The Protestant's answer to The Catholick letter to the seeker, or, A vindication of the Protestant's answer, to the seeker's request
Williams, John, 1636?-1709.
1688
Approx. 97 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 21 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images.
Text Creation Partnership,
Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :
2005-10 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).
A66413
Wing W2720
ESTC R2915
12498436
ocm 12498436
62597
This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of
Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal
. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.
Early English books online.
(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A66413)
Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 62597)
Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 951:86)
The Protestant's answer to The Catholick letter to the seeker, or, A vindication of the Protestant's answer, to the seeker's request
Williams, John, 1636?-1709.
[4], 36 p.
Printed and are to be sold by Randal Taylor ...,
London :
1688.
Reproduction of original in Huntington Library.
Attributed to John Williams. cf. NUC Pre-1956.
The "Protestant's answer" is Robert Nelson's Transubstantiation contrary to Scripture.
Table of contents: p. [3]-[4]
Errata: p. 36.
Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.
Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors.
EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.
EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).
The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.
Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.
Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.
Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.
The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.
Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).
Keying and markup guidelines are available at the
Text Creation Partnership web site
.
eng
N. N. -- Catholic letter to the seeker.
Nelson, Robert, 1656-1715. -- Transubstantiation contrary to Scripture.
Catholic Church -- Controversial literature.
Transubstantiation.
2005-01 TCP
Assigned for keying and markup
2005-01 Aptara
Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images
2005-03 Jonathan Blaney
Sampled and proofread
2005-03 Jonathan Blaney
Text and markup reviewed and edited
2005-04 pfs
Batch review (QC) and XML conversion
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.
à
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
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
:
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
●
v.
53
,
&c.
Except
ye
eat
,
—
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
●●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
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
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
overthr●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
,
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
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
would
yet
be
possible
for
Christ
to
enter
intire
through
all
,
p.
15.
Here
is
one
thing
omitted
,
and
that
is
to
prove
,
that
as
the
Doors
were
shut
,
when
they
assembled
,
for
fear
of
the
Jews
(
as
the
Evangelist
saith
)
so
they
were
not
opened
by
Christ
,
when
he
came
and
stood
in
the
midst
of
them
;
till
which
be
proved
,
we
shall
say
the
letter
of
Scripture
is
for
us
,
and
that
Christ's
Body
had
Flesh
and
Bones
,
might
be
beheld
and
felt
,
and
did
neither
come
through
the
Walls
,
nor
indeed
could
do
,
so
long
as
it
remains
true
that
the
Penetration
of
Dimensions
is
impossible
.
But
I
had
need
to
recal
this
;
for
I
am
for
ever
silenced
if
what
he
saith
be
true
,
that
the
Answerer
argues
perfidiously
of
Christ
,
as
if
he
were
not
God
,
not
distinguishing
betweeen
his
Glorious
Body
and
ours
;
for
as
God
,
all
things
are
possible
to
him
.
But
where
is
that
perfidiousness
,
since
no
more
is
denied
to
Christ
,
than
is
to
God
?
For
because
all
things
are
possible
to
God
,
doth
he
think
that
it
's
perfidious
to
say
,
that
it
's
not
possible
for
God
to
be
ignorant
or
unfaithful
,
or
circumscrib'd
,
and
so
to
exist
after
the
manner
of
a
Body
?
Or
doth
he
think
it
's
perfidious
to
say
,
it
's
impossible
to
make
the
Body
of
Christ
to
have
been
existent
in
different
times
,
and
really
to
have
been
existent
before
it
was
existent
,
and
yet
not
to
be
existent
till
it
was
?
Or
is
it
perfidious
to
say
,
it
's
impossible
to
make
the
circumscribed
Body
of
Christ
to
be
Omnipresent
?
The
last
he
seems
to
affirm
by
his
often
repeated
Maxim
,
That
Christ
is
not
but
where
he
is
intire
,
and
placing
therein
the
Difference
between
Christ's
Glorious
Body
and
ours
.
But
of
that
more
anon
.
Our
Author
,
as
he
would
prove
the
Body
of
Christ
might
lose
all
the
Properties
of
a
Body
,
so
also
that
it
might
be
contained
under
the
Forms
of
Bread
and
Wine
,
that
is
,
to
all
appearance
it
might
have
all
the
Properties
of
those
Elements
,
and
yet
be
none
of
them
,
but
the
Body
of
Christ
alone
.
And
this
he
reasons
upon
,
after
this
manner
,
Where
is
the
difficulty
to
believe
but
this
may
be
,
as
the
Holy
Ghost
under
the
Form
of
a
Dove
,
with
Feather
,
Beak
,
Wing
,
and
all
the
properties
of
a
Fowl
?
Or
in
the
Form
of
Tongues
of
Fire
?
Both
which
to
our
eyes
were
but
as
a
perfect
Dove
,
and
as
perfect
Tongues
;
yet
those
different
objects
to
the
eye
of
Flesh
,
were
but
one
Holy
Ghost
to
the
Eye
of
Faith.
Therefore
nothing
can
be
more
plain
than
that
Objects
may
be
one
thing
to
the
Eye
of
Flesh
,
and
another
thing
to
the
Eye
of
Faith.
So
in
the
Sacrament
,
to
our
sight
and
tast
is
plain
Bread
and
Wine
,
but
to
our
Faith
(
in
Gods
word
)
it
is
the
Real
and
Intire
Body
and
Blood
of
Christ.
An
instance
and
inference
not
at
all
to
the
purpose
.
For
the
Question
is
not
,
Whether
a
Spiritual
Being
may
not
be
under
the
appearance
of
a
Body
?
for
so
it
was
with
the
Angels
when
they
appeared
as
men
,
and
the
Holy
Ghost
when
it
appeared
like
a
Dove
.
Neither
is
the
Question
,
whether
an
Object
may
be
one
thing
to
the
eye
of
Flesh
,
and
another
to
the
eye
of
Faith
?
for
so
our
Saviour
appear'd
to
be
man
,
and
yet
was
God
as
well
as
man.
All
which
yet
is
besides
the
matter
,
for
in
these
cases
there
is
an
invisible
Being
under
a
visible
representation
,
or
an
Invisible
Being
in
union
to
a
visible
.
But
here
are
two
objects
visible
in
their
own
nature
,
viz.
the
Body
of
Christ
,
and
Bread
;
and
the
one
of
these
so
turn'd
into
the
other
,
that
there
are
all
the
Properties
of
a
visible
Being
,
which
is
not
there
,
viz.
Bread
;
and
none
of
the
properties
of
that
visible
Being
which
is
there
,
viz.
the
Body
of
Christ.
So
that
the
question
should
be
thus
propos'd
,
Whether
what
is
an
object
of
sense
,
may
have
all
the
properties
of
another
sensible
object
,
without
being
that
thing
which
they
are
the
properties
of
;
and
none
of
the
properties
belonging
to
its
own
nature
and
being
?
Arg.
3.
The
Protestant
Answerer
shew'd
,
that
the
Letter
of
Scripture
is
for
us
,
that
the
Body
of
Christ
as
it
ascended
,
so
is
to
continue
in
Heaven
till
the
conclusion
of
the
world
;
and
so
cannot
be
in
Heaven
and
Earth
at
the
same
time
.
This
our
Author
calls
a
barren
conceit
;
but
as
barren
as
it
is
,
it
is
true
,
and
has
Scripture
and
Reason
on
its
side
,
notwithstanding
what
he
has
objected
to
the
contrary
.
The
first
Argument
he
offers
in
Answer
to
this
is
,
that
he
is
a
perfect
and
omnipotent-God
.
And
that
he
may
be
,
and
yet
not
reconcile
contradictions
(
as
has
been
just
before
shewed
.
)
He
confirms
it
by
Scripture
,
Mat.
18.
20.
c.
28.
20.
Where
two
or
three
are
gathered
together
in
my
name
,
there
am
I
in
the
midst
of
them
.
And
if
there
,
he
is
there
intire
,
or
not
at
all
,
p.
15.
&
32.
But
when
Christ
promised
to
be
in
the
midst
of
them
,
did
he
promise
to
be
there
Corporally
?
If
bodily
,
I
would
fain
know
under
what
Form
he
is
there
?
And
if
he
be
intire
where
ever
he
is
,
and
yet
he
is
every
where
as
God
,
then
the
Body
of
Christ
must
be
as
Omnipresent
as
his
Divinity
;
and
so
there
would
be
no
need
,
nor
indeed
possibility
of
his
Descending
.
He
adds
,
Our
Saviour
is
not
so
confined
in
Heaven
,
as
that
he
cannot
also
be
upon
Earth
;
for
we
read
that
he
Descended
and
overthrew
Saul
in
the
way
to
Damascus
,
and
spoke
to
him
,
Act.
9.
4.
And
he
may
be
actually
present
without
being
seen
,
for
the
men
with
Saul
saw
no
man
,
v.
7.
By
all
which
it
's
plain
,
that
Christ
may
be
in
Earth
,
and
in
many
places
at
the
same
time
,
as
well
as
in
Heaven
.
But
to
this
I
answer
,
(
1.
)
It
's
not
certain
that
the
Apostle
saw
,
or
that
Christ
appeared
to
his
Fleshly
eye
.
For
elsewhere
he
is
said
to
see
him
in
a
trance
,
Act.
22.
17.
and
here
v.
4.
to
fall
on
the
Earth
;
and
so
God
is
said
to
be
seen
,
when
yet
there
was
no
similitude
,
Exod.
24.
10.
Deut.
4.
12.
(
2.
)
If
he
was
seen
bodily
,
yet
it
's
not
said
,
as
our
Author
would
have
it
,
that
he
Descended
,
and
was
bodily
present
.
But
it
might
be
as
with
St.
Stephen
,
who
looked
up
to
Heaven
,
and
saw
Jesus
standing
on
the
right
hand
of
God
,
Act.
7.
55.
And
so
here
v.
3.
it
's
said
,
that
there
shined
round
about
(
St.
Paul
)
a
light
from
Heaven
.
(
3.
)
Much
less
is
there
so
much
as
any
intimation
of
what
our
Author
saith
,
that
Christ
was
Bodily
in
Heaven
and
the
Earth
at
the
same
time
.
For
if
he
was
in
in
the
one
,
it
's
certain
he
was
not
Bodily
in
the
other
.
And
this
our
Author
unwittingly
acknowledges
,
when
he
saith
Christ
descended
and
overthrew
Saul
.
So
Vigilius
Tapsitanus
,
When
the
Body
of
Christ
was
in
the
Earth
,
it
was
not
in
Heaven
;
and
now
because
it
is
in
Heaven
,
't
is
not
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
.
Notes, typically marginal, from the original text
Notes for div A66413-e690
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.