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
And so gravely repairs to his Concordance to prove the word Nigh is not by express and plain Scripture to be taken for above a year after Certainly there was never more need of express and plain Scripture when men cannot look a Chapter or two before them For would any one that was conversant in the Gospels think that St. John here and St. Luke 22. 1. must needs speak of the same Passover because St. Luke hath the same word Now the Feast of unleavened bread drew nigh which is call'd the Passover I see our Author wants here a little information Let him therefore turn to Chap. 7. v. 2 14. and he will find a Feast of Tabernacles and go on to Chap. 13. 1. and he will find another Passover Now I hope I need not acquaint him that these two Feasts of the Tabernacles and Passover were kept in different Months and that the same Passover could not be before and after the Feast of Tabernacles and consequently it must be a year betwixt the Passover Joh. 6. 4. and that Joh. 13. 1. and as much above a year betwixt our Saviour's Discourse Joh. 6. and the Passover as that was before the approaching Passover that was said to be Nigh 2. The Protestant Answerer proceeded to shew that this Discourse of our Saviour had no special reference to the Sacrament because the eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood here spoken of might be out of the Sacrament as well as in it and at that present as well as a year after This he proved from Vers. 53 54 56 57. In all which the present time is still spoken of Except ye eat He that eateth My flesh is meat To this our Author replies To say That the flesh of Christ may be eaten out of the Sacrament and even before it was instituted c. is indeed such a Figure as none but himself can unriddle p. 8. I answer But to say as he doth that Christ would give us bread to eat in the Sacrament which should be the very same flesh which he would and afterwards did give for the life of the world that is that he should give it before it was given is a Figure I doubt our Author himself cannot unriddle who saith again that before he gave it 't was impossible for them to eat it but he gave it not till he gave it on the Cross. 2 But to say that the Flesh of Christ here spoken of an Exposition our Author left out might be eaten out of the Sacrament as well as in it is no Riddle if it be true And it is true if our Saviour spoke here of his Flesh that might be and was then to be eaten at the same time as he spoke it by all those that were then his present Auditors as the Answerer proved from verses 53 54 c. To this our Author opposes vers 5. The Bread which I will give is my flesh c. Where saith he Christ promised and told them before that be would in the Future Tense give them bread to eat which should be the very same flesh which he would and afterwards did give for the life of the world Whence he infers If the bread which he in the Sacrament gives us to eat saying Take Eat This is my Body be not that Bread which he promised he would give us to eat pray ask your Protestant Answerer where when and how did Christ give us Bread to eat which should be his flesh if this be not Pag. 7. What is a little out of its place in our Author I have here laid together that I may give it its full force To this I answer 1. I readily own with our Author that the words I will give contain a promise but then we differ about the time when they were fulfilled He saith they refer to his last Supper when he took Bread c. under the Forms of Bread and Wine But now if I am examined upon the Where the When and the How I should refer it to the Cross and that because of the following words The Bread which I will give is my Flesh which I will give for the life of the world For he gave not his Flesh for the life of the world in the Sacrament but after the institution of that on the Cross not under the Forms of Bread and Wine but in his own proper Form and visible to the Spectators The reason of his mistake seems to be that he reads the Future Tense after this manner our Saviour told them that he would give them Bread to eat which should be his Flesh. Where he is guilty of two over-sights First that he applies that to the Future which is spoken of the Present for he reads it should be his Flesh as if it was first Bread and then was to be Flesh to put the better colour upon their Doctrine of Transubstantiation whereas our Saviour saith the Bread is my Flesh which is directly against it and if it signifies any thing of that nature would rather prove that his Flesh should be Bread. For it 's not said the Bread which I will give shall be my Flesh but rather that which is my Flesh I will give to be Bread. 2. He alters the Terms of the Text for the words are Which I will give for the life of the world and he reads them Which I will give them to Eat as if the promise refer'd only to the Bread which they should eat and not to the Flesh which was to be given for the world So that we see what 's like to become of his Question he prays his Seeker to ask his Protestant Answerer viz. Where When and How did Christ give us Bread to eat which should be his Flesh if this be it not in the Sacrament For he must frame his Question anew if he would have it to the purpose and must read St. John again notwithstanding what he saith he has done on this occasion Pag 8. and whatever he found before I am apt to think after this little light given to him he will not find those words in this Chapter He would give them Bread to eat which should be his Flesh. And if he reads the Protestant Answer again he will find no occasion for those words Where c. if this be it not For the Answerer did not except the Sacrament and say the eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood here spoken of could not be in the Sacrament but that it might be out of the Sacrament as well as in it intimating thereby that it was not to be understood in a sense peculiar to the Sacrament but in a sense common to that and other Offices of Religion and that eating and drinking were as he shew'd but other words for coming and believing 3. But our Author has a further reserve and offers at a peculiar Exposition of those Phrases I suppose it's in his phrase p. 2. his private meaning â— v. 53 c. Except ye eat
there is no consequence in this Argument It puzled Cardinal Cajetan a man of sense and sagacity and surely the Seeker may then be led away by the error of it and it may put off his Declaration for the Catholick Faith four Months longer But there is no danger it was not necessary to one that doth not believe but he declares he is ready to satisfie his Seeker that is one that doth believe as we may conceive I know not whether this may not have put our Author a little out of humour for he cannot but abhor he saith to see men mould Gods Word into what Form they please and make every thing a Figure that doth not square with their Fancy Is it because our Saviour spake some things by way of Parable that all he said was such Or that he never spake otherwise How comes it that mean Capacities are by the Church of St. Martin's left to themselves to judg of the true sense of Scripture according to D. T. who tells you in his True Account of a Conference That a man after using all Christian Means and the help of all Ministerial Guides possible must at last judg for himself A special Assertion indeed Which if true what need of Teachers c. Pag. 10 But how doth he mould the Word of God into what Form he pleases that understands that Figuratively which was Figuratively spoken And to whom doth our Author speak when he thus Expostulates Is it because our Saviour spake some things by way of Parable that all he said was such Had he no other way to get clear of his Adversary but to fix this upon him And had he no other way to meet with those that plead for the perspicuity of Scripture but to tell the world that they own our Saviour never spake otherwise than in Parables How mean and ridiculous is this But however this was a fair occasion as he thought to make a special Remarque upon the Doctrine taught by the Church of St. Martin's Now here the Protestant Answerer is more immediately concerned as a Parishioner though one of the Mean Capacities there taught and would fain see how our Author would manage himself in a debate upon that Argument especially when after his Exclamation against it he himself is forced to acknowledg the reasonableness of it For if a man must not at last judg for himself or if so that there will be no need of Teachers then it 's in vain to send Answers and Letters to a Seeker and to propose Texts to his Examination And yet in this special way doth our Author proceed from the beginning to the end of his Letter He leaves it to his Seeker to pass sentence upon what has been said by either party Pag. 1. Whether saith he this hath any reference be you the Judg. Pag. 7 13. He desires him to consult the words and see whether those Texts do imply c. Pag. 8. Seriously to distinguish and peruse the Texts Pag. 33. So that it seems this special Assertion ought to be one of his own who teaches his Seeker so far after the same way as mean Capacities are taught by the Church at St. Martin ' s. To come to a close of this Argument the Protestant Answerer the better to represent his Adversaries weakness in decrying Figures and Parables shewed him how this Discourse of our Saviour so abounded in them that there were no less than twenty expressions of that kind in it and accordingly drew out several of them for our Author to try his skill upon and to resolve them without a Figure Pag. 8. First saith he Let the Catholick Answerer tell me without a Figure what is that meat which endures to Everlasting Life Here our Author labours hard to prove that the meat in v. 27. is the Bread and Flesh v. 51. and concludes which Flesh without a Figure I humbly conceive is that meat which endureth unto Everlasting Life But I as humbly conceive he has not reach'd the point for granting the Meat the Bread and the Flesh to be one and the same yet how is the Flesh of Christ Bread and Meat without a Metaphor when it 's only spiritually and not Corporally Eaten as he saith and when neither capable of digestion nor we of nourishment by it Again if this be Eaten only in the Sacrament how can it under the Form of Bread endure to Everlasting Life or how can it be Meat that thus endures when it is not to be Eaten in Heaven and all Sacraments and Institutions cease The other Questions were How the Son was sealed by the Father How Jesus is Bread and the Bread that came down from Heaven How the Bread and the Flesh of Christ could be the same v. 57. And if the same how it could come from Heaven when he was of the Seed of David according to the Flesh How one of his Church can talk of a literal Sense of except ye drink his Blood which denies the Cup to the Laity To all these our Author returns a general Answer As to his How the Son was sealed by the Father and the rest of his How 's they are such Jewish Expressions as that all Christian pretenders ought to be ashamed of them So the Jews said v. 52. How can this man give us his Flesh to eat So Jewish it is to question God how he could do it How this How that And so he runs on to the Creation and Incarnation c. I am a little at a loss here to what cause our Authors mistake is to be assign'd Surely he could not but understand that the How relates not to the manner How these things be But how these things could be thus applied to our Saviour without a Figure I am afraid that he saw the difficulty and so slipt away from it for else why should he answer directly to the first Query which would more plausibly bear it and indirectly and fraudulently to the rest And yet as if he had to a Demonstration proved what he had undertaken and effectually confuted his Adversary he will still have the words express and plain without a Figure For thus he concludes p. 11. If these express and plain words of Christ be a Figure where he says as plain as plain can be that he would give us Bread to eat which should be his Flesh but which I have shewed before he did not say I say if these words are Figurative and must not be properly understood I see no Reasen why the whole Bible should not be a Figure too For if ever Christ was plain in any thing 't was in this especially in a Point wherein there was never more occasion to expound if a Figure than when the Jews to whom he came murmured and said How can this man give us his Flesh to eat And when some of the Disciples said it was an hard saying and thereupon walked no more with him He that in cases of less moment always explain'd his
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
he be not of the same mind with them Indeed after all our Author's confidence in this matter and his questioning all things if this be questioned he determines that which the greatest Authority in his Church the Council of Trent would not determine For when it had been sharply debated for and against these words being understood of the Eucharist it was at last agreed for the satisfaction of both sides neither to affirm nor deny it and to yield to those that deni'd it that they had Fathers and Doctors on their side And thus the Council concludes However that Discourse of our Saviour's Joh. 6. be understood according to the divers Interpretations of the Holy Fathers and Doctors Sess 21. c. 1. Here our Author takes a great leap from Pag. 9. of the Answer to Pag. 22. but because it 's not amiss I shall follow him The Protestant Answerer put it to them to give as plain Letter of Scripture to prove Christ was neither a Door Rock nor Vine as he could that he was all Three Or that all Christians are not turn'd into Christ's Natural Body when it 's said Ephes. 5. 20. We are members of his Body This he did to shew that the Phrases Eating the Flesh and This is my Body were not of themselves sufficient to enforce us to take them in a proper sense since it 's no more plainly said Except ye eat the Flesh c. and This is my Body than it 's said I am the Door The Vine c. Now what course doth our Author take to assoil this Let 's see saith he whether the parity 'twixt I am the Door The Vine c. be the same with The Bread is my Flesh and This is my Body without ever explaining a Syllable to the contrary Here he is a little too forward For he is to remember that the thing requir'd is to give as plain Scripture to prove that Christ was neither a Door nor Vine c. as there is for it He knows who said it I will prove the Catholick Doctrine of the Real Presence and I defie the world to prove the contrary Cath. Answ. to the Seeker Pag. 1. and that declares again It 's impossible to bring one Text out of the whole Bible to prove that the Body and Blood of Christ is not in the Sacrament Cath. Letter Pag. 24. If now he so expects then it may be so expected from him that he should prove the Negative and that by as plain a Text he should shew Christ is not a Door or Vine as we can shew that he is I must confess I put him upon a Ridiculous Task but who can help it it 's in his own way But to leave this trifling let us return to see his parity though I doubt we shan't much better our selves As for the Door he saith The Text tells us it was a Parable Joh. 10. 6. This Parable spake Jesus Wherefore if the Protestant Answerer would be so kind as to produce plain Scripture for this of the Sacrament's being a Figure as I have done for the Door 's being a Parable he 'l certainly gain a Proselyte of me As for gaining him a Proselyte by plain Scripture I have reason to despair who declares beforehand that though the Scripture were never so plain he would yet submit to thi Determination of the Church Pag. 4. But where is this plain Scripture for the Door 's being a Parable He points to the verse But what was the Parable he spoke It 's in the Verses foregoing about a Door I grant But not of Christ's being the Door for that follows after Ver. 7. Then said Jesus unto them again Verily verily I am the Door So that if he keeps to his own way without explaining a Syllable he is where he was and Christ may be as properly a door as we may properly Eat the Flesh of Christ. He goes on In like manner of the Vine Christ saith Joh. 15. 1. I am the true Vine and my Father is the Husbandman as Mat. 20. 1. when he likened the Kingdom of Heaven to an Housholder and so goes on explaining the same ver 4. As the Branch cannot c. Which if you read the Chapter you 'l find to be more plain I perceive he is very serious and I am of his mind if the Seeker read on he would find it plain that Christ is not properly a Vine and so say I if he reads Joh. 6. he would find it as plain that Eating the Flesh of Christ is not properly to be understood But if words will oblige us without attending the sense and we must take them as we find them without explaining a Syllable then I say still it 's as plainly said I am the true Vine as my Flesh is meat indeed and according to our Author's way of Exposition this can be no Parable For saith he you 'l find in all cases Christ spake not by Parables without telling them it was so Pag. 12. But here it 's not so said for as before so after the words v. 4. As the Branch c. he saith v. 5. I am the Vine He goes on In like manner of the Rcck That he was the Corner-stone upon which the Foundation was laid c. But how doth he prove Christ was not properly a Rock according to his own way Because saith he he is a Corner-stone and a Foundation which is just as if he had been asked how he would prove without explaining a Syllable Christ is not properly a Corner-stone or a Foundation and he should say because he is a Rock But what saith he to the last Instance to prove as plainly Christians are not turned into Christ's Natural Body when it 's said we are members of his Body Ephes. 5. 20 To this an Answer is to be expected Well after all his windings and turnings his Parities and without explainings and his reading and his in like manners and his Rules for understanding Parables the words are as plain and express that Christ is a Door a Vine a Rock and we are members of Christ's Body as they are that we Eat the Flesh of Christ and if one be properly to be understood there is as much reason from the meer words for the like understanding the other After this Digression our Author undertakes the last Argument of the Protestant Answerer viz. Arg. 3. Here is nothing of the Conversion of the Bread into the Body of Christ but rather the contrary for if the words are Literally to be understood then they would rather infer the conversion of Christ's Flesh and Blood into Bread and Wine when he saith I am the Bread of Life v. 5. My Flesh is meat or Bread indeed As to the first which is the conversion of the Bread into the Body of Christ and the chief thing proposed to him he hath silently past it over perhaps he saw here also no necessity of defining or proving it to one that believes it not But to make up
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
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
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