appears to be in Ecclesiastical History his Adversary has no great reason to fear him That the word Consubstantial was used against the Arians I acknowledg but that it was devised against them as our Author saith is spoken at adventure For the contrary is evident that it was in use long before in the Christian Church So saith Eusebius We have known certain Learned and Famous Bishops and Writers among the Ancients who reasoning upon the Divinity of the Father and Son have used the word Consubstantial or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But to return to the Charge where is this Controversy managed in the Answer about this unscriptural word Transubstantiation which the Protestant Answerer altogether banter'd at He has found it out in somewhat that is not there I shall here set down the Words of the Answer with his and let 's see how they agree Cath. Letter p. 2. Protestant Answerer p. 3. He the Protestant Answerer says That 't is enough for them to shew that Transubstantiation is not taught in Scripture tho the Being of Christs Body and Blood in the Sacrament is 'T is enough for us to shew that Transubstantiation is not taught in Scripture and that those that pretend 't is there cannot shew it nay that the literal Sense concludes not for it and that our notion of the Real Presence is agreeable to it Where this Author is guilty of a double Perversion First That he translates what is spoken of Transubstantiation in the notion to the Word when there is not a Syllable that looks that way and then that he would represent the Real Presence in the Protestant that is a spiritual Sense to be an acknowledgment of the Being of Christs Body and Blood in the Sacrament in their way But after our Author has for some Pages entertain'd himself in managing this imaginary dispute against his Adversary yet in Confutation of himself he finds out another sort of matter that he is obliged to consider and if he can to confute The Protestant Answer consists of two Parts In the first are considered the Texts produced in the Catholick Answer to the Seeker to prove their Real Presence which I hope I may now call Transubstantiation In the second There is given a Catalogue of such Texts as maintain the Protestant Doctrine of Christs Spiritual Presence and in Confutation of the Corporal Presence held in the Church of Rome And now let us view our Author's Undertaking and see how he has quitted himself in both of these PART I. Sect. 1 WE are to consider in the first place how our Author has Vindicated his own Answer to the Seekers Request and what Reply there is made to the Objections and Arguments directed against his pretended Proofs from Scripture In the entrance upon this matter the Protestant Answerer suggested that the Seeker had put an unreasonable Task upon his Catholick Priests to prove their Real Presence or Transubstantiation by the express Text and plain Word of God since Persons of the greatest Note for Quality and Learning in their Church have freely given it up and granted it to be a vain attempt Such as Scotus and Biel among the Schoolmen and the Cardinals Alliaco Fisher Cajetan and Bellarmin What saith our Author to this First saith he Supposing it was so as these Authors say That there is not one place of Scripture so express that without the Determination of the Church it would evidently compel a Man to receive Transubstantiation Yet the same might as well be said of the Consubstantiality of the Son p. 3. Will our Author venture to say there is no more from Scripture to prove the Consubstantiality of the Son than there is to prove Transubstantiation Or hath he any heart to say it after the publishing the Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared and as long as that Book lies unanswered But let that be as it will. What saith he is this to the Being or not Being of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament Had be produced Scotus Bellarmin c. to disprove the Real Presence it had been something tho not to your purpose For the Request was to satisfie you by Scripture only and not by citing our Modern Divines c. but by the express Text c. But I think it was to the purpose to shew that some of the most Eminent in their Church declare it is not to be proved in that way and I think to declare it cannot be proved is little better than to disprove it At last our Author is content to yield up Scotus one of his Modern Divines and Bellarmin and he adds if what they have said in that matter will do the Gentleman a kindness he shall have it not only from them but all the Faithful If so I fear our Author then will be left alone for if all the Faithful are of the same mind with Scotus and Bellarmin then his Undertaking to prove Transubstantiation by the express Texts of Scripture will be a fruitless Attempt But we go too far for that 's to be understood with a reserve viz. Scripture without the Determination of the Church is not so express c. This premised our Author cheerfully proceeds That altho the Scripture were never so plain we would yet submit to the Determination of the Church for the true Sense and Meaning thereof So that tho he pleads Scripture and would fain find out somewhat that looks like an express Text yet he doth it not nor would be understood that he thereby renounced the Determination of the Church For whether the Scripture be plain for it or not is not the Foot this matter rests upon and altho it were never so plain yet the Church is to give it the true meaning and whatever meaning the Church gives it that is the true meaning and so if the Church had determined against Transubstantiation as it has determined for it there would have been still express Texts and the case had been alike resolved SECT II. AT last we are come to the main seat of the Controversie p. 6. The Catholick Answerer had produced two places of Scripture as his plain Texts for Transubstantiation the first is Joh. 6. 48. Here the Protestant Answerer interposed and first directed the Seeker where he might find about thirty Writers of the Roman Church who reject that Text as not serving to our Author's purpose Pag. 4. and then proceeds to shew for what reasons they and we do so reject it Arg. 1. As it had no special reference to the Sacrament and that for two Reasons 1. Because this Discourse of our Saviour was delivered above a year before ver 4. To this first our Author replies That the fourth Verse The Passover a Feast of the Jews was nigh is no Rule to shew the Sacrament was not instituted above a year after For saith he that this word Nigh should signifie above a year after is such a Figure as never was
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
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
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