Selected quad for the lemma: death_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A66413
|
The Protestant's answer to The Catholick letter to the seeker, or, A vindication of the Protestant's answer, to the seeker's request
|
Williams, John, 1636?-1709.
|
1688
(1688)
|
Wing W2720; ESTC R2915
|
32,577
|
43
|
confidence to have said as he now doth I doubt not but it appears that the Texts brought on the Catholick Roman side are abundantly plain and sufficient for the Being of Christ's Body in the Sacrament as thus set down And it would doubtless have been some gratification to his Reader if he had given us a Paraphrase as his Adversary had done according to these his Sentiments But here he saith that the Answerer pretends not to prove by these Texts that the Body and Blood of Christ are not in the Sacrament p. 24 Why so Because it 's one of their Negative Articles and to require plain and express words of Scripture to prove such a thing is not there taught is says he to demand a proof the thing is not capable of As if suppose there was not express words of Scripture to confute Arianism therefore that could not be confuted by Scripture It 's enough that what is not in Scripture is no Article of Faith it 's enough that there are such Propositions in Scripture as are sufficient to refute it though there should not be express words But however if he will take it in the words of our Article and if it may be to his content we shall find it positively said that Transubstantiation is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture And we have our Author acknowledging that his Adversary undertakes to shew that the Protestants have the Letter of Scripture for them meaning as he saith that in the Sacrament is Not contained the Body of Christ p. 30. And now let us try whether the Answerer did not give them more than his bare word for it in the use he made of his own Quotations As he observed from thence SECT II. 1. THat it 's no contradiction to our Saviour's manner of speaking to interpret these words Figuratively since our Author after all his Exclamations of giving Christ the Lie is forced tho here he slips over it elsewhere to acknowledg that the Cup yea and the word Bread is so used p. 28. 2. That in many Instances the Letter of Scripture is for us As Arg. 1. That there is no Substantial change in the Elements but they remain the same Bread and Wine after Consecration as before So it 's five times call'd Bread 1 Cor. 10. 26 c. and the whole Solemnity is call'd Breaking of Bread Act. 2. 42. To this our Author replies several ways as By the word Bread saith he is meant the Communion of the Body of Christ as by the word Cup is signified the Communion of the Blood of Christ p. 24. But to this I answer 1. That if the words Bread and Cup are not to be understood Literally but with a thereby is meant and thereby is signified then there is no more reason from the bare words to understand This is my Body Literally And that it may be as well interpreted This is the Representation and Sign of my Body as this Bread is the Communion of my Body 2. From hence it follows That if the Bread be the Communion of the Body of Christ as the Cup is the Communion of the Blood of Christ then the Bread is no more changed than the Cup but as the Cup remains the Cup so the Bread remains the Bread in the Communion 3. If the Bread be the Communion of the Body of Christ then the Communion of the Body of Christ is in the Communion of the Bread and so the Bread is still Bread. 4. Our Author has not touched the Point which was to shew the Letter of Scripture is for us when it calls it Bread after Consecration But he saith Saint Paul mentions not the words Cup and Bread but he explains them to be the Body and Blood of Christ 1 Cor. 11. 26. As often as ye eat this Bread ye do shew the Lords death which was not shewn but by offering up his True and Real Body and Blood. I answer so we may better say he mentions not the Body of Christ but he explains it when he five times afterwards calls it Bread But how doth the shewing of the Death of Christ prove the Bread to be his Body when it rather proves it not to be his Body because his Body is not according to them visible and to be shewn He saith further How could they be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord v. 27. if the Body and Blood be not there I answer As persons may be guilty of it out of the Sacrament Thus we read Heb. 6. 6. Who crucifie to themselves the Son of God afresh And Chap. 10. 29. Who trod under foot the Blood of the Covenant And so by unworthy receiving of the Lords Supper in which his Death was Commemorated and Represented they after the same manner were by Interpretation guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. And this the next ver 29. shews not discerning the Lords Body which can be understood only of a Spiritual discerning by Faith. Or rather as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies discriminating Lastly he adds 'T would be hard a sinner should be damn'd meerly for moderate eating and drinking Wine for according to the Protestant Answerer the Sacrament is no more who tells you p. 11. There is no other Substance distributed among the Communicants than that of Bread and Wine 1. But if our Author had gone three or four Lines further he would have found those words pag. 11. The Body of Christ is not otherwise present than it is eaten that is after an Heavenly and Spiritual Manner in the Spiritual Blessings and effects of his Merits and Sufferings in his Body to those that believe So that he prevaricates when he saith Sinners are damn'd meerly for moderate eating and drinking and that we esteem the Sacrament no more 2. We look upon it as a Divine Institution and by virtue of that Institution a means of Grace and that by a worthy participation of it we partake of that Grace which is thereto promised therein exhibited and thereby conveighed as it 's there declared p. 17. and consequently the damnation threatned is to the contempt of God's Ordinance and of the Sufferings of Christ therein represented and of the Grace of God purchased by those Sufferings and therein to be obtained The Answerer shew'd also as the Bread so the Wine was without alteration from Mat. 26. 28. who after he had said This is my Blood calls it the Fruit of the Vine And from the order in St. Mark 14. 23 24. where the Apostles are said to have drank of it before our Saviour said This is my Blood. This Branch of the Argument our Author divides from the other and casts it forward three or four Pages Pag. 28. for it gave too much light to the other whilst they were together As to the former Text I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine he saith St. Luke gives the plainest order of it Chap. 22. 14. and that there it has
Parables should yet be Dark and Figurative in this of that Importance and which he well foresaw occasions our differences at this day it would be contrary to his Wisdom and Goodness But so far was Christ from this that he confirms it v. 53. With a verily verily except ye eat the Flesh c. I have transcribed this the more at large because it contains some things very peculiar and is indeed the utmost force of what he hath for his Defence I Answer to this 1. In General it 's manifest That our Saviour is not literally plain since it 's acknowledg'd that his Discourse is Figurative from ver 32. to ver 51. And is it not strange that when he had so long discours'd after that manner that yet in one verse he should mean literally and which if literally understood would be so manifest a Contradiction to the Sense and Reason of Mankind that if he had literally said he was Bread he could not have more astonished them than when he said except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man c. if properly and literally to be understood 2. Whereas he saith our Saviour always explain'd his Parables that is too largely spoken For even those which he chuses out of Mark 3. 10 13 31 were not expounded to the Multitude and if his Argument signify any thing must therefore be properly understood by them But why did not he propound the case in Dispute and give us a like instance in figurative and metaphorical Expressions Such as our Saviour uses in this Chapter For are Sealing Hungring c. to be understood properly because it 's not said that they are to be understood Figuratively Nay are eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood to be understood properly Then certainly the Capernaits were in the right that thought our Saviour spoke of carnal Eating which yet our Author will not allow 3. He saith There was never more occasion to expound if a Figure than when the Jews murmured and some of his Disciples went away and what he saw occasions our Differences 1. As for the murmuring of the Jews there was no such occasion for our Saviour's expounding it For thus also they murmured because that Christ said I am the Bread that came down from Heaven v. 41. And yet tho he took notice of it ver 43. he thought not himself concerned to explain his meaning where there might be more reason for their mistake than there could be in this Indeed our Saviour look'd upon them as an obstinate and intractable sort of People and so did purposely conceal himself often as was observed before Mark 13. And this we are not without some light in in the case before us For this Discourse of his was in the Synagogue v. 59. and they were the same People that before were offended and cavilled ver 41 52. And therefore our Saviour left them in the Dark tho afterwards when his Disciples murmured v. 60 61 63. he tells them it was spiritually to be understood 2. As for those Disciples it doth not appear that they walked no more with him because they were offended at his saying for that he explain'd it to them but because he gave an Intimation that he discovered their insincerity v. 64. There are some of you that believe not and it follows From that time many of his Disciples went back c. 3. Neither was there any such occasion for our Saviour's expounding himself from our differences If he had meant it properly I grant there could never be more occasion because it 's a Doctrine so contrary to the Sense and Reason of Mankind but when it 's not so explain'd the Sense and Reason of Mankind may be thought a sufficient Security against mistake And there might be as much reason for our Saviour to expound himself when he saith he is Bread a Door a Vine a Rock But all this while our Author supposes our Saviour not to have explain'd himself I grant it he did not do it on their side but I think he has done it to all attentive and unprejudiced minds if they will either consult the foregoing part of this discourse where he speaks of himself under the Allusions of Bread and Flesh v. 33 35 48 51. and of believing in him under the the Metaphors of Coming and Eating v. 35 36 47 51 60 61 62. or if they consult the Conclusion v. 63. where he tells his offended Disciples It 's the Spirit that quickneth c. As if he had said The eating my Flesh and drinking my Blood which I propound to you is not as those cavilling Jews did misconstrue it and as you I perceive mistake for in that Flesh I am to ascend into Heaven but it 's the heeding and obeying my Precepts the receiving my Doctrine and believing in me as your Redeemer that I require and you are to regard And indeed thus St. Peter understood him who concludes almost in the same words Lord to whom shall we go Thou hast the words of Eternal Life And we believe c. v. 68 69. 4. He saith That Christ was so far from meaning otherwise than plainly as he spake that to the murmuring Jews he confirms it v. 53. with a Verily verily I say unto you Except c. Whereas in Parables be explained himself to them That is our Saviour meant plainly because he did not explain himself But saith he he confirmed it What did he confirm Did he confirm the Literal sense That he did not before give and so could not confirm Or doth the Repetition of it without Explication shew it to be the Literal sense That he contends for But then by parity of reason our Saviour meant properly when he said I am the Door For it 's there said in confirmation of what was before Verily verily I say unto you I am the Door Joh. 10. 1 7. But why did our Saviour repeat it Without doubt to shew that he spoke it not inconsiderately and if I add to explain what he before said it 's not without somewhat in the Text to countenance it For before he spoke of himself under the notion of Flesh v. 51 52. but then of Flesh and Blood to intimate both the violence and manner of his Death which he did usually speak with more caution and reserve about If we reflect upon what has been said we see how unwarily I am loth to add more our Author delivers himself when he saith If these words are Figurative I see no reason why the whole Bible should not be a Figure too And if ever Christ was plain in any thing it was in this And which I cannot recite without some indignation Should he 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 p. 10 11. So that there shall be no sense or perspicuity in Scripture nor wisdom and goodness in our Saviour if their Doctrine be not his and