Explaining of themselves SECT V. SAint Ambrose setting forth two kinde of Offerings of Christ here on earth and above in Heaven he saith that Christ here is offered as one suffering and above he himselfe Offereth himselfe an Advocate with the Father for us And this our offering of him he calleth but an Image and that above he calleth the Truth Clearly shewing that we have in our Offering Christ's Body only as it is Crucified which is the Object of our Commemoration But the same Body as it is now the personall subject of a present Time and Place they behold it in Heaven even the same Body which was once offered on the Crosse by his Passion now offered up by himselfe to God by Presentation in Heaven here in the Church only by our Representation Sacramentally on earth Saint Augustine dealeth as plainly with us where distinguishing three States of Offerings up to Christ he saith first that under the Law Christ was promised In the similitude of their Sacrifices meaning his bloody death was prefigured by those bloody Sacrifices Secondly in the offering at his Passion he was Delivered up in truth or proper Sacrifice this was on the Crosse And thirdly after his Ascension The memory of Him is celebrated by a Sacrament or Sacramentall Representation So he For although the Sacrifices of the Iewes were true Sacrifices yet were they not truly the Sacrificings of Christ Note you this Assertion Againe speaking of his owne Time when the Sacrament of the Eucharist was daily celebrated he saith That Christ was once sacrified namely upon the Crosse and Is now daily sacrificed in the Sacrament nor shall he lie saith he that saith Christ is sacrificed So he No holy Augustine shall he not lye who saith that Christ as the personall Subject of this Sacrament is a proper Sacrifice in the literall Sense for whether Proper or Vnproper are the two Seales of this Controversie Now interpose your Catholike Resolution Say first why is it called a Sacrament tell us If Sacraments had not a similitude of things which they represent they were no Sacraments from which similitude they have their Appellation and name of the things to wit The Sacrament of the Body of Christ is called his Body as Baptisme is called a Buriall Be so good as to explaine this by another which may illuminate even a man in the point of Sacrifice also although otherwise blinded with prejudice As when the day of Christ's Passion faith he being to morrow or the day of his Resurrection about to be the next day but one we use to say of the former To morrow is Christ's Passion and of the other when it commeth it is Christ's Resurrection yet will none be so absurd as to say we lye in so saying because we speake it by way of Similitude even so when we say this is sacrificed c. So Saint Augustine Who now seeth not that as the Buriall of Christ is not the Subject matter of Baptisme but only the Representative Object thereof and as Good Fryday and Easter-day are not properly the daies of Christ his Passion or Resurrection but Anniversary and Represensative or Commemorative Resemblances of them So this Sacrifice is a Similitude of the Sacrifice of Christ's on the Crosse and not materially the same We omit Testimonies of other Fathers which are dispersed in this and other Sections Although this one Explanation might satisfie yet shall we adjoyne others which may satiate even the greediest Appetite The fourth Demonstration from the Fathers Explanation of their meaning by a kinde of Correction SECT VI. ANcient Fathers in good number call that which is represented in the Eucharist and which we are said to offer The same Host not many the same Oblation no other the same Sacrifice and none but it but they adde by a Figure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a Correction of the excesse of their speech or rather for Caution-sake least their Readers might conceive of the same Sacrifice herein as properly presâ—nt saying in this manner We offer the same Sacrifice or Rather the Remembrance thereof alluding sometime expresly to the Institution of Christ Doe this in remembrance of me The Fathers are these viz. Chrysostome Theophylact Thodoret Ambrose Eusebius and Primasius Your only Answer is that their Exception here used was not to note that it is not the same Body of Christ here Corporally present which was offered upon the Crosse but that it is not offered in the same manner by effusion of Blood as that was which is indeed a Part but not the whole Truth For survay the Marginals and then tell us If that your Sacrifice were the same Body of Christ Corporally present why should Theophylact apply hâ—s qualification not to the manner whether Bloody or Vnbloody but to the person of Christ saying We offer the same Christ who was once offered or rather a Memoriall of his Oblation And Theodoret applying it directly to the thing Non aliud We offer not another Sacrifice but a memoriall thereof why Eusebius Wee offer a Memoriall in stead of a Sacrifice plainly notifying unto tis that they meant the same very Body which was the Subject of the Sacrifice on the Crosse to be the now proper Object of our Remembrance in the Eucharist but not the Subject therein Which agreeth with that which in the former Section was said by Ambrose Our offering up of Christ in an Image and Augustine his celebrating of this Sacrament of Remembrance Semblably as Hierome speakes of the Priest who is said to take the Person of Christ in this Sacrament so that He saith Hierome be a a true Priest or rather an Imitator of him But a Priest and an Imitator is not Identically the same that is represented Master Breeley is not Christ Lastly The same said Primasius in all places which was borne of the Virgin and not now great and now lesse So he But have we not heard you number your many Hoasts on one Altar at one Time and yet the Fathers say We offer not many but the same which must needs be the same one as Object else shew us where ever any Father denied but that upon divers Altars were divers Breads or that but according to their outward Demensions they were now greater now lesse which no way agreeth with the Body of Christ as hath beene proved in discussing the Canon of the Councell of Nice The fifth Demonstration Because the Body and Blood of Christ as they are pretended by the Romish Church to be in this Sacrament cannot be the Representative Sacrifice spoken of by Ancient Fathers against your vaine Instance in a Stage-play SECT VII THat the Subject matter of this Sacrament by you called the same Sacrifice which Christ offered up upon the Crosse ought to be Representative and fit to resemble the same Sacrifice of his Passion is a matter unquestionable among all In which respect the
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
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
now happen unto him but sine laesione that is without any hurt Wee answer that if hee should suffer nothing in his humanity passively to the Laesio corporis that is hurt of the Body yet should there be thereby in the opinion of men laesio dignitatis that is a lessening and obscuring of that his dignity which is set forth in Scripture and which our Article of faith concerning his Bodily sitting at the Right hand of God in Heaven teacheth us to be in all Celestiall glory and Maiestie This your Aquinas well saw when in regard of Indignity he iudged it An hainous wickednesse for any to thinke Christ should be inclosed in a Boxe appearing in his proper forme And what greater difference can it be for a Body to be Boxed under another forme more than when that one and the same Person is imprisoned whether open faced or covered whether in the day or in the night it mattereth not much for still the same person is shut up in Prison Againe if that these Circumstances now spoken of were not Arguments of Indignity why doe your Iesuites in a point of Opinion deny that Christ's Body is Transubstantiated into the flesh of the Communicant because of the Indignity against his Maiestie Come we to the point of Practice Let this be our lesson when there is Reverence in the use of a thing then there may be Irreverence and Indignity in the abuse thereof But your Church hath provided that the Priests be shaven and the Laicks abstaine from the Cup in a pretence of Reverence The first least some part of the Hoast which you beleeve to be the body of Christ should hang on the Priest's Beard the second least any whit of Christs Blood in the Cup should be split But how much more indignity must it needs be to be devoured of Mice Wormes and sometimes as your owne stories have related kept close in a Dunghill One word more If these seeme not sufficiently indigne because there is not Laesio corporis Hurt of the Body this being your onely Evasion what will you say of your framing a Christ unto your selves who as he is in this Sacrament Is you say without power of motion of sense and of understanding Why my Masters can there be Lamenesse Blindnesse Deafenesse and Impotencie it selfe without Hurt of the same partie so maymed c. This is worse than your dirty imagination of placing him in a Dunghill THE GENERALL CHALLENGE THese above specified Sixe Contradictions so plainly and plentifully proved by such forceable Arguments as the light of Divine Scripture hath authorized the profession of Primitive Fathers testified Confessions of Romish Doctors acknowledged and the Principles of your owne Romish learning in most points confirmed your Abrenunciation of your so many Grosse Errours may be as necessary as your persisting therein will be damnable Before we can end we are to consult with the Fathers of the Councell of Nice especially seeing that aswell Romanists as Protestants will be knowne to appeale to that Councell CHAP. X. Of the Canon of the Councell of Nice obiected for proofe of a Corporall Prescnce of Christ in the Eucharist SECT I. THis as it is delivered by your Cardinall taken out as he saith of the Vatican Library standeth thus Let us not here in this divine Table be in humblenesse intent unto the Bread and Cup which is set before us but lifting up our minds let us understand by faith the Lambe of God set upon that Table The Lambe of God which taketh away the sinnes of the World offered unbloodily of the Priest And we receiving truly his Body and Blood let us thinke these to be the Symbols of our Resurrection For this Cause doe we receive not much but little that wee may understand this is not to satisfie but to sanctifie So the Canon The Generall approbation of this Canon by Both sides SECT II. SCarce is there any one Romish Author handling this Controversie who doth not fasten upon this Canon of Nice for the countenancing of your Romish Masse Contrarily Protestants as they are set downe by our Zanchy and your Bellarmine in great numbers among whom are Luther and Calvin with ioynt consent approve of this Canon one of them Bucer by name subscribing unto it with his owne hand in these words So I thinke in the Lord and I wish to appeare in this minde before the Tribunall Seat of God So they The right Explication of this Canon will be worthy our paines The state of the Difference concerning this Canon SECT III. THis as is propounded by your Cardinall standeth thus All saith he by the Lambe understand Christ as he is distinguished from the Symbols and Signes upon the Altar Next But the Protestants thinke saith he that the Councell admonisheth not to seeke Christ on the Altar but to ascend up unto him in Heaven by faith as sitting at the right hand of God But we all say saith he that the Councell would have us to attend unto the holy Table meaning the Altar below yet so that we see in it not so much the outward Symbols and Signes as that which lyeth hid under them viz. The Body and Blood of Christ So hee The difference then betweene him and us is no lesse than the distance betweene Aloft and Vnder that is betweene Heaven above and Earth below Let us set forward in our progresse but with easie and even paces to the end you may better understand the strength of our Proofes and rottennesse of your Obiections That the Nicene Councell is marvellously preiudiciall to your Romish Defence proved by five Observations Three here SECT IV. FIve points are chiefly observable in this Canon First is the nomination of Bread Secondly the mention of two Tables Thirdly the admonition to lift up our minds Fourthly the expression of the Reason thereof Fiftly the Confirmation of the same Reason First That which the Councell would that men be not too intent unto they call Bread after Consecration for the Errour which they would have avoyded was either the too much abasing of this Sacrament according to your Cardinals Glosse and then was it after Consecration because they needed not to have perswaded any to have too meane an estimation of the Bread unconsecrated which you your selves hold to be a common and prophane thing or else the Errour must have beene as indeed it was too high a valuation of the outward Element of Bread which must needs be so because it was consecrated and notwithstanding it being so consecrated in the Canon it is called Bread which your Fathers of the Councell of Trent would not have endured especially seeing that we find that your Latine Church was offended with the late Greeke Church for calling the parts of the Eucharist by the termes of Bread and Wine after the pronunciation of these words This is my Body by you called the words of Consecration Besides they so call them Bread
whereof more hereafter In the Interim we shall desire each one of you to hearken to the Exhortation of your owne Waldensis saying ATTEND and obserue the Masse OF CHRIST Of the CANON OF CHRIST his MASSE and at what wordes it beginneth SECT IV. CHrist his Masse by your owne confession beginneth at these words of the Gospell concerning Christ's Institution of the Eucharist Math. 26. Luc. 22. And Iesus tooke bread c. which also we doe as absolutely professe What Circumstances by ioynt consent on both sides are to bee exempted out of this Canon of Christ his Masse or the wordes of his Institution It is no lesse Christian wisedome and Charitie to cut off vnnecessary Controversies than it is a serpentine malice to engender them and therefore we exempt those points which are not included within this Canon of Christ beginning at these wordes And Iesus tooke bread c. To know that all other circumstances which at the Institution of Christ his Supper fell out accidentally or but occasionally because of the then Iewish Passeouer which Christ was at that time to finish or else by reason of the custome of Iudaea doe not come within this our dispute touching Christ his Masse whether it be that they concerne Place for it was instituted in a priuate house or Time which was at night or Sexe which were onely men or Gesture which was a kind of lying downe or Vesture which was wee know not what no nor yet whether the Bread were vnleauened or the Wine mixed with water two poynts which as you know Protestants and your selues giant not to be of the essence of the Sacrament but in their owne nature Indifferent and onely so farre to bee observed as the Church wherein the Christian Communicants are shall for Order and Decencie-sake prescribe the use thereof The Points contained within the Canon of Christ his Masse and appertaining to our present Controuersie are of two kindes viz. 1. Practicall 2. Doctrinall SECT V. PRacticall or Active is that part of the Canon which concerneth Administration Participation and Receiuing of the holy Sacrament according to this Tenor Math. 26. 26. And Iesus tooke Bread and blessed it and brake it and gaue it to his Disciples and said Take eate c. And Luc. 22. 19 20. Doe this in remembrance of mee Likewise also after Supper be tooke the Cup and gaue thankes and gaue it to them saying Drinke yee all of this But the points which are especially to bee called Doctrinall are implied in these words of the Euangelists This is my Bodie And This is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for you and for many for remission of sinnes We begin with the Practicall CHAP. II. That all the proper Active and Practicall points to wit of Blessing Saying Giving Taking c. are strictly commanded by Christ in these words DOE THIS Luc. 22. Matth. 26. 1. Cor. 11. SECT I. THere are but two outward materiall parts of this Sacrament the one concerning the element of Bread the other touching the Cup. The Acts concerning both whether in Administring or Participating thereof are charged by Christ his Canon vpon the Church Catholike vnto the ends of the World The Tenour of his Precept or command for the first part is Doe this and concerning the other likewise saying 1. Cor. 11. 25. This doe yee as often c. Whereof your owne Doctors aswell Iesuites as thers haue rightly determined with a large consent that the wordes DOE THIS haue relation to all the aforesaid Acts euen according to the iâ—dgement of ancient Fathers excepting only the Time of the Celebration which was at Supper and which together with us you say were put in not for example but only by occasion of the Passeouer then commanded to be observed Thus you CHALLENGE THis Command of Christ being thus directly and copiously acknowledged by the best Diuines in the Romane Church must needs challenge on both sides an answerable performance Vpon examination whereof it will appeare vnto euery Conscience of man which Professors namely whether Protestants or Romanists are the true and Catholike Executors and Obseruers of the last will and Testament of our Testator Iesus because that Church must necessarily bee esteemed the more loyall and legitimate Spouse of Christ which doth more precisely obey the Command of the celestiall Bride-groome Wee to this purpose apply our selues to our busines by enquiring what are the Actiue Particulars which Christ hath giuen in charge vnto his Church by these his expresse wordes Doe this All which wee are to discouer and discusse from point to point TEN TRANSGRESSIONS And Preuarications against the Command of Christ DOE THIS practised by the Church of Rome at this day in her Romane Masse SECT II. VVEe list not to quarrell with your Church for lighter matters albeit your owne Cassander forbeareth not to complaine that your Bread is of such extreame thinnesse and lightnesse that it may seeme vnworthy the name of Bread Whereas Christ vsed Solid and tough bread Glutinosus saith your Iesuit which was to be broken with hands or cut with knife Neuerthelesse because there is in yours the substance of Bread therefore we will not contend about Accidents and shadowes but wee insist vpon the words of his Institution The first Transgression of the now Church of Rome in contradicting Christ his Canon is collected out of these words AND HE BLESSED IT which concerne the Consecration of this Sacrament SECT III. FIrst of the Bread the Text saith He blessed it next of the Cup it is said When he had giuen thanks Which words in your owne iudgements are all one as if it should be said Hee blessed it with giuing of thankes By the which word Blessing he doth imply a Consecration of this Sacrament So you The contrary Canon of the now Romane Masse wherein shee in her Exposition hath changed Christ's manner of Consecration The Canon of the Romish Masse attributeth the property and power of Consecration of this Sacrament only vnto the repetition of these words of Christ This is my body and This my blood c. and that from the iudgement as Some say of your Councell of Florence and Trent Moreouer you also alleage for this purpose your publique Catechisme and Romane Missall both which were authorized by the Councell of Trent and command of Pius Quintus then Pope See the Marginals Whereupon it is that you vse to attribute such efficacie to the very words pronounced with a Priestly intention as to change all the Bread in the Bakers shop and wine in the Vintners Cellar into the body and blood of Christ As your Summa Angelica speaketh more largely concerning the Bread CHALLENGE BVt Christopherus your own Arch-bishop of Caesarea in his Booke dedicated to Pope Sixtus Quintus and written professedly vpon this Subject commeth in compassed about with a clowd of witnesses and Reasons to proue that the Consecration
vsed by our Sauiour was performed by that his Blessing by Prayer which preceded the pronouncing of those words Hoc est corpus meum This is my bodie c. To this purpose hee is bold to averre that Thomas Aquinas and all Catholikes before Caietane have confessed that Christ did consecrate in that his Benedixit that is He blessed it And that Saint Iames and Dionyse the Areopagite did not Consecrate only in the other words but by Prayer Then he assureth vs that the Greeke Churches maintained that Consecration consisteth in Benediction by Prayer and not in the only repetition of the words afore-said After this hee produceth your subtilest Schooleman Scotus accompanied with divers others Who Derided those that attributed such a supernaturall vertue to the other forme of words After steppeth in your Lindan who avoucheth Iustin one of the ancientest of Fathers as Denying that the Apostles consecrated the Eucharist in those words Hoc est c. and affirming that Consecration could not be without Prayer Be you but pleased to peruse the Marginals and you shall further find alleadged the Testimonies of Pope Gregorie Hierome Ambrose Bernard and to ascend higher the Liturgies of Clement Basil Chrysostome and of the Romane Church it selfe in gain-saying of the Consecration by the only words of Institution as you pretend And in the end he draweth in two Popes contradicting one the other in this point and hath no other meanes to stint their iarre but whereas the authoritie of both is equall to thinke it iust to yeild rather to the better learned of them both Whosoever requireth more may be satisfied by reading of the Booke itselfe It will not suffice to say that you also vse Prayer in the Romish Liturgie for the question is not meerely of Praying but wherein the forme of Benediction and Consecration properly doth consist Now none can say that he consecrateth by that Prayer which he belieueth is not ordained for Consecration We may furthermore take hold by the way of the Testification of Mr. Brereley a Romish Priest who out of Basil and Chrysostome calling one part Calix benedictione sacratus alloweth Benediction to haue beene the Consecration thereof All this Armie of Witnesses were no better than Meteors or imaginarie figures of battailes in the aire if that the Answere of Bellarmine may goe for warrant to wit that the only Pronuntiation of these words Hoc est corpus meum imply in them as hee saith an Invocation or Prayer Which words as any man may perceiue Christ spake not supplicatorily vnto God but declaratiuely vnto his Apostles accordingly as the Text speaketh Hee said unto them as is also well observed by your fore-said Arch-bishop of Caesarea out of Saint Hierome But none of you we presume will dare to say that Christ did Invocate his Disciples These words therefore are of Declaration and not of Invocation Which now Romish Doctrine of Consecrating by reciting these words This is my bodie c. your Divines of Colen haue iudged to be a Fierce madnesse as being repugnant both to the Easterne and Westerne Churches But we haue heard divers Westerne Authours speake giue leave to an Easterne Archbishop to deliuer his minde No Apostle or Doctor is knowne to affirme saith hee those sole words of Christ to haue beene sufficient for Consecration So he three hundred yeares since satisfying also the Testimonie of Chrysostome obiected to the contrarie As miserable and more intolerable is the Answere of others who said that the Evangelists haue not observed the right order of Christ his actions as if hee had first said This is my bodie by way of Consecration and after commanded them to Take and eat Which Answere your owne Iesuite hath branded with the note of Falsitie yea so false that as it is further avouched all ancient Liturgies aswell Greeke as Latine constantly held that in the order of the tenour of Christ his Institution it was first said Takâ— yee before that he said This is my Bodie Lastly your other lurking-hole is as shameful as the former where when the iudgement of Antiquitie is obiected against you requiring that Consecration be done directly by Prayer vnto God you answere that some Fathers did use such speeches in their Sermons to the people but in their secret instraction of Priests did teach otherwise Which Answere besides the falsitie thereof Wee take to be no better than a reproach against Antiquitie and all one as to say that those venerable Witnesses of Truth would professe one thing in the Cellar and proclaime the contrarie on the house-top It were to be wished that when you frame your Answeres to direct other men's Consciences you would first satisfie your owne especially being occupied in soule's-businesses We conclude Seeing that Forme as all learning teacheth giveth being vnto all things therefore your Church albeit shee vse Prayer yet erring in her iudgement concerning the perfect manner and Forme of Consecration of this Sacrament how shall shee be credited in the Materialls wherein she will be found aswell as in this to haue Transgressed the same Iniunction of Christ DOE THIS Neuerthelesse this our Conclusion is not so bee interpreted as hearken Mr. Brereley to exclude out of the words of this Celebration the Repetition and pronunciation of these words This is my Bodie and This is my Bloud of the new Testament Farre be this from vs because wee hold them to be essentially belonging to the Narration of the Institution of Christ and are vsed in the Liturgie of our Church for although they be not words of Blessing and Consecration because not of Petition but of Repetition yet are they Words of Direction and withall Significations and Testifications of the mysticall effects thereof Your Obiection out of the Fathers is answered The second Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse is in their Contradicting the sence of the next words of Institution HE BRAKE IT SECT IV. HE brake it So all the Evangelists doe relate Which Act of Christ plainly noteth that hee Brake the Bread for distributing of the same vnto his Disciples And his Command is manifest in saying as well in behalfe of this as of the rest Doe this Your Priest indeed Breaketh one Hoast into three parts vpon the Consecration thereof but our Question is of Fraction or Breaking for Distribution to the People The Contrarie Canon of the now Romane Masse BEHOLD say you Christ brake it but the Catholike Church meaning the Romane now doth not breake it but giueth it whole And this you pretend to doe for Reverence-sake Lest as your Iesuite saith some crummes of Bread may fall to the ground Neither is there any Direction to your Priest to Breake the Bread either before or after Consecration in your Romane Masse especially that which is distributed to the people CHALLENGE BVt now see wee pray you the absolute Confession of your owne Doctors whereby is
Augustine 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
Processions 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
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