Selected quad for the lemma: soul_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A66413
|
The Protestant's answer to The Catholick letter to the seeker, or, A vindication of the Protestant's answer, to the seeker's request
|
Williams, John, 1636?-1709.
|
1688
(1688)
|
Wing W2720; ESTC R2915
|
32,577
|
43
|
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
together with the Soul and Divinity of Christ in the self-same Substance wherein he was born of the Virgin Where that this true Body and Blood is truly really and substantially contained under the Forms of Bread and Wine Where that the Bread and Wine are upon Consecration turned into the true Body and Blood of Christ Let us see how our Author replies to this p. 17. Let us note his Where 's Where says he is there one word Where that this true Body and Blood Where that the Bread and Wine are upon Consecration turn'd into the True Body and Blood of Christ c. Which truly are Where 's indeed But what 's become of the Soul and Divinity of Christ What of the self-same Substance wherein he was born of the Virgin What of the true Body truly really and substantially contain'd under the Forms of Bread and Wine Which are what he profess'd firmly and truly to believe by the same Faith he believes a God And where to add another Where will he find these literally in the words This is my Body He tells us one would think that so many Where 's were not without a Wherefore And because the Gentleman desires to know the Where he shall also know the When. Certainly now to the Confutation of Scotus and Biel c. and the confusion of all Hereticks We shall have a plain discovery and that in so many words we shall find the true Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of Christ c. For this go we to his when Jesus took Bread c. and said This is my Body Mat. 26. 26. Then it was saith he and Here it is by power of these words of God This is my Body that the Bread is turned into the Body of Christ. This is indeed a submission to the Seeker 's direction to produce the words without a meaning and it is so because it is so This is my Body doth turn the Bread into the Body because there are the words This is my Body I hope the Reader is satisfied for in truth I am The next thing proposed by the Prot. Answerer was what the meaning is of This in This is my Body If saith he it be Bread then the Bread is in the literal sense the substance of Christ's Body and so overthrows the change to be made in Transubstantiation If by This is not meant the Bread then the Bread could never be turned into the Body of Christ by vertue of the words This is my Body Our Author readily answers Ask the Question What and our Saviour will resolve you Mat. 26. 26. This is what my Body he did not say after he had blessed it Say Take Eat This is Bread but my Body than which nothing can be more plain than that it was his Body And to make all sure he seriously proves it because it 's not hic but hoc est panis It 's well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek is of the same Gender with panis But let us admit of this Learned Criticism though by the way let me observe for our Author's instruction when the Article relates to the sentence it 's to be put in the Neuter Gender the difficulty put yet remains for if the This relates to Body then the sense is This Body is my Body But saith he let us suppose This to refer to Bread It yet follows that it is his Body But it follows also as the Answerer argued that then the Bread is the Substance of Christ's Body according to the Letter and so could not be turned into it So that our Author has left the difficulty as he found it But because the Answerer here said We have not Faith to believe that reason the Scripture hath not taught he very subtilly argues after this manner From whence saith he I gather that notwithstanding all his Arguments to disprove the Real Presence yet he hath not Faith though face to deny it For that pag. 3. he tells you that besides their positive Articles they have a great many Negative ones and the Answerer tells you for which we are beholden to the Corruptions and Innovations of the Church of Rome c. For that he hath not faith to believe what the Scripture hath not taught that in the Eucharist is not contain'd the Body of Christ. The Gentleman therefore can have no Faith to deny it A very quaint Argument which I shall dismiss with a parallel Instance He that hath not Faith to believe that which the Scripture hath not taught hath not Faith to deny that to be of Faith which the Scripture doth not teach And therefore because Mahometism is not taught in Scripture he hath not Faith to deny it But this spirit of acuteness doth not last long for having labour'd to find inconsistencies in the Doctrine of the Church of England as set down in the Answer he blunders without end He allows what our Church saith That the Body of Christ is eaten in the Sacrament after an Heavenly and Spiritual manner but he adds but this we believe to be a true and real manner not a Deceitful Figurative or Fictitious manner If you grant it after a Spiritual manner you must grant it there after a true manner If Christ be there in Spirit he is also there in Truth and if there in Spirit and Truth all my Arguments are granted I think not for the Church of England saith it 's only after an Heavenly and Spiritual manner So that though they do agree where Christ is in Spirit he is there in Truth yet I doubt me the word only alters the case for he may be there in Spirit and in Truth and yet not be Corporally there And I question whether any thing less will satisfie our Author and so it appears For saith he Christ is there after such an Intire Real and Substantial manner as we believe or he is in no manner there at all p. 19 20. PART II. Sect. 1. HAving thus considered the Texts produced by the Catholick Answer to the Seeker and shew'd how little they serve their Cause I shall proceed to the Second Part and that is to vindicate the Texts produced in the Protestant Answer from the Exceptions of our Author Here our Author sets his Texts against those of the Protestant but it would have done well if he had first set down what it is he should prove on his own side viz. That in the Eucharist is truly really and substantially contained under the Forms of Bread and Wine the true Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of Christ in the same substance wherein he was born of the Virgin and wherein he lived and died for us and this by the Conversion of the whole Bread into the Body and the Wine into the Blood of Christ. If this had been done how meanly would it have look'd though he brought his 24 Texts to prove it and surely he could not then have had the