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
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
this defect he gives his Adversary a grave Reprimend that when he had just before said that these words had no special Reference to the Sacrament he should now so apply them by an odd way of shufflng And why did he not as sharply admonish him for offering to shew that the words might infer the conversion of Christ's Flesh into Bread For both alike belonged to him Our Author it seems apprehended not all this was Argumentum ad hominem But how doth he clear the Point and shew they infer no such conversion First he saith for proof whereof That Christ's Flesh is not turn'd into Bread let us go to the words of Conversion This is my Body But methinks it would have better became him to have first proved the Conversion of the Bread into Flesh from these words As for St. John he grants that had the words been My Flesh is Bread indeed as his Adversary would fain have them then he would have something on his side But if that be the sense of it and the words Bread and Meat are used by our Saviour promiscuously then it 's so far acknowledged And for that I shall refer our Author to v. 26 27. but he will not allow v. 48. to look that way nor indeed will I. But yet they will as soon prove Christ turned into Bread as the words the Bread that I will give is my Flesh will prove the Bread turn'd into his Flesh which they so little do that they rather would imply the contrary if understood literally as I have shewed pag. 8 But he concludes rather than differ I 'le joyn in opinion with the Protestant Answerer and these other Divines and with him and them submit to the Determination of the Church But where is this the opinion of the Protestant Answerer Surely our Author is like him in Aristotle that where ever he went fancied he saw himself But what need is there to go to the Church in this case For I hope he will think sense and reason sufficient to instruct men whether those words will prove that Christ was turned into Bread And we think sense and reason as sufficient to inform them whether the words of our Saviour will prove that Bread was turn'd into Christ's Flesh. I now thought this matter had been at an end when the Protestant Answerer past from this Argument to the second Text. But our Author has not yet done with him For he tells us There is one Argument yet on which the Gentleman seems much to depend pag. 9. When 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 p. 14. Bless me thought I where am I now in the land of Oberon What shall I say he quotes pag. 9. I hastily turn'd thither and there I was satisfied my memory had not yet forsaken me The case is thus the Answerer as is before observed to shew the absurdity of our Author's appealing to the mere Letter put several Queries to him out of this Chapter which he desired him to resolve in his own way without going to Figures The last of which was this how he can literally interpret ver 57. He that eateth me that holds in the Eucharist is contained the true Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Since if Christ be not but where he intirely is then he must be eaten intirely This question amongst others was there drop'd by our Author and the reason is apparent for he must either have acknowledged that the words He that eateth me must be understood Figuratively and Spiritually and not Corporally Or else that the Soul and Divinity of Christ must be Eaten with his Body Or that the Soul and Divinity of Christ are not in the Eucharist with his Body The case I confess is hard to one that has somewhat else to respect than truth and therefore it became him to be silent But why he should now bring it on the Stage under another guise I can't imagin when thus to resume it and pervert it must as much expose his insincerity as the omission of it before did his inability to answer it The Reader will see that the Argument and the conclusion are none of the Answerer's for that Proposition where ever Christ is there he intirely is is a principle of our Author's and which is there made use of against him that profess'd to believe with the same Faith he believes a God that in the Eucharist is truly and substantially contained the true Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ Cath. Answ. to Seeker p. 4. And where our Author found the Conclusion I know not for there is nothing in the Protestant Answer like to this that from thence concludes the not Being of Christ's Body in the Sacrament because he is not there intire However it may not be amiss to see how our Author relieves himself Saith he To which I answer and grant that Christ is not but where he is intire And 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 Query which if fully resolved will overthrâ—w all his reasoning Ware besides Well how will he prove Christ intirely in the Sacrament That is the true Body of Christ with the Soul and Divinity That was forgot before and so is not to be remembred but if it may be accepted for a full and intire Answer he will prove his Body may be intire in many places at one and the same time What he saith of that belongs to another place and shall there be considered p. 29. But what is this to his Soul and Divinity and to the literal sense of he that eateth me and the Argument the Answerer prest upon him He will be able to answer it when he can prove his Proposition that Christ is not but where he is intire for then his Body must be Omnipresent as well as his Divinity which after all the may be 's and his attempts to prove it possible for Christ's Body to be in many places at one and the same time I suppose he will have no allowance to publish if he should have the imprudence to maintain SECT III. WE are at length come to his second Text to prove his Real Presence viz. This is my Body Here the Protestant Answerer shew'd how absurd the direction of the Seeker was that his Answerers should produce their Texts without troubling themselves to tell the meaning on 't because he was certain that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation could never be the literal meaning of those words As for example saith he Where is there one word that the This whatever it means is the true Body and Blood