THE Protestant's Answer TO THE Catholick Letter TO THE SEEKER OR A VINDICATION OF THE PROTESTANT's ANSWER To the SEEKER's Request IMPRIMATUR Liber cui Titulus The Protestant's Answer to the Catholick Letter to the Seeker c. H. Maurice RR. in Christo P. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cant. Ã Sacris Maii 22. 1688. LONDON Printed and are to be Sold by Randal Taylor near Stationers-Hall M.DCLXXXVIII THE CONTENTS THE matter in debate stated p. 2. The Sum of the Protestant Answer p. 4. Transubstantiation confest by many of the Church of Rome not to be proved by Scripture pag. 5. Joh. 6. 48. consider'd p. 6. Not for Transubstantiation by the confession of several in the Church of Rome Ibid. It 's also proved by several Arguments As that place had no special reference to the Sacrament p. 7. Eating the Flesh then spoken of may be out of the Sacrament as well as in it Ibid. Proved to concern those present as well as others p. 8. The sense of eating the Flesh of Christ proved to be Figurative p. 10. Of Figurative Speeches p. 12. Particularly here p. 13 c. Of Christ's being a Vine c. p. 17. The words This is my Body considered p. 18. Of the word This p. 22. Of Christ's being in the Sacrament after a Spiritual manner Ibid. The Texts produced by Protestants for it p. 24. 1. The Letter of Scripture for the Protestant Doctrine p. 26. 1. Where it 's call'd Bread and the Fruit of the Vine 2. The Body of Christ had the Natural properties of a Body p. 29. 3. The Body of Christ is in Heaven and circumscribed p. 32. 4. That Christ's Body is Glorified and so not a Sacrifice p. 33. 2. The words which are Figurative are for us such are these This is my Body Ibid. THE PROTESTANT's ANSWER TO THE CATHOLICK LETTER TO THE SEEKER c. HEre 's a Catholick Letter to the Seeker or a Reply to the Protestant Answer to the Seeker But what 's become of the Seeker himself for this four Months past What of the Declaration he was in the Conclusion to make for the Catholick Faith of Rome which we are now told of That according to the method it seems agreed on he may after Sentence pass'd in this case proceed to the Infallibility of the Church or other Points of Faith in difference betwixt them and the Church of England as our Author intimates there a little too early The Seeker had indeed given reason enough to judg on which side he was to be satisfied That tho seemingly he was sent out like the Dove to try where he might find rest for the Sole of his Foot yet we may see beforehand what was the Ark he was to return to and that they were as sure of him as they are of a Convert before they offer a Conference Where 's now the Resolution he was to come to Has the Protestant Answer to the Seekers Request broke these Measures and forced them to think of another Expedient Our Author cannot altogether dissemble it It seems the Seeker was to put certain Ties upon his Answerers to which his Friend on the side of the Church of Rome submitted and it was humbly conceived the Protestant Answerer would have done so too as our Author signifies p. 1. But he being a lover of Liberty more than Courtship and of Truth and Reason more than both took upon himself as its thought too much Authority when together with his Answer to the Seekers Request he wrote a Reply to the Catholick Answer to the Seekers Request This is a course our Author complains of and perhaps he has some reason for it But what has he to accuse the Protestant Answerer of That he has evaded the Question As how Of this he gives a threefold Instance 1. That he has used the Word Transubstantiation Of this our Author thus complains p. 2. and 5. I do not find the word Transubstantiation so much as mentioned in either your Request or my Answer Wherefore how sincere the Gentleman has been in this particular let the World judg A material Point who would not think now that the word Transubstantiation was abominated by him and as little used in their Church as it is in ours It 's fit therefore to know our Authors mind in it Of this he saith It 's a word devised by the Church to express the Conversion that 's made in the Sacrauent and which mysterious change the Holy Catholick the Roman Church doth properly call Transubstantiation p. 2 and 5. Now where is the fault Where the insincerity The insincerity they may take to themselves but the fault is that when they thought by the use of the Phrase Real Presence common to both them and us and by the forbearance of the word Transubstantiation which is peculiar to themselves that they might have imposed upon the unwary Reader the Protestant Answerer used the word Transubstantiation for their Real Presence and so their design is discover'd and in part defeated 2. He saith The Protestant Answerer evaded the Question when instead of speaking to the Real Presence he betook himself to Transubstantiation p. 2. Now who would not think upon this charge that his Real Presence and Transubstantiation are as inconsistent as Truth and Falshood Here indeed he has put a Question which I confess I should have been ready to ask What 's this to the purpose Is not the Real Presence and Transubstantiation all as one p. 5. And I should be as ready to ask again If they are all as one how was the Question evaded when instead of speaking to the Real Presence the Answerer betook himself to Transubstantiation In this he thus acutely Answers No truly they are not all as one as you may think For there is a great deal of difference betwixt a Man and the Name by which he is distinguished 'T is one thing to prove the Real Presence and being of Christs Body and Blood in the Sacrament and another to shew why this change is by the Church call'd Transubstantiation tho whoever believes the one can't in Truth deny the other That is the Real Presence and Transubstantiation are not all as one because they are all as one And the Answerer has evaded the Question by using the one for the other because whoever believes the one can't in Truth deny the other 3. But he has not yet concluded the Charge For saith he Whereas the Controversy is not about the word the Answerer has altogether banter'd at the word Transubstantiation and not spoken to the Substance p. 5. So before The Arians with as much reason might have objected against the word Consubstantial which was devised against them as the Protestant Answerer has done where p. 3. he says That it 's enough for them to shew that Transubstantiation is not taught in Scripture tho the Being of Christs Body and Blood in the Sacrament is p. 2. If our Author's skill in reasoning be no better than it
there is no consequence in this Argument It puzled Cardinal Cajetan a man of sense and sagacity and surely the Seeker may then be led away by the error of it and it may put off his Declaration for the Catholick Faith four Months longer But there is no danger it was not necessary to one that doth not believe but he declares he is ready to satisfie his Seeker that is one that doth believe as we may conceive I know not whether this may not have put our Author a little out of humour for he cannot but abhor he saith to see men mould Gods 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 How comes it that mean Capacities are by the Church of St. Martin's left to themselves to judg of the true sense of Scripture according to D. T. who tells you in his True Account of a Conference That a man after using all Christian Means and the help of all Ministerial Guides possible must at last judg for himself A special Assertion indeed Which if true what need of Teachers c. Pag. 10 But how doth he mould the Word of God into what Form he pleases that understands that Figuratively which was Figuratively spoken And to whom doth our Author speak when he thus Expostulates Is it because our Saviour spake some things by way of Parable that all he said was such Had he no other way to get clear of his Adversary but to fix this upon him And had he no other way to meet with those that plead for the perspicuity of Scripture but to tell the world that they own our Saviour never spake otherwise than in Parables How mean and ridiculous is this But however this was a fair occasion as he thought to make a special Remarque upon the Doctrine taught by the Church of St. Martin's Now here the Protestant Answerer is more immediately concerned as a Parishioner though one of the Mean Capacities there taught and would fain see how our Author would manage himself in a debate upon that Argument especially when after his Exclamation against it he himself is forced to acknowledg the reasonableness of it For if a man must not at last judg for himself or if so that there will be no need of Teachers then it 's in vain to send Answers and Letters to a Seeker and to propose Texts to his Examination And yet in this special way doth our Author proceed from the beginning to the end of his Letter He leaves it to his Seeker to pass sentence upon what has been said by either party Pag. 1. Whether saith he this hath any reference be you the Judg. Pag. 7 13. He desires him to consult the words and see whether those Texts do imply c. Pag. 8. Seriously to distinguish and peruse the Texts Pag. 33. So that it seems this special Assertion ought to be one of his own who teaches his Seeker so far after the same way as mean Capacities are taught by the Church at St. Martin ' s. To come to a close of this Argument the Protestant Answerer the better to represent his Adversaries weakness in decrying Figures and Parables shewed him how this Discourse of our Saviour so abounded in them that there were no less than twenty expressions of that kind in it and accordingly drew out several of them for our Author to try his skill upon and to resolve them without a Figure Pag. 8. First saith he Let the Catholick Answerer tell me without a Figure what is that meat which endures to Everlasting Life Here our Author labours hard to prove that the meat in v. 27. is the Bread and Flesh v. 51. and concludes which Flesh without a Figure I humbly conceive is that meat which endureth unto Everlasting Life But I as humbly conceive he has not reach'd the point for granting the Meat the Bread and the Flesh to be one and the same yet how is the Flesh of Christ Bread and Meat without a Metaphor when it 's only spiritually and not Corporally Eaten as he saith and when neither capable of digestion nor we of nourishment by it Again if this be Eaten only in the Sacrament how can it under the Form of Bread endure to Everlasting Life or how can it be Meat that thus endures when it is not to be Eaten in Heaven and all Sacraments and Institutions cease The other Questions were How the Son was sealed by the Father How Jesus is Bread and the Bread that came down from Heaven How the Bread and the Flesh of Christ could be the same v. 57. And if the same how it could come from Heaven when he was of the Seed of David according to the Flesh How one of his Church can talk of a literal Sense of except ye drink his Blood which denies the Cup to the Laity To all these our Author returns a general Answer 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 So the Jews said v. 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 so he runs on to the Creation and Incarnation c. I am a little at a loss here to what cause our Authors mistake is to be assign'd Surely he could not but understand that the How relates not to the manner How these things be But how these things could be thus applied to our Saviour without a Figure I am afraid that he saw the difficulty and so slipt away from it for else why should he answer directly to the first Query which would more plausibly bear it and indirectly and fraudulently to the rest And yet as if he had to a Demonstration proved what he had undertaken and effectually confuted his Adversary he will still have the words express and plain without a Figure For thus he concludes p. 11. 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 but which I have shewed before he did not say I say if these words are Figurative and must not be properly understood I see no Reasen 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 murmured and said How can this man give us his Flesh to eat And when some of the Disciples said it was an hard saying and thereupon walked no more with him He that in cases of less moment always explain'd his
would yet be possible for Christ to enter intire through all p. 15. Here is one thing omitted and that is to prove that as the Doors were shut when they assembled for fear of the Jews as the Evangelist saith so they were not opened by Christ when he came and stood in the midst of them till which be proved we shall say the letter of Scripture is for us and that Christ's Body had Flesh and Bones might be beheld and felt and did neither come through the Walls nor indeed could do so long as it remains true that the Penetration of Dimensions is impossible But I had need to recal this for I am for ever silenced if what he saith be true that the Answerer argues perfidiously of Christ as if he were not God not distinguishing betweeen his Glorious Body and ours for as God all things are possible to him But where is that perfidiousness since no more is denied to Christ than is to God For because all things are possible to God doth he think that it 's perfidious to say that it 's not possible for God to be ignorant or unfaithful or circumscrib'd and so to exist after the manner of a Body Or doth he think it 's perfidious to say it 's impossible to make the Body of Christ to have been existent in different times and really to have been existent before it was existent and yet not to be existent till it was Or is it perfidious to say it 's impossible to make the circumscribed Body of Christ to be Omnipresent The last he seems to affirm by his often repeated Maxim That Christ is not but where he is intire and placing therein the Difference between Christ's Glorious Body and ours But of that more anon Our Author as he would prove the Body of Christ might lose all the Properties of a Body so also that it might be contained under the Forms of Bread and Wine that is to all appearance it might have all the Properties of those Elements and yet be none of them but the Body of Christ alone And this he reasons upon after this manner Where is the difficulty to believe but this may be as the Holy Ghost under the Form of a Dove with Feather Beak Wing and all the properties of a Fowl Or in the Form of Tongues of Fire 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. 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. So in the Sacrament to our sight and tast is plain Bread and Wine but to our Faith in Gods word it is the Real and Intire Body and Blood of Christ. An instance and inference not at all to the purpose For the Question is not Whether a Spiritual Being may not be under the appearance of a Body for so it was with the Angels when they appeared as men and the Holy Ghost when it appeared like a Dove Neither is the Question whether an Object may be one thing to the eye of Flesh and another to the eye of Faith for so our Saviour appear'd to be man and yet was God as well as man. All which yet is besides the matter for in these cases there is an invisible Being under a visible representation or an Invisible Being in union to a visible But here are two objects visible in their own nature viz. the Body of Christ and Bread and the one of these so turn'd into the other that there are all the Properties of a visible Being which is not there viz. Bread and none of the properties of that visible Being which is there viz. the Body of Christ. So that the question should be thus propos'd Whether what is an object of sense may have all the properties of another sensible object without being that thing which they are the properties of and none of the properties belonging to its own nature and being Arg. 3. The Protestant Answerer shew'd that the Letter of Scripture is for us that the Body of Christ as it ascended so is to continue in Heaven till the conclusion of the world and so cannot be in Heaven and Earth at the same time This our Author calls a barren conceit but as barren as it is it is true and has Scripture and Reason on its side notwithstanding what he has objected to the contrary The first Argument he offers in Answer to this is that he is a perfect and omnipotent-God And that he may be and yet not reconcile contradictions as has been just before shewed He confirms it by Scripture Mat. 18. 20. c. 28. 20. Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them And if there he is there intire or not at all p. 15. 32. But when Christ promised to be in the midst of them did he promise to be there Corporally If bodily I would fain know under what Form he is there And if he be intire where ever he is and yet he is every where as God then the Body of Christ must be as Omnipresent as his Divinity and so there would be no need nor indeed possibility of his Descending He adds Our Saviour is not so confined 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 Act. 9. 4. And he may be actually present without being seen for the men with Saul saw no man v. 7. By all which it 's plain that Christ may be in Earth and in many places at the same time as well as in Heaven But to this I answer 1. It 's not certain that the Apostle saw or that Christ appeared to his Fleshly eye For elsewhere he is said to see him in a trance Act. 22. 17. and here v. 4. to fall on the Earth and so God is said to be seen when yet there was no similitude Exod. 24. 10. Deut. 4. 12. 2. If he was seen bodily yet it 's not said as our Author would have it that he Descended and was bodily present But it might be as with St. Stephen who looked up to Heaven and saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God Act. 7. 55. And so here v. 3. it 's said that there shined round about St. Paul a light from Heaven 3. Much less is there so much as any intimation of what our Author saith that Christ was Bodily in Heaven and the Earth at the same time For if he was in in the one it 's certain he was not Bodily in the other And this our Author unwittingly acknowledges when he saith Christ descended and overthrew Saul So Vigilius Tapsitanus When the Body of Christ was in the Earth it was not in Heaven and now because it is in Heaven 't is not