whereby hee requireth in all persons about to Communicate three principall Acts of Reason one is before and two are at the time of Receiuing The first is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let a man examine himselfe and so come c. The second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To discerne the Lords body The third is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To remember the Lords death vntill his Comming againe All which Three being acts of Iudgement how they may agree vnto Infants being persons void of iudgement iudge you And remember we pray you that wee speake of Sacrament all Eating and not of that vse before spoken of touching Eating it after the Celebration of the Sacrament which was for Consuming it and not for Communicating thereof CHAP. III. The Tenth Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse by the now Church of Rome is in contradicting the Sence of the next words following concerning the second part of this Sacrament of receiuing the Cup HE LIKEWISE TOOKE THE CVP AND GAVE IT TO THEM SAYING DRINKE YEE ALL OF THIS And adding 1. Cor. 11. DOE THIS AS OFTEN AS YOV DOE IT IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE SECT I. BY which Words Like manner of Taking and Giving and Saying Drinke yee All of this we say that Christ ordained for his Guests as well the Sacramentall Rite of Drinking as of Eating and hath tied his Church Catholike in an equall obligation for performance of both in the administring of this Sacrament This Cause will require a just Treatise yet so that our Discourse insist only upon necessary points to the end that the extreme Insolencie Noveltie Folly and Obstinacie of the Romane Church in contradicting of this part of Christ his Canon may be plainly displayed that every conscience of man which is not strangely preoccupated with prejudice or transported with malice must needs see and detest it We have heard of the Canon of Christ his Masse The contrarie Canon of the Romish Church in her Masse Shee in her Councell of Constance decreed that Although Christ indeed and the Primive Church did administer the Eucharist in both kinds notwithstanding say they this Custome of but one kind is held for a law irreprovable Which Decree shee afterwards confirmed in her Councell of Trent requiring that the former Custome and Law of receiuing it but vnder one kinde be observed both by Laicks yea and also by those Priests who being present at Masse doe not the office of Consecrating Contrarily our Church of England in her thirtieth Article thus Both parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christ's Ordinance and Commandement ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike CHALLENGE BVt wee demand what Conscience should mooue your late Church of Rome to be guided by the authority of that former Councel of Constance which notwithstanding maketh no scruple to reiect the authority of the same Councell of Constance in another Decree thereof wherein it gain-sayeth the Antichristian usurpation of the Pope by Denying the authority of the Pope to be above a Councell and that as the Councell of Basil doth prooue from the authority of Christ his direction unto Peter to whom he said Tell the Church We returne to the State of the Question The full State of the Question All Protestants whether you call them Calvinists or Lutherans hold that in the publike and set celebration of the Eucharist the Communion in both kinds ought to be given to all sorts of Communicants that are capable of both The question thus stated will cut off a number of Impertinences which your Obiectors busie themselves withall as will appeare in due places Wee repeate it againe In publike Assemblies of all prepared and capable of the Communion The best Method that I could choose for the expedite and perspicuous handling of this great Controversie is by way of Comparison as namely First by comparing the Institution of Christ with the contrarie Ordination and Institution of the Romane Church Secondly Christ his Example with contrarie Examples Thirdly the Apostles Practice with the adverse Practice Fourthly the Primitive Custome of the Church Catholike with the after-contrarie Custome and the Latitude thereof together with latitude of the other Fiftly the Reasons thereof with Reasons Sixtly the divers manners of beginning of the one as also the Dispositions of men therein with the repugnant manner and Dispositions of men in continuing the other The discussing of all which points will present unto your view divers kinds of Oppositions In the first is the Conflict of Religion with Sacriledge In the second a soveraigne Presidence in Christ with Contempt In the third of Faithfulnesse with Faithlesnesse In the fourth of Antiquity with Noveltie In the fift of Vniversality with Paâ—city In the sixt of Wisdome with Folly as also of Charity with Iniustice and Impiety In the seventh of Knowledge with Ignorance as likewise of Devotion with Profanenesse And all these marching and warring together without any possibility of Reconciliation at all The first Comparison is of the Institution of Christ with the Contrarie proving the Precept of Christ for the vse of both kinds to all lawfull Communicants SECT II. THere is one word twice used in the tenour of Christ his Institution once concerning the Bread Hoc FACITE DOE THIS the second time touching the Cup Hoc FACITE QVOTIESCVNQVE DOE THIS AS OFTEN c. Both which whosoever should denie to have the Sound and Sence of a Precept might be confuted by your owne Iesuites Doctors Bishops and Cardinals among whom wee find your Barradas interpreting it Praecipit your Valentian Praeceptum your Iansenius Mandat your Alan Praeceptio your Bellarmine Iubet each one signifying a Command But of what this is our next Inquisition The Acts of Christ were some belonging to Consecration and some to Distribution Manducation and Drinking Such as concerned Consecration of both kinds being with common consent acknowledged to be under that Command of Hoc facite are the Taking Bread and Blessing it c. The other touching Administration of the Cup whereof it is said Hee tooke it and gave it to his Disciples whom after he had Commanded saying Drinke you all of this he added the other Command set downe by Saint Paul saying unto them Doe this as often as yee shall doe it in remembrance of Mee That by this Obligation he might charge them to communicate in both kinds A Precept then it must needs be But we are not ignorant of your Evasions Your first Evasion Although say you it be said to his Disciples Drinke you all and Doe this yet it is spoken to them as they were Priests And onely to the Apostles saith Master Brereley And againe The Apostles did represent the Priests CHALLENGE VVE answere that your owne Castro will not allow your Antecedent but is perswaded rather by the manifest Current of the Text that The Apostles were not Priests when the Cup was given unto them And although they were then
notwithstanding you your selves have confessed that Christ spake absolutely and without Condition of the Bread Take Eate Doe this And againe 1. Cor. 11. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in like maner the cup. It is an AND Coniunctive questionlesse But seeing it cannot be denyed that the Apostles practice was both Eating and Drinking coniunctively it is not likely or credible that the sence of his words should be discretiue because this had bene in wordes to have contradicted his owne practice M. Breerly opposeth viz. The Apostle in the same Chapter saith v. 26. He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh Iudgement also hee saith v. 27. whosoever eateth this Bread and drinketh this Cup vnworthily c. So hee It is not to be denyed but that AND is often vsed in Scripture for Or but M. Brearly his notions as commonly so here also are too confused by not distinguishing the divers use of AND in Precepts and Exhortations to an Act in denunciation of iudgement in case of Transgression As for example The Precept is Honour thy father and thy mother Exod. 20. here AND must needs be copulative because of the Obligation of precept of honouring both But the denunciation against the Transgressour if it stood as M. Breerly obiecteth feigning a false Text contrary both to the Originall and vulgar Latine Translation thus Hee that shall strike his father and mother shall die the particle AND must needs be taken disiunctively for Or as indeed it is expressed in the Text because the Transgression of either parts of a Commandement inferreth an obligation of guilt and iudgement as any man of sense may perceive Against this albeit so euident a Truth your Doctors will have something to obect or else it will goe hard even forsooth the contrary practice of the Apostles Act. 2. 42. where wee read of the faithfull assembled and Continuing together in fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers because there is but mention only of one kinde which is Bread whence they inferre a no-necessity of vsing the Cup. So your Cardinall Bellarmine And to answere that the ministration of the Cup is vnderstood by a figure Synecdoche is an answere onely imaginary and groundles saith Mr. Breerely But are they yet to learne that which every man knoweth and your owne Iesuites have taught that there is no Trope more familiar in Scripture than this Syâ—echdoche of taking a part for the whole Or could they not discerne thus much in the same Chap. 〈◊〉 46. where it is said They brake bread through every house Wherein as your Iesuite Lorinus teacheth there is not meant the Eucharist but common foode Whereby you cannot but vnderstaâ—d implied in their breaking of bread their mutuall drinking together also And yet in the like words spoken of the Eucharist v. 42. They continued together in breaking of Bread you exclude the participation of the Cup. What shall wee say was your spirituall appetite weaker than your corporall in reading these two Texts wherein is mentioned onely Bread that you could discerne but halfe refection in the Eucharist and an whole in their bodily repast Besides any man may guesse what spirit it savoureth of that in paralleling the authoritie of your Church with the authoritie of the Apostles your Iesuites doe resolue that although the Apostles had constituted the custome of Receiving in both kinds Nevertheles say they the Church of Rome and Pope thereof hauing the same authority with S. Paul may abrogate it upon iust Cause And yet hardly can you alleage any Cause for abrogation of that Practice which S. Paul might not have assumed in his time CHALLENGE OFrustrà susceptos Labores nostros may we say for to what end is it for vs to prove an Apostolicall Practice or Precept for both kinds when your Obiectors are ready with the onely names of Pope and Church of Rome to stoppe the mouthes not onely of vs Heretikes as you call vs but even of S. Paul himselfe and of the other Apostles yea and of S. Peter too By which Answere notwithstanding you may perceive how little S. Paul doth favour your cause by whose Doctrine the Advocates for your Church are driven to these straits but more principally if you call to remembrance that our Argument is taken from the Apostles Doctrine and Practice as it was grounded by St. Paul himselfe vpon the Doctrine and Precept of Christ Thus when we appeale vnto the Apostles Tradition you by opposing Thinke your selves wiser than the Apostles which Irenaeus will tell you was the very garbe of old Heretickes Our fourth and fift Comparisons are of Primitiue Custome with the contrary Custome in respect both of the Antiquitie and Vniversalitie thereof SECT V. BEfore wee shall say any thing our selues of the Primitive Custome in vsing both kindes in the administration of this Sacrament and the extent thereof both in the longitude of Continuance and latitude of Vniversalitie we are ready to heare how farre your owne Doctors will yeeld vnto vs in both these points touching the publike vse of both kindes Hearken but vnto the Marginals and you shall finde your Iesuites with others vttering these voyces Wee must confesse Wee doe confesse yea Wee doe ingenuously confesse a Custome of both kindes aswell to the Laicks as Priests to have beene in the Primitive Church most frequent and generall as is prooved by the ancient Fathers both Greeke and Latine among whom are Leo and Gregorie both Popes of Rome yea and universall also for a long time continuing a thousand yeares in the Church of Rome and in the Greeke Church vnto this day So they where we see both Antiquity and Vniversality thereof to the full which it were easie for vs to have shewne Gradatim descending downe from the first Age unto the twelfth but that when wee haue as much confessed as neede be proved it might be iudged to be but an importunate diligence and Curiositie to labour any further Neverthelesse if peradventure any should desire to see one or two Testimonies for the last Age he may satisfie himselfe in the Margent at the first sight The Romish Obiections concerning Primitive Custome Divers Obiections are vrged on your side to abate something of the Vniuersalitie of the Custome of Both kindes which we defend but if they shall not seeke to decline the Question and to rove about as it were at vnset markes their Arguments are but as so many Bolts shot altogether in vaine For our defence is onely this that in the publike solemnization and Celebration of this Sacrament in an Assembly of Christians freely met to communicate no one example can be shewen in all Antiquity throughout the Catholique Church of Christ for the space of a thousand yeares inhibiting either Priest or Laick from Communicating in both kindes who was duly prepared to receive the Sacrament As for the examples which you vsually obiect they are of no force at all being proved to be
of all ancient Fathers and indeed as the saying is To put upon them the Foole. The like answere two of their Iesuites made to the Practice of the Apostles saying that your Church having the same spirit hath the same power to alter the Custome whereas wee have proved that the ground which the Apostles lay for their Custome was the Institution of Christ But that which the Romane Church alleageth is meerely a pretence of Plenitude of her owne Authoritie It is impossible therefore that in so great a Contradiction there should be the same Spirit And can there be a more intollerable Arrogancie than is this which this Romane spirit bewrayeth in both these Thirdly vpon the Consideration of this their Contempt of Apostolicall and primitive Antiquity in this Cause wee finde that your Romish Priests are to be condemned of manifest perjurie also For in the Forme of Oath for the profession of the Romish Faith every Priest and Ecclesiasticke is sworne To admit of all Apostolicall Ecclesiasticall Traditions as also to hold what the Councell of Trent hath decreed But this Custome of administration of both kindes as hath beene acknowledged was an Apostolicall Custome and from them also remayned in an Ecclesiasticall profession and practice thorow-out a thousand yeares space which your Church of Rome notwithstanding in her Councell of Trent whereunto likewise you are sworne hath altered and perverted which doth evidently involve your Priests and Iesuites in a notorious and unavoydable Perjury Fourthly As for the note of Foolishnesse what more mad folly can there be seene in any than to take upon them a serious Defence of a Custome for satisfaction of all others and yet to be so unsatisfied among themselves so that both the Obiections urged by Protestants against that Abuse are fortified and also all your Reasons for it are refuted either by the direct Testimonies of your owne Doctors or by the Common Principles and Tenents of your Church or else by the absurdities of your Consequences issuing from your Reasons and Answeres divers of them being no lesse grosse then was your objecting the Antiquity and Generality of the particular Romane Church for lesse then three hundred yeares and to preferre it before the confessed Vniversall primitive Custome of above the Compasse of a Thousand yeares continuance before the other Fiftly the last is the note of Blasphemy for this name the contempt of Christ his last Will and Testament must needs deserve and what greater contempt can there be than contrary to Christ his Doe this concerning both kinds to professe that Sacrilegious dismembring of the holy Sacrament which Gelasius the Pope himselfe had anciently condemned or if this be not Blasphemous enough then supposing that Christ indeed had commanded Consecration in both kindes upon divine right yet notwithstanding to hold it very probable as saith your Iesuite Azorius that the authority of the Pope may dispense therewith But because Divine right was never yet dispensed with 1 saith hee would give my Counsell that it never may be O Iesuite thus to deale with Christ his Command If he or any other Iesuite had made as bold with the Pope as this doth with Christ himselfe saying unto him Any of your Decrees holy Father may be dispensed with by any Iesuite of our Societie yet because no Iesuite hath taken upon him hitherto so much my counsell is that none of your Decrees be euer dispensed withall The Pope wee suppose albeit he would thanke this man for his counsell for not Doing so yet doubtlesse would hee reward him with a welcome into the office of his holy Inquisition for his judgement to thinke it lawfull so to doe namely to leave it to the discretion of every Iesuite to dispense with his Papall Decrees And notwithstanding the Iesuites Suppose wee may depose that your Romish licence for but one kinde is a dispensing or rather a despising of the Ordinance of Christ Wee are already wearied with citing of the manifold vilde odious and irreligious Positions of your Disputers and Proctors for this your Cause yet one Pretence more may not be pretermitted least we might seeme to contemne the wit and zeale of your Iesuite Salmeron against the use of this Sacrament in both kindes The use of both kinds saith he is not to be allowed to Catholiques because they must be distinguished from Heretikes nor to Heretikes because bread is not to be given unto Dogges Now blessed be God! that we are esteemed as Heretikes and Dogges to be distinguished from them in this and other so many commanded Acts wherein they have distinguished themselves from all Primitive Fathers from the Apostles of Christ and from Christ himselfe An Appeale unto the ancient Popes and Church of Rome against the late Romish Popes and Church in Confutation of their former Transgressions of Christ his Institution SECT XIV THe ancient Popes and Church of Rome were as all the world will say in authority of Command in synceritie of judgement equall and in integrity of life Superiour unto the latter Popes of Rome and Church thereof yet the ancient held it as a matter of Conscience for the Church in all such Cases belonging to the Eucharist to be conformable to the Precept and Example of Christ and of the Apostles So you have heard Pope Calixtus An. Christi 218. requireth all persons present at the Masse to Communicate For which reason it was we thinke that Pope Gregory Anno 600. commanded every one present at the Masse and not purposing to Communicate to Depart There is an History related by Aeneas Sylvius after Pope Pius the Second which sheweth the reason why another Pope of Rome with his Consistory yeilded a liberty to the Sclavonians to have Divine Service in their Nationall Language and reporteth that it was thorow the sound of that voice which is written in the Psalmes Let every tongue prayse the Lord. Pope Iulius Anno 336. was much busied in repressing the sopping of bread in the Chalice and other like abuses of the Sacrament in his time and the reason which hee gaue was this Because quoth hee these Customes are not agreeable to Evangelicall and Apostolicall Doctrine and our Church of Rome doth the same Where he addeth concerning the manner of Communicating We reade saith hee that both the Bread and Cup were distinctly and severally delivered As if hee had meant with the same breath to have confuted your other Romish Transgression in distributing to the people the Sacrament but in one of Both And who can say but that Gregory and Leo both Popes observing the same use of Christ had the same Resolution Sure wee are that Pope Gelasius Anno 494. called the Abuse in dismembring of this Sacrament by receiving but in one kinde A Grand Sacrilege Wee reade of a Councell held at Toledo in Spaine under Pope Sergius stiled generall Anno 693. reproving those Priests who offered Bread in crusts and lumpes
condemned in divers who sopped the Bread in the Chalice and squeezed Grapes in the Cup and so received them even as did the Artoryritae in mingling Bread with Cheese censured for Heretiques by your Aquinas In which Comparison your Aberration from Christ's Example is so much greater than theirs as you are found Guilty in defending Ten Innovations for one 2. Your Pope Gelasius condemned the Hereticall Manichees for thinking it lawfull not to receive the Cup in the Administration of the Eucharist judging it to be Greatly Sacrilegious notwithstanding your Church authorizeth the same Custome of forbidding the Administration of the Cup to fit Communicants 3. As you pretend Reverence for withdrawing the Cup so did the Aquarii forbeare wine and used only Water under a pretence of Sobriety 4. Sometime there may be a Reason to doe a thing when as yet there is no right nor Authority for him that doth it Wee therefore exact of you an Autority for altering the Apostles Customes and Constitutions and are answered that your Church hath Authority over the Apostles Precepts Iumpe with them who being asked why they stood not unto the Apostles Traditions replyed that They were herein above the Apostles whom therefore Irenaeus reckoneth among the Heretikes of his Time BOOKE II. It is not nothing which hath beene observed therein to wit your Reasoning why you ought not to interpret the words of Christ This is my Body literally and why you urge his other saying Except yoâ—… eat my flesh for proofe of Bodily Eating so that your Priest may literally say in your Masse that The Body of Christ passeth into your bellies and entrâ—ils because forsooth the words of Christ are Doctrinall And have you not heard of one Nicodemus who hearing Christ teach that every man must be Borne againe who shall be partaker of God's Kingdome and that hee expounding them in a Literall Sence conceited a new Entrance into his Mothers wombe when as nothing wanted to turne that his Errour into an Heresie but only Obstinacie But of the strong and strange Obstinacies of your Disputers you have received a full Synopsis BOOKE III. After followeth your Article of Transubstantiation I. Your direct profession is indeed to beleeve no Body of Christ but that which was Borne of the Virgin Mary But this your Article of Transubstantiation of Bread into Christs Body generally held according to the proper nature of Transubstantion to be by Production of Christs Body out of the Substance of Bread it necessarrly inferreth a Body called and beleeved to be Christ's which is not Borne of the Blessed Virgin as S. Augustine hath plainly taught diversifying the Bodily thing on the Altar from the Body of Christ borne of the Virgin Therefore your Defence symbolizeth with the heresie of Apollinaris who taught a Body not Borne of the Virgin Mary Secondly you exclude all judgement of Senses in discerning Bread to be trâ—… Bread as did the Manichees in discerning Christ's Body which they thereupon held not to have beene a True but a Phantasticall Body Tertullian also challengeth the Verity of Sense in judging of Wine in the Eâ—charist after Consecration in confutation of the same Errour in the Marcioniâ—es Thirdly for Defence of Christ his invisible Bodily Presence you professe that after Consecration Bread is no more the same but changed into the Body of Christ which Doctrine in very expresse words was bolted out by an Eâ—tychian Heretique and instantly condemned by Theodoret and as fully abandoned by Pope Gelasâ—… BOOKE IV. Catholique Fathers were in nothing more zealous than in defending the distinct properties of the two natures of Christ his Deity and Humanity against the pernicious heresies of the Manichees Marcionites Eâ—tychians and Eâ—nomians all of them diversly oppugning the Integrity of Christ's Body sometime in direct tearmes and sometime by irrefragrable Consequences whether it were by gaine-saying the Finitenesse or Solidity or else the compleat Perfection thereof wherein â—ow farre yee may challenge affinity or kindred with them be you pleased to examine by this which followeth 1. The Heretiques who undermined the property of Christ's Bodily Finitenesse said that it was in divers places at once as is confessed even as your Church doth now attribute unto the same Body of Christ both in Heaven and in Earth yea and in Millions of distant Altars at the same time and consequently in all places whatsoever Now whether this Doctrine of Christ's Bodily Presence in many places at once was held of the Catholique Fathers for Hereticall it may best be seene by their Doctrine of the Existence of Christ's Body in one only place not only Definitively but also Circumspectively both which doe teach an absolute Impossibility of the Existence of the same in divers places at once And they were as zealous in professing the Article of the manner of Christ's Bodily Being in place as they are in instructing men of the Article of Christ's Bodily Being lest that the deniall of it's Bodily manner of being might destroy the nature of his Body To which end they have concluded it to be absolutely but in one place sometime in a Circumspective Finitenesse thereby distinguishing them from all created Spirits and sometime by a Definitive Termination which they set downe first by Exemplifications thus If Christ his Body be on Earth then it is absent from Heaven and thus Being in the Sunne it could not be in the Moone Secondly by divers Comparisons for comparing the Creature with the Creator God they conclude that The Creature is not God because it is determinated in one place and comparing the humane and divine Nature of Christ together they conclude that they are herein different because the humane and Bodily Nature of Christ is necessarily included in one place and laâ—tly comparing Creatures with the Holy Ghost they conclude a difference by the the same Argument because the Holy Ghost is in many places at once and all these in confutation of divers Heretiques A thing so well knowen to your elder Romish Schoole that it confessed the Doctrine of Existence of a Body in divers places at once in the judgement of Antiquity to be Hereticall 2. The property of a Solidity likewise was patronized by Antient Fathers in confutation of Heretiques by teaching Christ's Body to be necessarily Palpable against their Impalpabilitie and to have a Thicknesse against their feigned subtile Body as the Aire and furthermore controlling these opinions following which are also your Crotchets of a Bodies Being whole in the whole space and in every part thereof and of Christ's Body taking the Right hand or left of it selfe 3. The property of Perfection of the Body of Christ wheresoever in the highest Degree of Absolutenesse This one would thinke everie Christian heart should assent unto at the first hearing wherefore if that they were judged Heretiques by Antient
visibles but being sanctified by the holy Spirit are turned into a Sacrament of Christ's Body So hee This is indeed a true Analogie not to be performed by Accidents Could any of them whom you call Calvinists have spoken more significantly either in contradicting your Exposition of Christ's words for he saith that Christ called Bread his Body or in declaring the true proper Sence of the Sacramentall Conversion for he saith Bread is Changed into a Sacrament of Christ's Bodie or else in giving the Reason why Bread and Wine were chosen to be Sacraments and Signes of Christ's Body and Blood by which we are spiritually fed for hee sheweth that it is because of their Naturall Effects Bread substantially and therefore not Accidentally strengtheneth Man's Body Wine turneth in Blood Which overthroweth your third Figment of onely Accidents as if the Substance of Bread and Wine were not necessary in this Sacrament Say then doth the Accident of Roundnesse and Figure of Bread strengthen mans Body or doth the Accident Colour of Wine turne into Blood As well might you affirme the only Accident of Water in Baptisme to be sufficient to purge and cleanse the Body by the colour and coldnesse without the substantiall matter thereof The Second part of the Analogie is discerned in the Mysticall Body of Christ which is the Congregation of the Faithfull Communicants We are all one Body in as much as we are partakers of one Bread It standeth thus As many Granes of Corne make one Loafe of Bread and many Grapes make one measure of Wine in the Cup So many Christians partaking faithfully of this Sacrament become One mysticall Body of Christ by the Vnion of Faith and Love This Exposition as it is yeilded unto by your Cardinall Cajetan and authorized by your Romane and Tridentine Catechisme so is it also confessed to be used of Almost all holy Doctours Hee was held a most expert and artificiall Painter in Plinie that could paint Grapes so to life as to deceive Birds which came to feed on them But they are the only Sophisticall Doctors that offer in the Eucharist only Accidents as painted Colours in stead of naturall because where there is not a Reall Analogie there is no Sacrament You may not say that the Analogie consisteth in the matter before Consecration because every Sacramentall Analogie is betweene the Sacrament and the Thing Signified but it is no Sacrament before it be Consecrated CHALLENGE SAy now what Better Authour is there than Christ What better Disciple and Scholler than the Apostle of Christ or what better Commentary upon the words of Christ and his Apostle than the Sentences of Ancient Fathers calling the one part Wine the other Bread after Consecration as you have heard Our Third Proofe that the Substance of Bread remayneth after Consecration in the Sacrament is taken from the Iudgement of Sense necessarily First by the Authority of Scripture SECT VII ALthough man's Sense may be deceived thorow the inconvenient Diposition of the Medium thorow which he seeth as it hapneth in judging a straight Staffe to be Crooked which standeth in the Water and in thinking a White Obiect to be Greene in it selfe which is seene through a Greene glasse or Secondly by the unequall Distance of place as by conceiving the Sunne to be but two feet in breadth or the Rainbow to be a Colour and not Light or Thirdly by some defect in the Organ or Instrument of seeing which is the Eye whereby it commeth to passe that wee take One to be Two or mistake a Shadow for a Substance yet notwithstanding when our Eyes that see are of good Constitution and Temper the Medium whereby we see is perfectly disposed the Distance of the Obiect which we see is indifferent then say we the iudgement of Sense being free is True and the Concurrence and ioynt Consent of divers Senses in one arbitrement is infallible This Reason taken from Sence you peradventure will judge to be but Naturall and Carnall as those Termes are opposed to a true and Christian manner of Reasoning Wee defend the Contrary being warranted by the Argument which Christ himselfe used to his Disciples Luc. 24. 39. Handle mee and see Your Cardinall although he grant that this Reason of Christ was available to prove that his owne Body was no Spirit or Fancy but a true body even by the onely Argument from the Sence of Touching Yet saith he was it not sufficient in it selfe without other Arguments to confirme it and to prove it to have beene a humane body and the very same which it was So he Which Answere of your Cardinall we wish were but only false and not also greatly irreligious for Christ demonstrated hereby not onely that he had a body as your Cardinall speaketh but also that it was his owne same humane body now risen which before had beene Crucified and wounded to Death and buried according to that of Luke That it is even I. Luc. 24. 39. Now because It is not a Resurrection of a Body except it be the Same body Therefore would Christ have Thomas to thrust his hands into his sides and feele the print of his wounds to manifest the same body as Two of your Iesuites doe also observe the One with an Optimè the Other with a Probatum est Accordingly the Apostle Saint Paul laid this Argument taken from Sence as the foundation of a Fundamentall Article of Faith even the Resurrection of the same Body of Christ from the dead for how often doth he repeate and inculcate this He was seene c. And againe thrice more Hee was seene c. And Saint Iohn argueth to the same purpose from the Concurrence of three Sences That which wee have heard which we have seene and our hands have handled declare wee unto you The validity of this Reason was proved by the Effect as Christ averreth Thomas because thou hast seene that is perceiued both by Eye and hand thou hast beleeved The Validity of the Iudgement of Sense in THOMAS and the other Disciples confirmed in the second place by your owne Doctors SECT VIII PErerius a Iesuite confidently pleadeth for the Sense of Touch I feare not saith hee to say that the Evidence of Sense is so strong an Argument to prove without all doubt an humane Bodie that the Devill himselfe cannot herein delude the touch of man that is of vnderstanding and consideration As for the unbeleeving Disciples Christ his Handle me c. saith your Iesuite Vasquez was as much as if he had said to them Perceive you my true flesh as being a most efficacious Argument to prove the truth of an humane Body So he yea and Tolet another Iesuite did well discerne the case of Thomas to have beene an extreme Infidelity when hee said Except I put my finger into the print of the nailes and thrust my hand into his side I will not beleeve Which