he that eateth Not saith he that he did then give or that they did then eat his Flesh and 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 this he only told them he would give it and the Eve before his Passion he performed it And from that time I suppose the Obligation bears force ver 53. Except ye eat c. I will suppose that the Present doth not here exclude the Future and that he that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath Eternal life will always hold true and what all ages as well as those then present would partake of but methinks it 's very hard to make the present exclude it self and to tell us that they did not and could not then eat the Flesh of Christ when our Saviour saith they might and ought as is evident from what follows Let us go to the thing to be eaten and it 's represented in the Present Tense v. 51. This is the Bread. v. 51. I am the Bread. v. 52. Is my Flesh. v. 55. My Flesh is meat Let us go to the act and in correspondence to the object it 's also in the present v. 51. If any man eat Thus the Jews understood it v. 52. How can this man give us his Flesh to eat And accordingly our Saviour answers v. 53. Except ye eat c. ye have no life in you He speaks it to those present ye and then applies it universally v. 54. Whoso eateth my Flesh c. Let us go to the thing signified by Eating and Drinking and it 's after the same manner v. 35. He that cometh and he that believeth v. 38 40 45 47. I shall conclude this with what was said in the Protestant Answer If Christ's Flesh here spoken of might be eaten and his Blood drank out of the Sacrament then it could not here be understood of that Flesh and Blood which our Author saith the Bread and Wine are converted into in the Sacrament nor I may add of carnal eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood. Our Author resents this ill for he saith 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 to use his own words after an Heavenly and Spiritual manner 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 Pag. 8. Here I acknowledg I intended no hurt in the world but thought I had exprest my self innocently enough For when I had read in the Catholick Answer that in the Eucharist is Truly Really and Substantially contained under the Forms of Bread and Wine the True Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus in the very Substance wherein he was born of the Virgin and wherein he lived and died for us with this difference only that he was visible to the eye of Flesh then and invisible to the same now I thought the word carnal was expressive of the thing and indeed I find no great reason to alter it For 1. had I said Metaphorically and Figuratively that by no means would suit what is corporal And besides I learn too from our Author Pag. 17. that that is a deceitful fictious manner 2. Had I said corporal I see little distance betwixt that and carnal for as Body and Flesh is all one so is corporal and carnal 3. Had I chosen the word Spiritual that 's a kind of contradiction if applied to a Body for Spiritual eating of a Body is little better than bodily eating of a spirit And when a Real Presence by Faith would not content them if we deny a Real Presence by sense Seeker Pag. 6. I had as much reason to believe a Spiritual eating would be no more allowed than a Spiritual Presence 4. Had I express'd it by Heavenly when it was somewhat eaten and drank corporally and that what we took with the mouth was the very Body of Christ it could not be sufficiently expressive of it It was further urged Arg. 2. Upon mature Consideration of the whole it appear'd to the Protestant Answerer that the sense of Eating the Flesh of Christ in this place must be Figurative and signifies no other than coming to Christ and Believing in him which sure is out of the Sacrament as well as in it And this indeed he proved from the promiscuous use of the words in that Chapter but this our Author conceals from his Reader that he might not too apparently contradict what he had said Pag. 2. That he says by no Authority but his own that the sense of Eating the Flesh must be Figurative and right or wrong they are Figurative upon his own bare word without Scripture But as the Protestant Answerer argued from the words and phrases of the Chapter so from the current of our Saviour's Discourse that it could not be properly and literally understood 1. Because then all that properly Eat the Flesh of Christ would according to our Saviour's promise v. 54. Have Eternal Life Whoso Eateth c. To this our Author answers Very truel but with a qualification that recalls what he had granted For it 's to be understood saith he of Worthy Receivers But this is by no means consistent with our Saviour's Reasoning which if the Flesh to be eat and the Eating of it were to be understood properly will necessarily infer the Salvation of all such as thus Eat after this manner as well unworthy as â—â—worthy Since all that Eat his Flesh and drink his Blood in the sense there meant are the persons to whom Eternal Life is promised but if properly Eating his Flesh be the sense of our Saviour's Expressions there us'd then we know what follows 2. The Protestant Answerer urged further That if the words Eating the Flesh and Drinking the Blood be properly to be understood then the Receiving the Sacrament in both Kinds will be necessary to Salvation it being affirmed v. 53. Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink his Blood ye have no life in you and he shewed that for this reason amongst others Cardinal Cajetan would not admit that this Discourse of our Saviour belong'd to the Eucharist What saith our Author to this Truly nothing As to this saith he of both kinds it doth not properly relate either to your request or my Answer A Reply that may be made in any case He goes on And besides I do not see where the necessity lies of defining the Sacrament in both Kinds to one that believes it in neither That is as much as to say I beg his pardon I will not vouchsafe an Answer to such an one as he is but however methinks he might have said somewhat if it had been only for the satisfaction of the distressed Seeker to whom he writes his Letter to let him see that
THE Protestant's Answer TO THE Catholick Letter TO THE SEEKER OR A VINDICATION OF THE PROTESTANT's ANSWER To the SEEKER's Request IMPRIMATUR Liber cui Titulus The Protestant's Answer to the Catholick Letter to the Seeker c. H. Maurice RR. in Christo P. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cant. Ã Sacris Maii 22. 1688. LONDON Printed and are to be Sold by Randal Taylor near Stationers-Hall M.DCLXXXVIII THE CONTENTS THE matter in debate stated p. 2. The Sum of the Protestant Answer p. 4. Transubstantiation confest by many of the Church of Rome not to be proved by Scripture pag. 5. Joh. 6. 48. consider'd p. 6. Not for Transubstantiation by the confession of several in the Church of Rome Ibid. It 's also proved by several Arguments As that place had no special reference to the Sacrament p. 7. Eating the Flesh then spoken of may be out of the Sacrament as well as in it Ibid. Proved to concern those present as well as others p. 8. The sense of eating the Flesh of Christ proved to be Figurative p. 10. Of Figurative Speeches p. 12. Particularly here p. 13 c. Of Christ's being a Vine c. p. 17. The words This is my Body considered p. 18. Of the word This p. 22. Of Christ's being in the Sacrament after a Spiritual manner Ibid. The Texts produced by Protestants for it p. 24. 1. The Letter of Scripture for the Protestant Doctrine p. 26. 1. Where it 's call'd Bread and the Fruit of the Vine 2. The Body of Christ had the Natural properties of a Body p. 29. 3. The Body of Christ is in Heaven and circumscribed p. 32. 4. That Christ's Body is Glorified and so not a Sacrifice p. 33. 2. The words which are Figurative are for us such are these This is my Body Ibid. THE PROTESTANT's ANSWER TO THE CATHOLICK LETTER TO THE SEEKER c. HEre 's a Catholick Letter to the Seeker or a Reply to the Protestant Answer to the Seeker But what 's become of the Seeker himself for this four Months past What of the Declaration he was in the Conclusion to make for the Catholick Faith of Rome which we are now told of That according to the method it seems agreed on he may after Sentence pass'd in this case proceed to the Infallibility of the Church or other Points of Faith in difference betwixt them and the Church of England as our Author intimates there a little too early The Seeker had indeed given reason enough to judg on which side he was to be satisfied That tho seemingly he was sent out like the Dove to try where he might find rest for the Sole of his Foot yet we may see beforehand what was the Ark he was to return to and that they were as sure of him as they are of a Convert before they offer a Conference Where 's now the Resolution he was to come to Has the Protestant Answer to the Seekers Request broke these Measures and forced them to think of another Expedient Our Author cannot altogether dissemble it It seems the Seeker was to put certain Ties upon his Answerers to which his Friend on the side of the Church of Rome submitted and it was humbly conceived the Protestant Answerer would have done so too as our Author signifies p. 1. But he being a lover of Liberty more than Courtship and of Truth and Reason more than both took upon himself as its thought too much Authority when together with his Answer to the Seekers Request he wrote a Reply to the Catholick Answer to the Seekers Request This is a course our Author complains of and perhaps he has some reason for it But what has he to accuse the Protestant Answerer of That he has evaded the Question As how Of this he gives a threefold Instance 1. That he has used the Word Transubstantiation Of this our Author thus complains p. 2. and 5. I do not find the word Transubstantiation so much as mentioned in either your Request or my Answer Wherefore how sincere the Gentleman has been in this particular let the World judg A material Point who would not think now that the word Transubstantiation was abominated by him and as little used in their Church as it is in ours It 's fit therefore to know our Authors mind in it Of this he saith It 's a word devised by the Church to express the Conversion that 's made in the Sacrauent and which mysterious change the Holy Catholick the Roman Church doth properly call Transubstantiation p. 2 and 5. Now where is the fault Where the insincerity The insincerity they may take to themselves but the fault is that when they thought by the use of the Phrase Real Presence common to both them and us and by the forbearance of the word Transubstantiation which is peculiar to themselves that they might have imposed upon the unwary Reader the Protestant Answerer used the word Transubstantiation for their Real Presence and so their design is discover'd and in part defeated 2. He saith The Protestant Answerer evaded the Question when instead of speaking to the Real Presence he betook himself to Transubstantiation p. 2. Now who would not think upon this charge that his Real Presence and Transubstantiation are as inconsistent as Truth and Falshood Here indeed he has put a Question which I confess I should have been ready to ask What 's this to the purpose Is not the Real Presence and Transubstantiation all as one p. 5. And I should be as ready to ask again If they are all as one how was the Question evaded when instead of speaking to the Real Presence the Answerer betook himself to Transubstantiation In this he thus acutely Answers No truly they are not all as one as you may think For there is a great deal of difference betwixt a Man and the Name by which he is distinguished 'T is one thing to prove the Real Presence and being of Christs Body and Blood in the Sacrament and another to shew why this change is by the Church call'd Transubstantiation tho whoever believes the one can't in Truth deny the other That is the Real Presence and Transubstantiation are not all as one because they are all as one And the Answerer has evaded the Question by using the one for the other because whoever believes the one can't in Truth deny the other 3. But he has not yet concluded the Charge For saith he Whereas the Controversy is not about the word the Answerer has altogether banter'd at the word Transubstantiation and not spoken to the Substance p. 5. So before The Arians with as much reason might have objected against the word Consubstantial which was devised against them as the Protestant Answerer has done where p. 3. he says That it 's enough for them to shew that Transubstantiation is not taught in Scripture tho the Being of Christs Body and Blood in the Sacrament is p. 2. If our Author's skill in reasoning be no better than it
in the Earth Arg. 4. The Answerer argued on That the Letter is for us that Christ was but once offered as a Propitiatory Sacrifice c. that his Body is Glorified and so not to be offer'd Heb. 9. 28 c. But to this our Author has made no Reply SECT III. FRom hence the Prot. Answerer proceeded to shew that as the Letter of Scripture is for us so are the words which are Figurative as in those This is my Body p. 16. The method was here orderly and distinct but our Author runs one into another I shall gather up what he saith as well as I can The Arguments by which the Answerer proved those words to be Figurative are as followeth Arg. 1. From the word This which if to be understood of the Bread Bellarmine grants then the word Body must be Figuratively understood And that it was the Bread at least in conjunction with the other acts relating to it the Answerer shew'd which our Author le ts pass Arg. 2. The Answerer argues if the words are to be understood literally and properly when these words were said by our Saviour then the Body would be broken before it was broken To this our Author answers 1. P. 26. Though his Natural Body be there yet the manner of it's 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 the Substance I answer That to speak of a Body's being after the manner of a Spirit is as much as to say on the contrary A Spirit exists after the manner of a Body that is That Body may be a Spirit and a Spirit a Body 2. If the Body be in the manner of its Being only Spiritual and Sacramental and the breaking in the manner of its breaking be only Spiritually then why not the Body be only Spiritual and Sacramental Or why should we any more profess our selves Jews or Infidels as he would have it to doubt whether nay to affirm what Christ said was improper and Metaphorical when we say This is my Body is to be understood Figuratively and Spiritually than it 's to say as he doth it 's broken spiritually since as the Answerer observ'd it 's as well said This is broken as This is my Body And our Author saith the manner of its being and breaking are Spiritual and Sacramental Mystical and Representative 3. But this is besides the case for the Question is not about the manner of Breaking but how Christ could say This is Broken if not Figuratively understood before it was broken But to this we are to expect an Answer But he adds 2. Moreover these words which is broken do prove as the Holy Catholick Church always did and ever will hold it to be a true proper Sacrifice for the being broken explains the Nature of a Sacrifice which imports the destruction of the thing offered if corruptible and liable 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 Setting aside that what he saith concerning the Catholick Church is spoken Gratis I answer If the nature of a Sacrifice imports the destruction of the thing offered if corruptible and liable to destruction then the Body of Christ must have been destroy'd if a proper Sacrifice before it was destroy'd for the Body of Christ when Christ spoke these words This is my Body was certainly liable to destruction And so he has fastned the Objection instead of answering it 3. He concludes If this manner of Breaking pleases not the Gentleman as in truth it doth not and he has now given his Reasons for it let us see whether the Body of Christ were not otherwise Broke before he instituted the Sacrament Now his Body was pierced and Blood spilt at his Circumcision followed by unspeakable Pains restless Labours c. What his Agony in the Garden What his being crowned with Thorns and Bloody Whipping at the Pillar Wherefore with Truth our Saviour might have said of his Body which is broke without supposing any thing improper or untrue 1. What doth our Author mean when he saith he would see Whether the Body of Christ were not otherwise broken before he instituted the Sacrament And instances in his Agony in the Garden his crowning with Thorns and whipping Doth he think these were before the Sacrament 2. If this was the meaning of our Saviour when he said This is my Body which is broken that he was Circumcised and in an Agony c. then where is the Sacrifice which he saith imparts the destruction of the thing Which these things were neither literally nor mystically Arg. 3. The Answerer urged that Jesus himself then took the Bread c. when he said This is my Body and yet Jesus had at that time a Body which was not broken c. no not so much as mystically So that the same Body was whole and broken Here our Author is silent Arg. 4. He argued from the words Do this in Remembrance of me which supposes absence and therefore an Institution set up in remembrance and yet in which the Body was to be actually present is to suppose the Body to be absent and present at the same time To this he answers 1. That those words no way relate to the Laity who only receive the Sacrament but to the Priests who consecrate and administer for it 's no where said This Eat This Take This Receive but This Do. A. 1. If this be so then there is no command to the People to receive 2. To whom did the Apostle write his Epistle but to Laity as well as Priests 3. Surely he did not read 1 Cor. 11. 24. where the Apostle saith Take Eat This is my Body This do What but Take Eat so v. 25. This do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me This do What but Drink this But after all what is this to the Argument For whether these Words were spoke to the Laity or Priests relates not to the Case but the Question is Whether Remembrance of Persons is in its true Notion consistent with Presence To this he answers The Seeker unanswerably observed that the Remembrance of its Being doth no way make it cease to be A wise Observation But what then Doth it not suppose the Absence of the thing This he saith is a weak piece of Sophistry as if saith he my Remembrance of your being with me when Present did any wise suppose your Absence from me But I thought with the rest of Mankind that Remembrance and Sight are as distinct in their notion as Absence and Presence and that I may as well see what is Absent as remember what is Present What is Present we see and know but what is Unseen and Absent we remember After all we see that the Author has left no Rule to direct a true Seeker to no Guide to direct him no Arguments to settle his wavering mind and if there be not a better Rule Guide or Arguments than he has offered toward his Conviction there is no help for it but the Seeker must live and dye a Seeker It 's impossible to convince a man that has Sense and Reason that he must not use them and that whatever use they may be of in Temporal Matters they ought to be of none in Religion and he that will undertake this difficult task must either prove he doth not contradict himself when he will shew and refer him to the Letter of Scripture and wish him to use his Eyes to see it And his reason to judg of it or else he must prove that both parts of a Contradiction may be true And having brought our Author hither I may safely leave him and conclude his Argument together FINIS ERRATA PAg. 10. lin 21. for Seeker pag. 6. Seeker pag. 6. with Braces P. 27. l. 32. for whe r. where ADVERTISEMENT Transubstantiation contrary to Scripture or the Protestant's Answer to the Seeker's Request An Apology for the Pulpits being in Answer to a late Book Intituled Good Advice to the Pulpits Together with an Appendix containing a Defence of Dr. Tenison's Sermon about Alms in a Letter to the Author of this Apology Cath. Letter to a Seeker p. 1. and 34. Eccl. Hist. l. 1. c. 8. Part. 1. Sect. 1. Sect. 2. Sect. 3. Part 2. Sect. 1. Sect. 2.