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
THE Catholick Letter TO THE SEEKER OR A REPLY TO THE Protestant Answer SHEWING That CATHOLICKS have Express Scriptures for Believing the Real Presence and That Protestants have none at all for Denying It. St. Mark IV. vers 11 12. To Them that are Without all these Things are done in Parables That they may See and not Perceive Hear and not Vnderstand Published with Allowance LONDON Printed for John Lane at the Golden-Anchor the Corner Shop of Wilde-Street next Duke-Street 1688. THE Catholick Letter TO THE SEEKER c. SIR I Hope These Lines will over-take You e're You proceed to pass Sentence upon what has been said by Either Party in Answer to your Request concerning the Real Presence and the rather for that in my Answer I was as it were Silent because of the Ties You had put upon Us to satisfie your Conscience by the Scripture only for Request P. 4 5 7. That your Design was to see what Scriptures We had for it and what the Others had against it and That nothing but Scripture without troubling our selves to tell You the meaning on 't should satisfie You in the Matter To which I submitted as near as possible I could And I humbly conceived the Protestant Answerer would have done so too but on the contrary he hath not only quitted the Question but has crowded Three Sheets and an half of Paper for the most part with pretended Reasons and Figures without producing so much as One Text pertinent to disprove the Real Presence or to prove any One Text by me alledged to be either Figuratively or Parabolically spoken or that for Such they must be understood But says by no Authority but his own Protest Ans Pag. 7 8 10. That the Sense of Eating the Flesh and Drinking the Blood Must be Figurative and right or wrong they are Figurative and must not be properly and litterally understood For I am says he as 〈◊〉 as 〈…〉 Words that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is 〈…〉 Literal thâ—n it 〈◊〉 be the Rational Meaning of them c. But to have made You as sure as himself methinks he should have proved by express Scripture that those Texts which I produced were Figurative or Parabolical and that they are not to be understood in the plain and proper Sense wherein they were spoken otherwise how doth he think we shall take his bare Word or that his private Meaning of the Text shall pass upon us for Gospel But not to delay on this particular pray observe how the Gentleman has evaded the Question which was of the Real and Immediate Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament Whether we believed it or not if We believed it We were to produce what Scripture We could to justifie Our said Belief and if They deny'd it They were to produce what Scripture They could to prove That their Negative But instead of speaking to the Real Persence he has betaken himself to Transubstantiation a Word devised by the Church to express the Conversion that 's made in the Sacrament by the Divine Word as the Word Consubstantial or Consubstantiate was devised against the Arians to express the Substance of the Son 's being Coequal the same with the Substance of the Father and if the Request had been of the Consubstantiality of the Son the Arians with as much Reason might have Answered That 't was enough for them to shew that Consubstantiality is not Taught in Scripture as the Protestant Answerer has done where Pag. 3. he says That 't is enough for them to shew that Transubstantiation is not taught in Scripture tho' the Being of Christ 's Body and Blood in the Sacrament is At which rate if permitted he 'll Sham off the rest of their Negative Doctrines insomuch that when you come to the Infallibility of the Church Invocation of Saints Purgatory c. and require him to shew Express Scripture to prove That the Church is not Infallible That we must not Invocate the Saints to Pray for us That there is no Third Place in the other Life besides Heaven and Hell he 'll think to stop your Mouth with his 'T is enough for them to shew that Infallibility is not Taught in Scripture tho' That the Church can never Err be That Invocation of Saints is not Taught in Scripture tho' Prayer to Saints and that they do Pray for us be That Purgatory is not Taught in Scripture tho' a Third Place in the other Life be whereby he quits the Substance to wrangle at the Word by which the Substance is express'd He might as well say The Trinity and Incarnation are not Taught in Scripture the Words being no more there than Transubstantiation Purgatory or the rest But how far this way of Answering will take with You I know not For My part I humbly conceived your Meaning was purely to be satisfied in the Substance of what We believed of the Real Presence and to shew You what Authorities We had from Scripture for such Our Belief not doubtings if We agreed in the Substance of the Thing Believed that ever We should differ about a Word sufficiently proper to express it The Gentleman proceeds and tells you Pag. 3. That You are but lately engaged in this Employment or else You would never says he think it reasonable to oppose the Authority of One Vnknown Answerer of that Communion to the profess'd Opinion of so Many great Divines of that Church c. And from thence infers a Concurrence of some of our Divines with him in this particular to wit Pag. 4. That there was not One place of Scripture so Express that without the determination of the Church it would evidently compel a Man to receive Transubstantiation And the same might as well be said of the Consubstantiality of the Son That there is no Scripture so Express as without out the determination of the Church it would evidently compel a Man to receive it But what is this to the Being or not Being of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament Had he produced Scotus Bellarmine or any of the Holy Fathers to disprove the Real Presence it had been something tho not to your purpose for the Request was Pag. 4. To satisfie You by the Scripture only and not by citing of our Modern Divines or Ancient Greek and Latin Fathers but by the Express Text and plain Word of God as Written and set forth in our English Bibles and no otherwise And this was the Rule that I walk'd by in my Answer not that I thereby Renounced the Determination of the Church in this or any other point of Faith God forbid but that I should always prefer their Vniversal Consent to my Private Opinion Wherefore if what Scotus and Bellarmine have said in that Matter will do the Gentleman a Kindness he shall have it not only from them but from all the Faithful that altho' the Scripture were never so plain we would yet submit to the Determination