiation but about the Real Presence or Substance Believed and Deny'd in the Sacrament But here you 'll say perhaps What 's this to the Purpose Is not the Real Presence and Transubstantiation all as one No truly they are not so all one as you may think For there is a great deal of difference betwixt a Man and the Name by which he is distinguish'd and the Measures that are taken to prove him a Man are not the same with Those which are us'd to prove his Name is Thomas And so of the LORD's Supper 'T is one thing to prove the Real Presence and Being of CHRIST's Body and Blood in the Sacrament and 't is Another to shew Reasons why this Mysterious Change of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of CHRIST is by the Church call'd TRANSVBST ANTIATION though whoever believes the One can't in Truth deny the Other For if what our Saviour said when Matth. 26. Vers 26. JESVS took Bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to the Disciples and said TAKE EAT THIS IS MY BODY be true That it was as He said his Body then it implies a Change from its former being Bread to its present being his Body And this Mysterious Change the Holy Catholick Church doth properly call TRANSVBST ANTIATION Not that the Substance of Bread is Changed according to Sensual Taste but according to Divine Faith in JESVS CHRIST Wherefore the Gentleman methinks should not have Banter'd altogether as he doth at the Word TRANSVBST ANTIATION but have spoke to the Substance and have either Confess'd the REAL PRESENCE or have produc'd nothing but SCRIPTVRE to Disprove it as was Requested The Gentleman proceeds notwithstanding and tells you Pag. 6. That this Discourse of our Saviour 's meaning That in the 6th Chapter of St. John had no special Reference to the Sacrament for that the Sacrament was not Instituted till says he above a Year after as the Time of this Discourse shews Vers 4 c. Very well On which please to remark That the Sacrament was not then Instituted I grant as I did before in my Answer Pag. 6. where I said First I prove Christ 's Promise before He Instituted the Sacrament c. and so far the Gentleman might have spar'd his Labour But that the Sacrament was not Instituted till above a Year after is what he can shew no Rule for For the Text which he cites to prove his Assertion is this John 6. Vers 4. And the Passover a Feast of the Jews was nigh Now that this word Nigh should signifie Above a Year after is such a Figure as never was Whereas St. Luke hath the same Word saying Chap. 22. Vers 1. Now the Feast of Vnleaven'd Bread drew Nigh which is called the PASSOVER and immediately the Passover followed as appears by the Chapter And St. Mark treats not of the Passover till within Two Days of it saying Chap. 14. Vers 1. After Two Days was the Feast of the Passover So St. Matth. 26. Vers 2. Ye know that after Two Days is the Feast of the Passover c. I do not say That the Word Nigh in St. John signifies so near as Two Days nor do I find by express and plain Scripture that it is to be taken for above a Year after But whether what 's said in the 6th Chapter of St. John have any Reference to the Sacrament is the Quaery For though our Saviour did not then Institute the Sacrament yet He says Vers 51. And the Bread which I will give is my Flesh which I Will give for the Life of the World. By which You see that though He did not then give us this Bread yet He promis'd He would give us Bread to Eat which should be the very same Flesh which he would and afterwards did give for the Life of the World. Now Whether this absolute Promise hath any Reference to the ensuing Performance be You the Judge when at his Last Supper He took Bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to his Disciples and said TAKE EAT THIS IS MY BODY If therefore this Bread which He here gives us to Eat saying TAKE EAT THIS IS MY BODY be not that Bread which He promis'd He would give us to Eat which should be his Flesh pray ask your Protetestant Answerer Where When and How did CHRIST give us Bread to Eat which should be his Flesh if This be it not The Gentleman goes on and Pag. 7. tells You These Verses viz. 53 54 55 56 57. do shew where our Saviour saith EXCEPT YE EAT and WHOSO EATEIH c. in all which the Present Time is spoken of But why the Gentleman should begin at Vers 53. and thereby skip Vers 51. I know not where CHRIST told them before That He WOVLD in the Future Tense give them Bread to Eat which should be his Flesh and then tells them That EXCEPT THEY DID EAT and WHOSO EATETH c. Not that He did then GIVE or that they did then EAT his Flesh or DRINK his Blood which they could not do before He took it blessed it brake it and gave it For at that Time when He spake as in the 6th Chapter of St. John He only told Them He WOVLD give it and the Eve before his Passion He PERFORM'D it And from that Time I suppose the Obligation bears force Vers 53. That Except ye EAT the FLESH of the Son of Man and DRINK his BLOOD ye have no Life in you He doth not say Except ye EAT it before I GIVE it but first
said He WOVLD give it and then EXCEPT THEY DID EAT c. The Gentleman however from the above-mention'd Texts insinuates That CHRIST's Flesh and Blood may be Eaten and Drank out of the Sacrament as says he is evident from the Sense and Letter of it If so then continues he it could not be understood of that Flesh and Blood which the Bread and Wine are Converted into in the Sacrament nor adds he of Carnal Eating his Flesh and Drinking his Blood. As to his Carnal Eating We beg his Pardon if he means as we Eat Beef and other Meats For that We Truly and Really Receive the Body and Blood of CHRIST in the Sacrament to use his own Words Pag. 12. after an Heavenly and Spiritual manner And so far We should Agree did We not Differ in This That They Receive it in Figure and Fancy only and We Receive it in Substance and Truth But that 't is evident as he says from the Letter and Sense of it That the Flesh and Blood of CHRIST may be Eaten out of the Sacrament and even Before it was Instituted c. is indeed such a Figure as none but Himself can unriddle For my part I have read St. John on this Occasion and I can't find it so evident as he says it is Pray Sir do you Consult the Words and see whether those Texts do imply the Eating and Drinking the Flesh and Blood of CHRIST Out of the Sacrament as well as In it or in any other manner than under the Forms of Bread and Wine according to both the Promise and Institution Or Whether they could Eat it before He Gave it For in the 6 th Chapter of St. John CHRIST did not give them his Flesh to Eat nor his Blood to Drink But told them He would give them BREAD to Eat which should be his FLESH but before He GAVE it 't was impossible for them to EAT it He further proceeds and tells You Pag. 8. That it must not be Properly and Litterally understood For then says he all that thus Properly Eat and Drink the Flesh and Blood of CHRIST would have Eternal Life according to our Saviour's Assertion Vers 54. Very true The Worthy Receivers who persevere to the End have so but the Vnworthy quite contrary And we can shew You a Rule for it viz. 1 Cor. 11.27,29 Wherefore whosoever shall Eat this BREAD and Drink this CUP of the Lord Vnworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord For he that Eateth and Drinketh UNWORTHILY Eateth and Drinketh Damnation to himself not discerning the LORD 's BODY Wherefore the Worthy may receive to Eternal Life and the Vnworthy to Eternal Death And the Words TAKE EAT THIS IS MY BODY may be properly understood the Protestant Musl-bee's to the contrary notwithstanding The Gentleman tells you further in the same Page That then the Sacrament in both Kinds will be necessary to Salvation c. As to this of Both Kinds it doth not properly Relate either to Your Request or My Answer but is a Controversie deserving to be Argued by it self in convenient Time and Place And besides I do not see where the necessity lies of defining the Sacrament in Both Kinds to One that believes it in Neither not but that I am ready to satisfie You in this particular where and when You please The Gentleman Pag. 8. sharply reflects upon what I said in my Answer p. 8. That if they went to Figures and Parables we knew how to handle them From whence he Insinuates some Extraordinary way of handling For my part I take GOD to Witness I had no other meaning in it than to handle them by the BIBLE as I said to Rule them by their own Rule Wherefore let the Evil be to them that think it As to what he says Pag. 8. Of the Antipathy I should have to Figures and Parables and Cross my Self where-ever they are Named I do not see by what I have Writ where the Gentleman can have the least Ground for this Cross and Antipathous Reflection For to the contrary I highly venerate those Discourses wherein our Saviour was often pleased to express himself by way of Parable c. But that which I abhor and which indeed would make a Saint Bless himself is To see Men mould GOD's Word into what Form they please and make every thing a Figure that doth not square with their Fancy Is it because our Saviour spake some things by way of Parable that All he said was such or That he never spake otherwise If so and that the Scriptures are so full of secret Meanings How comes it that mean Capacities are by the Church of St. Martins left to themselves to Judge of the true sence of Scripture according to D. T. who tells you in his True Account of a Conference p. 18. That a Man after using all Christian means and the help of all Ministerial Guides possible must at last Judge for himself A special Assertion indeed which if true What need of Teachers seeing that every Man must teach himself by being a Judge of the Text to himself at last But not to detain you on this particular Let us come to what the Gentleman desires pag. 8. That I should tell him without a Figure what is that Meat which endureth to everlasting Life whereof our Saviour speaks in the Sixth Chapter of St. John vers 27. Labour not for the Meat which Perisheth but for THAT MEAT which endureth unto everlasting Life which the Son of Man shall give unto you for him hath God the Father sealed Why truly for my part I do not see where the difficulty lies in these words of Labouring for that Meat which endureth to everlasting Life which the Son of Man shall give unto you it being but a Preamble to what immediately follows in the same Chapter of Giving us his FLESH to EAT which is the true Meat that endureth unto everlasting Life And besides He tells us That the Meat which endureth unto everlasting Life should be given us by the Son of Man agreeable to what he says vers 51 55. And the BREAD that I will give is my FLESH which I will give for the Life of the World For my FLESH is Meat indeed and my BLOOD is Drink indeed which without a Figure I humbly conceive is that MEAT which endureth unto everlasting Life As to his How the Son was Sealed by the Father and the rest of his How 's they are such Jewish expressions as that all Christian-pretenders ought to be ashamed of them For CHRIST no sooner spake of this Doctrine of giving us his FLESH to Eat but the Jews came up with their How too saying vers 52. How can this Man give us his FLESH to Eat So Jewish it is to question GOD how he could do it how this how that and if How he made the World of Nothing be asked Can we Answer but by his sole Word And shall it not be sufficient for us to
take his Word when he tells us The Son of Man was Sealed of GOD the Father and Believe him without calling of GOD to question How or diving into the secrets of Heaven So How he came down c. and the rest of his How 's if they are not sufficiently plain in the Bible so as to be clearly understood I 'll agree with the Gentleman and submit to the determination of the Church and so must YOV and all the SEEKERS in England if what the Protestant Answerer Insinuates be true For if these express and plain words of Christ be a Figure where he says as plain as plain can be That he would give us BREAD to Eat which should be his FLESH and accordingly He took Bread and Blessed it and Brake it and gave it saying TAKE EAT THIS IS MY BODY I say if these words are Figurative and must not be properly understood I see no Reason why the whole Bible should not be a Figure too For if ever CHRIST was Plain in any thing 't was in this especially in a Point wherein there was never more occasion to Expound if a Figure than when the Jews to whom He came murmur'd and said How can this Man give us his Flesh to Eat and when some of the Disciples said It was an hard saying who could hear it and thereupon walked no more with Him He that in Cases of less Moment always explain'd his Parables should yet be Dark and Figurative in This of that Importance which occasioned not only the Murmuring of the Jews and Departure of the Disciples Then but also occasions as CHRIST well foresaw our differences at This Day Should He I say explain Himself in matters of less weight and yet be Dark in this great Concern is what would be contrary to his Wisdom and Goodness But so far was CHRIST from meaning otherwise than plainly as he spake that to the murmuring Jews he confirms it vers 53. with a Verily verily I say unto you Except ye EAT the FLESH of the Son of Man and DRINK his BLOOD ye have no Life in you and to the Unbelieving Disciples vers 61 62. with a Doth this offend you What if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before Whereas when he spake by Parables He explain'd himself to them as Mat. 13.3 And he spake many things to them in Parables saying Behold a Sower c. or when he spake by way of Similitude as Mat. 18.23 Therefore is the Kingdom of Heaven LIKENED unto a certain King. Mat. 20.1 For the Kingdom of Heaven is LIKE unto a Man that is an Housholder Mat. 22.1,2 And JESUS answered and spake unto them again by PARABLES and said The Kingdom of Heaven is LIKE unto c. Mat. 23.1 Then shall the Kingdom of Heaven be LIKENED unto Ten Virgins c. See Mark 4.2 Mark 12.1 Luke 12.16 Luke 13.18,19 Luke 15.3 Luke 19.11 Luke 20.9 and you 'll find that in all Cases CHRIST spake not by PARABLES without telling them it was so and Expounding the same unto them But because the Gentleman is more particular pag. 22. upon that of CHRIST's being a Door a Vine a Rock c. let 's see whether the Parity 'twixt I am the DOOR the VINE c. be the same with The BREAD that I will give is my FLESH which I will give for the Life of the World or with what he said at his Last Supper when He took BREAD and Blessed it and Brake it and Gave it and said TAKE EAT THIS IS MY BODY without ever Explaining a Syllable to the contrary Whereas in that of the DOOR John 10. the Text tells us It was a PARABLE saying Vers 6. This PARABLE spake JESUS unto them c. Wherefore if the Protestant Answerer would be so kind as to produce as plain Scripture for this of the Sacrament's being a Figure as I have done for the Door 's being a Parable he 'll doubtless oblige YOV and certainly gain a Proselyte of ME. And in like manner of the Vine CHRIST saith Joh. 15.1 I am the True VINE and my Father is the Husbandman as before Mat. 20.1 where he likened the Kingdom of Heaven to a Man that is an Housholder and so goes on Explaining the same saying Vers 4. As the Branch cannot bear fruit of it Self except it abide in the VINE no more can ye except ye abide in ME which if you read the Chapter you 'll find to be more plain And in like manner of the ROCK That he was the CORNER STONE upon which the Foundation was laid and no other Foundation can any Man lay than what CHRIST has lay'd for on Him is Built the whole structure of our Salvation Wherefore whether these Parables of the DOOR the VINE c. be as plain as TAKE EAT THIS IS MY BODY be You or any Impartial Soul the Judge in his own Conscience As to what he says Pag. 9. That if the Words are Literally to be understood they would rather Infer the Conversion of Christ's Flesh and Blood into Bread and Wine For Proof whereof let 's go to the Words of Conversion themselves Mat. 26.26,27,28 where it is said Christ took Bread and Blessed it and Brake it and gave it and said Take Eat This is My BODY he doth not say Take Eat my BODY is this BREAD And in like manner of the CVP For this is my Blood which Words This is my BODY This is my BLOOD are the Words of Conversion and do no ways imply a Change of Christ's Flesh into Bread nor of his Blood into Wine but to the contrary they plainly Infer the Conversion of Bread and Wine into both the Body and Blood of Christ As to the Texts he brings from the 6th of St. John there was no Conversion then made nor do They make for him Besides that he who but just now Pag. 6. of his Answer told us That this Discourse in St. John had no special Reference to the Sacrament should now apply them notwithstanding is an odd way of shifting however as 't is these are the Words John 6.48,55 I am that Bread of Life For my Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is Drink indeed Had the Words been My Flesh is Bread indeed as the Gentleman would fain have them if you observe it Pag. 6. then indeed he would have had something of his side but as they are they make clear against him As to those Words ver 48. I am that Bread of Life methinks they are sufficiently explained by the following Texts where he says v. 50. This is the Bread which cometh down from Heaven ver 51. I am the Living Bread c. which Bread he tells us plainly is his Flesh saying Ver. 51. And the Bread that I will give is my Flesh and not that the Flesh which He would give was Bread But that That Bread was his Flesh which as said is sufficiently plain if not rather than differ I 'll joyn in Opinion with
And He took Bread and gave Thanks and Brake it and gave unto them saying This is my Body which is given for you This do in Remembrance of Me. XVII Vers 20. Likewise also the Cup after Supper saying This Cup is the New Testament in My Blood which is Shed for you XVIII 1 Cor. 11. v. 23. For I have Receiv'd of the LORD that which also I Deliver'd unto you That the Lord JESVS the same Night in which He was Betray'd took Bread. XIX Vers 24. And when He had given Thanks He Brake it and said Take Eat This is my Body which is Broken for you This do in Remembrance of Me. XX. Vers 25. After the same manner also He took the Cup when He had Supp'd saying This Cup is the new Testament in my Blood This do ye as oft as ye Drink it in Remembrance of Me. XXI Vers 26. For as often as ye Eat this Bread and Drink this Cup ye do shew the LORD's Death till He come XXII Vers 27. Wherefore whosoever shall Eat this Bread and Drink this Cup of the LORD Vnworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the LORD XXIII Vers 28. But let a Man Examine himself and so let him Eat of that Bread and Drink of that Cup. XXIV Vers 29. For he that Eateth and Drinketh Vnworthily Eateth and Drinketh Damnation to himself not discerning the LORD's Body The Protestant Texts against It. I 1 Cor. 11. v. 23 24. The Lord JESVS the same Night in which He was Betray'd took Bread and when He had given Thanks He brake it and said Take Eat This is my Body which is Broken for you this do in Remembrance of Me. II. St. Mat. 26. v. 27 28 29. And He took the Cup and gave Thanks and gave it to them saying Drink ye all of it for This is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins I will not Drink henceforth of this Fruit of the Vine until I drink it New with you in my Father's Kingdom III. St. Mar. 14. v. 23 24. And He took the Cup and when He had given Thanks He gave it to them and they all drank of it and He said unto them This is my Blood of the New Testament which is Shed for many IV. St. Luk. 22. v. 19 20. And He took Bread and gave Thanks and Brake it and gave unto them saying This is my Body which is given for you This do in Remembrance of Me Likewise also the Cup after Supper saying This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which is Shed for you V. Act. 2. v. 42. They continued stedfast in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and in Breaking of Bread. VI. Act. 20. v. 7. Vpon the First Day of the Week when the Discipies came together to break Bread. VII 1 Cor. 10. v. 16 17. The Cup of Blessing which we bless Is it not the Communion of the Blood of CHRIST The Bread which we break Is it not the Communion of the Body of CHRIST For We being many are one Bread and one Body for We are all Partakers of that one Bread. VIII 1 Cor. 11. v. 26. For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the LORD's Death till He come Whosoever shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup of the LORD Vnworthily Let a Man examine himself so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup. IX Act. 1. v. 11. This same JESVS who is taken up from you into Heaven shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into Heaven X. Act. 3. v. 21. Whom the Heaven must Receive until the Times of the Restitution of all Things XI St. Luk. 24. v. 39. Behold my Hands and my Feet that it is I my Self Handle Me and see for a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones as ye see Me have XII Act. 1. v. 3. To whom also He shewed himself alive after his Passion Being seen of them Forty Days XIII 1 Joh. 1. v. 1. Which we have seen with our Eyes which we have look'd upon and our Hands have handled XIV Heb. 9. v. 28. So CHRIST was once Offer'd to bear the Sins of many and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the Second Time. XV. Heb. 10. v. 12. This MAN after He had Offer'd one Sacrifice for Sins for ever sate down on the Right Hand of GOD. XVI Phil. 3. v. 21. Christ has a Glorious BODY Thus having truly laid down the Scriptures on both sides I doubt not but it doth appear that the Texts brought on the Catholick Part are abundantly sufficient and plain for the Being of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament and that Those produced on the Protestant Part are also expresly For it or not at all Against it for that it is impossible to bring one Text out of the whole Bible to prove That the Body and Blood of Christ is not in the Sacrament as in effect is confessed by the Protestant Answ Pag. 3. where he says That the Church of England do hold several Doctrines which are not contain'd in Express Words in Scripture for says he besides their Positive Articles they have a great many Negative Ones So that to require plain and express Words of Scripture to prove that such a Doctrine is not there Taught is says he to demand a Proof the thing is not capable of Wherefore the denying of the Real Presence being one of their Negative Doctrines or Articles it 's plain That the Gentleman doth not pretend to produce those Texts to prove That the Body and Blood of Christ is not in the Sacrament but lays 'em before you hoping you 'll think they do because the Word Bread is mentioned says he Pag. 15. Five times by St. Paul after he recited the Institution Very good and why not the Word BREAD I pray as well as the Word CVP seeing by the Word BREAD is meant the Communion of the Body of Christ as by the Word CVP 1 Cor. 10.16,17 is signified the Communion of the Blood of Christ And besides St. Paul mentions not the Words CVP and BREAD but he explains them to be the Body and Blood of Christ as 1 Cor. 11.26 where he tells ye As often as ye Eat this BREAD and Drink this CVP ye do shew the Lord's Death till He come which Death of the Lord was not shewn but by Offering up of his True and Real Body and Blood And Ver. 27. he tells ye Whosoever shall Eat this BREAD and Drink this CVP of the LORD VNWORTHILY shall be guilty of the BODY and BLOOD of the LORD Wherefore if it were not the Body and Blood of the LORD how could they be guilty of the Body and Blood if the Body and Blood be not there to be guilty of And further Ver. 28 29 He that Eateth and Drinketh VNWORTHILY Eateth and Drinketh DAMNATION to himself not discerning the LORD's BODY which still confirms it
explained by St. Paul 1 Cor. 10.16,17 One for the Communion of the Blood the Other for the Communion of the Body of Christ Nor do the Words of our Saviour where he speaks of the Fruit of the Vine signifie the Wine which was Consecrated into his Blood for that they were spoken of the CVP whereof they Drank at Supper and not of the Consecrated CVP which He Instituted not till after Supper as appears by St. Luke who gives the plainest Order of it Chap. 22.14,15,16,17,18 where it is said And when the Hour was come He sate down and the Twelve Apostles with Him And He said unto Them With desire I have desired to Eat this Passover with You before I Suffer For I say unto You I will not any more EAT thereof until it be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God. And He took the Cup and gave Thanks and said Take This and divide it among your selves For I say unto You I will not drink of the Fruit of the Vine until the Kingdom of God shall come Where you see our Saviour spoke of not EATING as well as not DRINKING that is of the Pascal Lamb and Cup at Supper for that He did not Institute the Sacrament of his Body and Blood till afterwards as we read Ver. 19 20. That He took Bread and gave Thanks and brake it and gave unto them saying This is my Body which is given for You This do in Remembrance of me Likewise also the CVP after SVPPER saying This CVP is the New Testament in my Blood which is shed for you Wherefore we are to distinguish the CVP which He bid them divide at Supper and of which He said He would not Drink until the Kingdom of God shall come from the CVP which He Blessed and gave to them after Supper saying It was his Blood for nothing can be more plain than that what our Saviour said of not Eating and not Drinking was of the Passover or Sacrifice according to the Law and not of the New Sacrifice or Testament in his Blood according to the Gospel But if this Order wherein St. Luke hath it which speaks of Two Cups and which is certainly true be not acceptable to the Obstinate let us suppose it otherwise and that the Words Fruit of the Vine were as they were not said of the Consecrated Cup it would yet follow That the meaning of them could in no wise be applyed to the Substance of Wine proceeding from an Earthly Vine but to the Substance of his Blood the Fruit of the Heavenly Vine For that it was to be Drank New with them in His Father's Kingdom and in His Father's Kingdom which is Heaven they neither keep Taverns nor Drink Wine the Fruit therefore of the Vine serves for neither Fruit nor Wine to them As to what the Gentleman says Pag. 15. of the Order observ'd in St. Mark 's Relation of it Who saith says the Protestant Answerer That all the Apostles first Drank of the Cup and that then our Saviour said unto them THIS IS MY BODY Chap. 14. v. 23 24. For my part I find no such thing in St. Mark as That all the Apostles first Drank of the Cup and then that our Saviour should tell them It was his Body Wherefore it 's a great Mistake 'twixt the Writer and the Printer and when they Mend their Bill We 'll Answer But in the mean time whether St. Mark expresseth the Words in the same Order as they were spoke or no it matters not seeing he has the Substance of what was said and wherein they all agree to wit That it was his Body and his Blood And it 's also apparent That CHRIST first Gave Thanks and Blessed it before He Gave it and before He gave it they could not have it nor before they had it could they either Eat it or Drink it The Gentleman continues Pag. 15. to tell you That the Letter is for Them meaning That in the Sacrament is not contain'd the Body of CHRIST for That CHRIST's Body had the Natural Properties belonging to a Body Extended Finite and Circumscribed And therefore like another Didymus he will not Believe except he see and into the Prints of the Nails of his Hands put his Fingers and into his Side thrust his Hand So Sensual was he that to feel with his Finger the Wound in his Side would not suffice unless therein he thrust his whole Hand Even so this Gentleman For GOD's Holy Word so often repeated to Confirm the Being of his BODY and BLOOD in the Sacrament will not suffice unless he See and Feel the Body Extended Finite and Circumscrib'd But methinks the Reproof our Saviour gave to One Didymus might be a Warning to All the Didymus's that should ever happen after him when John 20. v. 29. he told him Thomas Because thou hast SEEN Me thou hast BELIEVED Blessed are they that have NOT Seen and yet HAVE Believed Wherefore to Believe but what we See Feel Taste and Smell is to be Brutes not Christians and worse than Thomas who Saw but the Humanity yet Believ'd the Divinity of CHRIST Pray how was his Body to be Seen Extended Finite and Circumscrib'd when He penetrated and pass'd through Walls and Doors that were close as proved Pag. 15 16. For by the same Reason that You prove That CHRIST's Body can pass Intire through Walls or Doors when close by the same Reason will I prove That CHRIST's Body may be in the Sacrament Intire though no more to be seen There than to be seen passing through the thickest Walls But upon the Whole the Gentleman argues most Perfidiously of CHRIST as if He were not GOD nor distinguishing between his Glorious Body and Ours or any other Corruptible Carkass As He is Perfect GOD all Things are possible to Him If so Where then is the Difficulty to believe but that CHRIST may as well be Contain'd under the Forms of BREAD and WINE as the Holy Ghost under the Form of a DOVE Mat. 3.16 with Feather Beak Wing and all the Properties of a Fowl Or as the same Spirit in the Form of TONGVES of FIRE Act. 2.3 both which to our Eyes were but as a perfect Dove and as perfect Tongues Yet those different Objects to the Eye of Flesh were but one Holy Ghost to the Eye of Faith whereas if Faith had been grounded upon Sense they could never have believ'd that Bird in Feather and Form and those Tongues of Flesh in Flame to be one and the same Holy Ghost Therefore nothing can be more plain than that Objects may be one thing to the Eye of Flesh and another thing to the Eye of Faith for to our Sense it was a perfect Bird but to our Faith it was the Holy Ghost Even so the Sacrament to our Sight and Taste is but plain Bread and Wine but to our Faith in GOD's Word it is the Real and Intire Body and Blood of CHRIST and the Authorities we have from Scripture are far
THE Catholick Letter TO THE SEEKER OR A REPLY TO THE Protestant Answer SHEWING That CATHOLICKS have Express Scriptures for Believing the Real Presence and That Protestants have none at all for Denying It. St. Mark IV. vers 11 12. To Them that are Without all these Things are done in Parables That they may See and not Perceive Hear and not Vnderstand Published with Allowance LONDON Printed for John Lane at the Golden-Anchor the Corner Shop of Wilde-Street next Duke-Street 1688. THE Catholick Letter TO THE SEEKER c. SIR I Hope These Lines will over-take You e're You proceed to pass Sentence upon what has been said by Either Party in Answer to your Request concerning the Real Presence and the rather for that in my Answer I was as it were Silent because of the Ties You had put upon Us to satisfie your Conscience by the Scripture only for Request P. 4 5 7. That your Design was to see what Scriptures We had for it and what the Others had against it and That nothing but Scripture without troubling our selves to tell You the meaning on 't should satisfie You in the Matter To which I submitted as near as possible I could And I humbly conceived the Protestant Answerer would have done so too but on the contrary he hath not only quitted the Question but has crowded Three Sheets and an half of Paper for the most part with pretended Reasons and Figures without producing so much as One Text pertinent to disprove the Real Presence or to prove any One Text by me alledged to be either Figuratively or Parabolically spoken or that for Such they must be understood But says by no Authority but his own Protest Ans Pag. 7 8 10. That the Sense of Eating the Flesh and Drinking the Blood Must be Figurative and right or wrong they are Figurative and must not be properly and litterally understood For I am says he as 〈◊〉 as 〈…〉 Words that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is 〈…〉 Literal thâ—n it 〈◊〉 be the Rational Meaning of them c. But to have made You as sure as himself methinks he should have proved by express Scripture that those Texts which I produced were Figurative or Parabolical and that they are not to be understood in the plain and proper Sense wherein they were spoken otherwise how doth he think we shall take his bare Word or that his private Meaning of the Text shall pass upon us for Gospel But not to delay on this particular pray observe how the Gentleman has evaded the Question which was of the Real and Immediate Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament Whether we believed it or not if We believed it We were to produce what Scripture We could to justifie Our said Belief and if They deny'd it They were to produce what Scripture They could to prove That their Negative But instead of speaking to the Real Persence he has betaken himself to Transubstantiation a Word devised by the Church to express the Conversion that 's made in the Sacrament by the Divine Word as the Word Consubstantial or Consubstantiate was devised against the Arians to express the Substance of the Son 's being Coequal the same with the Substance of the Father and if the Request had been of the Consubstantiality of the Son the Arians with as much Reason might have Answered That 't was enough for them to shew that Consubstantiality is not Taught in Scripture as the Protestant Answerer has done where Pag. 3. he says That 't is enough for them to shew that Transubstantiation is not taught in Scripture tho' the Being of Christ 's Body and Blood in the Sacrament is At which rate if permitted he 'll Sham off the rest of their Negative Doctrines insomuch that when you come to the Infallibility of the Church Invocation of Saints Purgatory c. and require him to shew Express Scripture to prove That the Church is not Infallible That we must not Invocate the Saints to Pray for us That there is no Third Place in the other Life besides Heaven and Hell he 'll think to stop your Mouth with his 'T is enough for them to shew that Infallibility is not Taught in Scripture tho' That the Church can never Err be That Invocation of Saints is not Taught in Scripture tho' Prayer to Saints and that they do Pray for us be That Purgatory is not Taught in Scripture tho' a Third Place in the other Life be whereby he quits the Substance to wrangle at the Word by which the Substance is express'd He might as well say The Trinity and Incarnation are not Taught in Scripture the Words being no more there than Transubstantiation Purgatory or the rest But how far this way of Answering will take with You I know not For My part I humbly conceived your Meaning was purely to be satisfied in the Substance of what We believed of the Real Presence and to shew You what Authorities We had from Scripture for such Our Belief not doubtings if We agreed in the Substance of the Thing Believed that ever We should differ about a Word sufficiently proper to express it The Gentleman proceeds and tells you Pag. 3. That You are but lately engaged in this Employment or else You would never says he think it reasonable to oppose the Authority of One Vnknown Answerer of that Communion to the profess'd Opinion of so Many great Divines of that Church c. And from thence infers a Concurrence of some of our Divines with him in this particular to wit Pag. 4. That there was not One place of Scripture so Express that without the determination of the Church it would evidently compel a Man to receive Transubstantiation And the same might as well be said of the Consubstantiality of the Son That there is no Scripture so Express as without out the determination of the Church it would evidently compel a Man to receive it But what is this to the Being or not Being of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament Had he produced Scotus Bellarmine or any of the Holy Fathers to disprove the Real Presence it had been something tho not to your purpose for the Request was Pag. 4. To satisfie You by the Scripture only and not by citing of our Modern Divines or Ancient Greek and Latin Fathers but by the Express Text and plain Word of God as Written and set forth in our English Bibles and no otherwise And this was the Rule that I walk'd by in my Answer not that I thereby Renounced the Determination of the Church in this or any other point of Faith God forbid but that I should always prefer their Vniversal Consent to my Private Opinion Wherefore if what Scotus and Bellarmine have said in that Matter will do the Gentleman a Kindness he shall have it not only from them but from all the Faithful that altho' the Scripture were never so plain we would yet submit to the Determination
the Protestant Answerer and those other Divines and with Him and Them submit to the Determination of the Church There is one Argument yet on which the Gentleman seems much to depend Pag. 9. where he says Since if Christ be not but where he intirely is then says he he must be Eaten intirely c. From whence he concludes the not Being of Christ's Body in the Sacrament because as he conceives he is not there Intire for Reasons not Scripture of his own To which I Answer and grant That Christ is Not but where He is Intire for that there is no separation to be made of his Natures nor division of his Body into Parts but that He is to remain One Christ Intire for ever But as all things are possible to God so whether Christ who is perfect God may not be Intire in the Sacrament and in many places at one and the same Time is the Quaere which if fully Resolved will overthrow all his Reasoning Ware besides Wherefore that Christ is Not but where He is Intire is granted and that Christ may be Intire tho' Vnseen Vnfelt or Tasted in the Sacrament is proved by what we read in John 20.19 When Christ entred the Room where the Disciples were Assembled the Doors being fast for fear of the Jews and came and stood and spake in the mid'st of them And after Eight days as we read in the same Chapter ver 26. Christ entred again when the Doors were close shut and stood and spake in the mid'st of the Disciples Now that Christ was Intire when He stood and spake in the mid'st of them must be granted But how came He thro' was his Body Intire Extended Finite and Circumscribed with Limbs Bones Flesh and Sinews when He entred thro' Walls or Doors that were close That He was Intire when He past thro' must be by the Gentleman 's own Argument as well as Mine Of Christ's being Not but where He is Intire wherefore Christ was Intire when He came thro' or He came not thro' at all but Christ came Thro' was There and was Intire too for Christ is Not but where He is Intire Nay such is the infinite Power of God that tho' they were enclosed in Walls every where a Mile thick 't would yet be possible for Christ to enter Intire thro' all and return in the same Incomprehensible manner And by the same Reason as Christ's Body passeth Intire thro' Stone-Walls by the same Reason his Body may be Intire in the Sacrament and by the same Infinite Power the Body of Christ may be in Heaven and on Earth in Innumerable Places at one and the same Time the Gentleman's Arguments Pag. 16. to the contrary notwithstanding For that Christ hath said Mat. 18.20 That where Two or Three are gathered together in my Name there am I says Christ in the mid'st of them By which you see that wheresoever the Faithful are Assembled together in his Name that Christ is there in the mid'st of them if then Christ be in the mid'st of those Assemblies He is there Intire or He is not there at all But Christ tho' Invisible is in the mid'st of them or the Word deceives us which to think is Blasphemy it being by God again confirm'd saying Mat. 28.20 And loe I am with you always even unto the end of the World By all which is proved That Christ may as well be Intire in the Sacrament as be Intire when he passeth thro' Walls and Doors that are close as also it is proved That Christ may be in more places than One at the same Time for How many Assemblies of the Faithful are there in the World that are gathered together in his Name at the same Moment and Christ in the mid'st of every of them Nor can the Protestant Answerer ever be able to deny the same without denying Christ to be a Perfect and an Omnipotent God. Wherefore to his 10 Pag. where we find the Gentleman hot at the Word This to know what it means which of it self wanteth Sense but to know its meaning here ask the Question What and our Saviour will resolve you where Mat. 26.26 As they were Eating Jesus took Bread and Blessed it and Brake it and gave it the Disciples and said Take Eat This is what MY BODY he did not after he had Blessed it say Take Eat This is BREAD but Take Eat This is my BODY than which nothing can be more plain than that it was his BODY and that the Word Hoc or This referred thereto For if it were to remain as the Protestant Answerer says Pag. 15. as really and properly Bread after Consecration as before the Word Hoc or This in the Neuter Gender had never been applyed to a Substantive of the Masculine for it would be Nonsense and Improper to say Hoc est Panis Wherefore it 's plain that the Word Hoc being of the Neuter related properly and truly to the Word Body which is also of the Neuter and not to the Word Bread which is of the Masculine But because the Gentleman gives us our choice let us suppose it otherwise that the Word This referred to the BREAD and not to the BODY as suppose the Words had been thus This BREAD is My BODY It yet follows that it is his BODY and not that it was to remain BREAD for that He had said It was his BODY And altho' it was first BREAD yet He afterwards concludes it to be his BODY saying TAKE EAT THIS IS MY BODY But how plain soever God or Man could speak Sophisters will find whereat to quibble for the sputter he makes at the Word This is indeed nothing else and for such the Gentleman designs it as he doth all the rest of his Arguments by what appears in the same Page 10. where he assures me That They have not Faith to believe that which the Scripture hath not Taught From whence I gather That notwithstanding all his Arguments to disprove the REAL PRESENCE yet he hath not Faith tho' Face to deny it For that Pag. 3. he tells you That besides their Positive Articles they have a great many Negative Ones and to require plain and express Words of Scripture to prove that such a Doctrine is not there Taught is to demand a Proof the thing is not capable of Wherefore the Gentleman how Ingeniously soever he may argue against the REAL PRESENCE yet he hath not Faith to believe That in the Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper is not contain'd the True Real and Substantial Body of Christ for that he hath not Faith to believe what the Scripture hath not Taught and the Scripture hath no where Taught That in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is not contain'd the Body and Blood of Christ The Gentleman therefore can have no Faith to deny it all his Arguments to the contrary notwithstanding But before we part his Tenth Page let us note his Where 's Where says he is there one Word Where That
more ample for believing the Latter to be the Body and Blood of CHRIST than for believing the Formers to be the Holy Ghost As to the Eight last Texts which the Gentleman has produc'd to disprove our Doctrine of the Real Presence to wit Act. 1. v. 11. Act. 3. v. 21. St. Luk. 24. v. 39. Act. 1. v. 3. 1 Joh. 1. v. 1. Heb. 9. v. 28. Heb. 10. v. 12. Phil. 3. v. 21. they no way relate to the Sacrament but to the Resurrection and Ascension of CHRIST's Body From whence he concludes That CHRIST is confin'd in Heaven only and can be no where else till He comes to judge the Quick and the Dead and of consequence fixt at the Right Hand of the Father and cannot be as We suppose in Heaven and Earth in so many Places at the same Time. Which barren Conceit of CHRIST is sufficiently Answer'd Pag. 15 16. where it is prov'd from Scriptures That although CHRIST Ascended and be in Heaven yet it argues not but that He is and may be on Earth too For That He is a Perfect and an Omnipotent GOD and has promis'd Mat. 28. v. 20. That He will be with us always even to the End of the World And Mat. 18. v. 20. That Where Two or Three are gather'd together in his Name that He is in the midst of them And further it appears That our Saviour is not so Confin'd in Heaven as that He cannot also be upon Earth for we read That He Descended and overthrew Saul in the Way to Damascus and spoke to him saying Act. 9. v. 4 5. Saul Saul why persecutest thou me And he said Who art thou Lord And the Lord said I am JESVS whom thou persecutest Wherefore the Gentleman's Notion of CHRIST's being only in Heaven you see is frivolous for that CHRIST not only spake with Saul in the High-way but has promis'd as before To be with us always even to the End of the World. And it 's further prov'd That CHRIST may be actually Present without being Seen For when He spake to Saul the Men that Travell'd with him to Damascus stood by Act. 9. v. 7. speechless hearing a Voice but seeing no Man. By all which it 's plain That CHRIST may be on Earth and in many Places at the same Time as well as in Heaven or else He could not be with us always even to the End of the World nor with Saul in the Way nor in the Midst of all the Assemblies of the Faithful that are gather'd together in his Name in so many Places throughout the World at one and the same Time. The Gentleman's Arguments are therefore of no Effect which P. 15 16. he brings to prove Christ only in Heaven and no where else For although those Texts do prove the Resurrection Ascension and Being of CHRIST in Heaven yet they do not at all destroy the Power of CHRIST's being in divers Places at the same Time according to his Divine Will. And please to note That it is impossible for any thing to be in the Will which is not in the Power of GOD. Wherefore as it was in his Will proved by his Word to give us Bread to Eat which should be his Flesh so it was in his Power that That Bread should be his Flesh tho no more Tasted in the Sacrament than Seen when He spake unto Saul And that He whose Greatness the Heavens are not able to contain had both the Power and the Will to be Conceived in the Womb of the Blessed Virgin contrary to the Course of Nature where from almost Nothing He encreased to be Born a Child-God and to Die a God-Man and in whose Power it was to pass with his Body Intire through Walls or Doors that were close in his Power likewise it is to be Contained in the smallest Particle of Bread. Wherefore with the Believing Disciples let us Believe and not with the Murmuring Jews Doubt how he could give us his Flesh to Eat and his Blood to Drink nor with the Incredulous Disciples say 'T is an hard Saying who can hear it nor for this Cause go back as they did and walk no more with CHRIST as They do who deny the Being of his Body and Blood in the Sacrament so expresly confirmed by Him in whose Word there is no Contradiction Wherefore the Defect is not in the Word but in the Carnal Imagination of Those who have not Faith to Believe it nor Scripture to Disprove it nor is it Hard but to the Obstinate nor Incredible but to the Incredulous Wherefore to conclude I humbly submit the whole to your Prudent Consideration and Remind You of your Resolution Pag. 5. That You would be either Catholick or Protestant as the Verdict upon this Tryal should go and that the Success should depend upon the Evidence which Evidence in your Opinion was the Bible and that whoever produced the fullest and clearest Testimony had the Truth on his side Wherefore as you Value the Eternal safety of your Soul please seriously to distinguish and Peruse the Texts which I have assigned for it and those which the Protestant Answerer has brought against it and I doubt not but it will appear That the Scriptures assigned on the Catholick part are abundantly Expressive and Plain for the Being of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament and that the Scriptures produced on the Protestant part are also Expresly for it or not at all against it For that what I have offer'd is the Express Word of GOD who promising said That the Bread which He would give was his Flesh which He would give for 〈◊〉 Life of the World and performing Took Bread Blessed it Brake it 〈◊〉 gave it saying Take Eat This is My Body which Words of Promise aâ—… Performance are Positive and have never yet by Divine Authority bâ—… contradicted for that 't is impossible to produce one Syllable out of tâ—… whole Bible to prove the contrary Wherefore seeing that Protestaâ—… cannot prove by Express Scripture That the Bread which Christ Blâ—…sed and gave at his Supper was not his Flesh and that Catholicks caâ—… and do that it was I hope You will be so much the more convinc'd 〈◊〉 believe the REAL PRESENCE by how much the Words of GOâ—… are more powerful than the Arguments of MAN I say than the Aâ—guments or Words of Man for that the Arguments alledged by tâ—… Protestant Answerer against the Real Presence are all of Man and nâ—… of God they are His Words and not the Words of God Whereas thoâ—… Absolute and Express Take Eat This is my BODY are the Words 〈◊〉 God and not of Man and He neither has nor can produce one Texâ—… to contradict them Wherefore I expect to hear of your Satisfactioâ—… and Declaration for the Catholick Faith in this particular and nâ—… that You behave your Self like those Frivolous Vain and Impertineâ—… Enquirers who when convinc'd of One Point mind it no more bâ—… desire to be satisfied of Another assuming as it were an assurance 〈◊〉 themselves that tho' We are right in the Real Presence we may be wroâ—… in reference to the Infallibility and if right in That such is their Ignâ—rance to think We Err in Praying to Saints use of Images Purgatoâ—… or in something else they know not what And thus like Mag-Pyâ—… they Chatter and Hop from Bush to Bush from Point to Point withoâ—… fixing upon Truth as they ought to do where ever they find it Wherefore I pray be Satisfied in This of the Real Presence or Prâ—pose your Doubts before You proceed to the Infallibility of the Churcâ—… or to any other Point of Faith in Difference betwixt Us and tâ—… Church of England for so You will be Stedfast to something and nâ—… be wavering and Carried away with every Wind of Doctrine bâ—… Fix your Standard among the Faithful and Encamp with the Host 〈◊〉 the Ever-Living and All-Powerful GOD for the Security and Eternâ—… Peace of your Soul Which Peace that You may Enjoy for all Eteâ—nity is Prayed for by Him that is SIR Yours in all Christian Duty N. N