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
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
confidence to have said as he now doth I doubt not but it appears that the Texts brought on the Catholick Roman side are abundantly plain and sufficient for the Being of Christ's Body in the Sacrament as thus set down And it would doubtless have been some gratification to his Reader if he had given us a Paraphrase as his Adversary had done according to these his Sentiments But here he saith that the Answerer pretends not to prove by these Texts that the Body and Blood of Christ are not in the Sacrament p. 24 Why so Because it 's one of their Negative Articles and to require plain and express words of Scripture to prove such a thing is not there taught is says he to demand a proof the thing is not capable of As if suppose there was not express words of Scripture to confute Arianism therefore that could not be confuted by Scripture It 's enough that what is not in Scripture is no Article of Faith it 's enough that there are such Propositions in Scripture as are sufficient to refute it though there should not be express words But however if he will take it in the words of our Article and if it may be to his content we shall find it positively said that Transubstantiation is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture And we have our Author acknowledging that his Adversary undertakes to shew that the Protestants have the Letter of Scripture for them meaning as he saith that in the Sacrament is Not contained the Body of Christ p. 30. And now let us try whether the Answerer did not give them more than his bare word for it in the use he made of his own Quotations As he observed from thence SECT II. 1. THat it 's no contradiction to our Saviour's manner of speaking to interpret these words Figuratively since our Author after all his Exclamations of giving Christ the Lie is forced tho here he slips over it elsewhere to acknowledg that the Cup yea and the word Bread is so used p. 28. 2. That in many Instances the Letter of Scripture is for us As Arg. 1. That there is no Substantial change in the Elements but they remain the same Bread and Wine after Consecration as before So it 's five times call'd Bread 1 Cor. 10. 26 c. and the whole Solemnity is call'd Breaking of Bread Act. 2. 42. To this our Author replies several ways as By the word Bread saith he is meant the Communion of the Body of Christ as by the word Cup is signified the Communion of the Blood of Christ p. 24. But to this I answer 1. That if the words Bread and Cup are not to be understood Literally but with a thereby is meant and thereby is signified then there is no more reason from the bare words to understand This is my Body Literally And that it may be as well interpreted This is the Representation and Sign of my Body as this Bread is the Communion of my Body 2. From hence it follows That if the Bread be the Communion of the Body of Christ as the Cup is the Communion of the Blood of Christ then the Bread is no more changed than the Cup but as the Cup remains the Cup so the Bread remains the Bread in the Communion 3. If the Bread be the Communion of the Body of Christ then the Communion of the Body of Christ is in the Communion of the Bread and so the Bread is still Bread. 4. Our Author has not touched the Point which was to shew the Letter of Scripture is for us when it calls it Bread after Consecration But he saith Saint Paul mentions not the words Cup and Bread but he explains them to be the Body and Blood of Christ 1 Cor. 11. 26. As often as ye eat this Bread ye do shew the Lords death which was not shewn but by offering up his True and Real Body and Blood. I answer so we may better say he mentions not the Body of Christ but he explains it when he five times afterwards calls it Bread But how doth the shewing of the Death of Christ prove the Bread to be his Body when it rather proves it not to be his Body because his Body is not according to them visible and to be shewn He saith further How could they be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord v. 27. if the Body and Blood be not there I answer As persons may be guilty of it out of the Sacrament Thus we read Heb. 6. 6. Who crucifie to themselves the Son of God afresh And Chap. 10. 29. Who trod under foot the Blood of the Covenant And so by unworthy receiving of the Lords Supper in which his Death was Commemorated and Represented they after the same manner were by Interpretation guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. And this the next ver 29. shews not discerning the Lords Body which can be understood only of a Spiritual discerning by Faith. Or rather as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies discriminating Lastly he adds 'T would be hard a sinner should be damn'd meerly for moderate eating and drinking Wine for according to the Protestant Answerer the Sacrament is no more who tells you p. 11. There is no other Substance distributed among the Communicants than that of Bread and Wine 1. But if our Author had gone three or four Lines further he would have found those words pag. 11. The Body of Christ is not otherwise present than it is eaten that is after an Heavenly and Spiritual Manner in the Spiritual Blessings and effects of his Merits and Sufferings in his Body to those that believe So that he prevaricates when he saith Sinners are damn'd meerly for moderate eating and drinking and that we esteem the Sacrament no more 2. We look upon it as a Divine Institution and by virtue of that Institution a means of Grace and that by a worthy participation of it we partake of that Grace which is thereto promised therein exhibited and thereby conveighed as it 's there declared p. 17. and consequently the damnation threatned is to the contempt of God's Ordinance and of the Sufferings of Christ therein represented and of the Grace of God purchased by those Sufferings and therein to be obtained The Answerer shew'd also as the Bread so the Wine was without alteration from Mat. 26. 28. who after he had said This is my Blood calls it the Fruit of the Vine And from the order in St. Mark 14. 23 24. where the Apostles are said to have drank of it before our Saviour said This is my Blood. This Branch of the Argument our Author divides from the other and casts it forward three or four Pages Pag. 28. for it gave too much light to the other whilst they were together As to the former Text I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine he saith St. Luke gives the plainest order of it Chap. 22. 14. and that there it has
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
Parables should yet be Dark and Figurative in this of that Importance and which he well foresaw occasions our differences at this day it would be contrary to his Wisdom and Goodness But so far was Christ from this that he confirms it v. 53. With a verily verily except ye eat the Flesh c. I have transcribed this the more at large because it contains some things very peculiar and is indeed the utmost force of what he hath for his Defence I Answer to this 1. In General it 's manifest That our Saviour is not literally plain since it 's acknowledg'd that his Discourse is Figurative from ver 32. to ver 51. And is it not strange that when he had so long discours'd after that manner that yet in one verse he should mean literally and which if literally understood would be so manifest a Contradiction to the Sense and Reason of Mankind that if he had literally said he was Bread he could not have more astonished them than when he said except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man c. if properly and literally to be understood 2. Whereas he saith our Saviour always explain'd his Parables that is too largely spoken For even those which he chuses out of Mark 3. 10 13 31 were not expounded to the Multitude and if his Argument signify any thing must therefore be properly understood by them But why did not he propound the case in Dispute and give us a like instance in figurative and metaphorical Expressions Such as our Saviour uses in this Chapter For are Sealing Hungring c. to be understood properly because it 's not said that they are to be understood Figuratively Nay are eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood to be understood properly Then certainly the Capernaits were in the right that thought our Saviour spoke of carnal Eating which yet our Author will not allow 3. He saith There was never more occasion to expound if a Figure than when the Jews murmured and some of his Disciples went away and what he saw occasions our Differences 1. As for the murmuring of the Jews there was no such occasion for our Saviour's expounding it For thus also they murmured because that Christ said I am the Bread that came down from Heaven v. 41. And yet tho he took notice of it ver 43. he thought not himself concerned to explain his meaning where there might be more reason for their mistake than there could be in this Indeed our Saviour look'd upon them as an obstinate and intractable sort of People and so did purposely conceal himself often as was observed before Mark 13. And this we are not without some light in in the case before us For this Discourse of his was in the Synagogue v. 59. and they were the same People that before were offended and cavilled ver 41 52. And therefore our Saviour left them in the Dark tho afterwards when his Disciples murmured v. 60 61 63. he tells them it was spiritually to be understood 2. As for those Disciples it doth not appear that they walked no more with him because they were offended at his saying for that he explain'd it to them but because he gave an Intimation that he discovered their insincerity v. 64. There are some of you that believe not and it follows From that time many of his Disciples went back c. 3. Neither was there any such occasion for our Saviour's expounding himself from our differences If he had meant it properly I grant there could never be more occasion because it 's a Doctrine so contrary to the Sense and Reason of Mankind but when it 's not so explain'd the Sense and Reason of Mankind may be thought a sufficient Security against mistake And there might be as much reason for our Saviour to expound himself when he saith he is Bread a Door a Vine a Rock But all this while our Author supposes our Saviour not to have explain'd himself I grant it he did not do it on their side but I think he has done it to all attentive and unprejudiced minds if they will either consult the foregoing part of this discourse where he speaks of himself under the Allusions of Bread and Flesh v. 33 35 48 51. and of believing in him under the the Metaphors of Coming and Eating v. 35 36 47 51 60 61 62. or if they consult the Conclusion v. 63. where he tells his offended Disciples It 's the Spirit that quickneth c. As if he had said The eating my Flesh and drinking my Blood which I propound to you is not as those cavilling Jews did misconstrue it and as you I perceive mistake for in that Flesh I am to ascend into Heaven but it 's the heeding and obeying my Precepts the receiving my Doctrine and believing in me as your Redeemer that I require and you are to regard And indeed thus St. Peter understood him who concludes almost in the same words Lord to whom shall we go Thou hast the words of Eternal Life And we believe c. v. 68 69. 4. He saith That Christ was so far from meaning otherwise than plainly as he spake that to the murmuring Jews he confirms it v. 53. with a Verily verily I say unto you Except c. Whereas in Parables be explained himself to them That is our Saviour meant plainly because he did not explain himself But saith he he confirmed it What did he confirm Did he confirm the Literal sense That he did not before give and so could not confirm Or doth the Repetition of it without Explication shew it to be the Literal sense That he contends for But then by parity of reason our Saviour meant properly when he said I am the Door For it 's there said in confirmation of what was before Verily verily I say unto you I am the Door Joh. 10. 1 7. But why did our Saviour repeat it Without doubt to shew that he spoke it not inconsiderately and if I add to explain what he before said it 's not without somewhat in the Text to countenance it For before he spoke of himself under the notion of Flesh v. 51 52. but then of Flesh and Blood to intimate both the violence and manner of his Death which he did usually speak with more caution and reserve about If we reflect upon what has been said we see how unwarily I am loth to add more our Author delivers himself when he saith If these words are Figurative I see no reason why the whole Bible should not be a Figure too And if ever Christ was plain in any thing it was in this And which I cannot recite without some indignation Should he explain himself in matters of less weight and yet be dark in this great concern is what would be contrary to his wisdom and goodness p. 10 11. So that there shall be no sense or perspicuity in Scripture nor wisdom and goodness in our Saviour if their Doctrine be not his and
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
relation to the Paschal Cup. I grant that in St. Luke it more immediately is joyn'd to the Paschal Feast but yet in St. Matthew and Mark Christ is said to have spoke these words after the delivery of the Cup in the Lords-Supper And the least that can be observed from hence is that it was indifferently to be applied to either and so it more strongly argues that it was alike to be understood that the Wine in the Eucharistical Cup was the natural fruit of the Vine as that in the Paschal as that the substance of both was one and the same and no more change in the one than the other But suppose this yet saith he the meaning of these words could in no wise be applied 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 which is Heaven where they neither keep Taverns nor drink Wine c. Some persons while they charge others with irreverence themselves seem to have lost all due reverence for holy things We will suppose in favour of our Author that by the Kingdom of God our Saviour means Heaven and by the Fruit of the Vine he means the Substance of Christ's Blood yet how will it follow that it 's the same Fruit of the Vine they drink of in Heaven as they drank of in the Sacrament since the Blood of Christ is no more drank in Heaven than Wine nor is the Sacrament any more administred there than the Passover So that if by the Kingdom of God Heaven is to be understood then the phrase Till I drink it new signifies Mystically and Figuratively according to the manner of Scripture which sets forth the happiness of that state by eating Mat. 8. 11. Luk. 14. 15. and the excellency and perfection of it by the word New Revel 14. 13 c. And so the meaning is I shall not henceforth thus eat with you the next Festival I shall observe will be in Heaven there we that have now thus eat and drank together shall partake of the felicity of that state and this fruit of the Earthly Vine shall be exchanged for Rivers of Heavenly Pleasures which we shall there be entertained with The next thing observed by the Answerer in proof of the Substance of the Wine continuing so after Consecration was from the order observed in St. Mark 14. 23. where it 's said the Disciples drank of the Wine before our Saviour said This is my Blood. Here our Author thinks himself excus'd from an Answer because of an Error in the Press Body being put for Blood. But if he turned to the Text he might see that place was quoted right and common sense would serve to rectifie it However he courteously offers somewhat in the mean time by way of Answer viz. Whether St. Mark expresseth the words in the same order as they were spoken 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 Blood. And it 's also apparent that Christ first gave thanks and blessed it before he gave it c. pag. 29. But doth it not matter whether St. Mark expresseth the words in order Certainly if the order he recites it in were the order observed by our Saviour and that the Apostles received the Cup and drank of the Wine before the words of Conversion as they call them were used then it follows as the Answerer argued that they only drank of the Substance of the Wine and that the words This is my Blood could not signifie and much less produce a Conversion of the Wine into the Blood of Christ. This our-Author was sensible of and therefore in his Answer left out the main part of it For what tho all the Evangelists agree that the words This is my Blood were then used by our Saviour What though Christ first gave thanks and blessed it before he gave it if he did not also use the words of Conversion before he gave it For all the rest he might do and yet the Wine be Wine still as they own But thus it was if St. Mark is right in the order and it seems to be the proper order because he only speaks of the particular that they all drank of it But we are not to have any thing to the purpose till as he saith the Bill be amended and that I take for his best Answer Arg. 2. The Protestant Answerer shewed the Letter of Scripture is for us that our Saviour's Body had the natural and inseparable Properties of a Body such as Extension Circumscription c. p. 15. Here our Author calls in the Faith of a Christian and the Almighty Power of God to his Succour and looks upon the Answerer as a second Didymus because he will like him not believe except he sees and worse than him who saw but the Humanity yet believed the Divinity of Christ p. 30. But why all this when he believes all the Scripture teaches and reason it self justifies May not a man believe unless he believes contrary to what he himself sees and the Scripture teaches Or why is he worse than Thomas when Thomas would not believe unless he saw But the Answerer is one of those Thanks be to God whom our Saviour pronounced Blessed That have not seen and yet have believed What is there he would have him believe It is what was never put to Thomas for our Saviour convinced him by an ocular Demonstration Joh. 20. 27. Reach hither thy finger and behold c. As much as if he had said The Resurrection is real for it 's a real Body that is before thee and it 's my Body for reach hither thy finger c. It 's plain our Saviour here thought he gave an unquestionable Proof of the Truth of his Resurrection by shewing his Body to Thomas which could not have been had not his Body had the properties of an human body without which it could not have been a Body or which if it had been without Thomas could not have been convinced in that way that it was his Body But our Author here undertakes to prove that this was not the Condition of our Saviour's Body or that he could by his power separate these essential Properties of a Body from his Body Here I must confess my self indebted to him for an answer to what he offered to this purpose before but not to the purpose of the Argument there and here repeats Pray saith he how was his Body to be seen Extended Finite and Circumscribed when he pass'd through Walls and Doors that were close John 20. 17. He entred the room the Doors being shut How came he through Was his Body Intire Extended Finite and Circumscribed with Limbs Bones and Sinews Such is the Infinite Power of God that though they were inclosed in walls every where a Mile thick 't
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.
appears to be in Ecclesiastical History his Adversary has no great reason to fear him That the word Consubstantial was used against the Arians I acknowledg but that it was devised against them as our Author saith is spoken at adventure For the contrary is evident that it was in use long before in the Christian Church So saith Eusebius We have known certain Learned and Famous Bishops and Writers among the Ancients who reasoning upon the Divinity of the Father and Son have used the word Consubstantial or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But to return to the Charge where is this Controversy managed in the Answer about this unscriptural word Transubstantiation which the Protestant Answerer altogether banter'd at He has found it out in somewhat that is not there I shall here set down the Words of the Answer with his and let 's see how they agree Cath. Letter p. 2. Protestant Answerer p. 3. He the Protestant Answerer says That 't is enough for them to shew that Transubstantiation is not taught in Scripture tho the Being of Christs Body and Blood in the Sacrament is 'T is enough for us to shew that Transubstantiation is not taught in Scripture and that those that pretend 't is there cannot shew it nay that the literal Sense concludes not for it and that our notion of the Real Presence is agreeable to it Where this Author is guilty of a double Perversion First That he translates what is spoken of Transubstantiation in the notion to the Word when there is not a Syllable that looks that way and then that he would represent the Real Presence in the Protestant that is a spiritual Sense to be an acknowledgment of the Being of Christs Body and Blood in the Sacrament in their way But after our Author has for some Pages entertain'd himself in managing this imaginary dispute against his Adversary yet in Confutation of himself he finds out another sort of matter that he is obliged to consider and if he can to confute The Protestant Answer consists of two Parts In the first are considered the Texts produced in the Catholick Answer to the Seeker to prove their Real Presence which I hope I may now call Transubstantiation In the second There is given a Catalogue of such Texts as maintain the Protestant Doctrine of Christs Spiritual Presence and in Confutation of the Corporal Presence held in the Church of Rome And now let us view our Author's Undertaking and see how he has quitted himself in both of these PART I. Sect. 1 WE are to consider in the first place how our Author has Vindicated his own Answer to the Seekers Request and what Reply there is made to the Objections and Arguments directed against his pretended Proofs from Scripture In the entrance upon this matter the Protestant Answerer suggested that the Seeker had put an unreasonable Task upon his Catholick Priests to prove their Real Presence or Transubstantiation by the express Text and plain Word of God since Persons of the greatest Note for Quality and Learning in their Church have freely given it up and granted it to be a vain attempt Such as Scotus and Biel among the Schoolmen and the Cardinals Alliaco Fisher Cajetan and Bellarmin What saith our Author to this First saith he Supposing it was so as these Authors say That there is not one place of Scripture so express that without the Determination of the Church it would evidently compel a Man to receive Transubstantiation Yet the same might as well be said of the Consubstantiality of the Son p. 3. Will our Author venture to say there is no more from Scripture to prove the Consubstantiality of the Son than there is to prove Transubstantiation Or hath he any heart to say it after the publishing the Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared and as long as that Book lies unanswered But let that be as it will. What saith he is this to the Being or not Being of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament Had be produced Scotus Bellarmin c. to disprove the Real Presence it had been something tho not to your purpose For the Request was to satisfie you by Scripture only and not by citing our Modern Divines c. but by the express Text c. But I think it was to the purpose to shew that some of the most Eminent in their Church declare it is not to be proved in that way and I think to declare it cannot be proved is little better than to disprove it At last our Author is content to yield up Scotus one of his Modern Divines and Bellarmin and he adds if what they have said in that matter will do the Gentleman a kindness he shall have it not only from them but all the Faithful If so I fear our Author then will be left alone for if all the Faithful are of the same mind with Scotus and Bellarmin then his Undertaking to prove Transubstantiation by the express Texts of Scripture will be a fruitless Attempt But we go too far for that 's to be understood with a reserve viz. Scripture without the Determination of the Church is not so express c. This premised our Author cheerfully proceeds That altho the Scripture were never so plain we would yet submit to the Determination of the Church for the true Sense and Meaning thereof So that tho he pleads Scripture and would fain find out somewhat that looks like an express Text yet he doth it not nor would be understood that he thereby renounced the Determination of the Church For whether the Scripture be plain for it or not is not the Foot this matter rests upon and altho it were never so plain yet the Church is to give it the true meaning and whatever meaning the Church gives it that is the true meaning and so if the Church had determined against Transubstantiation as it has determined for it there would have been still express Texts and the case had been alike resolved SECT II. AT last we are come to the main seat of the Controversie p. 6. The Catholick Answerer had produced two places of Scripture as his plain Texts for Transubstantiation the first is Joh. 6. 48. Here the Protestant Answerer interposed and first directed the Seeker where he might find about thirty Writers of the Roman Church who reject that Text as not serving to our Author's purpose Pag. 4. and then proceeds to shew for what reasons they and we do so reject it Arg. 1. As it had no special reference to the Sacrament and that for two Reasons 1. Because this Discourse of our Saviour was delivered above a year before ver 4. To this first our Author replies That the fourth Verse The Passover a Feast of the Jews was nigh is no Rule to shew the Sacrament was not instituted above a year after For saith he that this word Nigh should signifie above a year after is such a Figure as never was