Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A52720
|
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.
|
N. N.
|
1688
(1688)
|
Wing N32; ESTC R9655
|
25,181
|
42
|
more ample for believing the Latter to be the Body and Blood of CHRIST than for believing the Formers to be the Holy Ghost As to the Eight last Texts which the Gentleman has produc'd to disprove our Doctrine of the Real Presence to wit Act. 1. v. 11. Act. 3. v. 21. St. Luk. 24. v. 39. Act. 1. v. 3. 1 Joh. 1. v. 1. Heb. 9. v. 28. Heb. 10. v. 12. Phil. 3. v. 21. they no way relate to the Sacrament but to the Resurrection and Ascension of CHRIST's Body From whence he concludes That CHRIST is confin'd in Heaven only and can be no where else till He comes to judge the Quick and the Dead and of consequence fixt at the Right Hand of the Father and cannot be as We suppose in Heaven and Earth in so many Places at the same Time. Which barren Conceit of CHRIST is sufficiently Answer'd Pag. 15 16. where it is prov'd from Scriptures That although CHRIST Ascended and be in Heaven yet it argues not but that He is and may be on Earth too For That He is a Perfect and an Omnipotent GOD and has promis'd Mat. 28. v. 20. That He will be with us always even to the End of the World And Mat. 18. v. 20. That Where Two or Three are gather'd together in his Name that He is in the midst of them And further it appears That our Saviour is not so Confin'd in Heaven as that He cannot also be upon Earth for we read That He Descended and overthrew Saul in the Way to Damascus and spoke to him saying Act. 9. v. 4 5. Saul Saul why persecutest thou me And he said Who art thou Lord And the Lord said I am JESVS whom thou persecutest Wherefore the Gentleman's Notion of CHRIST's being only in Heaven you see is frivolous for that CHRIST not only spake with Saul in the High-way but has promis'd as before To be with us always even to the End of the World. And it 's further prov'd That CHRIST may be actually Present without being Seen For when He spake to Saul the Men that Travell'd with him to Damascus stood by Act. 9. v. 7. speechless hearing a Voice but seeing no Man. By all which it 's plain That CHRIST may be on Earth and in many Places at the same Time as well as in Heaven or else He could not be with us always even to the End of the World nor with Saul in the Way nor in the Midst of all the Assemblies of the Faithful that are gather'd together in his Name in so many Places throughout the World at one and the same Time. The Gentleman's Arguments are therefore of no Effect which P. 15 16. he brings to prove Christ only in Heaven and no where else For although those Texts do prove the Resurrection Ascension and Being of CHRIST in Heaven yet they do not at all destroy the Power of CHRIST's being in divers Places at the same Time according to his Divine Will. And please to note That it is impossible for any thing to be in the Will which is not in the Power of GOD. Wherefore as it was in his Will proved by his Word to give us Bread to Eat which should be his Flesh so it was in his Power that That Bread should be his Flesh tho no more Tasted in the Sacrament than Seen when He spake unto Saul And that He whose Greatness the Heavens are not able to contain had both the Power and the Will to be Conceived in the Womb of the Blessed Virgin contrary to the Course of Nature where from almost Nothing He encreased to be Born a Child-God and to Die a God-Man and in whose Power it was to pass with his Body Intire through Walls or Doors that were close in his Power likewise it is to be Contained in the smallest Particle of Bread. Wherefore with the Believing Disciples let us Believe and not with the Murmuring Jews Doubt how he could give us his Flesh to Eat and his Blood to Drink nor with the Incredulous Disciples say 'T is an hard Saying who can hear it nor for this Cause go back as they did and walk no more with CHRIST as They do who deny the Being of his Body and Blood in the Sacrament so expresly confirmed by Him in whose Word there is no Contradiction Wherefore the Defect is not in the Word but in the Carnal Imagination of Those who have not Faith to Believe it nor Scripture to Disprove it nor is it Hard but to the Obstinate nor Incredible but to the Incredulous Wherefore to conclude I humbly submit the whole to your Prudent Consideration and Remind You of your Resolution Pag. 5. That You would be either Catholick or Protestant as the Verdict upon this Tryal should go and that the Success should depend upon the Evidence which Evidence in your Opinion was the Bible and that whoever produced the fullest and clearest Testimony had the Truth on his side Wherefore as you Value the Eternal safety of your Soul please seriously to distinguish and Peruse the Texts which I have assigned for it and those which the Protestant Answerer has brought against it and I doubt not but it will appear That the Scriptures assigned on the Catholick part are abundantly Expressive and Plain for the Being of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament and that the Scriptures produced on the Protestant part are also Expresly for it or not at all against it For that what I have offer'd is the Express Word of GOD who promising said That the Bread which He would give was his Flesh which He would give for 〈◊〉 Life of the World and performing Took Bread Blessed it Brake it 〈◊〉 gave it saying Take Eat This is My Body which Words of Promise aâ—… Performance are Positive and have never yet by Divine Authority bâ—… contradicted for that 't is impossible to produce one Syllable out of tâ—… whole Bible to prove the contrary Wherefore seeing that Protestaâ—… cannot prove by Express Scripture That the Bread which Christ Blâ—…sed and gave at his Supper was not his Flesh and that Catholicks caâ—… and do that it was I hope You will be so much the more convinc'd 〈◊〉 believe the REAL PRESENCE by how much the Words of GOâ—… are more powerful than the Arguments of MAN I say than the Aâ—guments or Words of Man for that the Arguments alledged by tâ—… Protestant Answerer against the Real Presence are all of Man and nâ—… of God they are His Words and not the Words of God Whereas thoâ—… Absolute and Express Take Eat This is my BODY are the Words 〈◊〉 God and not of Man and He neither has nor can produce one Texâ—… to contradict them Wherefore I expect to hear of your Satisfactioâ—… and Declaration for the Catholick Faith in this particular and nâ—… that You behave your Self like those Frivolous Vain and Impertineâ—… Enquirers who when convinc'd of One Point mind it no more bâ—… desire to be satisfied of Another assuming as it were an assurance 〈◊〉 themselves that tho' We are right in the Real Presence we may be wroâ—… in reference to the Infallibility and if right in That such is their Ignâ—rance to think We Err in Praying to Saints use of Images Purgatoâ—… or in something else they know not what And thus like Mag-Pyâ—… they Chatter and Hop from Bush to Bush from Point to Point withoâ—… fixing upon Truth as they ought to do where ever they find it Wherefore I pray be Satisfied in This of the Real Presence or Prâ—pose your Doubts before You proceed to the Infallibility of the Churcâ—… or to any other Point of Faith in Difference betwixt Us and tâ—… Church of England for so You will be Stedfast to something and nâ—… be wavering and Carried away with every Wind of Doctrine bâ—… Fix your Standard among the Faithful and Encamp with the Host 〈◊〉 the Ever-Living and All-Powerful GOD for the Security and Eternâ—… Peace of your Soul Which Peace that You may Enjoy for all Eteâ—nity is Prayed for by Him that is SIR Yours in all Christian Duty N. N
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