10. That Water which was by our Lord converted into Wine is still called Water Joh. 2. 9. The Angels are called Men Gen. 19. 8. because they appeared in the shape of Men according to the usual Language of Sense very many instances of which are to be found For our Saviour had fully instructed them before that the Bread which he would give them was his flesh Joh. 6. 51. The Apostle also saith again v. 17. For we being many are one Bread and one Body for we are partakers of that one Bread and that one Bread can signifie nothing here but the Body of Christ which indeed is but one altho' appearing in innumerable place of the World at the same and at several times because it is still animated by the same one Soul and Divinity of Christ which cannot be said of the Bread in the Sacrament if but mere Bread for then it would not be one Bread or Loaf but many and of several sorts being received at very many places at the same time And the true reason here why they are called one Bread and one Body or Society of Christians is because they are all partakers of that one Bread viz. the Body of Christ and therefore also all inspired with the same Spirit But in the Authors Sense it would be no reason but they should rather have been many Bodies because they did Eat of so many Breads So that we see he hath still the same success in bringing those Texts of Scripture to uphold his cause which are the most pregnant proofs against him He then proceeds to teach the Catholics how they might argue in his new way from a Sign already Instituted and known as so to an AEnigma or dark saying taken from things of a disparate and really different nature and of no acknowledg'd Resemblance that is from Chalk to Cheese but they beg his Pardon for that Well but the same Apostle in the next Chapter after he had spoken of the Consecration of the Elements still calls them the Bread and the Cup in three verses together as often as ye Eat THIS Bread and Drink THIS Cup v. 26. Whosoever shall Eat THIS Bread and Drink THIS Cup of the Lord unworthily v. 27. But let a Man Examin himself and so let him Eat of THAT Bread and Drink of THAT Cup v. 28. It is true it was Bread Metaphorically but it was still this Bread with an Emphasis not such Bread as you ordinarily Eat but the Body of Christ which he told us was truly Meat or Meat indeed the true Bread from Heaven John 6. 32. It was a Cup but it was this Cup that is his Blood which was truly Drink or Drink indeed as he also hath taught us John 6. 55. and after examination let the true Christian Eat of that Bread and Drink of that Cup which will strengthen his Body and Soul both much more than the ordinary Bread and Wine can his Body only Our Saviour himself when he had said This is my Blood of the New Testament immediately adds but I say unto you I will not henceforth Drink of this Fruit of the Vine that is of the true Vine as our Lord is pleased to call himself or of that Wine which by the Words of Benediction becomes my Blood being Originally the Fruit of the Vine or possibly it may refer to the unconsecrated Wine that was left in the Vessels until I drink it new that is fresh and newly Consecrated again with you in my Fathers Kingdom or after my Resurrection as some with the Author interpret the place but as others more generally till I drink of that new Wine of another sort and nature in the Kingdom of my heavenly Father where we shall drink of the River of his pleasures Psal 36. 8. and therefore the Authors following observation is nothing worth For after the Apostles were satisfied that they really drank the Blood of our Lord in this Sacrament and fed upon his Real Body it was an easy and familiar Metaphor to call them Bread and Wine because the outward Species gave a sufficient hint for the understanding of this Figurative Speech suitable to the Language of Sense in the instances above mentioned out of Scripture and because there was true Spiritual nourishment conveyed to the faithful by the Body and Blood of our Saviour thus received as there is Corporeal nourishment received by the Natural Bread and Wine which we take for the refection of our Bodies DISCOURSE Besides if we consider that he celebrated this Sacrament before his Passion it is impossible these words should be understood literally of the natural Body and Blood of Christ because it was his Body broken and his Blood shed which he gave to his Disciples which if we understand literally of his natural Body broken and his blood shed then these words this is my Body which is broken and this is my Blood which is shed could not be true because his Body was then whole and unbroken and his Blood not then shed nor could it be a propitiatory Sacrifice as they affirm this Sacrament to be unless they will say that Propitiation was made before Christ suffered And it is likewise impossible that the Disciples should understand these words literally because they not only plainly saw that what he gave them was Bread and Wine but they saw likewise as plainly that it was not his Body which was given but his Body which gave that which was given no his Body broken and this Blood shed because they saw him alive at that very time and beheld his Body whole and unpierc'd and therefore they could not understand these words literally If they did can we imagine that the Disciples who upon all other occasions were so full of questions and objections should make no difficulty of this matter nor so much as ask our Saviour how can these things be that they should not tell him we see this to be Bread and that to be Wine and we see thy Body to be distinct from both we see thy Body not broken aud thy Blood not shed From all which it must needs be very evident to any man that will impartially consider things how little reason there is to understand those words of our Saviour this is my Body and This is my Blood in the sense of Transubstantiation nay on the contrary that there is very great reason and an evident necessity to understand them otherwise I proceed to shew ANSWER Besides if we consider that our Lord celebrated this Sacrament before his Passion it is impossible that these words should be understood otherwise than properly of the real Body and Blood of Christ because it was his Body broken and his Blood poured out which he gave to his Disciples which if we understand as figurative only of his natural Body broken and his Blood shed then these words this is my Body which is broken and this is my Blood which is shed could not be true because his
hearing will discover to be Fallacies That which the Servants at the Marriage of Cana in Galiee took from the Fountain was Water that which they poured into the Water-pots was the same that they took from the Fountain that which the Guests drank was the same that the Servants put into the Water-pots But that which the Servants took from the Fountain which they poured into the Pots was Water therefore it was Water which the Guests drank Or your Argument may in a shorter way be turn'd against you thus That which Christ took into his hands he gave But that which he took into his hands was not Sacramental Bread nor virtually Christs Body therefore that which he gave was not Sacramental Bread nor virtually Christs Body And now repeating your Argument truly tho' without all your heap of words I shall expose it's Fallacy plainly That you say which Christ took c. he gave but he took Bread therefore he gave Bread. I distinguish the Major That he took he gave unchanged or in the same manner he took it I deny What he took he gave changed and made his Body I grant and so agreeing he took Bread I deny your Consequence Look into your Logic again observe it well and you will find that to make a Proposition contradictory to ours viz. That that which Christ gave was his Real Body you must observe the Rules of your Master Aristotle so as to speak de eodem modo eodem tempore which you have not here known how to do Yet you for all this would be esteemed the Great Champion for the Protestant cause and boast that this your matter and Argument is so Demonstrative that you cannot but stand amazed that Men who pretend to reason can refuse it This pretended Demonstration might be much more exposed had I leasure whilst I am discoursing upon so serious a point to insist upon trifles Neither would the Remarks which he afterwards makes help him in the least For tho' our Saviour did say according to St. Luke and St. Paul This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood yet this passage doth not fully determin that by This is my Body is meant This Bread is my Body For the word This in the Proposition This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood being joyned with the word Cup by a known Figure to signifie in a General way what is contained in the Cup only makes the Proposition to Signifie That which is contained in the Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which in the Evangelists St. Matthew and St. Mark is exprest by these words This is my Blood of the New Testament so that the word This still altho' joyned to Cup hath no other kind of signification than it hath in the Words This is my Body as I have before explained them Also if it had the Sense which the Author of the Expostulatory Letter would give it then the meaning would be This Wine is the New Testament in my Blood or as according to St. Matthew and St. Mark This Wine is my Blood of the New Testament which words in the Sense that our Adversaries put upon them would in those circumstances wherein they were spoken have been contrary to the Rules of Human Discourse suitably to what is shew'd in the ensuing Answer concerning the Words This is my Body taken in their Sense The Adversary indeed in This Expostulatory Letter insolently Triumphs because he hath found out some mistakes in Translating c. But his Answer to the Fathers Authorities which have been so often truly cited as an undeniable Evidence against his Party will easily be shew'd to be unsatisfactory when we come to their proper place and he so slightly attacks as you have seen our main Evidence the proper Sense of our Lords words as hardly to bring the face of an Argument against it So we Read that a Humorsom Emperor when he came to invade Great Britain only gather'd Cockles and yet for this he demanded Triumph in a Letter to his Senators thinking his Shell-spoils worthy Offerings for the Capitol We have one Request now to make to those who oppose the Doctrin of Transubstantiation That because it is necessary for an Answerer to know distinctly what the Persons mean to whom he is to make an Answer they would deal sincerely with us and since we have told them in what Sense every word in the Proposition This is my Body is taken by us and how the Catholic Church doth necessarily infer Transubstantiation from them they would now deal as candidly with us and tell us as plainly as we have done how they understand each of these words I have reason to intreat this favor of them because altho' they seem sometimes to maintain only a Vertual not Real Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament which Opinion of theirs I have chiefly opposed in the Ensuing Answer yet at othertimes they and even the Discourser himself readily acknowledge a Great Supernatural change to be made by the Divine Benediction and the Author of the Expostulatory Letter hath a Reserv'd Distinction of Christs Natural and Spiritual Flesh and Blood seeming to allow that Christ hath a Spiritual Body in the Sacrament We know not but that he intends the same which the Learned Author of a Brief Discourse of the Real Presence hath lately given us of two Bodies of Christ the one Natural in which he was Crucified the other Spiritual belonging to him as he is the Eternal Logos in whom is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Life or Spirit which goes along with the Divine Body of this Life or Spirit of Christ and consequently is rightly call'd his Body For this he grounds himself upon that earnest lofty and sublime Discourse as he calls it of our Saviour in the 6th Chapter of St. John confessing ingenuously that it seems to him incredible that under so lofty mysterious a style and earnest asseverations of what he affirms tho' to the scandal both of the Jews and his own Disciples there should not be couched some most weighty and profound Truth concerning some Real Flesh and Blood of his touching which this vehement and sublime Discourse is framed pa. 40. And than again pa. 42. and 43. It is plain says he that our Saviours Discourse in that Chapter has for its Object or Subject not the manner or way of receiving his Body and Blood as if meant of that very Body and Blood on the Cross to be receiv'd in a Spiritual manner which Interpreters several of them meaning of the Reformers drive at and which he thinks would be a very dilute and frigid Sense of such high and fervid asseverations of our Saviour but the Object of his Discourse says he is his very Flesh and Blood it self to be taken as the Fish and Loaves were wherewith he lately fed them or it is himself in reference to his Flesh and Blood which belongs to him as he is the
for it where we shall see him immediately cast himself and be non-suited at the very beginning of his Trial. He tells us that the delivery of a Deed or Writing under Hand and Seal is called a Conveyance or making over of such an Estate that is of a Title to such an Estate and that it really is so that we deny unless there be possession also given as I shall presently shew And yet what do we affirm more of Christs words in the Sacrament This is my Body which is given for you c. which we have taken from his own mouth by the Hands of inspired Pen-men Sealed by himself with Miracles and delivered to his Church than that they are a Conveyance or making over of his Sacred Body to us and that they are so really not only in Sign or Figure He proceeds to tell us That this Delivery of a Deed or Writing under Hand and Seal is not the Delivery of mere Wax and Parchment but the conveyance of a Real Estate as truly and really to all effects and purposes of Law as if the material Houses and Lands themselves could be and were actually delivered into my hands Well but we say that a Deed of Feoffment takes not effect to all purposes of Law without Livery and Seisin neither doth it convey an Estate without that nor a Deed of Release neither unless the Purchaser be put in Possession before hand by a Lease and then too not by the Common Law but so necessary is Possession deemed for the through Conveyance of an Estate that in case of absence from the Land or the like the Law-makers have by a particular Statute necessarily provided to give Possession otherwise for it is not necessary to the making a Man in Possession of an Estate that he should hold his Land and House in his Arms or stand always upon the Premises But I hope the Author will not so far endeavor to invalidate the Common Assurance of the Nation as to maintain that because the Man hath thus a Conveyance of a real Estate to all effects and purposes of Law therefore he must not enter upon it dwell in the House Reap the Fruits of the ground and nourish himself therewith I imagin the Purchaser will not be put off so In like manner the words of Christ delivered as his Act and Deed by the Priest his Substitute in the Consecration of the Sacrament for the use of those that are to Communicate is not the bare delivery of so many Words only but the making over of a real Title to them to the thing which is meant by them that is the Body of our Lord as truly and really to all effects and purposes of the Gospel as if it actually hung upon the Cross before their Eyes in that Form and with the same configuration and quality of parts as it once did Shall they therefore be hindred from taking immediate Possession of what is thus made over to them No this were too great a Sacriledge against God and violation of the property of a Christian They shall receive Christs Body and Blood that they may dwell in him and he in them They shall partake of the Fruits of the Sacrament as of a goodly Heritage of their own since Christ hath given them a just Right and Title to it and shall cherish their Souls and Bodies therewith to Immortality Those who are contented only to hear of or to see this goodly Land and not to go and possess it Those who will leave their Fathers House the Catholic Church and go abroad to feed upon Husks and imaginary vertue are the objects of our pity So indeed there is a sort of a Fiction in Law in the Authors way of conveyance of a Tenant by Deed or Lease of possession who notwithstanding hath nothing to do to enter upon the Estate or enjoy it if the Author be contented with such a Title only in the Sacrament I am sorry for him And thus the Similitude is reasonably applied as for our Adversaries way who saith that as the delivery of a Deed or Writing under Hand and Seal is call'd a Conveyance or making over of such an Estate he should have prov'd that the Deed is called the Estate it self and not only the Conveyance of an Estate if he would have made this phrase any thing suitable to that of our Lord This is my Body in like manner the names of the things themselves made over to us in the New Covenant of the Gospel between God and Man are given to the Signs and Seals of the Covenant whereas there is no Analogy between these things nor truth neither in this instance It is just as if one should say that Tenterden Steeple were like the Goodwin Sands I confess I have often admired with my self at this sort of Similitude which Protestants are mighty big with pretending to Illustrate their fond opinion about the Sacrament clearly hereby which being examined proves as you see but a mere Tympany of the Brain The Author having before told us that nothing is more Common in all Languages than to give the name of the thing signified to the Sign proceeds now to give us examples of this out of Holy Scripture by Baptism saith he Christians are said to be partakers of the Holy Ghost Heb. 6. 4. And so they really are and their Bodies are his Temples But since Baptism is the Sign and the Holy Ghost the thing signified according to him why doth he not bring us one instance out of Scripture of Baptisms being called the Holy Ghost as they pretend that Bread in the words of Institution is called Christs Body For this which he hath brought of Baptism is no Example to his Common Rule We may reasonably conclude that if the Sacrament of Baptism had been so very like this of the Eucharist as they would have it it would have been Instituted in a like Form but it is quite otherwise For neither Water nor Baptism it self are called in Holy Scripture the Holy Ghost neither is there any Form of Cousecration of the Element delivered Indeed by the Sacrament of the Lords Supper we are also said to Communicate or to be made partakers of the Body of Christ which was broken and his Blood that was shed for us but that is his Real Body and Blood together with all the real benefits of his Death and Passion which do thereby accrue to us And thus St. Paul speaks of this Sacrament 1 Cor. 10. 16. The Cup of blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ That is after Consecration it really is so altho' the Apostle calls it Bread by a Metaphor that being to our Souls what the ordinary Bread is to our Bodies true nourishment so also it is said that Aarons Rod devour'd the other Rods Exod. 7. 12. altho' it was then become a Serpent v.