in his Comment vpon the Psalmes often exhorting all sorts of men to sing them and thereupon the Author of the Preface before his Comment as it were tuning his note to Augustines doth deny that any can sing Psalmes as he ought to God who knoweth not what he singeth And lest that this might not suffice we have added the Edict of the Emperour Iâ—stinian commanding a lowd voice in the Minister that the people may vnderstand his words Next a Canon of a Councell requiring a Concordance both of voice and vnderstanding in the singing of Psalmes as that which ought to be by that Doctrine of Scripture I will pray with my spirit and I will pray with my vnderstanding Then a Decree of one Pope in his Councell that provision be made where people of diuers Languages dwell in the same Cities that their Service may be done according to their Different tongues After the Resolution of another Pope to grant vnto the Sclavonians at their conversion to the faith that Divine Service might be vsed in their owne tongue moued thereunto as by a voice from heauen sounding out that Scripture Let every tongue praise the Lord. And lastly a Prohibition in the Primitive Church that None should speake in languages vnknowne to the people When you have disgested all these Premises concerning the Equity and Necessity of knowne Prayers in the publike and Divine Service both in consideration of God's worship and Mans manifold profit so amply confirmed by so many and vncontrollable testimonies then guesse if you can of what dye the face of your Doctor Stapleton was when hee shamed not to call this our Practice of knowne prayers Profanenesse and to number it among Hereticall pravities As for your owne People who preferre an vnknowne worship what can wee say lesse than that all such Ignorants are but dumbe worshippers and because of their ignorance in praying they know not what they are to be sent to accompanie Popiniayes and Iack-dawes accordingly as St. Augustine formerly hath resembled them The sixt Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse contradicting the Sence of the next words of Christs Institution TAKE YEE SECT VIII THus said Christ to his Disciples by which words what is meant your Iesuite will expresse to wit that Because the Apostles tooke that which Christ gave the word GAVE doth signifie a Delivery out of Christ his hands into the hands of them that did take Here you see is Taking with hands especially seeing that Christ in giving the Cup said Drinke you all Math. 26. one delivering it to an other as it is said of the Paschall Cup Luc. 22. 17. as it is confessed The contrarie Canon in your now Romane Masse Concerning this It is to be noted say you that the Church of Rome hath iudged it laâ—dable that Lay-people abstaine from taking the Sacrament with their owne hands but that it be put into their mouthes by the Priest which is so ordained for a singular reverence So you CHALLENGE WHat wee may note of this your Notandum the Confessions of your owne Iesuites will shew first that the Practice of the Apostles and Primitive Church for aboue 500. yeares was according to Christ's Institution to deliver the Bread into the hands of the Communicants Secondly that the same Order was observed at Rome as appeareth by the Epistle of Pope Cornelius Thirdly that whereas Some had devised for Reverence-sake certaine Silver vessels by the which they received the Sacrament yet two Councels the one at Toledo and the other at Trullo did forbid that fashion and required that they should receive it with their hands Hitherto from you selves Vaine therefore is your pretence of Reverence in suffering the Priest onely to receive it with his hands as being more worthy in himselfe than all the rest of the people when as our High-Priest Christ Iesus disdained not to deliver it into the hands of his Disciples Or els to denie this libertie vnto the people as if their Handes were lesse sanctified than their mouthes But you will say that it is in Reuerence lest that the body of Christ may as you teach light vpon the ground if any fragments of the Hoast should chance to fall There can be no doubt but that in the dispensation of this blessed Sacrament Christians ought to vse due Cautelousnes that it may be done without miscarriage yet must you give vs leaue to retort your pretence of Reverence vpon your selves thus Seeing that Christ himselfe Instituted and his Apostles observed and that the whole Church of Christ for so many hundred yeares thus practized the administration of this Sacrament from hand to hand without respect of such Reverence they therefore were not of your opinion to thinke every Crumme or piece of the Hoast that falleth to the ground to be really the Body of Christ This Aberration wee may call in respect of others but a small Transgression if yet any Transgression may be called small which is a wilfull violating of this so direct a Charge of Christ Doe this The seaventh Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse contradicting the Sence of the next wordes EATE YEE SECT IX AS in the third Transgression wee by these words of Christ He gaue it to them spoken in the plurall number have proved from your owne Confessions a necessary Communion of the people in the publike Celebration thereof with the Priest against your now Profession of private Masses contrarie to the ancient Custome and vniuersall practice of the Church so now out of these words TAKE YEE EATE YEE wee obserue that the persons present were Takers and Eaters of the blessed Eucharist and not onely Spectators thereof An Abuse condemned by our Church of Eugland in her 25. Article saying Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon The Contrary Canon of the now Romane Masse But your Practice now is flat contrary in your Church by admitting people of all forts not as the Lords Guests to Eate of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper but as Gazers onely to looke on it as vpon a proper Sacrifice telling the People that they seeing the Priest eate and drinke Doe spiritually eate and drinke in the person of the Priest And the onely beholding of the Priests Sacrifice at the Elevation and Adoration thereof is esteemed amongst you at this day the most solemne and saving worship which any people can performe vnto God CHALLENGE BVt Christ you see instituted this Sacrament only for Eaters The Apostle exhorteth every man to Preparation Let a man examine himselfe and exhorting every one being prepared to Eate saith So let him eate This to vse your owne Confessions was practised in ancient times when as the people were thus generally invited Come Brethren unto the Communion When as ancient Fathers as you have also acknowledged suffered none but Communicants to be present at the celebration of the Eucharist As for them
before God for us Thus the Apostle But what of this will you say Doe but marke Are you not All heard still proclaiming as with one voice that your Romish Sacrifice of the Masse is the onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Iuge Sacrificium that is the Continuall Sacrifice Continually offered Whereof the Iuge and Continuall Sacrifice of the Law was a signe So you But it were strange that the Iuge Sacrificium of the Law continuing both Morning and Evening should be a figure of your Masse-Sacrifice which is but only offered in the Morning As if you would make a picture having two hands for to represent a Person that hath but one But not to deny that the Celebration of the Eucharist may be called a Iuge Sacrificium for so some Fathers have termed it Yet they no otherwise call it Iuge or Continuall than they call it a Sacrifice that is Vnproperly because it cannot possibly be compared for Continuance of Time to that Celestiall of Christ in the highest Heaven where Christ offereth himselfe to God for us day and night without Intermission Whereupon it is that Irenaeus exhorteth men to pray often by Christ at his Altar Which Altar saith he is in Heaven and the Temple open Apoc. 11. 19. Where saith Pope Gregory our Saviour Christ offereth up his burnt Sacrifices for us without intermission And whereupon your Iesuit Coster out of Ambrose affirmeth that Christ exhibiteth his Body wounded upon the Crosse and slaine as a Iuge Sacrificium that is a Continuall Sacrifice perpetually unto his Father for us And to this purpose serve the fore-cited Testimonies of Augustine Gregory Nazianzen Ambrose Chrysostome and Oecumenius some pointing out the Altar in Heaven as the Truth Some by Exhortations and Some by their Examples instructing us to make our Continuall Approach unto the Celestiall Altar CHALLENGE NOw you who so fix the hearts and minds of the Spectators of your Masse upon your sublunary Altars and Hoasts and appropriate the Iuge Sacrificium thereunto in respect of Time during onely the houres of your Priestly Sacrificing allow your attention but a moment of Time and you will easily see the Impiety of that your Profession The Iuge Sacrificium of Christ as it is presented to God by him in Heaven hath beene described to be Continuall without Intermission Alwayes that is without any Interruption of any moment of Time to the end that all sorts of Penitents and faithfull Suters solliciting God by him might finde as the Apostle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Helpe at any time of need The gates of this Temple Heaven being ever open the matter of this Sacrifice which is the Body of Christ being there ever present The Priest who is Christ himselfe ever executing his Function Whereas contrarily you will confesse we dare say that the Doores of your Churches may happen to be all locked or interdicted your Sacrifice shut up in a Box or lurched and carried away by Mice your Priest taken up with sport or repast or journey or sleepe yea and even when he is acting a Sacrifice may possibly nullifie all his Priestly Sacrificing Act by reason of Confessed Almost infinite Defects Therefore the Sacrilegiousnesse of the Doctrine of your Masse is thus farre manifested in as much that your owne Ministeriall Priest-hood doth so prejudice the personall Priest-hood of Christ as it is in Heaven as the Moone doth by her interposition ecclipse the glory of the Sunne by confounding things distinct that is as we have learned from the Fathers Image with Truth The state of Wicked Partakers with the Godly Matters Visible with Invisible Signes with Things Worse with Better Iayes with Eagles and the like Of the second Typicall Scripture which is the Passeover shewing the weaknesse of the Argument taken from thence for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Masse SECT X. FIrst it is meet we heare your Objector speake even your Cardinall who albeit he confesseth the Paschall Lamb to have been the figure of Christ on the Crosse yet did it in the Ceremonies thereof saith he more immediatly and principally prefigure the Eucharist than the Passion which is proved by Scripture 1. Cor. 5. Our Passeover is offered up therefore let us feast it in the Azymes of Sincerity and Truth Which offering up was not fulfilled on the Crosse but it is evident that the Apostle did eat this true Paschall Lambe the flesh of Christ at his Supper and this Apostle exhorteth us to this Feast in saying Let us therefore keepe our feast c. So hee bestowing a large Chapter of Arguments wherewith to bleare our eyes lest that we should see in this Scripture Our Passeover is offered up Rather the Immolation of Christ on the Crosse than in the Eucharist We willingly yeeld unto his alleaged Testimonies of Ancient Fathers who by way of Allusion or Analogie doe all call the Eucharist a Paschall Sacrifice But yet that the words of this Scripture should more properly and principally meane the Eucharisticall Sacrifice as if the Iewish Passeover did rather prefigure the Sacrifice of Christ in the Masse than on the Crosse not one It were a tedious worke to sift out all the Drosse of his Argumentations Neverthelesse because he putteth Protestants unto it saying us followeth But our Adversaries saith he will say that the Apostle in saying our Passeover is offered up speaketh of Christ's Sacrifice offered upon the Crosse but we will prove that this figure was properly fulfilled at his Sâ—pper So he We will now shew you that other Adversaries than Protestants are ready to encounter this your Champion First the choisest Chieftaine of his owne side armed with the Authority of Christ himselfe Ioh. 13. 1. Before the day of the Passeover Iesus knowing that his howre was come that he must passe out of the world unto the Father Now when was this spoken Even then saith Tolet your Cardinall and Iesuit When he came to the celebrating of the Sacrament of his Body and Blood that is at his last Supper But what was meant hereby namely Christ alluded unto the Iewish Passeover saith he in signification of his owne passing over by death to his Father So he So also your Iesuit Pererius out of Augustine A second Scripture is the objected Text 1. Cor. 5. Our Passeover is offered up Christ that is As the figurative paschall Lambe was offered up for the deliverance of the people of Israel out of Egypt so Christ was offered up to death for the Redemption of his people and so passed by his passion to his Father So your Aquinas Our Passeover Namely by his Sacrifice in shedding his Blood on the Crosse So your Iesuit Becanus And By this his Passeover on the Crosse was the Passeover of the Iewes fulfilled So your Bishop Iansenius as flat diameter to your Cardinal's Objection as can be A third Scripture we finde Ioh. 19. They broke not his legs that
herein both of them correcting the Vulgar Translation in the word Pledge and one of them giving an Absitâ—l against this Sence of it The Reason of both is because he that giveth a Pledge taketh it againe when the Thing for which it was pledged is received But he that giveth an Earnest will have it continue with him to whom it was given And so God assuring his Chosen by his Spirit doth for their greater Confidence give it as an Earnest and not as a Pledge So they Thereby advancing Gods gracious love towards man and man's faith in God's love Here will be no corner of Pretence that this being an Errour of Print and not of Doctrine may be rejected by you without Prejudice to your Oath no for Errour of Print ariseth from some affinity of words as where these words This is a sound reason being delivered to the print was returned from the Presse thus This is a fond reason But betweene Pignus and Arrhabo there is no more Symphony than betweene an Horse and a Saddle Nor will it availe you to say that the Originall Greeke was corrupted for it is the same Greeke word which Hierome himselfe who as you know used the perfectest Greeke Text doth here avow to be True II. Overture of Perjury in your Disputers is in swearing to the Romish Expositions of Scripture THe Tenour of the Oath in this respect is I admit the sacred Scriptures in that Sense which the Mother Church hath held and doth hold By Mother Church understanding the Church of Rome as without which there is no salvation which is expressed in the same Oath as another Article therein and which else-where we have proved to be a GRAND IMPOSTVRE in a full Tractate from the Doctrine of the Apostles of Generall Councells of severall Catholique Churches and from such Primitive Fathers whose memories are at this day registred in the Romish Calender of Saints How then can the Oath for this point be taken without danger of Perjury But to come to the Article concerning the Expositions of Scriptures According to the sence of the Church of Rome which would thereby be thought to Hold no Sence of Scripture now which she had not Held in more Antient Times We for Triall hereof shall for this present seeke after no other Instances than such as in this Treatise have been discussed and for brevity-sake single out of many but only Three A first is in that Scripture Ioh. 6. Except you eat the flesh of the Sonne of man you cannot have life The word Except was extended unto Infants in the dayes of Pope Innocent the First continuing as hath beene confessed six hundred yeares together when the Church of Rome thereupon Held it necessary for Infants to receive the Eucharist Contrarily the now Romane Church Holdeth it Inexpedient to administer the Eucharist unto Infants as you have heard Secondly Luc. 22. Take Eat c. Your Church of Rome in the dayes of Pope Nicolas in a Councell at Rome Held that by the word Eate was meant an Eating by Tearing the Body of Christ sensually with men's teeth in a Literall sence Which your now Romane Church if we may beleeve your Iesuites doth not Hold as hath appeared Thirdly the Tenour of the Institution of Christ concerning the Cup was Held in the dayes of Pope Gelasius to be peremptory for the administration thereof to prove that the Eucharist ought to be administred in both kindes to all Communicants and judging the dismembring of them a Grand Sacrilege as you have heard whereas now your Romish Church Holdeth it not only lawfull but also religious to withhold the Cup from all but only consecrating Priests Vpon these omitting other Scriptures which you your selves may observe at your best leasure we conclude You therefore in taking that Oath swearing to admit all Interpretations of Scripture both which the Church of Rome once Held and now Holdeth the Proverbe must needs be verified upon you viz. You hold a Wolfe by the eare which howsoever you Hold you are sure to be Oath-bit either in Holding TENVIT by TENET or in Holding TENET by TENVIT III. Overture of Perjury in your Disputers is in swearing to the pretended Consent of Fathers in their Expositions of Scriptures HEare your Oath Neither will I ever interpret any Scripture but according to the unanimous consent of Fathers Here the word Fathers cannot betoken Bishops and Fathers assembled in a Councell where the major part of voices conclude the lesse for Councell never writ Commentaries upon Scriptures but from Scriptures collect their Conclusions And although the word Vnanimous doth literally signifie the universall Consent which would inferre an Impossibility because that all Fathers have not expounded any one Scripture and very few All yet that you may know we presse not too violently upon you we shall be content to take this word Morally with this Diminution For the most part and hereupon make bold to averre that your Iuror by this Oath is sworne to a flat Falsity because you cannot deny but that the Fathers in their Expositions dissent among themselves sometimes a Greater part from the lesse insomuch that you your selves are at difference among your selves which part to side with With the greater saith Valentia nay but sometime with the Lesser saith Canus Can you dreame of an Vnanimity in Disparity Sometime there is a Non-Constat what is the Iudgement of the Fathers in some points which you call matter of Faith What then Then saith your Iesuite the Authority of the Pope is to take place who being guided by other rules may propound what is the Sence Behold here the very ground of that which we call Popery which is devising and obtruding upon the Church of Christ new Articles of Faith unknowen for ought you know to Ancient Fathers And is it possible to finde an Vnanimity of Consent in an Individuall Vnity or rather a Nullity for what else is an ignorance what the Sence of the Fathers is whether so or so Next that it may appeare that this Article touching the Vnanimous Consent of Fathers is a meere Ostentation and gullery and no better than that Challenge made by the wise man of Athens of all the Ships that entred into the Road to be his owne as if you should say All the Fathers doe patronize your Romish Cause We shall give you one or two Examples among your Iesuites as patternes of the Disposition of others in neglecting sleighting and rejecting the more Generall Consent of Fathers in their Expositions of Scriptures One Instance may be given in your Cardinall who in his Commentaries upon the Psalmes dedicated to the then Pope professeth himselfe to have composed them Rather by his owne meditation than by reading of many bookes whereas he that will seeke for Vnanimous Consent of Fathers must have a perusall of them all In the second place hearken unto the Accents of your Iesuite Maldonate in his
witnessed first that Christ brake the bread into twelve parts Secondly that this Act of breaking of bread is such a principall Act that the whole Celebration of this Sacrament hath had from thence this Appellation given to it by the Apostles to be called Breaking of Bread Thirdly that the Church of Christ alwayes observed the same Ceremonie of breaking the bread aswell in the Greeke as in the Latine and consequently the Romane Church Fourthly that this Breaking of the Bread is a Symbolicall Ceremonie betokening not only the crucifying of Christ's bodie vpon the Crosse but also in the common participation thereof representing the vnion of the mysticall bodie of Christ which is his Church Communicating together of one loafe that as many graines in one loafe so all faithfull Communicants are vnited to one Head Christ as the Apostle teacheth 1. Cor. 10. thus The bread which we breake is it not the Communion of the bodie of Christ for we being many are one bread We adde as a most speciall Reason that this Breaking it in the distribution thereof is to apply the representation of the Bodie crucified and the Bloud shed to the heart and soule of every Communicant That as the Bread is given broken to vs so was Christ crucified for vs. Yet neverthelesse your Church contrarily professing that although Christ did breake bread yet BEHOLD she doth not so what is it else but to starch her face and insolently to confront Christ his Command by her bold Countermand as you now see in effect saying But doe not this A SECOND CHALLENGE AS for that truly called Catholike Church you your-selves doe grant vnto vs that by Christ his first Institution by the Practice of the Apostles by the ancient and universall Custome of the whole Church of Christ aswell Greeke as Latine the Ceremonie of Breaking bread was continually observed Which may be vnto vs more than a probable Argument that the now Church of Rome doth falsly usurpe the Title of CATHOLIKE for the better countenancing and authorizing of her novell Customes although neuer so repugnant to the will of Christ and Custome of the truly called Catholike Church In the next place to your Pretence of Not-Breaking because of Reverence We say Hem scilicet Quanti est sapere As if Christ and his Apostles could not fore-see that your Necessitie namely that by the Distributing of the Bread and by Breaking it some little crummes must cleaue sometimes vnto the beards of the Communicants or else fall to the ground Or as though this Alteration were to be called Reverence and not rather Arrogance in making your-selves more wise than Christ who instituted or then all the Apostles or Fathers of primitiue times who continued the same Breaking of bread Therefore this your Contempt of Breaking what is it but a peremptorie breach of Christ his Institution neuer regarding what the Scripture saith Obedience is better then Sacrifice For indeed true Reverence is the mother of Obedience else is it not Devotion but a meere derision of that Command of Christ Doe this The third Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse contradicting the sence of the next words of Christs Command viz. GAVE IT VNTO THEM SECT V. IT followeth in the Canon of Christ his Masse And hee gaue it vnto them euen to THEM to whom hee said Take yee eate yee By which pluralitie of persons is excluded all private Massing forasmuch as our High Priest Christ Iesus who in instituting and administring of this Sacrament would not be alone said hereof as of the other Circumstances Doe this The Contrarie Canon of the now Romane Masse This holy Synod saith your Councell of Trent doth approue and commend the Masses wherein the Priest doth Sacramentally communicate alone So your Church CHALLENGE BVt who shall iustifie that her Commendation of the alone-communicating of your Priest which we may iustly condemne by the liberall Confessions of your owne Doctors who grant first that this is not according to the Institution of Christ saying in the Plurall To them Secondly nor to the practice of the Apostles who were Communicating together in prayer and breaking of bread Act. 2. 46. that is say they aswell in the Eucharist as in Prayer Thirdly Nor to the ancient Custome of the whole Church both Greek and Romane Fourthly neither to Two Councels the one called Nanetense the other Papiense decreâ—ing against Priuate Masse Fiftly nor to the very names of the true Sacramentall Masse which by way of Excellencie was sometime called Synaxis signifying as S. Basil saith the Congregation of the faithfull somtimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Communion or Communicating and sometimes the Prayers vsed in euery holy Masse were called Collectae Collects because the people vsed to be collected to the celebration of the Masse it selfe Sixtly Nor to the very Canon of the now Romane Masse saying in the Plurall Sumpsimus we haue receiued And thereupon seuenthly repugnant to the Complaints of your owne men against your Abuse who calling the ioynt Communion instituted by Christ the Legitimate Masse doe wonder how your Priests sole Communicating euer crept into the Church and also deplore the contempt which your priuate Masse hath brought vpon your Church Hitherto see the Marginals from your owne Confessions Let vs adde the absurditie of the Commendation of your Councell of Trent in saying We commend the Priest's communicating alone A man may indeed possibly talke alone fret alone play the Traytor alone but this Communicating alone without any other is no better Grammar than to say that a man can conferre alone conspire alone contend or Couenant alone Caluine saith indeed of spirituall Eating which may be without the Sacrament as you also confesse that a faithfull man may feede alone of the Body and Blood of Christ But our dispute is of the Sacramentall Communicating thereof A SECOND CHALLENGE Against the former Prevarication condemning this Romane Custome by the Romane Masse it selfe VVEe make bold yet againe to condemne your Custome of Priuate Masse and consequently the Commendation giuen thereof by the Councel of Trent For by the Canon of your owne Masse wherein there are Interlocutorie speeches betweene Priest and People at the Celebration of this Sacrament the Priest saying Dominus vobiscum The Lord be with you and the People answering the Priest and saying And with thy Spirit your Cl. Espencaeus sometimes a Parisian Doctor one commended by Genebrard for his Treatise vpon this same Subiect of the Priuate Masse albeit he agreeth with the execrable Execration and Anathema of the Councell of Trent against them that hold Solitarie Masses to be vnlawfull yet after the expence of much paper to prove that some private Masse must needs haue anciently beene because Primitiuely Masse was celebrated almost in all Churches euery day and that S. Chrysostome did complaine of the absence of the people yet comming to determine of the poynt This Reason
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
place in all questions with the wordes of Christ his Institution but seeing that you can alleage nothing for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in this Sacrament but onely a literall Exposition of Christ's words This is my Body which by Scriptures Fathers your owne Principles and by unanswerable Reasons hath beene proved to be most grosly false wee shall not need to insist further upon that only we shall but put you in minde of Saint Paul's words in teaching the use and end of Christ his Institution of this Sacrament to wit The shewing of Christ's death untill his comming againe meaning corporally at the last day Which word VNTILL being spoken of a last day doth exclude your comming againe of Christ in his Corporall Presence every day for the Apostles word is absolutely spoken of his Bodily Comming and not of the manner thereof albeit other Scripture teacheth that his Comming must be in all glorious Visibility We goe on In the Eucharist saith your Councell of Trent is contained truly really and substantially the Body and blood of Christ and they account him Accursed whosoever shall not beleeve this By all which is signified a Corporall manner of presence excepting onely Relation to place which we say is in many respects impossible as we shall prove but first we are to remove a Mil-stone for so you esteeme an Obiection which you cast in our way of Demonstration of a Corporall Presence de facto from as you say Miracles manifesting the same The pretended principall Romish Demonstration of a Corporall Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in this Sacrament taken from pretended Miraculous Apparitions of visible Flesh and Blood revealed to the World SECT II. TRue Miracles we shall hold as God's Seales of Divine Truth if therefore you shall alleage any such for proofe of a Corporall Presence see they be true else shall wee iudge them not to be God's Seales but the Deuils Counterfaits Your Bozius one of the number of the Congregation of the Oratory in Rome professedly studied in historicall learning and appointed to extract out of all Authors whatsoever may make for defence of all Romish Causes after his diligent search into all ancient Records as it were into the Ware-houses of all â—orts of stuffes having collected a packet of Apparances useth his best Eloquence to set forth his merchandize to sale telling us by the way of Preface that he will report onely such Stories whereby it is made Evident by God himselfe that the Body of Christ is in the Eucharist even by the Testimony of mens eyes that have seene it A thing saith hee most miraculous which every one that hath eyes may yet see So he even as Coccius before him in every particular and after both Master Brereley thus prefacing Miracles sent by God confirme the same wherin at the breaking of the Hoast sundry times great copie of blood issued out as is testified by many Writers We are now attentive to the Relation of your Oratour and Others and afterwards as you shall perceive to give that credit unto them which the cause it selfe shall require We will take their Relations according to the order of Times 1. Anno CCCC Simon Metaphrastes saith Bozius telleth in the dayes of Honorius the Emperour for the confirmation of the faith of an Eremite that the Sacrament being propounded presently Infans visus est a living Infant was seene by three old men on the Altar and whilst the Priest divided the Bread an Angell was seene and seemed to divide and cut in peeces the flesh of the Child and so Senex carnis cruentae apertè particeps factus est resipiscit The old Heremite being made partaker evidently of the Bloody flesh repented 2. Anno 600. A woman as Bozius reporteth and with him Coccius had laughed to heare the Bread called the Body of Christ which she her selfe had made with her owne hands and was observed to laugh by Pope Gregory who thereupon fell to prayer with the people and by and by looking aside upon the Hoast behold the formes of Bread were vanished and he saw Veram carnem true flesh Then the people wondred the woman repented and the Hoast at the prayer of the Priest in pristinam formam reversa est Returned into its owne shape againe 3. Anno 800. A certaine Priest called Phlegis being desirous to see Christ in the Eucharist not that hee doubted thereof but that hee might receive some heavenly comfort Divinitùs from God after prayers for this purpose he saw after Consecration Puerum Iesum The Child Iesus in the Hoast amplexatus est eum post multam deosculationem c. he embraced him and after much kissing of him he desired to receive the Sacrament and the Vision vanished and he received it So he These two last are also alleaged by your Cardinall Bellarmine 4. Not many yeares after a fourth in Italy A Priest saying Masse and finding Veram carnem super Altare verumque sanguinem in Calice True flesh upon the Altar and true Blood in the Câ—p fearing to receive it forthwith reported it to the Bishop demanding what he should doe The Bishop consulteth with the other Bishops his Brethren by whose common consent the Priest taking the Cup and the flesh shut them up in the middest of the Altar Haec pro divinissimis miraculis summa cum reverentia servanda decrevit The Bishop decreed that these should be perpetually reserved and kept as most divine Reliques 5. Anno 1050. Cardinall Baronius will needs have you know that Berengarius was confirmed by a like miracle from God as the Bishop of Amalphi saith he witnesseth to Pope Stephen upon his oath That when hee was doubting of the truth of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament at the breaking of the Hoast Rubra perfecta caro inter eius manus apparuit it a ut digitos eius â—râ—entaret Red and perfect flesh appeared betwixt his hands insomuch that his hands were bloodied therewith 6. Anno 1192. Behold an History saith your Cardinall Baronius most worthy of beliefe you must beleeve it At Thuring after that the Priest had given the Sacrament to a yong Girle then sicke and had washed his fingers in a pot of water she observing it very diligently willed them that were by to vncover the water for I saw said shee a piece of the Eucharist fall out of the hands of the Priest into it which being brought unto her to drinke all the water was turned into Blood and the piece of the Hoast albeit no bigger than a mans finger was turned In sanguineam carnem into a bloody flesh All that see it are in horrour the Priest himselfe suspecting his owne negligence feareth and wisheth that it may be burned After was this made knowne and divulged to the Bishop of Mentz This Archbishop commandeth his Clergy to attend upon this whilst it should be carried in publike
hand of the Capernaites old Heretickes as all know even because they are set downe in Scripture to have perverted the sence of Christ his words of Eating his flesh and thereupon to have departed from Christ Iohn 6. Your Romish particular manner of Corporall Receiving of the Body of Christ in this Sacrament is three-fold 1. Orall in the Mouth 2. Gutturall in the Throat and permit vs this word 3. Ventricall in the Belly of the Communicant That the Romish Orall manner of Receiving Corporally the Body of Christ with the mouth is Capernaticall SECT I. CHewing the Sacrament with the Teeth was the forme of Eating at the time of Christ his Institution as is proved by your owne Confession in granting that the vnleavened bread which Christ used was glutinosus that is gluish clammie and such as was to be cut with a knife But that the same manner of Eating by Chewing was altered in the Apostolicall or Primitive times is not read of by any Canon yea or yet admonition of any Father in the Church whether Greek or Latine That also Chewing continued in the Romish Church til a thousand and fiftie yeares after Christ is not obscurely implyed in the former tenour of the Recantation of Berengarius prescribed by the same Church which was to eat as you have heard By tearing it with the teeth And lastly that this hath since continued the ordinary custome of the same Church is as evident by your Cardinall Alan and Canus who have defended the manner of eating by Tearing Nor was Swallowing prescribed by any untill that the queazie Stomacke of your Iesuites not enduring Chewing perswaded the contrarie Which kinds of Eating whether by Chewing or Swallowing of Christ's flesh being both Orall none can deny to have beene the opinion of the Capernaites First of not Chewing and then of Swallowing in the VI. Chapter following That the Corporall and Orall Eating of Christ's flesh is a Capernaiticall Heresie is proved by the Doctrine of Ancient Fathers SECT II. SOmetime doe Ancient Fathers point out the Errour of the Capernaites set downe Ioh. 6. concerning their false interpreting the words of Christ when hee speaketh of Eating his flesh which they understood literally But this literall sence Origen calleth a killing letter that is a pernitious interpretation even as of that other Scripture He that hath not a sword let him buy one c. but this latter is altogether figurative as you know and hath a spirituall understanding therefore the former is figurative also Athanasius confuting the Capernaiticall conceit of Corporall eating of Christ's flesh will have us to observe that Christ after hee spake of his flesh did forthwith make mention of his Ascension into Heaven but why That Christ might thereby draw their bodily thoughts from the bodily sence namely of eating it corporally upon earth which is your Romish sence Tertullian likewise giveth the Reason of Christ's saying It is the spirit which quickeneth because the Capernaites so understood the wordes of Christ's speech of Eating his flesh As if saith Tertullian Christ had truly determined to give his flesh to be eaten Therefore it was their Errour to dreame of a truly corporall eating Augustine out of the â—ixt of Iohn bringeth in Christ expounding his owne meaning of eating his flesh and saying You are not to eate this flesh which you see I have commended unto you a Sacrament which being spiritually understood shall revive you Plainly denying it to be Christs Body which is eaten Orally and then affirming it to be the Sacrament of his Body and as plainly calling the manner of Corporall Eating a Pressing of bread with the teeth We say Bread not the Body of Christ For when he commeth to our Eating of Christ's flesh he exempteth the corporall Instruments and requireth only the spirituall saying Why preparest thou thy Tooth It is then no corporall Eating and hee addeth Beleeve and thou hast eaten Saint Augustine goeth on and knowing that corporall Eating of any thing doth inferre a Chewing by dividing the thing eaten into parts as your owne Iesuite hath confessed lest we should understand this properly he teacheth us to say Christ is not divided into parts Contrarily when we speake Sacramentally that is figuratively and improperly hee will have us to grant that Christ his flesh is divided in this Sacrament but remayneth whole in Heaven Say now will you say that Christ's Body is Divided by your eating the Eucharist in a literall sence your owne Iesuits have abhorred to thinke so And dare you not say that in Eating this Sacrament you doe Divide Christs Body in a literall sence then are you to abhorre your Romish literall Exposition of Christ's speech which cannot but necessarily inferre a proper Dividing of the flesh of Christ Lastly doe but call to remembrance Saint Augustines Observation iust the same with the now-cited Testimonie of Athanasius to wit Christ's mention of his Ascension in his Bodie from earth lest that they might conceive of a Carnall Eating of his Flesh and these premises will fully manifest that Saint Augustines Faith was farre differing from the now Romish as Heaven is distant from Earth Wee still stand unto Christ's Qualification of his owne speech when hee condemned all Carnall Sence of Eating his flesh saying thereof The flesh profiteth nothing c. For conclusion of this point you may take unto you the commandement of Saint Chrysostome as followeth Did not Christ therefore speake of his flesh farre be it from us saith he so to thinke for how shall that flesh not profit without which none can have life but in saying The flesh profiteth nothing is meant the carnall understanding of the words of Christ And that you may know how absolutely he abandoneth all carnall understanding of Christ's words of Eating his flesh hee saith They have no fleshly or naturall Consequence at all So he Ergo say we to the Confutation of your Romish beliefe no corporall touch of Christ in your mouthes no Corporall eating with your Teeth no Corporall swallowing downe your Throate how much lesse any Corporall mixture in your bellies or guts CHALLENGE VVHether therefore the Capernaites thought to eate Christ his flesh raw or rosted torne or whole dead or alive seeing that every Corporall eating thereof properly taken is by the Fathers held as Carnall and Capernaiticall it cannot be that the Romish manner of Eating should accord in the iudgement of Antiquity with the doctrine of Christ Notwithstanding you cite us to appeare before the Tribunall of Antiquity by obiecting counter-Testimonies of ancient Fathers and we are as willing to give you the Answering The extreme Vnconscionablenesse of Romish Disputers in wresting the figurative Phrases of Ancient Fathers to their Literall and Corporall manner of Receiving the Body of Christ SECT III. IT is a miserable thing to see how your Authours delude their Readers by obtruding upon them the Sentences of Fathers in
which are displayed by your owne Authours Noting in them the very fooleries of the Romane Pagans by your fond Pageants where Priests play their parts in representing the persons of Saints others of Queenes accompanied with Beares and Apes and many like profane and sportfull Inuentions and other Abuses which occasioned some of your owne more devout Professors to wish that this your Custome were abrogated Thinking that it may be omitted with profit to the Church both because it is but an Innovation and also for that it serveth most-what for ostentation and pompe rather than pious Devotion So they Lastly lest you may obiect as else where that a Negative Argument as this because Christ did not institute this Custome therefore it may not be allowed is of no effect we adde that the Argument negative if in any thing then must it prevaile in condemning that Practice which maintaineth any new End differing from that which was ordained by Christ Which made Origen and Cyprian argue Negatively in this Case the one saying Christ reserved it not till to-morrow and the other This bread is received and not reserved or put into a Boxe Which Conclusion we may hold in condemning of your publike Carrying of the Hoast in the streets and Market-places to the end only that it may be Adored aswell as of latter times your Pope Pius Quartus which your Congregation of Cardinals report did forbid a new-upstart Custome of Carrying the Sacrament to sicke people that they might adore it when as they were not able to eate it All these Premises doe inferre that your Custome of Circumgestation of the Sacrament in publike Procession onely for Adoration cannot justly be called Laudable except you meane thereby to have it termed a Laudable Noveltie and a Laudable profanation and Transgression against the Institution of Christ as now from your owne Confessions hath beene plainly evicted and as will be further manifested when wee are to speake of your Idolatrous Infatuation it selfe The Ninth Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse contradicting the Sence of the words following IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE SECT XI REmembrance is an act of Vnderstanding and therefore sheweth that Christ ordained the use of this Sacrament only for persons of Discretion and Vnderstanding saying DOE THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE The contrarie Canon of the Romane Masse in times past Your Iesuite Maldonate will be our Relater ingenuously confessing that in the dayes of Saint Augustine and Pope Innocent the first this opinion was of force in your Church For six hundred yeares together viz. that the Administration of the Eucharist is necessary for Infants Which opinion saith hee is now reiected by the Councell of Trent Determining that the Eucharist is not only not necessarie for Infants but also that is Indecent to give it unto them So he Of this more in the Challenge CHALLENGE IS not now this your Churches Reiecting of her former Practice a Confession that she hath a long time erred in Transgressing of the Institution of Christ How then shall your Trent-Fathers free your fore-father Pope Innocent and your former Romane Church from this taxation This they labour to doe but alas their miserie by collusion and cunning for the same Synod of Trent resolveth the point thus The holy Synod say they teacheth that Children being void of the use of Reason are not necessarily bound to the Sacramentall receiving of the Eucharist This wee call a collusion for by the same Reason wherewith they argue that Children are not necessarily bound to receive the Eucharist because they want reason they should have concluded that Therefore the Church is and was necessarily bound not to administer the Eucharist to Infants even because they wanted Reason Which the Councell doubtlesse knew but was desirous thus to cover her owne shame touching her former superstitious practice of Giving this Sacrament vnto Infants In excuse whereof your Councell of Trent adioyneth that the Church of Rome in those dayes was not condemnable but why Because saith your Councell Truly and without Controversie wee ought to beleeve that they did not give the Eucharist unto Infants as thinking it necessary to Salvation Which Answere your owne Doctors will prove to be a bold and a notorious vntruth because as your Iesuite sheweth They then beleeved that Infants baptized could not be saved except they should participate of the Eucharist taking their Argument from that Scripture of Iohn 6. Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne c. and therfore held they it necessarie to the salvation of Infants That this was the beleefe of Pope Innocent and of the Church of Rome vnder him your Parisian Doctor Espencaeus also proveth at large out of the expresse writings of Pope Innocent Yea and your greatly approved Binius in his Volumes of the Councels dedicated to Pope Paul the fift explaineth the same so exactly See the Marginall Citation that it will permit no Euasion And so much the rather because that which the Tridentine Fathers alledge for cause of Alteration doth confirme this unto us It is vndocent say they to give the Eucharist unto Infants This may perswade vs that Innocent held it necessary els would he not haue practized and patronized a thing so vtterly vndecent Wee dispute therefore If the Church of Rome in the dayes of Pope Innocent the first held it a doctrine of faith in the behalfe of Infants that they ought to receiue the Sacrament of the Eucharist the same Church of Rome in her Councell of Trent whose Decrees by the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth are all held to be beleeued vpon necessity of Salvation did decree contrarily that the participation of the Eucharist is not necessary no nor yet decent for Infants Say now did the Church of Rome not erre in the dayes of Pope Innocent then is she now in an error Or doth shee not now erre herein then did she formerly erre and consequently may erre hereafter in determinining a matter to be Necessary to Salvation which in it selfe is Superfluous and Vndecent Thus of the contrary custome of the Church of Rome in elder times The new contrary Opinion concerning the Romane Masse at this day Euen at this day also your Iesuite will haue vs to vnderstand the meaning of your Church to be that Infants are capable of the Sacrament of the Eucharist CHALLENGE VVHereunto wee oppose the Authority of the Councell of Carthage and of that which you call the Councell of Laterane which denyed as you know that the Eucharist should be delivered vnto Infants accounting them vncapable of divine and spirituall feeding without which say they the corporall profiteth nothing But we also summon against the â—ormer Assertion eight of your ancient Schoolemen who vpon the same Reasons made the like Conclusion with vs. And wee further as it were arresting you in the Kings name produce against you Christ his writ the Sacred Scripture
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