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
to be the BODY of the LORD or how doth he say Condemn'd not discerning the LORD 's BODY if the Body of the LORD be not there to be discerned Wherefore St. Paul speaketh not but in Confirmation of its being the Body and Blood of CHRIST or 't would be hard a Sinner should be Damn'd meerly for Moderate Eating and Drinking of bare Bread and Wine For according to the Protestant Answerer the Sacrament is no more who tells you Pag. 11. That there is no other Substance distributed among the Communicants than that of Bread and Wine And Pag. 15. That they are as really and properly Bread and Wine after Consecration as before And further The said Texts are laid before You for that in some of them it is said THIS DO IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME To which I Answer and say That those Words This do in Remembrance of Me do no way Relate to the Laiety who only receive the Sacrament but to the Priests who Consecrate and Administer the same for it is no where said This Eat This Take This Receive but This do in Remembrance of Me whereas it is not at all the Office of the Laiety nor have they the Power to do as our Saviour then did Bless and Administer the Sacrament of his Body and Blood to Themselves or Others but the Office of the Priests to whom was given by these Words This do c. a particular Power to do the same as Christ then did Take Bread and Wine Bless it and Administer it as he did for his Body and his Blood. Nor do the Words IN REMEMBRANCE any way serve Their turn for as You unanswerably have observed Pag. 7. of your Request That the Remembrance of its Being doth no way make it cease to Be which Argument the Protestant Answerer would fain Confute where Pag. 19. he tells You Tho' the Remembrance of its Being do no way make it cease to Be yet says he it supposeth the Absence of the Being which is to suppose the Body to be Present and Absent at the same Time A piece of Sophistry so weak as I admire a Man of Sense should insist thereon as if my Remembrance of your being with me when present did any way suppose your Absence from me at the same time It is surely Nonsense to think That the Remembrance of a Thing present did or could in the least suppose the Absence of the same Thing at the same time for tho' it be confess'd we may Remember the Being of a Thing when Absent yet the Remembrance of the same Thing when Present doth not at all suppose the Absence and the Presence too of the same Thing at one and the same time Wherefore the Remembrance of Christ's Body and Blood 's being Present in the Sacrament doth no ways suppose the Absence of the Being nor make the Being cease to Be. And further The said Scriptures are produced for that in some of them it is said THIS IS MY BODY which is Broken for you Before says he Pag. 14. it was Broke Whence he concludes it not to be the Body of CHRIST because as he conceives the Body of CHRIST was not Then Broke But before We proceed 't is requisite to inform your Self whether CHRIST had Two Bodies One Figurative and the Other Real I suppose 't will be resolved that CHRIST had but One Body and that was a True Real and Substantial Body and not a Figurative or Delusive Body Wherefore if CHRIST had but One Body 't was of that Body he spake when He said THIS IS MY BODY which is Broken for you and to doubt that what CHRIST said was either Improper or Untrue is to profess our selves Infidels and Jews at once for none but such can question GOD's Veracity Wherefore as what he said was certainly true so it was undoubtedly proper when he said Which is BROKEN FOR YOV For proof whereof I answer That tho' his Natural Body be There yet the manner of its Being is Spiritual and Sacramental and the manner of its Breaking follows the manner of its Being his Body is There Broken in the Sign not in the Substance Moreover those Words WHICH IS BROKEN do prove as the Holy Catholick Church always did and ever will hold it to be a True and Proper Sacrifice for the Being Broken does explain the nature of a Sacrifice which imports the destruction of the Thing Offered if Corruptible and lyable to Destruction But the Body of CHRIST being Incorruptible and Immortal can't be really hurt therefore the manner of Breaking is only Mystical and Representative But if this manner of Breaking do not please the Gentleman let us to verifie the Words of Christ whose Truth he so much doubts see whether the Body of Christ were not otherwise Broke before He Instituted the Sacrament or rather whether his Body had not been Pierced and his Blood had not been Spilt for that it is written John 19.36 A Bone of Him shall not be broke And another Scripture saith Ibid. Ver. 37. They shall look on Him whom they Pierced Wherefore the Body of CHRIST was not otherwise Naturally Broken than by Piercing of his Body and Spilling of his Blood. Now that his Body at that time had been Pierced and his Blood had been Spilt appears c. when at Eight Days Old He began to smart for us Which Piercing of his Flesh and Spilling of his Blood at his Circumcision was followed by Vnspeakable Pains Restless Labours Travels and Fastings insomuch that his whole Life from the Hour of his Birth to the Moment of his Death was but One Passion-continued What I pray his Agony in the Garden What His being Crown'd with Thorns and Bloody Whipping at the Pillar That in the Opinion of this Gentleman his Body was not at all Broke nor his Blood in the least Shed till Consummate for us upon the Cross Wherefore with Truth our Saviour might have said of his Body which is Broke and of his Blood which is Shed without supposing that any thing he said was either Improper or Untrue And the said Scriptures are produced for that it is said I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the Vine until I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdom which our Saviour might have said and not at all Recal his first Assurance for we do not deny the use of Figures in Expression as the Word CVP for his Blood contain'd in it and the Word BREAD for his Body contain'd under that Form But there is no Figure in this Mystery which excludes but asserts the Reality of CHRIST's Body and Blood in the Sacrament For the terms CVP and BREAD sometimes used by the Apostles after the Institution as by us at this day do not at all destroy the Substance for which our Saviour gave them when he said EAT THIS IS MY BODY DRINK THIS IS MY BLOOD Nor do I see what Reason they have to Carp at either of the said Terms CVP or BREAD seeing Both are
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-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
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 and one should 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 Mat. 26.26,27,28 Jesus took BREAD and Blessed it and Brake it and gave it to the Disciples and said TAKE EAT THIS IS MY BODY and He took the CVP and gave Thanks and gave it to them saying Drink ye All of It for THIS IS MY BLOOD And There it was and Here it is by Power of these Words of God THIS IS MY BODY THIS IS MY BLOOD that the Bread and Wine are turn'd into the Body and Blood of Christ He doth no say Here as He did when He spake the Parable of the DOOR the VINE and the rest That this Parable spake He unto them or that this BREAD is Like or Likened unto his BODY or a Figure of his BODY but absolutely TAKE EAT THIS IS MY BODY And for such we ought to take it and believe it till the Protestant Answerer be able to produce as plain Scripture against it as I have done for it The Gentleman proceeds and Pag. 11. tells you what their Church holds he should have said of the Real Presence for that was the Quaere and delivers their Opinion in different manners to wit 1. Our Church holds says he That Transubstantiation is Repugnant to the plain Words of Scripture and overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament Art. 28. 2. That the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain after Consecration in their natural Substances and the natural Body and Blood of Christ are in Heaven and not Here. Rubr. after the Com. 3. That the Body of Christ is Given Taken and Eaten in the Supper only after an Heavenly and Spiritual manner and the means whereby the Body of Christ is Received and Eaten is Faith Art. 28 29. And in three Lines after he tells you That there is no other Substance distributed among the Communicants than that of Bread and Wine And these put together make such a Medley that a Man knows not what to believe of it First 'T is Repugnant to the plain Words of Scripture tho' they are not able to produce one Syllable out of the whole Bible to disprove it Secondly The Natural Body and Blood of Christ are in Heaven and not Here tho' at the same time they tell you That the Body of CHRIST who had but One Body is Given Taken and Eaten in the Supper after an Heavenly and Spiritual manner and in Three Lines after denies it again which are such Contradictions that a Bushel of Figures will ne're reconcile 'em For If the Body and Blood of Christ be confin'd in Heaven and not in the Sacrament at all How can the Body of Christ be Given Taken and Eaten in the Supper after any manner Heavenly or Vnheavenly if the Body of Christ be not There at all to be Given Taken or Eaten or how can the Body of Christ be as he says Given Taken and Eaten in the Supper when at the same time he tells you There is no other Substance distributed to the Communicants than that of Bread and Wine As to the Words Heavenly and Spiritual Manner I would They did truly believe it so for then They would believe it as We do that is That the Body of Christ is truly Given Taken and Eaten in the Sacrament after an Heavenly and Spiritual Manner for after a Carnal Sensual Manner We receive it not but this Heavenly and Spiritual Manner We believe to be a True and Real Manner and not a Deceitful Figurative Fictitious Manner as if all that is Heavenly were but Figure and Fancy If You grant the Body and Blood of Christ to be in the Sacrament after a Spiritual Manner you must also grant it There after a True Manner or to be There after a Spiritual Manner is not to be There after a Real 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 by the Gentleman 's own Concessions as well as Mine Of CHRIST's being Not but where he is Intire Wherefore if Christ be in the Sacrament after any Manner He is There after such an Intire Real and Substantial Manner as We believe and profess Him or He is in no Manner There at all for Christ is Not at all but where He Truly and Intirely is In the Twelfth and Thirteenth Pages of the Protestant Answer the Gentleman produceth all the Scriptures he had or at least all the chiefest Texts he could to disprove our Doctrine of the Real Presence and Being of CHRIST's BODY and BLOOD in the Sacrament Which Scriptures by Him produced Against it together with those by Me alledged and assigned For it are as followeth The Catholick Texts for the Real Presence I. St. John 6. v. 48. I am that Bread of Life says Christ II. Vers 49. Your Fathers did eat Manna in the Wilderness and are Dead III. Ver. 50. This is the Bread which cometh down from Heaven that a Man may Eat thereof and not Die. IV. Vers 51. I am the Living Bread which came down from Heaven If any Man Eat of this Bread he shall Live for ever and the Bread that I will give is my Flesh which I will give for the Life of the World. V. Vers 54. Whoso Eateth my Flesh and Drinketh my Blood hath Eternal Life and I will raise him up at the last Day VI. Vers 55. For my Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is Drink indeed VII Vers 56. He that Eateth my Flesh and Drinketh my Blood dwelleth in Me and I in Him. VIII Vers 57. As the Living Father hath sent Me and I live by the Father so he that Eateth Me even he shall Live by Me. IX Vers 58. This is that Bread which came down from Heaven Not as your Fathers did eat Manna and are Dead He that Eateth of this Bread shall Live for ever X. St. Matt. 26. v. 26. And as they were Eating Jesus took Bread and Blessed it and brake it and gave it to the Disciples and said Take Eat This is my Body XI Vers 27. And he took the Cup and gave Thanks and gave it to them saying Drink ye all of it XII Vers 28. For This is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins XIII St. Mark 14. v. 22. And as they did Eat Jesus took Bread and Blessed and brake it and gave to them and said Take Eat This is my Body XIV Vers 23. And He took the Cup and when he had given Thanks he gave it to them and they all Drank of it XV. Vers 24. And He said unto them This is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many XIV St. Luk. 22. v. 19.