he be not of the same mind with them Indeed after all our Author's confidence in this matter and his questioning all things if this be questioned he determines that which the greatest Authority in his Church the Council of Trent would not determine For when it had been sharply debated for and against these words being understood of the Eucharist it was at last agreed for the satisfaction of both sides neither to affirm nor deny it and to yield to those that deni'd it that they had Fathers and Doctors on their side And thus the Council concludes However that Discourse of our Saviour's Joh. 6. be understood according to the divers Interpretations of the Holy Fathers and Doctors Sess 21. c. 1. Here our Author takes a great leap from Pag. 9. of the Answer to Pag. 22. but because it 's not amiss I shall follow him The Protestant Answerer put it to them to give as plain Letter of Scripture to prove Christ was neither a Door Rock nor Vine as he could that he was all Three Or that all Christians are not turn'd into Christ's Natural Body when it 's said Ephes. 5. 20. We are members of his Body This he did to shew that the Phrases Eating the Flesh and This is my Body were not of themselves sufficient to enforce us to take them in a proper sense since it 's no more plainly said Except ye eat the Flesh c. and This is my Body than it 's said I am the Door The Vine c. Now what course doth our Author take to assoil this Let 's see saith he whether the parity 'twixt I am the Door The Vine c. be the same with The Bread is my Flesh and This is my Body without ever explaining a Syllable to the contrary Here he is a little too forward For he is to remember that the thing requir'd is to give as plain Scripture to prove that Christ was neither a Door nor Vine c. as there is for it He knows who said it I will prove the Catholick Doctrine of the Real Presence and I defie the world to prove the contrary Cath. Answ. to the Seeker Pag. 1. and that declares again It 's impossible to bring one Text out of the whole Bible to prove that the Body and Blood of Christ is not in the Sacrament Cath. Letter Pag. 24. If now he so expects then it may be so expected from him that he should prove the Negative and that by as plain a Text he should shew Christ is not a Door or Vine as we can shew that he is I must confess I put him upon a Ridiculous Task but who can help it it 's in his own way But to leave this trifling let us return to see his parity though I doubt we shan't much better our selves As for the Door he saith The Text tells us it was a Parable Joh. 10. 6. This Parable spake Jesus Wherefore if the Protestant Answerer would be so kind as to produce plain Scripture for this of the Sacrament's being a Figure as I have done for the Door 's being a Parable he 'l certainly gain a Proselyte of me As for gaining him a Proselyte by plain Scripture I have reason to despair who declares beforehand that though the Scripture were never so plain he would yet submit to thi Determination of the Church Pag. 4. But where is this plain Scripture for the Door 's being a Parable He points to the verse But what was the Parable he spoke It 's in the Verses foregoing about a Door I grant But not of Christ's being the Door for that follows after Ver. 7. Then said Jesus unto them again Verily verily I am the Door So that if he keeps to his own way without explaining a Syllable he is where he was and Christ may be as properly a door as we may properly Eat the Flesh of Christ. He goes on In like manner of the Vine Christ saith Joh. 15. 1. I am the true Vine and my Father is the Husbandman as Mat. 20. 1. when he likened the Kingdom of Heaven to an Housholder and so goes on explaining the same ver 4. As the Branch cannot c. Which if you read the Chapter you 'l find to be more plain I perceive he is very serious and I am of his mind if the Seeker read on he would find it plain that Christ is not properly a Vine and so say I if he reads Joh. 6. he would find it as plain that Eating the Flesh of Christ is not properly to be understood But if words will oblige us without attending the sense and we must take them as we find them without explaining a Syllable then I say still it 's as plainly said I am the true Vine as my Flesh is meat indeed and according to our Author's way of Exposition this can be no Parable For saith he you 'l find in all cases Christ spake not by Parables without telling them it was so Pag. 12. But here it 's not so said for as before so after the words v. 4. As the Branch c. he saith v. 5. I am the Vine He goes on In like manner of the Rcck That he was the Corner-stone upon which the Foundation was laid c. But how doth he prove Christ was not properly a Rock according to his own way Because saith he he is a Corner-stone and a Foundation which is just as if he had been asked how he would prove without explaining a Syllable Christ is not properly a Corner-stone or a Foundation and he should say because he is a Rock But what saith he to the last Instance to prove as plainly Christians are not turned into Christ's Natural Body when it 's said we are members of his Body Ephes. 5. 20 To this an Answer is to be expected Well after all his windings and turnings his Parities and without explainings and his reading and his in like manners and his Rules for understanding Parables the words are as plain and express that Christ is a Door a Vine a Rock and we are members of Christ's Body as they are that we Eat the Flesh of Christ and if one be properly to be understood there is as much reason from the meer words for the like understanding the other After this Digression our Author undertakes the last Argument of the Protestant Answerer viz. Arg. 3. Here is nothing of the Conversion of the Bread into the Body of Christ but rather the contrary for if the words are Literally to be understood then they would rather infer the conversion of Christ's Flesh and Blood into Bread and Wine when he saith I am the Bread of Life v. 5. My Flesh is meat or Bread indeed As to the first which is the conversion of the Bread into the Body of Christ and the chief thing proposed to him he hath silently past it over perhaps he saw here also no necessity of defining or proving it to one that believes it not But to make up
he that eateth Not saith he that he did then give or that they did then eat his Flesh and 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 this he only told them he would give it and the Eve before his Passion he performed it And from that time I suppose the Obligation bears force ver 53. Except ye eat c. I will suppose that the Present doth not here exclude the Future and that he that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath Eternal life will always hold true and what all ages as well as those then present would partake of but methinks it 's very hard to make the present exclude it self and to tell us that they did not and could not then eat the Flesh of Christ when our Saviour saith they might and ought as is evident from what follows Let us go to the thing to be eaten and it 's represented in the Present Tense v. 51. This is the Bread. v. 51. I am the Bread. v. 52. Is my Flesh. v. 55. My Flesh is meat Let us go to the act and in correspondence to the object it 's also in the present v. 51. If any man eat Thus the Jews understood it v. 52. How can this man give us his Flesh to eat And accordingly our Saviour answers v. 53. Except ye eat c. ye have no life in you He speaks it to those present ye and then applies it universally v. 54. Whoso eateth my Flesh c. Let us go to the thing signified by Eating and Drinking and it 's after the same manner v. 35. He that cometh and he that believeth v. 38 40 45 47. I shall conclude this with what was said in the Protestant Answer If Christ's Flesh here spoken of might be eaten and his Blood drank out of the Sacrament then it could not here be understood of that Flesh and Blood which our Author saith the Bread and Wine are converted into in the Sacrament nor I may add of carnal eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood. Our Author resents this ill for he saith 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 to use his own words after an Heavenly and Spiritual manner 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 Pag. 8. Here I acknowledg I intended no hurt in the world but thought I had exprest my self innocently enough For when I had read in the Catholick Answer that in the Eucharist is Truly Really and Substantially contained under the Forms of Bread and Wine the True Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus in the very Substance wherein he was born of the Virgin and wherein he lived and died for us with this difference only that he was visible to the eye of Flesh then and invisible to the same now I thought the word carnal was expressive of the thing and indeed I find no great reason to alter it For 1. had I said Metaphorically and Figuratively that by no means would suit what is corporal And besides I learn too from our Author Pag. 17. that that is a deceitful fictious manner 2. Had I said corporal I see little distance betwixt that and carnal for as Body and Flesh is all one so is corporal and carnal 3. Had I chosen the word Spiritual that 's a kind of contradiction if applied to a Body for Spiritual eating of a Body is little better than bodily eating of a spirit And when a Real Presence by Faith would not content them if we deny a Real Presence by sense Seeker Pag. 6. I had as much reason to believe a Spiritual eating would be no more allowed than a Spiritual Presence 4. Had I express'd it by Heavenly when it was somewhat eaten and drank corporally and that what we took with the mouth was the very Body of Christ it could not be sufficiently expressive of it It was further urged Arg. 2. Upon mature Consideration of the whole it appear'd to the Protestant Answerer that the sense of Eating the Flesh of Christ in this place must be Figurative and signifies no other than coming to Christ and Believing in him which sure is out of the Sacrament as well as in it And this indeed he proved from the promiscuous use of the words in that Chapter but this our Author conceals from his Reader that he might not too apparently contradict what he had said Pag. 2. That he says by no Authority but his own that the sense of Eating the Flesh must be Figurative and right or wrong they are Figurative upon his own bare word without Scripture But as the Protestant Answerer argued from the words and phrases of the Chapter so from the current of our Saviour's Discourse that it could not be properly and literally understood 1. Because then all that properly Eat the Flesh of Christ would according to our Saviour's promise v. 54. Have Eternal Life Whoso Eateth c. To this our Author answers Very truel but with a qualification that recalls what he had granted For it 's to be understood saith he of Worthy Receivers But this is by no means consistent with our Saviour's Reasoning which if the Flesh to be eat and the Eating of it were to be understood properly will necessarily infer the Salvation of all such as thus Eat after this manner as well unworthy as â—â—worthy Since all that Eat his Flesh and drink his Blood in the sense there meant are the persons to whom Eternal Life is promised but if properly Eating his Flesh be the sense of our Saviour's Expressions there us'd then we know what follows 2. The Protestant Answerer urged further That if the words Eating the Flesh and Drinking the Blood be properly to be understood then the Receiving the Sacrament in both Kinds will be necessary to Salvation it being affirmed v. 53. Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink his Blood ye have no life in you and he shewed that for this reason amongst others Cardinal Cajetan would not admit that this Discourse of our Saviour belong'd to the Eucharist What saith our Author to this Truly nothing As to this saith he of both kinds it doth not properly relate either to your request or my Answer A Reply that may be made in any case He goes on And besides I do not see where the necessity lies of defining the Sacrament in both Kinds to one that believes it in neither That is as much as to say I beg his pardon I will not vouchsafe an Answer to such an one as he is but however methinks he might have said somewhat if it had been only for the satisfaction of the distressed Seeker to whom he writes his Letter to let him see that
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