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-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
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
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