THE Catholic Letter TO THE SEEKER: OR, A REPLY TO THE Protestant Answer. SHOWING, That CATHOLICS have Express Scriptures, for Believing the Real Presence; and, That Protestants have none at all, for Denying It.  St. Mark iv vers. 11, 12. 
To Them that are Without, all these Things are done in Parables; That they may See, and not Perceive; Hear, and not Understand.  
Published with Allowance.  
LONDON, Printed for John Lane, at the Golden-Anchor, the Corner Shop of Wilde-Street, next Duke-Street. 1688.   

THE Catholic Letter TO THE SEEKER, etc.  
SIR,  
I Hope These Lines will overtake You,  You proceed to pass Sentence upon what has been said by Either Party, in Answer to your Request, concerning the Real Presence; and the rather, for that in my Answer, I was (as it were) Silent, because of the Ties You had put upon Us, to satisfy your Conscience by the Scripture only; for, 
Request, P. 4, 5, 7.  That your Design was to see what Scriptures We had for it, and what the Others had against it; and, That nothing but Scripture, (without troubling ourselves to tell You the meaning on't,) should satisfy You in the Matter: To which I submitted, as near as possible I could. And I humbly conceived the Protestant Answerer would have done so too; but, on the contrary, he hath not only quitted the Question, but has crowded Three Sheets and an half of Paper, for the most part, with pretended Reasons and Figures, without producing so much as One Text, pertinent, to disprove the Real Presence; or to prove any One Text, by me alleged, to be either Figuratively or Parabolically spoken; or that, for Such they must be understood: But says, (by no Authority, but his own) 
Protest. Ans. Pag. 7, 8, 10.  That the Sense of Eating the Flesh, and Drinking the Blood, Must be Figurative; and, right or wrong, they are Figurative, and must not be properly and literally understood▪ For I am (says he) as 〈◊〉 as 〈…〉 Words that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is 〈…〉 Literal, th●n it 〈◊〉 be the Rational Meaning of them, etc. But, to have made You as sure as himself, methinks, he should have proved, by express Scripture, that those Texts which I produced were Figurative or Parabolical; and that they are not to be understood in the plain and proper Sense wherein they were spoken; otherwise how doth he think we shall take his bare Word, or that his private Meaning of the Text shall pass upon us for Gospel: But, not to delay on this particular, pray observe how the Gentleman has evaded the Question, which was of the Real and Immediate Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament, " Whether we believed it or not? if We believed it, We were to produce what Scripture We could to justify Our said Belief; and, if They denied it, They were to produce what Scripture They could, to prove That their Negative." But, instead of speaking to the Real Persence, he has betaken himself to Transubstantiation, a Word devised by the Church to express the Conversion that's made in the Sacrament, by the Divine Word; as the Word Consubstantial or Consubstantiate, was devised against the Arians, to express the Substance of the Son's being Coequal, the same with the Substance of the Father; and, if the Request had been of the Consubstantiality of the Son, the Arians, with as much Reason, might have Answered, That 'twas enough for them to show, that Consubstantiality is not Taught in Scripture, as the Protestant Answerer has done; where (Pag. 3.) he says, That 'tis enough for them to show, that Transubstantiation is not taught in Scripture, tho' the Being of Christ 's Body and Blood in the Sacrament, is: At which rate, if permitted, he'll Shame off the rest of their Negative Doctrines; insomuch, that when you come to the Infallibility of the Church, Invocation of Saints, Purgatory, etc. and require him to show Express Scripture, to prove, That the Church is not Infallible, That we must not Invocate the Saints to Pray for us, That there is no Third Place in the other Life, besides Heaven and Hell; he'll think to stop your Mouth with his, 'Tis enough for them to show, that Infallibility is not Taught in Scripture; tho', That the Church can never Err, be: That Invocation of Saints is not Taught in Scripture; tho' Prayer to Saints, and that they do Pray for us, be: That Purgatory is not Taught in Scripture, tho' a Third Place in the other Life, be; whereby he quits the Substance, to wrangle at the Word, by which the Substance is expressed: He might as well say, The Trinity and Incarnation are not Taught in Scripture; the Words being no more there, than Transubstantiation, Purgatory, or the rest: But how far this way of Answering will take with You, I know not. For My part, I humbly conceived your Meaning was purely to be satisfied in the Substance of what We believed of the Real Presence; and to show You what Authorities We had from Scripture, for such Our Belief; not doubtings, if We agreed in the Substance of the Thing Believed, that ever We should differ about a Word sufficiently proper to express it.  
The Gentleman proceeds, and tells you, (Pag. 3.) That You are but lately engaged in this Employment, or else You would never (says he) think it reasonable, to oppose the Authority of One Unknown Answerer of that Communion, to the professed Opinion of so Many great Divines of that Church, etc. And from thence infers a Concurrence of some of our Divines with him, in this particular, to wit, (Pag. 4.) That there was not One place of Scripture so Express, that without the determination of the Church, it would evidently compel a Man to receive Transubstantiation: And the same might as well be said of the Consubstantiality of the Son " That there is no Scripture so Express, as without out the determination of the Church, it would evidently compel a Man to receive it;" But what is this to the Being, or not Being of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament? Had he produced Scotus, Bellarmine, or any of the Holy Fathers, to disprove the Real Presence, it had been something, though not to your purpose; for the Request was, (Pag. 4.) To satisfy You by the Scripture only; and not by citing of (our Modern Divines, or) Ancient Greek and Latin Fathers; but by the Express Text, and plain Word of God, as Written, and set forth in our English Bibles, and no otherwise: And this was the Rule that I walked by, in my Answer; not that I thereby Renounced the Determination of the Church in this, or any other point of Faith: God forbidden, but that I should always prefer their Universal Consent, to my Private Opinion! Wherefore, if what Scotus and Bellarmine have said in that Matter, will do the Gentleman a Kindness, he shall have it, not only from them, but from all the Faithful; 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: But if so, as we must go to the Determination of the Church, for the Sense of Scripture; what then becomes of their Bible-only- Rule-of-Faith?  
The Gentleman goes on, and (Pag. 5.) adviseth You to Consult even Those, who are most concerned; and particularly, (says he) The Author of your Catholic Answer, who has Undertaken (what the abovesaid Learned Persons despaired of) to Prove Transubstantiation to the full of your Request, by Express and Plain Texts of Scripture: And, in the same Page, tells you Your Catholic Answerer, it seems, has Read That, which Cardinal Bellarmine had not seen; and that he had found out a great Part of a Chapter, which the Cardinal had Overlooked. But to turn his own Cannon upon Himself, I may, with more Truth Retort on him, That he has Read, it seems, in my Answer, what I never Writ; and has found a great part thereof, for which You, and I, are yet to Stek: For I do not find the Word Transubstantiation so much as Mentioned in either your Request, or my Answer; for Justification whereof, I refer to Both: Wherefore, how Sincere the Gentleman has been, in this particular, let the World Judge. Indeed, the Title of my Answer says, Proving the Real Presence by Scripture only; and so doth the Current, throughout the whole Discourse; but not one Word of Transubstantiation: For that the Controversy was not about the Word Transubstantiation; but, about the Real Presence, or Substance Believed and Denied in the Sacrament. But, here you'll say, (perhaps) What's this to the Purpose? Is not the Real Presence and Transubstantiation all as one? No, truly, they are not so all one as you may think: For, there is a great deal of difference betwixt a Man, and the Name by which he is distinguished; and the Measures that are taken to prove him a Man, are not the same with Those which are used to prove his Name is Thomas: And so of the LORD's Supper. 'Tis one thing to prove the Real Presence, and Being of CHRIST's Body and Blood in the Sacrament; and 'tis Another to show Reasons, why this Mysterious Change of Bread and Wine, into the Body and Blood of CHRIST, is, by the Church, called TRANSUBST ANTIATION; though, whoever believes the One, can't in Truth deny the Other: For, if what our Saviour said, (when, Matth. 26. Vers. 26. JESUS took Bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the Disciples; and said, TAKE, EAT, THIS IS MY BODY) be true, That it was, as He said, his Body; than it implies a Change from its former being Bread, to its present being his Body. And this Mysterious Change, the Holy Catholic Church doth properly call TRANSUBST ANTIATION: Not that the Substance of Bread is Changed, according to Sensual Taste, but according to Divine Faith in JESUS CHRIST. Wherefore the Gentleman, methinks, should not have Bantered altogether, as he doth, at the Word TRANSUBST ANTIATION; but have spoke to the Substance; and have either Confessed the REAL PRESENCE, or have produced nothing but SCRIPTURE to Disprove it, as was Requested.  
The Gentleman proceeds, notwithstanding; and tells you, Pag. 6. That this Discourse of our Saviour 's, (meaning That in the 6th. Chapter of St. John) had no special Reference to the Sacrament; for that the Sacrament was not Instituted, till (says he) above a Year after, as the Time of this Discourse shows, Vers. 4, etc. Very well! On which please to remark: That the Sacrament was not then Instituted, I grant, as I did before, in my Answer, Pag. 6. where I said, First, I prove Christ 's Promise before He Instituted the Sacrament, etc. and so far the Gentleman might have spared his Labour: But, that the Sacrament was not Instituted till above a Year after, is what he can show no Rule for: For the Text, which he citys to prove his Assertion, is this, John 6. Vers. 4. And the Passover, a Feast of the Jews was nigh. Now, that this word Nigh should signify Above a Year after, is such a Figure, as never was. Whereas St. Luke hath the same Word, saying, Chap. 22. Vers. 1. Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread drew Nigh, which is called the PASSOVER; and immediately the Passover followed, as appears by the Chapter. And St. Mark treats not of the Passover, till within Two Days of it, saying, Chap. 14. Vers. 1. After Two Days was the Feast of the Passover: So St. Matth. 26. Vers. 2. Ye know, that after Two Days is the Feast of the Passover, etc. I do not say, That the Word Nigh, in St. John, signifies so near as Two Days; nor do I find, by express and plain Scripture, that it is to be taken for above a Year after. But, whether what's said in the 6th. Chapter of St. John, have any Reference to the Sacrament, is the Quaery? For, though our Saviour did not then Institute the Sacrament; yet He says, Vers. 51. And the Bread which I will give, is my Flesh; which I Will give for the Life of the World. By which You see, that, though He did not then give us this Bread; yet He promised, He would give us Bread to Eat, which should be the very same Flesh, which he would, and afterwards did, give for the Life of the World. Now, Whether this absolute Promise hath any Reference to the ensuing Performance, be You the Judge? when, at his Last Supper, He took Bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to his Disciples, and said, TAKE, EAT, THIS IS MY BODY. If therefore this Bread, which He here gives us to Eat, saying, TAKE, EAT, THIS IS MY BODY, be not that Bread, which He promised He would give us to Eat, which should be his Flesh, pray ask your Protetestant Answerer, Where, When, and How, did CHRIST give us Bread to Eat, which should be his Flesh, if This be it not?  
The Gentleman goes on, and (Pag. 7.) tells You: These Verses, (viz. 53, 54, 55, 56, 57) do show, where our Saviour saith, EXCEPT YE EAT, and WHOSO EATEIH, etc. in all which the Present Time is spoken of. But, why the Gentleman should begin at Vers. 53. and thereby skip Vers. 51. I know not; where CHRIST told them before, That He WOULD (in the Future Tense) give them Bread to Eat, which should be his Flesh; and then tells them, That EXCEPT THEY DID EAT, and WHOSO EATETH, etc. Not that He did then GIVE, or that they did then EAT his Flesh, or DRINK his Blood; which they could not do, before He took it, blessed it, broke it, and gave it: For at that Time when He spoke, as in the 6th. Chapter of St. John, 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, Vers. 53. That, Except ye EAT the FLESH of the Son of Man, and DRINK his BLOOD, ye have no Life in you: He doth not say, Except ye EAT it, before I GIVE it; but first said, He WOULD give it; and then, EXCEPT THEY DID EAT, etc. The Gentleman, however, from the abovementioned Texts, insinuates, " That CHRIST's Flesh and Blood may be Eaten and Drank out of the Sacrament, as (says he) is evident from the Sense and Letter of it: If so, then (continues he) it could not be understood of that Flesh and Blood, which the Bread and Wine are Converted into, in the Sacrament; nor (adds he) of Carnal Eating his Flesh, and Drinking his Blood."— 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, in the Sacrament, (to use his own Words, Pag. 12.) after an Heavenly and Spiritual manner: And so far 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.— " But, that 'tis evident, (as he says) from the Letter and Sense of it, That the Flesh and Blood 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. For my part, I have read St. John on this Occasion; and I can't find it so evident, as he says it is: Pray, Sir, do you Consult the Words, and see, whether those Texts do imply, the Eating and Drinking the Flesh and Blood of CHRIST, Out of the Sacrament, as well as In it; or in any other manner, than under the Forms of Bread and Wine, according to both the Promise, and Institution? Or, Whether they could Eat it, before He Gave it? For, in the 6 th'. Chapter of St. John, CHRIST did not give them his Flesh to Eat, nor his Blood to Drink: But told them, He would give them BREAD to Eat, which should be his FLESH; but, before He GAVE it, 'twas impossible for them to EAT it.  
He further proceeds, and tells You, (Pag. 8.) " That it must not be Properly and Literally understood: For then (says he) all that thus Properly Eat and Drink the Flesh and Blood of CHRIST, would have Eternal Life, according to our Saviour's Assertion," Vers. 54.— Very true! The Worthy Receivers (who persevere to the End) have so; but the Unworthy, quite contrary: And we can show You a Rule for it, viz. 1 Cor. 11.27,29. Wherefore, whosoever shall Eat this BREAD, and Drink this CUP of the Lord Unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord: For, he that Eateth and Drinketh UNWORTHILY, Eateth and Drinketh Damnation to himself, not discerning the LORD 's BODY: Wherefore the Worthy may receive to Eternal Life, and the Unworthy to Eternal Death. And the Words, TAKE, EAT, THIS IS MY BODY, may be properly understood; the Protestant Musl-bee's to the contrary, notwithstanding.  
The Gentleman tells you further, in the same Page; " That then, the Sacrament in both Kind's, will be necessary to Salvation," &c.— As to this of Both Kind's, it doth not properly Relate either to Your Request, or My Answer; but is a Controversy deserving to be Argued by itself, in convenient Time and Place: And, besides, I do not see where the necessity lies, of defining the Sacrament in Both Kind's, to One, that believes it in Neither; not but that I am ready to satisfy You in this particular, where, and when You please.  
The Gentleman (Pag. 8.) sharply reflects upon what I said in my Answer, p. 8. That if they went to Figures and Parables, we knew how to handle them. From whence he Insinuates some Extraordinary way of handling: For my part, I take GOD to Witness, I had no other meaning in it, than to handle them by the BIBLE, as I said, to Rule them by their own Rule: Wherefore, let the Evil be to them that think it.  
As to what he says, Pag. 8. " Of the Antipathy I should have to Figures and Parables; and Cross myself, wherever they are Named:"— I do not see, by what I have Writ, where the Gentleman can have the least Ground for this Cross and Antipathous Reflection: For, to the contrary, I highly venerate those Discourses, wherein our Saviour was often pleased to express himself by way of Parable, etc. But that which I abhor, (and which, indeed, would make a Saint Bless himself) is, To see Men mould GOD's Word into what Form they please, and make every thing a Figure, that doth not square with their Fancy: Is it because our Saviour spoke some things by way of Parable, that All he said was such? or, That he never spoke otherwise? If so, and that the Scriptures are so full of secret Meanings, How comes it, that mean Capacities are (by the Church of St. Martin's) left to themselves, to Judge of the true sense of Scripture, according to D. T. who tells you, in his True Account of a Conference, p. 18. " That a Man, after using all Christian means, and the help of all Ministerial Guides possible, must at last Judge for himself."— A special Assertion indeed! which, if true, What need of Teachers, seeing that every Man must teach himself, by being a Judge of the Text to himself at last? But, not to detain you on this particular,  
Let us come to what the Gentleman desires, pag. 8. " That I should tell him, without a Figure, what is that Meat which endureth to everlasting Life, whereof our Saviour speaks in the Sixth Chapter of St. John, vers. 27. Labour not for the Meat which Perisheth, but for THAT MEAT which endureth unto everlasting Life, which the Son of Man shall give unto you; for him hath God the Father sealed:" Why, truly, for my part, I do not see where the difficulty lies in these words of Labouring for that Meat which endureth to everlasting Life, which the Son of Man shall give unto you; it being but a Preamble to what immediately follows, in the same Chapter, of Giving us his FLESH to EAT, which is the true Meat that endureth unto everlasting Life: And besides, He tells us, That the Meat which endureth unto everlasting Life, should be given us by the Son of Man; agreeable to what he says, vers. 51, 55. And the BREAD that I will give, is my FLESH, which I will give for the Life of the World: For my FLESH is Meat indeed, and my BLOOD is Drink indeed: which, without a Figure, I humbly conceive, is that MEAT which endureth unto everlasting Life. 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: For CHRIST no sooner spoke of this Doctrine of giving us his FLESH to Eat, but the Jews came up with their How too; saying, vers. 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 if, How he made the World of Nothing be asked? Can we Answer, but by his sole Word? And, shall it not be sufficient for us to take his Word, when he tells us, The Son of Man was Sealed of GOD the Father? and Believe him, without calling of GOD to question How, or diving into the secrets of Heaven. So, How he came down, etc. and the rest of his How's, if they are not sufficiently plain in the Bible, so as to be clearly understood, I'll agree with the Gentleman, and submit to the determination of the Church; and so must YOU, and all the SEEKERS in England, if what the Protestant Answerer Insinuates, be true: For, 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; and accordingly, He took Bread, and Blessed it, and Broke it, and gave it; saying, TAKE, EAT, THIS IS MY BODY; I say, if these words are Figurative, and must not be properly understood, I see no Reason, why the whole Bible should not be a Figure too: For, if ever CHRIST was Plain in any thing, 'twas 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; who could hear it? and thereupon walked no more with Him: He, that, in Cases of less Moment, always explained his Parables, should yet be Dark and Figurative in This, of that Importance, which occasioned not only the Murmuring of the Jews, and Departure of the Disciples, Then; but also occasions (as CHRIST well foresaw) our differences at This Day: Should He, I say, 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. But, so far was CHRIST from meaning otherwise than plainly, as he spoke, that to the murmuring Jews he confirms it, (vers. 53.) with a Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye EAT the FLESH of the Son of Man, and DRINK his BLOOD, ye have no Life in you; and to the Unbelieving Disciples, (vers. 61, 62.) with a Doth this offend you? What if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up, where he was before? Whereas, when he spoke by Parables, He explained himself to them; as Mat. 13.3. And he spoke many things to them in Parables, saying, Behold a Sour, etc. or, when he spoke by way of Similitude; as Mat. 18.23. Therefore is the Kingdom of Heaven LIKENED unto a certain King. Mat. 20.1. For the Kingdom of Heaven is LIKE unto a Man, that is an Housholder. Mat. 22.1,2. And JESUS answered, and spoke unto them again by PARABLES, and said, The Kingdom of Heaven is LIKE unto, etc. Mat. 23.1. Then shall the Kingdom of Heaven be LIKENED unto Ten Virgins, etc. See Mark 4.2. Mark 12.1. Luke 12.16. Luke 13.18,19. Luke 15.3. Luke 19.11. Luke 20.9. and you'll find, that in all Cases, CHRIST spoke not by PARABLES, without telling them it was so, and Expounding the same unto them. But, because the Gentleman is more particular, pag. 22. upon that of CHRIST's being a Door, a Vine, a Rock, etc. let's see, whether the Parity 'twixt, I am the DOOR, the VINE, etc. be the same with, The BREAD that I will give, is my FLESH, which I will give for the Life of the World; or, with what he said at his Last Supper, when He took BREAD, and Blessed it, and Broke it, and Gave it, and said, TAKE, EAT, THIS IS MY BODY; without ever Explaining a Syllable to the contrary: Whereas, in that of the DOOR, John 10. the Text tells us, It was a PARABLE, saying, Vers. 6. This PARABLE spoke JESUS unto them, etc. Wherefore, if the Protestant Answerer would be so kind, as to produce as plain Scripture for this of the Sacrament's being a Figure, as I have done for the Door's being a Parable, he'll doubtless oblige YOU, and certainly gain a Proselyte of ME. And, in like manner of the Vine; CHRIST saith, Joh. 15.1. I am the True VINE, and my Father is the Husbandman; as before, Mat. 20.1. where he likened the Kingdom of Heaven to a Man, that is an Housholder,; and so goes on, Explaining the same; saying, Vers. 4. As the Branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the VINE; no more can ye, except ye abide in ME; which (if you read the Chapter) you'll find to be more plain: And, in like manner, of the ROCK; That he was the CORNER STONE, upon which the Foundation was laid; and no other Foundation can any Man lay, than what CHRIST has laid; for on Him is Built the whole structure of our Salvation: Wherefore, whether these Parables of the DOOR, the VINE, etc. be as plain, as, TAKE, EAT, THIS IS MY BODY, be You, or any Impartial Soul, the Judge in his own Conscience.  
As to what he says (Pag. 9) " That if the Words are Literally to be understood, they would rather Infer the Conversion of Christ's Flesh and Blood into Bread and Wine:"— For Proof whereof, let's go to the Words of Conversion themselves, Mat. 26.26,27,28. where it is said, Christ took Bread, and Blessed it, and Broke it, and gave it, and said, Take, Eat, This is My BODY; he doth not say, Take, Eat, my BODY is this BREAD: And in like manner of the CUP; For this is my Blood: which Words, This is my BODY, This is my BLOOD, are the Words of Conversion, and do no ways imply a Change of Christ's Flesh into Bread, nor of his Blood into Wine; but, to the contrary, they plainly Infer the Conversion of Bread and Wine into both the Body and Blood of Christ. As to the Texts he brings from the 6th. of St. John, there was no Conversion then made; nor do They make for him: Besides, that he, who but just now (Pag. 6. of his Answer) told us, " That this Discourse in St. John, had no special Reference to the Sacrament,"— should now apply them, notwithstanding, is an odd way of shifting; however, as 'tis, these are the Words, (John, 6.48,55.) I am that Bread of Life. For my Flesh is Meat indeed, and my Blood is Drink indeed: Had the Words been, My Flesh is Bread indeed, as the Gentleman would fain have them, if you observe it, (Pag. 6.) then indeed he would have had something of his side; but as they are, they make clear against him. As to those Words, ver. 48. I am that Bread of Life; methinks, they are sufficiently explained by the following Texts; where he says, v. 50. This is the Bread which cometh down from Heaven. ver. 51. I am the Living Bread, etc. which Bread he tells us plainly, is his Flesh, saying, Ver. 51. And the Bread that I will give, is my Flesh; and not, that the Flesh which He would give, was Bread; But that, That Bread was his Flesh; which, as said, is sufficiently plain; if not, rather than differ, I'll join in Opinion with the Protestant Answerer, and those other Divines; and with Him and Them, submit to the Determination of the Church.  
There is one Argument yet, on which the Gentleman seems much to depend, (Pag. 9) where he says, " Since if Christ be not, but where he entirely is, than (says he) he must be Eaten entirely," &c.— From whence he concludes the not Being of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, because (as he conceives) he is not there Entire, for Reasons (not Scripture) of his own. To which I Answer, and grant, That Christ is Not, but where He is Entire; for that there is no separation to be made of his Natures, nor division of his Body into Parts; but that He is to remain One Christ Entire for ever: But, as all things are possible to God; so, whether Christ, who is perfect God, may not be Entire in the Sacrament, and in many places, at one and the same Time, is the Quaere? which, if fully Resolved, will overthrow all his Reasoning Ware besides: Wherefore, that Christ is Not, but where He is Entire, is granted; and that Christ may be Entire, tho' Unseen, Unfelt, or Tasted in the Sacrament, is proved, by what we read in John 20.19. When Christ entered the Room where the Disciples were Assembled, the Doors being fast for fear of the Jews, and came, and stood, and spoke in the midst of them. And after Eight days (as we read in the same Chapter, ver. 26.) Christ entered again, when the Doors were close shut, and stood, and spoke in the midst of the Disciples: Now, that Christ was Entire when He stood, and spoke in the midst of them, must be granted: But how came He through? was his Body Entire, Extended, Finite, and Circumscribed with Limbs, Bones, Flesh, and Sinews, when He entered through Walls or Doors that were close? That He was Entire when He passed through, must be, by the Gentleman's own Argument, as well as Mine, Of Christ's being Not, but where He is Entire; wherefore, Christ was Entire when He came through, or He came not through at all: but Christ came Through, was There, and was Entire too; for Christ is Not, but where He is Entire: Nay, such is the infinite Power of God, that tho' they were enclosed in Walls, every where a Mile thick, 'twould yet be possible for Christ to enter Entire through all, and return in the same Incomprehensible manner: And, by the same Reason as Christ's Body passeth Entire through Stonewalls, by the same Reason his Body may be Entire in the Sacrament; and by the same Infinite Power, the Body of Christ may be in Heaven, and on Earth in Innumerable Places, at one and the same Time; the Gentleman's Arguments (Pag. 16.) to the contrary, notwithstanding. For that Christ hath said, Mat. 18.20. That where Two or Three are gathered together in my Name, there am I (says Christ) in the midst of them: By which you see, that wheresoever the Faithful are Assembled together, in his Name, that Christ is there in the midst of them; if then, Christ be in the midst of those Assemblies, He is there Entire, or He is not there at all: But Christ, tho' Invisible, is in the midst of them, or the Word deceives us; which to think, is Blasphemy; it being, by God, again confirmed, saying, Mat. 28.20. And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the World: By all which is proved, That Christ may as well be Entire in the Sacrament, as be Entire when he passeth through Walls and Doors, that are close; as also it is proved, That Christ may be in more places than One, at the same Time; for, How many Assemblies of the Faithful are there in the World, that are gathered together in his Name, at the same Moment, and Christ in the midst of every of them? Nor can the Protestant Answerer ever be able to deny the same, without denying Christ to be a Perfect, and an Omnipotent God.  
Wherefore to his 10 Pag. where we find the Gentleman hot at the Word This, to know what it means, which, of itself, wanteth Sense; but to know its meaning here, ask the Question, What? and our Saviour will resolve you; where, Mat. 26.26. As they were Eating, Jesus took Bread, and Blessed it, and Broke it, and gave it the Disciples, and said, Take, Eat, This is (what?) MY BODY; he did not, after he had Blessed it, say, Take, Eat, This is BREAD; but, Take, Eat, This is my BODY: than which, nothing can be more plain, than that it was his BODY; and that the Word Hoc, or This, referred thereto: For if it were to remain (as the Protestant Answerer says, Pag. 15.) as really and properly Bread, after Consecration, as before, the Word Hoc, or This, in the Neuter Gender, had never been applied to a Substantive of the Masculine; for it would be Nonsense, and Improper to say, Hoc est Panis: Wherefore, it's plain, that the Word Hoc being of the Neuter, related properly and truly to the Word Body, which is also of the Neuter; and not to the Word Bread, which is of the Masculine: But, because the Gentleman gives us our choice, let us suppose it otherwise, that the Word [This] referred to the BREAD, and not to the BODY; as suppose the Words had been thus, This BREAD is My BODY: It yet follows, that it is his BODY, and not that it was to remain BREAD; for that He had said, It was his BODY: And altho' it was first BREAD, yet He afterwards concludes it to be his BODY; saying, TAKE, EAT, THIS IS MY BODY. But how plain soever God or Man could speak, Sophisters will find whereat to quibble; for the sputter he makes at the Word This, is indeed nothing else; and for such the Gentleman designs it, as he doth all the rest of his Arguments, by what appears in the same Page, (10.) where he assures me, " That They have not Faith to believe that, which the Scripture hath not Taught."— From whence I gather, That notwithstanding all his Arguments to disprove the REAL PRESENCE; yet he hath not Faith (tho' Face) to deny it. For, that (Pag. 3.) he tells you, " That besides their Positive Articles, they have a great many Negative Ones; and to require plain and express Words of Scripture, to prove that such a Doctrine is not there Taught, is to demand a Proof the thing is not capable of:"— Wherefore the Gentleman, how Ingeniously soever he may argue against the REAL PRESENCE; yet he hath not Faith to believe, That in the Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper, is not contained the True, Real, and Substantial Body of Christ; for, that he hath not Faith to believe, what the Scripture hath not Taught; and the Scripture hath no where Taught, That in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, is not contained the Body and Blood of Christ: The Gentleman, therefore, can have no Faith to deny it; all his Arguments to the contrary, notwithstanding.  
But before we part his Tenth Page, 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, turned into the True Body and Blood of Christ? etc. Which truly, are Where's indeed; and one should 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: 
Mat. 26.26,27,28.  Jesus took BREAD, and Blessed it, and Broke it, and gave it to the Disciples; and said, TAKE, EAT, THIS IS MY BODY; and He took the CUP, and gave Thanks, and gave it to them; saying, Drink ye All of It; for, THIS IS MY BLOOD. And There it was, and Here it is, by Power of these Words of God, THIS IS MY BODY, THIS IS MY BLOOD, that the Bread and Wine are turned into the Body and Blood of Christ: He doth no say Here, as He did when He spoke the Parable of the DOOR, the VINE, and the rest, That this Parable spoke He unto them; or, that this BREAD is Like, or Likened unto his BODY, or a Figure of his BODY; but absolutely, TAKE, EAT, THIS IS MY BODY: And for such we ought to take it, and believe it, till the Protestant Answerer be able to produce as plain Scripture against it, as I have done for it.  
The Gentleman proceeds, and (Pag. 11.) tells you, what their Church holds, (he should have said of the Real Presence, for that was the Quaere) and delivers their Opinion in different manners; to wit:  
1." Our Church holds (says he,) That Transubstantiation is Repugnant to the plain Words of Scripture, and overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament," Art 28.  
2." That the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain after Consecration, in their natural Substances; and the natural Body and Blood of Christ, are in Heaven, and not Here. Rubr. after the Com."  
3." That the Body of Christ is Given, Taken, and Eaten in the Supper only, after an Heavenly and Spiritual manner; and the means whereby the Body of Christ is Received and Eaten, is Faith, Art 28, 29.— And in three Lines after, he tells you, That there is no other Substance distributed among the Communicants, than that of Bread and Wine."— And these, put together, make such a Medley, that a Man knows not what to believe of it: First, 'Tis Repugnant to the plain Words of Scripture; tho' they are not able to produce one Syllable out of the whole Bible, to disprove it. Secondly, The Natural Body and Blood of Christ are in Heaven, and not Here; tho', at the same time, they tell you, That the Body of CHRIST, (who had but One Body) is Given, Taken, and Eaten, in the Supper, after an Heavenly and Spiritual manner; and in Three Lines after, denies it again; which are such Contradictions, that a Bushel of Figures will ne'er reconcile 'em: For, If the Body and Blood of Christ be confined in Heaven, and not in the Sacrament at all, How can the Body of Christ be Given, Taken, and Eaten in the Supper, after any manner, Heavenly or Vnheavenly, if the Body of Christ be not There at all to be Given, Taken, or Eaten? or, how can the Body of Christ be (as he says) Given, Taken, and Eaten in the Supper; when, at the same time, he tells you, " There is no other Substance distributed to the Communicants, than that of Bread and Wine?"  
As to the Words, Heavenly and Spiritual Manner, I would They did truly believe it so; for than They would believe it as We do; that is, That the Body of Christ is truly Given, Taken, and Eaten in the Sacrament, after an Heavenly and Spiritual Manner; for after a Carnal, Sensual Manner, We receive it not; but this Heavenly and Spiritual Manner, We believe to be a True and Real Manner; and not a Deceitful, Figurative, Fictitious Manner; as if all that is Heavenly, were but Figure and Fancy. If You grant the Body and Blood of Christ to be in the Sacrament, after a Spiritual Manner, you must also grant it There after a True Manner; or, to be There after a Spiritual Manner, is not to be There after a Real 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, by the Gentleman's own Concessions, as well as Mine, Of CHRIST's being Not, but where he is Entire: Wherefore, if Christ be in the Sacrament after any Manner, He is There after such an Entire, Real, and Substantial Manner, as We believe and profess Him, or He is in no Manner There at all; for Christ is Not at all, but where He Truly and Entirely is.  
In the Twelfth and Thirteenth Pages of the Protestant Answer, the Gentleman produceth all the Scriptures he had, or at least, all the chiefest Texts he could, to disprove our Doctrine of the Real Presence, and Being of CHRIST's BODY and BLOOD in the Sacrament: Which Scriptures, by Him produced Against it, together with those by Me alleged and assigned For it, are as followeth:  

The Catholic Texts for the Real Presence.  
I. St. John 6. v. 48. I am that Bread of Life, says Christ.  
II. Vers. 49. Your Fathers did eat Manna in the Wilderness, and are Dead.  
III. Ver. 50. This is the Bread which cometh down from Heaven, that a Man may Eat thereof, and not Die.  
iv Vers. 51. I am the Living Bread, which came down from Heaven; If any Man Eat of this Bread, he shall Live for ever; and the Bread that I will give, is my Flesh, which I will give for the Life of the World.  
V Vers. 54. Whoso Eateth my Flesh, and Drinketh my Blood, hath Eternal Life, and I will raise him up at the last Day.  
VI Vers. 55. For my Flesh is Meat indeed, and my Blood is Drink indeed.  
VII. Vers. 56. He that Eateth my Flesh, and Drinketh my Blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in Him.  
VIII. Vers. 57 As the Living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father; so he that Eateth Me, even he shall Live by Me.  
IX. Vers. 58. This is that Bread which came down from Heaven: Not as your Fathers did eat Manna, and are Dead: He that Eateth of this Bread, shall Live for ever.  
X. St. Matt. 26. v. 26. And as they were Eating, Jesus took Bread, and Blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the Disciples; and said, Take, Eat, This is my Body.  
XI. Vers. 27. And he took the Cup, and gave Thanks, and gave it to them; saying, Drink ye all of it.  
XII. Vers. 28. For, This is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many, for the Remission of Sins.  
XIII. St. Mark 14. v. 22. And as they did Eat, Jesus took Bread and Blessed, and broke it, and gave to them, and said, Take, Eat, This is my Body.  
XIV. Vers. 23. And He took the Cup, and when he had given Thanks, he gave it to them, and they all Drank of it.  
XV. Vers. 24. And He said unto them, This is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many.  
XIV. St. Luk. 22. v. 19 And He took Bread, and gave Thanks, and Broke it, and gave unto them; saying, This is my Body, which is given for you; This do in Remembrance of Me.  
XVII. Vers. 20. Likewise also the Cup after Supper; saying, This Cup is the New Testament in My Blood, which is Shed for you.  
XVIII. 1 Cor. 11. v. 23. For I have Received of the LORD, that which also I Delivered unto you; That the Lord JESUS, the same Night in which He was Betrayed, took Bread.  
XIX. Vers. 24. And when He had given Thanks, He Broke it; and said, Take, Eat, This is my Body, which is Broken for you; This do in Remembrance of Me.  
XX. Vers. 25. After the same manner also, He took the Cup, when He had Supped; saying, This Cup is the new Testament in my Blood; This do ye, as oft as ye Drink it, in Remembrance of Me.  
XXI. Vers. 26. For as often as ye Eat this Bread, and Drink this Cup, ye do show the LORD's Death till He come.  
XXII. Vers. 27. Wherefore, whosoever shall Eat this Bread, and Drink this Cup of the LORD Unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the LORD.  
XXIII. Vers. 28. But let a Man Examine himself, and so let him Eat of that Bread, and Drink of that Cup.  
XXIV. Vers. 29. For he that Eateth and Drinketh Unworthily, Eateth and Drinketh Damnation to himself, not discerning the LORD's Body.   

The Protestant Texts against It.  
I 1 Cor. 11. v. 23, 24. The Lord JESUS, the same Night in which He was Betrayed, took Bread; and, when He had given Thanks, He broke it, and said; Take, Eat, This is my Body, which is Broken for you; this do in Remembrance of Me.  
II. St. Mat. 26. v. 27, 28, 29. And He took the Cup, and gave Thanks, and gave it to them; saying, Drink ye all of it; for, This is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins: I will not Drink henceforth of this Fruit of the Vine, until I drink it New with you in my Father's Kingdom.  
III. St. Mar. 14. v. 23, 24. And He took the Cup, and when He had given Thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank of it; and He said unto them, This is my Blood of the New Testament, which is Shed for many.  
IV. St. Luk. 22. v. 19, 20. And He took Bread, and gave Thanks, and Broke it, and gave unto them; saying, This is my Body, which is given for you; This do in Remembrance of Me: Likewise also the Cup after Supper; saying, This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood, which is Shed for you.  
V Act. 2. v. 42. They continued steadfast in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship, and in Breaking of Bread.  
VI Act. 20. v. 7. Upon the First Day of the Week, when the Discipies came together to break Bread.  
VII. 1 Cor. 10. v. 16, 17. The Cup of Blessing, which we bless, Is it not the Communion of the Blood of CHRIST? The Bread which we break, Is it not the Communion of the Body of CHRIST? For We being many, are one Bread, and one Body; for We are all Partakers of that one Bread.  
VIII. 1 Cor. 11. v. 26. For as often as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye do show the LORD's Death till He come.— Whosoever shall eat this Bread, and drink this Cup of the LORD Unworthily.— Let a Man examine himself, & so let him eat of that Bread, and drink of that Cup.  
IX. Act. 1. v. 11.— This same JESUS, who is taken up from you into Heaven, shall so come in like manner, as ye have seen Him go into Heaven.  
X. Act. 3. v. 21. Whom the Heaven must Receive, until the Times of the Restitution of all Things.—  
XI. St. Luk. 24. v. 39 Behold my Hands, and my Feet, that it is I myself: Handle Me, and see; for a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones, as ye see Me have.  
XII. Act. 1. v. 3. To whom also He shown himself alive, after his Passion.— Being seen of them Forty Days.  
XIII. 1 Joh. 1. v. 1.— Which we have seen with our Eyes, which we have looked upon, and our Hands have handled.  
XIV. Heb. 9 v. 28. So CHRIST was once Offered, to bear the Sins of many; and unto them that look for Him, shall He appear the Second Time.  
XV. Heb. 10. v. 12.— This MAN, after He had Offered one Sacrifice for Sins, for ever sat down on the Right Hand of GOD.  
XVI. Phil. 3. v. 21. Christ has a Glorious BODY.   
Thus having truly laid down the Scriptures on both sides, I doubt not but it doth appear, that the Texts brought on the Catholic Part, are abundantly sufficient and plain for the Being of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament; and that Those produced on the Protestant Part, are also expressly For it, or not at all Against it; for that it is impossible to bring one Text out of the whole Bible, to prove, That the Body and Blood of Christ is not in the Sacrament, as in effect is confessed by the Protestant Answ. Pag. 3. where he says, " That the Church of England do hold several Doctrines, which are not contained in Express Words in Scripture; for (says he) besides their Positive Articles, they have a great many Negative Ones:— So that to require plain and express Words of Scripture, to prove that such a Doctrine is not there Taught, is (says he) to demand a Proof, the thing is not capable of."— Wherefore, the denying of the Real Presence being one of their Negative Doctrines or Articles; it's plain, That the Gentleman doth not pretend to produce those Texts to prove, That the Body and Blood of Christ is not in the Sacrament; but lays 'em before you, hoping you'll think they do, because the Word Bread is mentioned (says he, Pag. 15.) Five times by St. Paul, after he recited the Institution. Very good! and why not the Word BREAD, I pray, as well as the Word CUPID, seeing by the Word BREAD is meant the Communion of the Body of Christ; as by the Word CUPID, (1 Cor. 10.16,17.) is signified the Communion of the Blood of Christ? And besides, St. Paul mentions not the Words CUP and BREAD, but he explains them to be the Body and Blood of Christ; as, 1 Cor. 11.26. where he tells ye, As often as ye Eat this BREAD, and Drink this CUP, ye do show the Lord's Death till He come; which Death of the Lord was not shown, but by Offering up of his True and Real Body and Blood: And Ver. 27. he tells ye, Whosoever shall Eat this BREAD, and Drink this CUP of the LORD UNWORTHILY, shall be guilty of the BODY and BLOOD of the LORD: Wherefore, if it were not the Body and Blood of the LORD, how could they be guilty of the Body and Blood, if the Body and Blood be not there to be guilty of? And further, Ver. 28, 29, He that Eateth and Drinketh UNWORTHILY, Eateth and Drinketh DAMNATION to himself, not discerning the LORD's BODY: which still confirms it to be the BODY of the LORD; or, how doth he say, Condemned, not discerning the LORD 's BODY, if the Body of the LORD be not there to be discerned? Wherefore St. Paul speaketh not, but in Confirmation of its being the Body and Blood of CHRIST; or 'twould be hard, a Sinner should be Damned, merely for Moderate Eating and Drinking of bare Bread and Wine: For, according to the Protestant Answerer, the Sacrament is no more; who tells you, Pag. 11. " That there is no other Substance distributed among the Communicants, than that of Bread and Wine:" And Pag. 15. " That they are as really and properly Bread and Wine," after Consecration, as before.  
And further, The said Texts are laid before You; for that, in some of them, it is said, THIS DO IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME: To which I Answer, and say, That those Words, This do in Remembrance of Me, do no way Relate to the Laiety, who only receive the Sacrament; but to the Priests, who Consecrate and Administer the same; for it is not where said, This Eat, This Take, This Receive; but, This do in Remembrance of Me; whereas it is not at all the Office of the Laiety, (nor have they the Power to do as our Saviour then did, Bless and Administer the Sacrament of his Body and Blood to Themselves or Others;) but the Office of the Priests, to whom was given (by these Words, This do, etc.) a particular Power to do the same as Christ then did, Take Bread and Wine, Bless it, and Administer it, as he did for his Body, and his Blood.  
Nor do the Words IN REMEMBRANCE any way serve Their turn; for, as You unanswerably have observed, (Pag. 7. of your Request,) That the Remembrance of its Being, doth no way make it cease to Be; which Argument the Protestant Answerer would fain Confute; where, Pag. 19 he tells You, " Tho' the Remembrance of its Being, do no way make it cease to Be; yet (says he) it supposeth the Absence of the Being:" which is to suppose the Body to be Present and Absent at the same Time: A piece of Sophistry so weak, as I admire a Man of Sense should insist thereon; as if my Remembrance of your being with me, when present, did any way suppose your Absence from me, at the same time: It is surely Nonsense to think, That the Remembrance of a Thing present, did, or could in the least, suppose the Absence of the same Thing, at the same time; for, tho' it be confessed, we may Remember the Being of a Thing, when Absent; yet the Remembrance of the same Thing, when Present, doth not at all suppose the Absence and the Presence too, of the same Thing, at one and the same time: Wherefore the Remembrance of Christ's Body and Blood's being Present in the Sacrament, doth no ways suppose the Absence of the Being, nor make the Being cease to Be.  
And further, The said Scriptures are produced; for that, in some of them, it is said, THIS IS MY BODY, which is Broken for you, " Before (says he, Pag. 14.) it was Broke:" Whence he concludes it not to be the Body of CHRIST, because (as he conceives) the Body of CHRIST was not Then Broke. But before We proceed, 'tis requisite to inform yourself, whether CHRIST had Two Bodies, One Figurative, and the Other Real; I suppose, 'twill be resolved, that CHRIST had but One Body; and that was a True, Real, and Substantial Body; and not a Figurative or Delusive Body: Wherefore, if CHRIST had but One Body, 'twas of that Body he spoke, when He said, THIS IS MY BODY, which is Broken for you; and to doubt, that what CHRIST said, was either Improper or Untrue, is to profess ourselves Infidels and Jews at once; for none but such, can question GOD's Veracity: Wherefore, as what he said, was certainly true; so it was undoubtedly proper, when he said, Which is BROKEN FOR YOU. For proof whereof, I answer, That tho' his Natural Body be There, yet the manner of its 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 in the Substance: Moreover those Words, WHICH IS BROKEN, do prove (as the Holy Catholic Church always did, and ever will hold) it to be a True and Proper Sacrifice; for the Being Broken, does explain 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: But if this manner of Breaking do not please the Gentleman, let us (to verify the Words of Christ, whose Truth he so much doubts) see, whether the Body of Christ were not otherwise Broke, before He Instituted the Sacrament; or rather, whether his Body had not been Pierced, and his Blood had not been Spilt; for that it is written, John 19.36. A Bone of Him shall not be broke: And another Scripture saith, Ibid. Ver. 37. They shall look on Him whom they Pierced: Wherefore, the Body of CHRIST was not otherwise Naturally Broken, than by Piercing of his Body, and Spilling of his Blood. Now, that his Body, at that time, had been Pierced, and his Blood had been Spilt, appears, etc. when at Eight Days Old He began to smart for us: Which Piercing of his Flesh, and Spilling of his Blood, at his Circumcision, was followed by Unspeakable Pains, Restless Labours, Travels, and Fast; insomuch, that his whole Life, from the Hour of his Birth, to the Moment of his Death, was but One Passion-continued: What, I pray, his Agony in the Garden? What His being Crowned with Thorns, and Bloody Whipping at the Pillar? That, in the Opinion of this Gentleman, his Body was not at all Broke, nor his Blood in the least Shed, till Consummate for us upon the Cross: Wherefore, with Truth, our Saviour might have said of his Body which is Broke, and of his Blood which is Shed, without supposing that any thing he said, was either Improper or Untrue.  
And the said Scriptures are produced, for that it is said, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the Vine, until I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom; which our Saviour might have said, and not at all Recall his first Assurance: for we do not deny the use of Figures in Expression; as the Word CUPID, for his Blood contained in it; and the Word BREAD, for his Body contained under that Form: But there is no Figure in this Mystery which excludes, but asserts the Reality of CHRIST's Body and Blood in the Sacrament: For the terms CUP and BREAD, sometimes used by the Apostles after the Institution, as by us at this day, do not at all destroy the Substance, for which our Saviour gave them, when he said; EAT, THIS IS MY BODY; DRINK, THIS IS MY BLOOD: Nor do I see, what Reason they have to Carp at either of the said Terms, CUP or BREAD, seeing Both are explained by St. Paul, 1 Cor. 10.16,17. One for the Communion of the Blood, the Other for the Communion of the Body of Christ: Nor do the Words of our Saviour, where he speaks of the Fruit of the Vine, signify the Wine which was Consecrated into his Blood; for that they were spoken of the CUP, whereof they Drank at Supper; and not of the Consecrated CUP, which He Instituted not till after Supper; as appears by St. Luke, who gives the plainest Order of it, Chap. 22.14,15,16,17,18. where it is said, And when the Hour was come, He sat down, and the Twelve Apostles with Him: And He said unto Them, With desire, I have desired to Eat this Passover with You, before I Suffer: For I say unto You, I will not any more EAT thereof, until it be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God. And He took the Cup, and gave Thanks, and said, Take This, and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto You, I will not drink of the Fruit of the Vine, until the Kingdom of God shall come. Where you see, our Saviour spoke of not EATING, as well as not DRINKING; that is, of the Pascal Lamb and Cup at Supper: for that He did not Institute the Sacrament of his Body and Blood till afterwards; as we read, Ver. 19, 20. That, He took Bread, and gave Thanks, and broke it, and gave unto them; saying, This is my Body, which is given for You; This do in Remembrance of me. Likewise also the CUP after SUPPER; saying, This CUP is the New Testament in my Blood, which is shed for you: Wherefore, we are to distinguish the CUP, which He bid them divide at Supper, and of which He said, He would not Drink until the Kingdom of God shall come; from the CUP, which He Blessed, and gave to them after Supper; saying, It was his Blood; for nothing can be more plain, than that what our Saviour said of not Eating, and not Drinking, was of the Passover or Sacrifice, according to the Law; and not of the New Sacrifice, or Testament in his Blood, according to the Gospel: But if this Order, wherein St. Luke hath it, which speaks of Two Cups, and which is certainly true, be not acceptable to the Obstinate, let us suppose it otherwise, and that the Words, Fruit of the Vine, were (as they were not) said of the Consecrated Cup; it would yet follow, That the meaning of them 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; and in His Father's Kingdom, which is Heaven, they neither keep Taverns, nor Drink Wine, the Fruit therefore of the Vine, serves for neither Fruit nor Wine to them.  
As to what the Gentleman says (Pag. 15.) of the Order observed in St. Mark's Relation of it;— " Who saith, (says the Protestant Answerer) That all the Apostles first Drank of the Cup; and that than our Saviour said unto them, THIS IS MY BODY," Chap. 14. v. 23, 24.— For my part, I find no such thing in St. Mark, as, That all the Apostles first Drank of the Cup; and than that our Saviour should tell them; It was his Body: Wherefore it's a great Mistake 'twixt the Writer, and the Printer; and when they Mend their Bill, We'll Answer: But (in the mean time) whether St. Mark expresseth the Words in the same Order as they were spoke, 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 Body, and his Blood: And it's also apparent, That CHRIST first Gave Thanks, and Blessed it, before He Gave it; and before He gave it, they could not have it; nor before they had it, could they either Eat it, or Drink it.  
The Gentleman continues (Pag. 15.) to tell you, That the Letter is for Them, (meaning, That in the Sacrament is not contained the Body of CHRIST;) for, That CHRIST's Body had the Natural Properties belonging to a Body, Extended, Finite, and Circumscribed: And therefore, like another Didymus, he will not Believe, except he see, and into the Prints of the Nails of his Hands, put his Fingers; and into his Side, thrust his Hand: So Sensual was he, that to feel with his Finger the Wound in his Side, would not suffice, unless therein he thrust his whole Hand. Even so this Gentleman: For, GOD's Holy Word, so often repeated to Confirm the Being of his BODY and BLOOD in the Sacrament, will not suffice, unless he See and Feel the Body, Extended, Finite, and Circumscribed. But, methinks, the Reproof our Saviour gave to One Didymus, might be a Warning to All the Didymus', that should ever happen after him; when, John 20. v. 29. he told him, Thomas, Because thou hast SEEN Me, thou hast BELIEVED: Blessed are they, that have NOT Seen, and yet HAVE Believed. Wherefore, to Believe but what we See, Feel, Taste, and Smell, is to be Brutes, not Christians; and worse than Thomas, who Saw but the Humanity, yet Believed the Divinity of CHRIST. Pray, how was his Body to be Seen, Extended, Finite, and Circumscribed, when He penetrated and passed through Walls and Doors that were close, as proved Pag. 15, 16. For, by the same Reason that You prove, That CHRIST's Body can pass Entire through Walls or Doors, when close; by the same Reason will I prove, That CHRIST's Body may be in the Sacrament Entire, though no more to be seen There, than to be seen passing through the thickest Walls. But, upon the Whole, the Gentleman argues most Perfidiously of CHRIST, as if He were not GOD; nor distinguishing between his Glorious Body, and Ours, or any other Corruptible Carcase: As He is Perfect GOD, all Things are possible to Him; If so, Where then is the Difficulty to believe, but that CHRIST may as well be Contained under the Forms of BREAD and WINE, as the Holy Ghost under the Form of a DOVE, 
Mat. 3.16.  with Feather, Beak, Wing, and all the Properties of a Fowl? Or, as the same Spirit, in the Form of TONGVES of FIRE? 
Act. 2.3.  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; whereas, if Faith had been grounded upon Sense, they could never have believed that Bird in Feather and Form, and those Tongues of Flesh in Flame, to be one and the same Holy Ghost. 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; for to our Sense, it was a perfect Bird; but to our Faith, it was the Holy Ghost. Even so the Sacrament, to our Sight and Taste, is but plain Bread and Wine; but, to our Faith (in GOD's Word,) it is the Real and Entire Body and Blood of CHRIST; and the Authorities we have from Scripture, are far more ample for believing the Latter to be the Body and Blood of CHRIST, than for believing the Former's to be the Holy Ghost.  
As to the Eight last Texts, which the Gentleman has produced to disprove our Doctrine of the Real Presence, (to wit, Act. 1. v. 11. Act. 3. v. 21. St. Luk. 24. v. 39 Act. 1. v. 3. 1 Joh. 1. v. 1. Heb. 9 v. 28. Heb. 10. v. 12. Phil. 3. v. 21.) they no way relate to the Sacrament, but to the Resurrection and Ascension of CHRIST's Body: From whence he concludes; " That CHRIST is confined in Heaven only, and can be no where else, till He comes to judge the Quick, and the Dead; and, of consequence, fixed at the Right Hand of the Father; and cannot be, as We suppose, in Heaven and Earth, in so many Places at the same Time."— Which barren Conceit of CHRIST is sufficiently Answered, Pag. 15, 16. where it is proved from Scriptures, That although CHRIST Ascended, and be in Heaven; yet it argues not, but that He is, and may be on Earth too: For, That He is a Perfect, and an Omnipotent GOD; and has promised, Mat. 28. v. 20. That He will be with us always, even to the End of the World: And, Mat. 18. v. 20. That, Where Two or Three are gathered together, in his Name, that He is in the midst of them. And further, it appears, That 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; saying, (Act. 9 v. 4, 5.) Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am JESUS, whom thou persecutest. Wherefore the Gentleman's Notion, of CHRIST's being only in Heaven, you see, is frivolous; for that CHRIST not only spoke with Saul in the Highway; but has promised, as before, To be with us always, even to the End of the World. And it's further proved, That CHRIST may be actually Present, without being Seen: For, when He spoke to Saul, the Men that Travelled with him to Damascus, stood by (Act. 9 v. 7.) speechless, hearing a Voice, but seeing no Man. By all which it's plain, That CHRIST may be on Earth, and in many Places, at the same Time, as well as in Heaven; or else He could not be with us always, even to the End of the World; nor with Saul in the Way; nor in the Midst of all the Assemblies of the Faithful, that are gathered together in his Name, in so many Places, throughout the World, at one and the same Time. The Gentleman's Arguments are therefore of no Effect, which (P. 15, 16.) he brings to prove Christ only in Heaven, and no where else: For, although those Texts do prove the Resurrection, Ascension, and Being of CHRIST in Heaven; yet they do not at all destroy the Power of CHRIST's being in divers Places, at the same Time, according to his Divine Will. And please to note, That it is impossible for any thing to be in the Will, which is not in the Power of GOD. Wherefore, as it was in his Will, (proved by his Word) to give us Bread to Eat, which should be his Flesh; so it was in his Power, that, That Bread should be his Flesh, though no more Tasted in the Sacrament. than Seen when He spoke unto Saul: And that He (whose Greatness the Heavens are not able to contain) had both the Power, and the Will, to be Conceived in the Womb of the Blessed Virgin, contrary to the Course of Nature; where, from almost Nothing, He increased to be Born a Child-God, and to Die a God-Man; and in whose Power it was, to pass, with his Body Entire, through Walls or Doors, that were close; in his Power likewise it is, to be Contained in the smallest Particle of Bread. Wherefore, with the Believing Disciples, let us Believe; and not, with the Murmuring Jews, Doubt, how he could give us his Flesh to Eat, and his Blood to Drink; nor, with the Incredulous Disciples, say, 'Tis an hard Saying, who can hear it? nor for this Cause, go back, (as they did) and walk no more with CHRIST, as They do, who deny the Being of his Body and Blood in the Sacrament, so expressly confirmed by Him, in whose Word there is no Contradiction: Wherefore, the Defect is not in the Word; but in the Carnal Imagination of Those, who have not Faith to Believe it, nor Scripture to Disprove it; nor is it Hard, but to the Obstinate; nor Incredible, but to the Incredulous.  
Wherefore, to conclude, I humbly submit the whole to your Prudent Consideration, and Remind You of your Resolution, (Pag. 5.). " That You would be either Catholic or Protestant, as the Verdict upon this Trial should go; and that the Success should depend upon the Evidence; which Evidence (in your Opinion) was the Bible; and that whoever produced the fullest and clearest Testimony, had the Truth on his side."— Wherefore, as you Value the Eternal safety of your Soul, please seriously to distinguish and Peruse the Texts, which I have assigned for it; and those which the Protestant Answerer has brought against it; and I doubt not, but it will appear, That the Scriptures assigned on the Catholic part, are abundantly Expressive and Plain for the Being of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament; and that the Scriptures produced on the Protestant part, are also Expressly for it, or not at all against it: For that what I have offered, is the Express Word of GOD; who, promising, said, That the Bread which He would give, was his Flesh, which He would give for 〈◊〉 Life of the World; and performing, Took Bread, Blessed it, Broke it, 〈◊〉 gave it; saying, Take, Eat, This is My Body; which Words of Promise a●… Performance, are Positive, and have never yet (by Divine Authority) b●… contradicted; for that 'tis impossible to produce one Syllable out of t●… whole Bible, to prove the contrary: Wherefore seeing, that Protesta●… cannot prove, by Express Scripture, That the Bread which Christ Bl●…sed, and gave at his Supper, was not his Flesh; and that Catholics ca●… and do, that it was; I hope, You will be so much the more convinced 〈◊〉 believe the REAL PRESENCE, by how much the Words of GO●… are more powerful than the Arguments of MAN; I say, than the Arguments or Words of Man; for, that the Arguments alleged by t●… Protestant Answerer, against the Real Presence, are all of Man, and n●… of God, they are His Words, and not the Words of God: Whereas tho●… Absolute and Express, Take, Eat, This is my BODY, are the Words 〈◊〉 God, and not of Man; and He neither has, nor can produce one Tex●… to contradict them: Wherefore, I expect to hear of your Satisfactio●… and Declaration for the Catholic Faith, in this particular; and n●… that You behave yourself like those Frivolous, Vain, and Impertine●… Enquirers; who, when convinced of One Point, mind it no more, b●… desire to be satisfied of Another; assuming, as it were, an assurance 〈◊〉 themselves, that tho' We are right in the Real Presence, we may be wro●… in reference to the Infallibility; and if right in That, such is their Ignorance to think We Err in Praying to Saints, use of Images, Purgato●… or in something else, they know not what: And thus, like Mag-Py●… they Chatter, and Hop from Bush to Bush, from Point to Point, witho●… fixing upon Truth, as they ought to do, where ever they find it.  
Wherefore, I pray, be Satisfied in This of the Real Presence, or Pr●pose your Doubts, before You proceed to the Infallibility of the Churc●… or to any other Point of Faith, in Difference betwixt Us, and t●… Church of England; for so You will be Steadfast to something, and n●… be wavering, and Carried away with every Wind of Doctrine; b●… Fix your Standard among the Faithful, and Encamp with the Host 〈◊〉 the Everliving and All-Powerful GOD, for the Security and Etern●… Peace of your Soul: Which Peace, that You may Enjoy for all Eternity, is Prayed for by Him, that is,  
SIR, Yours in all Christian Duty, N. N