CHALLENGE.

SO have these your Doctors taught, notwithstanding many o­ther Romanists, as well Iesuites as others of principall Note in your Church, enquiring (as it were) after the native Coun­trey, kinred, and age of the Word, MASSE, doe not only say, but also proove, first, that It is no Hebrew-borne. Secondly, that 10 it is not of Primitive Antiquitie, because not read of before the dayes of Saint Ambrose, who lived about three hundred se­ventie three yeares after Christ. Thirdly, that it is a plaine Latine word, to wit, Masse, signifying the Dismission of the Con­gregation. Which Confessions being testified (in ourLatinum, non Hebraicum est, ut Neoterici studiosè exquirunt. Binius Tom. 3. Conc. p. 110. Eodem modo inter­pretantur complures. Durant. de Ritib l. 2. cap 2. pag. 190. 192. Magis spectat ad La­tinam phrasin. Sal­meron les. Epist. ad Canis. de nomine Missae. [So also A­zor. the Iesuit in the place above-cited.] Multò probabilius, esse Latinam; nam si vox Hebraica in u­su apud Apostolos fuisset, certè retinuis­sent e [...]m Graeci, & Syri, aliae (que) Nationes, ut retinuerunt vocer [...] Hosanna, Allelujah, Pascha, Sabbatum, & similes voces.—Apud Graecos nulla est hujus vocis mentio; pro ea [...] dicunt: est autem [...] munus, sive ministerium publicum. Bellarm lib. 1. de Missa. cap. 1. Melius qui Latinam—Sudrez. les. in Thom. Tom. 3. disp. 74. § 3. [where he alleageth Lindan. Thom. Hug. de Vict.] Leo primus quidem est author, apud quem legerim Missae verbum. Masson. lib. 2 de Episc. Rom. in Leon. 1. [And Ambrose is the ancientest that either Bellarmine or Binius, in the places before-quoted, could mention.] Missa à Missione dicta est. Salmeron les. Tom. 16. pag. 390. 391. [It is the same with [...] in the Greeke Church: and with Ilicet amongst the ancient Ro­manes.] See the Testimonie following at (c.) Mar­gin) by so large a Consent of your owne Doctors, prooved by so cleare Evidence, and delivered by Authors of so emi­nent estimation in your owne Church; must not a little lessen the credit of your other Doctors (noted for Neotericks) who have vainely laboured, under the word MASSE, falsely 20 to impose upon their Readers an opinion of your Romish Sa­crificing MASSE.

⚜And left Any might object that the same Word, MASSE, (as signifying the Dismission of the People) had no good foun­dation, because it was not at first prescribed by the Church, but taken up of the People; your Iesuite Gordon quitteth this, saying,Iac. Gordonus Scotus lib. Controvers. Controv. 9. cap. 6. Quamvis appellatio Missae originem accepit à populo, tamen divinâ providentiâ factum est ut populus hanc ap­pellationem huic mysterio tribueret: vulgo enim dici solet, quod vox populi sit vox Dei, nec dubitamus quin Spiritus instinctu hoc factum sit. Pag. 313. The voice of the People is the voice of God: and that you are not to doubt but that it was infused into them by the instinct of the Spirit of God. 30 ⚜

40 CHALLENGE.

WHereas there is nothing more rife and frequent in your Speeches, more ordinary in your Oathes, or more sa­cred in your common Estimation, than the name of the MASSE; yet are you, by the Signification of that very word, convinced of a manifest Transgression of the Institution of Christ: and there­fore [Page 4] your great boast of that name is to be judged false, and ab­surd. But of this Transgression moreSee below, Cha. 2. Sect. 5. hereafter.

CHALLENGE.20

FOr otherwise We (according to the above-confessed pro­per Sense thereof) shall, together with other Protestants in theConfess: Aug. Cap. de Coena Domini. Augustane Confession, approve & embrace it; and that to the just Condemnation of your present Romane Church, which in her Masse doth flatly and peremptorily contradict the proper Signification therof, according to the Testimony of Micrologus, saying;Microl. de Eccl. observat. c. 1. Prop­ter hoc certè dicitur Missa, quoniam mit­tendi sunt foràs, qui non participant Sa­crificio, vel commu­nione Sanctà Teste Cassand. Liturg. so 59. The Masse is therefore so called, because they that commu­nicate not, are commanded to depart. By all which it is evident, that your Church hath forfeited the Title of Masse, which shee 30 hath appropriated to her selfe as a flagge of ostentation (where­of moreSee below, c 2. sect. 9 hereafter.) In the Interim, wee shall desire each one of you to hearken to the Exhortation of your owne Waldensis, saying;Attende Mis­sam Christi, &c. Waldens. de Missa. ATTEND, and observe the Masse OF CHRIST.

CHALLENGE;
In Vindication of a former Assertion, against the Calumnie of a Romish Suggester.

LEt yourBellar. lib. 4 de Euch. cap. 10. §. Por­rò—Ecclesia Catho­lica semper credidit ità necessarium esse, aquâ vinum misceri in calice, ut non possit id sine gravi peccato omitti. Cardinall hold it Necessary to be observed, upon necessitie of some kind of Precept, if he will: yet that it is not so, by any Precept of Christ (who only can make a thing, otherwise indifferent in it's owne nature, to be simply Necessary in the use) wee were ready to proove; but your owne learned Doctours will have us to spare our paines, granting thatSuarez in 3. Thom. Qu 74, Disp. 45. §. 2. Nihilomi­nus contraria senten­tia, sc. Hoc praecep­tum esse humanū, est communis Doctorum Scoti, Durand. Ledes­ma, Gabr. Guil. & fa­vet multum Triden­tinum, dicens, hoc esse ab Ecclesia prae­ceptum. Nam licet responderi possit, esse simul ab Ecclesia et à Christo praeceptum, & Concilium dixisse, quod certius est, non tamen negâsse aliud, aut exclusisse: nihilo­minus tamen ille mo­dus loquendi non so­let usurpari in rebus, quae sunt jure divino praeceptae. Adjungi e­tiam potest Florent, quod non reprehen­dit Armenos omit­tentes mistionē hanc, tò quòd agerent con­tra divinum praeceptum, sedquod à communi Ecclesiae consuetudine dissentirent: undè tota ratio hujus praecepti videtur in hoc consuetudine poni. Deni (que) Alex. Papa, & Conc. Tibur. cap. 19. solum dicunt hoc esse traditum à Patribus. Vltimò adjungi potest Conjectura, quià si hoc esset divinum praeceptum, vix potest reddi ratio, cur hoc non sit de necessitate Sacramenti: quià haec necessitas solum oritur ex institutione & praecepto Christi. Vndè u [...] omnibus alijs materijs Sacramentorum, quicquid ex institutione & praecepto Christi necessarium est, est etiam de necessitate Sacramenti. Et haec posterior sententia sequenda videtur, Ex qua consequenter sequitur, Hoc praecep­tum esse per Ecclesiam dispensabile. [Accordingly the Iesuite Vasquez using the same Reasons and Authorities, In 3. Thom. qu. 54 Disp. 177. Cap. 2. Concludeth.] Praecepto tamen solo humano, non divino, eam nos miscere debere, vera sententia est.—Haec doctrina est caeterorum omnium Scholasticorum, quos non est opus sigillatim re­ferre: id enim omnes expresse dixerunt, ut supra notavi. Iosephus Angles Flor. Theol. Qu. 1. Non est mixtio aquae ex necessitate Sacramenti, quià solùm propter significationem unionis Christi cum populo—Graeci autem verè conficiunt, tamen aquam non miscent. Idem Iosephus Part. 3. Tit. 4, Pag. 142. ex Aquin. part. 3. qu. 74. Art. 6. Conclu. Debet aqua misceri, probabiliter quidem creditur, quod Dominus hoc Sacramentum in­stituerit in Vino aquâ permixto, secundum morem istus terrae. This point of mixture of water with wine was not commanded of Christ: but afterwards enjoyned by the Church. This being (as Iesuites and others doe witnesse) a Doctrine generally consented unto by your Schoolmen, and they them­selves giving their Amen thereunto; as also alleaging, for their owne better confirmation herein, the judgement of two late Romish Councils, Florence and Trent; besides their dint of Reasons; wherof one was the ground of my Assertion (to wit) Because if it had been commanded by Christ, or ordained by necessity of a Precept of Christ, it should be likewise of the necessi­ty, or Essence of the Sacrament; which Necessitie the Church of Rome universally excludeth. The Consequence therfore is evident; for whatsoever was instituted, as the matter of a Sacrament, was ever held to bee of the necessitie of the Es­sence of the same Sacrament. Wherefore wee may reckon this Mixture amongst those Circumstances of Christs Actions, which were Occasionall, by reason of the use and Custome of that Countrey of Iudaea at that time, for the tempering and al­laying of their Wine with Water. Iac. Gordon lib. Contr. 9. cap. 7. Praetereà in calida illa regione omnes solebant miscere aquam vino: vinum autèm merum bibebat nemo pag. 320. That region being so hot (saith your Iesuit) that none dranke meere Wine, but mixt with water.⚜

CHALLENGE.30

THis Command of Christ, being thus directly and copiously acknowledged by the best Divines in the Roman Church, must needs challenge on both sides an answerable perfor­mance. Vpon examination whereof, it will appeare unto every Conscience of man, which Professors (namely, whether Pro­testants or Romanists) are the true and Catholike Executors and Observers of the last wil and Testament of our Testator Iesus: 40 because that Church must necessarily be esteemed the more lovall and legitimate Spouse of Christ, which doth more pre­cisely obey the Command of the celestial Bride-groome. Wee, to this purpose, apply our selves to our busines, by enquiring what are the Active Particulars, which Christ hath given in charge unto his Church by these his expresse words [Do this.] All which wee are to discover and discusse from point to point.

CHALLENGE.20

BVt Christopherus your own Archbishop of Caesarea, in his Booke dedicated to Pope Sixtus Quintus, and written professedly upon this Subject, commeth in, compassed about with a clowd of witnesses and Reasons, to proveChristoph. de ca­pite fontium Archie­pisc. Caesarien. Tract. var. ad Sixtum Quint. Pont. Paris. 1586—Cap 1. Non solùm Thomas, sed omnes ante Cajetan. Theologi fatentur Christum, cùm benedixit, consecrasse. Nec ullum verbum (ut ait Alphons. à Ca­stro) est apud Evangelistas, quo Consecratio significetur, praeter verbum [Benedixit] vel per verbum [Gratias e­git] quod ibi pro eodem sumitur.—Cap. 5. Ad formam à Christo institutam observandum urget praeceptum imitationis, nempè, [Hoc facite]—D. Iacobus in Missâ sua post recitationem verborum, viz. [Hoc est corpus meum] accedit ad benedictionem, quod est argumentum firmiss. non credidisse cum in sola verborum illorum prolatione Consecrationem fieri. Eodem modo Clemens in Missa suâ. Dionys. cap. 7. Hierarch. dicit, Preces esse effectrices Consecrationis. Ergo non solùm verborum istorum prolatio.—Lindanus probat ex Iustino, sine precibus Consecrationem nullam esse. A malcharius praef. in lib. de offic. Apostolos solâ benedictione consecrare consuevisse. Idem habet Rabanus.—& Cap. 6. Certum est, Graecos sustinere, non istis verbis, sed Sacerdotis be­nedictione, seu precatione Consecrationem fieri—Nullus ex antiquioribus Ecclesiae Doctoribus per sola quatuor verba Christi Consecrationem fieri dixit.—Irridet eos Scotus, qui supernaturalem virtutem, de novo creatam, verbis istis inesse putant,—Scotum sequuntur Scholasticorum turba, Landolfus, Pelbertus, Mart. Brotinus, Nic. Dorbellis, Pet. Tartaretus, Catharinus.—Lindanus de Iustino a [...]t, quòd negat A­postolos istis verbis usos ad consecrandam Eucharistam. De Basilio asserit, quod Priscos Patres dicit non fuisse contentos solis istis verbis. Greg. l. 7. Ep. 63. Morem fuisse Apostolis, ad solam Dominicam orationem oblatio­nem consecrare. Hier. in Sophon. 3. Solennem orationem Sacerdotis precantis Eucharistiam facere. D. Ambros. Consecrationem incipere ait ex eo loco Canonis, viz. Quam oblationem tu, Deus, Benedictam, &c. Vis scire (inquit) quibus verbis coelestibus consecratur? accipe quae sint, Fac nobis hanc oblationem, &c. Idem tenet Odo Camerac.—etiam Bern. Audi quid Sacerdos in consecratione corporis Christi dicat, Rogamus (inquit) hanc oblationem benedictam fieri, &c. [And lest that any should object, that the Apostles did not observe in their narration the right order of Christs Acts, He addeth;] Omnes nunc provoco Lectores ad Legendos Missales li­bros Liturg. Iacobi, Clementis, Basilij, Chrysost. & Ecclesiae Latinae, & videbunt, nisi sibi occulos eruere velint, quàm constanter omnes uno ore asserant & testentur, Christum dando Eucharistiam Apostolis dixisse, [Hoc est corpus meum:] post verba [Accipite & manducate.] Hier. Epist. ad Hebdid. q. 2. Panem, quem fregit Chri­stus, dedit (que) Discipulis esse corpus Domini Salvatoris, dicens, [Accipite & comedite, Hoc est corpus meum.] Haec ille. Nota quod ait Christum dixisse ad Apostolos, non ad panem, [Hoc est corpus:] Ergò non per ista verba panem consecravit—Si mihi opponant authoritatem Pij Quinti in Catechis. qui post Conc. Trid. fact­us est, ego opponam illi non minoris authoritatis & sanctitatis, eruditionis autem nomine majoris, Innocentij tetti [...] sententiam oppositum sententis—Et dico, librum illum Catechismi non definiendo, sed magistrali­ter docendo factum esse. Hactenus ex Archiep. Caesarien. that the Consecration, used by 30 40 [Page 11] our Saviour, was performed by that his Blessing by Prayer, which preceded the pronouncing of those words, [HOC EST CORPVS MEVM:] [This is my Body, &c.] To this purpose hec is bold to averre that Thomas Aquinas, and all Ca­tholike; before Cajetane have confessed that Christ did consecrate in that his [BENEDIXIT, that is, He [...]h essed it.] And that Saint Iames and Dionyse the Areopagit [...] did not Consecrate onely in the other words, but by Prayer. Then he assureth us that the Greeke Churches maintained, that Consecration consisteth in Benediction, by Prayer, 10 and not in the onely repetition of the words aforesaid. After this hee produceth your subtilest Schooleman Scotus, accompanied with divers others, who Derided those, that attributed such a su­pernaturall virtue 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 Gregory, Hierome, 20 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 onely words of Institution, as you pretend. And in the end hee draweth in two Popes, one contra­dicting the other, in this point; and hath no other meanes to stint their jarre, but (whereas the authority of both is equall) to thinke it just to yeeld rather to the better learned of them both. Whosoever requireth more, may be satisfied by reading of the Booke it selfe. ⚜And yet wee would be loath to pretermit the (confessed) Testimonie of your Iesuite Gordon, out of Saint 30 Augustine, attesting that in this SacramentIac. Gor­don. Scotus lib. Contr. 6. cap. 2. num. 6. Sa­cramentum hoc sit non per sumptionem, sed per consecratio­nem, quam alibi S. Aug. (Tom. 3. lib 3. de Trin. cap. 4) vo­cat precem mysticam, [His wordes;] Illud quod ex fructibus ter­rae acceptum, & prece mysticâ consecratum, ritè sumimus, &c. ⚜ The fruit of the earth is consecrated by Mysticall Prayer.⚜

It will not suffice to say, That you also use Prayer, in the Ro­mish Liturgie: for the question is not meerely of Praying, but where in the forme of Benediction and Consecration more pro­perly doth consist. Now none can say, that he consecrateth by that Prayer, which he beleeveth is not ordained for Consecration. We may furthermore take hold, by the way, of the Testifica­tion of M [...].Tra [...]tat. of the M [...]sse, pag. 105. Brerely a Romish Priest, who, out of Basil and Chry­sostome, (calling one part Calix benedictione sacratus) alloweth Bene­diction 40 to have beene the Consecration thereof.

All this Armie of Witnesses were no better then Meteors, or imaginary figures of battailes in the aire, if that the Answer of Bellarmine may goe for warrant, to wit, that the only Pronun­tiation of these words [Hoc est corpus meum] imply in them (as hee Verb [...] haec [Hoc est corpus meum] pronunciata à Sacer­dote, cùm intentione con. cer [...]ndi Sacra­mentum, continent implic [...]è Invocatio­nem Bellarm. lib 4 de Euch. c 1 [...]. §. Qunt. arg. saith) in Invocation, or Prayer. Which words (as any man may perceive) Christ spake not supplicatorily unto God, but decla­ratively unto his Apostles, accordingly as the Text speaketh, [He [Page 12] said unto them.] as is also wellSee the former te­stimony, letter (g) observed by your fore-said Arch-bishop of Caesarea, out of Saint Hierome. But none of you (wee presume) will dare to say that Christ did Invocate his Disciples.

⚜This might Bellarmine have learned from Antiquity, if he had not rather affected to have been a Doctor over all others, than a Scholler to Primitive Fathers; who teach that Christ reveiled not unto any his words ofSee [...] B. 7. Ch. 3 at the letters, (i. k.) Invocation by Prayer, wherwith he consecrated: which they would not have said, if they had judged these words [THIS IS MY BODY] to imply in them an Invocation. ⚜ These words therfore are of 10 Declaration, and not of Invocation.

Which (now) Romish Doctrine of Consecrating, by reciting these words [This is my Body, &c.] your Divines of Colen Vehemens pror­sus insania est, quòd nunc arbitrantur se consecrare hoc Sa­cramentum sine pre­ce, quam Canonem appellamus, absque invocatione super do­na, sed tantùm reci­tatione verborum, &c. Talis recitatio non est Consecratio.—Aliter profectò erat in Ecclesia orientali, & occidentali.—Hactenùs in Ecclesia doctu [...] fuit, in prece, quâ Sacerdos sic in­vocat [Hanc Oblati­onem quaesumus, Do­mine, acceptab [...]le fa­cere digneris, &c, An­tididag. de Cath. Re­lig. per Canon. Eccles. Coloniens. Tract [...]t. de Missa, pag. 100. §. An sine prece. have judged to bee a Fierce madnesse, as being repugnant both to the Easterne and Westerne Churches. But wee have heard divers We­sterne Authors speake, give leave to an Easterne Archbishop to deliver his mind.Quod autem il­le sermo Domini suf­ficiat ad sanctificati­onem, nullus neque Apostolus, nec Do­ctor dixisse cernitur. Nic. Cabosil. Explicat. Euch. cap 29. Latini obijciunt Chrysostomum dicentem; Quemadmodùm opifex sermo dicens [crescite & multiplicamini] se­mel à Deo dictus perpetuò operatur, &c. Resp. An ergò post illud dictum Dei [Crescite] nullo ad­huc opus habemus adjumento, nullâ prece, nullo matrimonio? Ibid. No Apostle, or Doctor is knowne to affirme (saith he) those sole words of Christ to have beene sufficient for Consecration. So he, three hundred yeares since, satisfying also the Testi­monie of Chrysostome, objected to the contrary.20

⚜This Archbishop you⚜Possevin. les. Apparat. Tit. Nicolaus Cabassilas Archiepiscopus Thessalonicensis, vir clarus fuit. grant was Famous in his time, living about the yeare 1300. to whom (as you know) the Bishop of Ephesus and the Patriarch of Constantinople did ac­cord, saying thatSuarez in 3. Thom. Disp. 58. Sect. 3. Nicolaus Cabassilas & Marcus Episcopus Ephesinus, de Consecratione, & Hieremias Patriarcha Con­stantinopolitanus dicunt non consici hoc Sacramentum statim ac illa verba proferuntur, sed post quasdam orationes Ecclesiae.⚜ This Sacrament is not made assoone as these words are uttered, but afterwards, by certaine prayers of the Church. And why these Greeke Fathers should not ra­ther resolve us of the ancient Greeke tenor of Consecrati­on, than any of your late Italian or Latine Doctors, who will make question? As for your other Greeke Patriarch Bessari­on, who was made Cardinall by your Church, on purpose,30 that he might make some opposition unto his fellowes, We make no other account of him than of an Hireling. In briefe, None of the great multitude of Fathers, who have required the use of Prayer, besides these words, [This is my body] did thereby testifie that they held these to be words of Invo­cation.⚜ 40

[Page 13] As miserable and more intolerable is the Answer of Others, whoSee the Testi­mony before at the let­ter (g) towards the end. said that the Evangelists have not observed the right order of Christ his actions: as if he had first said, [This is my body] by way of Consecration, and after commanded them to [Take and eat.] Which Answere your owneAlij dixerunt, Christum his verbis semel dictis conse­cràsse, sed Evangeli­stas non servâ le or­dinem in re [...] gestae narratione. Sed cùm omnes Evangelistae conveniunt in hoc, ut dicant, primùm Christum accepisse panem, deindè bene­dixisse, terriò fregisse, & tùm dedisse, dicen­do [Hoc est corpus meum] videntur non casu, sed consilio E­vangelistae rem mar­râsse, ut gesta est. Mald [...]n. les. Disp. de Euch. q. 7. p. 133. [And among them that do invert the or­der, is Alan. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 15. p. 295.] Alij docuerunt, Ch [...] ­stum haec verba [Hoc est corpus meū, &c. his reperivisse: quae sententia est falsa, quia nullâ conjectu­ [...]à probari potest, Id. ibid. Iesuite hath branded with the note of Falsity: yea, so false it is, that (as is furtherSee above lit. (g.) 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 [Take yee] before that he said [This is my Body.]

10 Lastly, your other lurking-hole is as shamefull as the former, where, when the judgement of Antiquitie is objected against you, requiring that Consecration be done directly by Prayer un­to God:lustin. Apol. 2. docet, Oratione con­fici Eucharistiam I­ren. lib. 4. c. 5. Invo­catione nominis Dei. Cyril. Hier. Catech. mystag. 3. & 4. Invo­catione Spiritus San­cti. Hieron. Epistol. ad Evag. Sacerdo­tum precibus. August. semper ferè piece mysticâ (ut lib. 3. c. 4. de Trin.) Sacramentum fieri asserit.—Respondetur, Primò quòd veteres non cu­rabant passim exactè declarate & precisè quibus verbis conceptis consecraretur: licet Ministris secret­ore institutione ea tradidisse constat. Alan. l. 1. de Euch. c. 17. p 310. [To whom might bee added Cyprian de coena Domini, Calix benedictione sacratus.] you answere that some Fathers did use such speeches in their Sermons to the people, but in their secret instruction of Priests did teach otherwise. Which Answere (besides the falsity 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 20 you frame your Answeres, to direct other mens Consciences, you would first satisfie your owne, especially being occupied in soules-businesses.

Wee conclude. Seing that Forme (as all learning teacheth) giveth Being unto all things; therefore your Church, albeit shee use Prayer, yet erring in her judgement concerning the perfect manner and Forme of Consecration of this Sacrament, how shall shee be credited in the materialls? wherein shee will bee found, aswell as in this, to have Transgressed the same Injunction of Christ, [DO THIS.]

30 Neverthelesse, this our Conclusion is not so to be interpre­ted, as (hearkenIt was Mr Brereley his error, Liturg. p. 101. in alleaging Irenaeus lib. 5. c. 1. Quandò mixtus calix, & fractus panis percepit verbum Dei, fit Eucharistia. [Here by ver­bum Dei, is not meant the words of Hoc est, &c. but Prayer, and the word of Blessing, commanded by the Word of Christ, who blessedit, and commanded his Church, saying, Doe this: as appeareth by. Iren. lib. 4. c. 34. when he saith, Panis percipiens vocationem (for Invocationem) Dei, non est communis panis.] In the next place Ambrose l. 4. c. 4. de Sacr. Consecratio igitur quibus verbis fit? Domini Iesu, &c. Ergò [...]ermo Christi con­ficit hoc Sacramentum, nempe is, quo facta sunt omnia, jussit, & factum est. [This is the Allegation; whereas if hee had taken but a little paines, to have read the Chapter following, hee should have received Saint Ambrose his plaine Resolution; that they meant the words of Prayer. Vis scire quibus verbis coelestibus consecratur? Ac­cipe verba, Dicit Sacerdos, Fac nobis hanc Oblationem acceptam, &c. Then he proceedeth to the Repetition of the whole institution, as the complement of Consecration, in the words [Take, eat, This is my body:] but not only in these words, [This is my body.] We see then that the Latine Church had this forme (Fac) even as the Greeke had their [...]: both in Prayer, but neither of both without reciting the forme of Institution.] M^r. Brerely) to exclude, out of the words of this Celebration, the Repetition and pronuntiation of these words [This is my Body: and, This is my Bloud of the new Testa­ment.] Farre be this from us, because wee hold them to bee es­sentially 40 belonging to the Narration of the Institution of [Page 14] Christ; and are used in the Liturgie of our Church: for al­though they bee 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.

For a further manifestation, hearken you unto that which is written;1. Tim. 4. 4. Every Creature of God is good, if it be sanctified with the word of God, and with Prayer. Wherein wee finde a double acception of Sanctification; the one of Ordination, by The word of God: the other of Benediction, namely, by 20 Prayer. For example, The eating of Swines flesh is sancti­fied to the use of a Christian, first by Ordination, because the word of God in the new Testament hath taught us the lawfull use of Swines flesh: and secondly by Benediction by Prayer, or giving of thanks, in which respect it is, that the Apostle calleth the one part the Cup of Blessin. 1 Cor. 10. 16. Both of these are to be found in our Sacramentall food, wherein wee have the Sanctification thereof, both by the Word of Christ in the tenour of his first Institution, Hee tooke bread, &c. adding [Do this:] as also by publike bles­sing in Prayer, which is more properly called Consecration.

And although in our Domestical feasts, the second Course is blessed in the grace, which was said upon the first service; so the second supply of Bread and Wine (if it shall inordi­nately 30 so happen) may not altogether be denied to be con­secrated by the blessing pronounced upon the first: (even as the Sanctifying of the Sheafe of Corn, was the hallowing of the whole field.) Notwithstanding, our Church hath caute­lously ordained, that the words of Institution [He tooke bread, &c.] be applyed to every oblation of new Bread and Wine, for accommodation-sake, as they are referred in our Litur­gie; wherein they are necessarily joyned together with the words of Prayer and Benediction. Therefore, where you shall finde in the Fathers the words of Christ's Institution,40 called Consecration; ⚜Chrys. Tom. 3 Hom. 30. dè Pro­ditione Iud [...] [Ioc est Corpus me [...].] [...]u­bus verbis res pro­ductae Consecrantur. and Anthros. lib [...] de Sacram. c. 4. Verba Christi faciunt hoc Sacramentum. Ibid. c. 5. Vis scire quibus verbis Se­cramentum consecratur? Sacerdos dicit: Fac, Deus, hanc nobis oblationem. [Then he repeateth the words of Institution.] (as it is in Chrysostome and Ambrose) it must be understood as joyned with Prayer, as the Benedi­ction it selfe, which hath beeneSee more in the Margent above, in the beginning of this Section.⚜ already copiously confes­sed; as well as it is furthermore acknowledged by your Ie­suit, [Page 15] thatCressollius les. lib 1. Mystag. cap. 19. Diaconi vocati sunt Consecrantes in ge­stis S. Laurentii in hunc modum, [Cui commisisti Domanici sanguinis consecrationem.] Illa etiam vox, Consecratio, reperiebatur apud S. Ambros. lib. 1. offic. c. 41. Qui locus non esse mendosus existimandus est, quia Ambrosius summa side narrationem suam texuerat ex actis S. Laurentij; ne (que) hîc Consecratio propriè et definitè sumitur, quasi Diaconus hostiam consecraret, sed ex communi Ecclesiae usu totam sacram actionem significat. Sometime the whole sacred Action was called Con­secration, insomuch that the Deacon, who doth not meddle with the words of Consecration, is notwithstanding called a Consecra­tor in Saint Ambrose. So he.⚜

CHALLENGE;

BVt now see (we pray you) the absolute Confession of your owne Doctors, whereby is witnessed, first, that Christ 40 brake the bread into twelve parts,Fregit.] Ni­mirùm in to [...] particu­las quot erant Apostoli manducaturi, praeter suam, quam Christus primus accepit. Et (ut quidam non indiligen­ter annotavit) quemadmodùm unum calicem communem omnibus tradidit ad bibendum, ità unâ palma pa­nem in 12. buccellas fractum manibus suis dispensavit. Salmer. quo suprà Tract. 12. §. Sequitur p. 77. Apo­stolus Act. 2. Vocat Eucharistiam fractionem panis, ob ceremoniam frangendi panem in tot particulas quot sunt communicaturi, ut Christus fecit in coena. Quem morem longo tempore Ecclesia retinuit, de quo Apo­stolus; Panis, quem frangimus, nonne communicatio corporis Christi Domini? in qua fractione pulchrè representatur Passio corporis Christi. Idem. Ies. Tract. 35. §. Vocat. pag. 288 [In fractione Panis, Act 2.] Indicat fractionis nomen antiquam consuetudinem partiendi pro astantibus sive manu, sive cultro; quià panis azymus glutinosus it à facilius dividitur. Lorinus Ies. in eum locum p. 138. col. 2. Benedictionem sequitur hostiae fractio, fractionem sequitur Communio—Hunc celebrandi morem semper Ecclesia servavit tàm Graeca quàm Latina, quarum Liturgiae, etsi in verbis aliquandò discrepent, certè omnes in eo conveniunt, quòd partes has omnes Missae Christi exactè repraesentent, nihil de essentialibus omittentes. Vsus autem Ecclesiae & ejus cele­brandi ordonos docent, qualis fuit Christi Missa, & quo illam ordine celebravit. Archie [...]. Caesar. var. Tract. p. 27. according to the number of Com­municants. [Page 16] 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 Christs bodie upon the Crosse, but also (in the common participa­tion thereof) representing the Vnion of the Mysticall body of 10 Christ, which is his Church, Communicating together of one loafe: that as many graines in one loafe, so all faithfull Communicants are united to one Head Christ, as the Apostle teacheth, 1. Cor. 10. thus, [The bread which wee breake, is it not the Communion of the bodie of Christ? for we being many are one bread.]

Wee 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 us, so was Christ Crucified for us. Yet, neverthelesse, your Church contra­rily 20 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 do grant unto us, that by Christ his first Institution, by the Practice of the Apostles, by the ancient and universall Custome 30 of the whole Church of Christ, aswell Greeke as Latine, the Cere­mony of Breaking bread was continually observed. Which may bee unto us 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 never so repugnant to the will of Christ and Custome of the truly-called Catholike Church. Howbeit wee would not bee so understood, as to thinke it an Essentiall Ceremonie either to the being of a Sacrament, or to the Sacramentall Administration; but yet requisite, for 40 the Commandement and Example-sake.

In the next place, to your Pretence of Not-breaking, because of Reverence, Wee 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 cleave sometimes unto the beards of the Communicants, or else fall to the ground. Or as though [Page 17] this Alteration were to be called Reverence, and not rather Ar­rogance, in making your-selves more wise than Christ, who insti­tuted; or than all the Apostles, or Fathers of primitive times, who continued the same Breaking of Bread.

Therefore this your Contempt of Breaking, what is it but a peremptory breach of Christ his Institution, never regarding what the Scripture saith;1 Sam. 15. 22. 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 10 Christ, [Doe this.]

CHALLENGE.

BVt who shall justifie that her Commendation of the alone-communicating of your Priest? which wee may justly con­demne by the liberallSunt qui in Miss [...] communionem recruirunt: sic, face­or: à Christo institu­tum fuit, & ita olim fieri consu vit. Eras. Concord. Eccles. vers. sinem. [Act. 2. Erant cōmunicantes in O­ratione & communi­catione fractionis Pa­nis] id est, in Eucha­ristia non-minùs quàm oratione. Lorinus Ies. in Act. 2. 46. Odo Cameracens. in Canonem seribit, Missas solitarias antiquitùs in usu Ecclesiae non fuisse.—Et hunc fuisse antiquum Ecclesiae Romanae morem, ut plures de eodem Sacrificio participent, doctissimi quique agnoscunt.—Itáque hac nostra aetate Rev. Pater & vir doctiss. Iohan. Hoffme [...]sterus his verbis suam sententiam declaravit. Res, inquit, clamat, tàm in Grae­ca quàm in Latitia Ecclesia, non solùm Sacerdotem sacrificantem, sed & reliquos Praesbyteros & Diaconos, necnon & reliquam plebem, aut saltem plebis aliquam partem communicâsse, quod quomodò cessavit miran­dum est.—Et aliquos cùm Sacerdote adfuisse, qui sacrificia laudis offerebant, & Sacramentorum participa­bant, Canonis (Romani) verba manifestè significant: viz. Quot ex hac Altaris participatione sacrosanctum corpus & sanguinem filij tui sumpserimus, &c. Item, Prosint nobis divina Sacrificia, quae sumpsimus. Teste G. Cassandro Consult. Art 24. pag. 216, 217,—223. &c. Confessions of your owne Doctors; who grant, first, that this is not according to the Institution of Christ, saying in the Plurall, [VNTO THEM.] Secondly, 40 nor to the practice of the Apostles, who were Communicating [Page 18] 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 Greeke and Romane. Fourthly,Idem Ioh. Hoff­meisterus; Quomo­dò (inquit) ordo an­tiquus cessaverit, mi­randum est, & ut bo­nus ille usus revo­cetur laborandum Nunc verò postquàm communionis ordo à nobis observari de­sijt, idque per negli­gentiam tàm plebis quàm Sacerdotum, ut ait Hospin.—Ex Ca­none quodam Conc. Nannetensis, Sacer­dos solus Missam ce­lebrate vetatur: ab­surdum enim est ut dicat, [Dominus vo­biscum: &, Sursum corda: &, Gratias a­gimus Deo Domino nostro] cùm nullus est qui respondeat: aut ut dicat [Ore­mus] cùm nullus ad­est qui secum oret.—Et simile D [...] ­cretum reperitur in Concilio Papiensi, ut nullus Presbyter Mis­sam celebrare praesu­mat—Cur au­tem Canon noster [Speaking of the forme of the Romane Mosse] alijs in superstitio­nem, alijs in con­temptum adductus sit, in causa potissimum est mutatio prisci ritus. Georg Cassand. quo sup. neither to Two Councels, the one called Nanetense, the other Papiense, decreeing against Private Masse. Fiftly, nor to the very names of the trueAct. 2. 42. [Erant communi­cantès, &c.] Vsus suit quondam frequentandae quotidiè Eucharistiae, non minùs quàm Orationis,— [...] sumitur pro usu istius Sacramenti [...]: Eadem est vis etiam vocis [...], pro congregatione fidelium, ut interpretatur Basilius. Lorin. Ies. loco supra-citato. Sacramentall Masse: which, by way of Excellencie, was sometime called [Synaxis] signifying (as Saint Basil saith) the Congregation of the faithfull: sometimes [...], Communion, or Communicating: and sometimes the Prayers, used in every holy Masse, were called [Collectae] Col­lects,10 because the people used to be collected to the celebration of the Masse it selfe. Sixtly, Nor to the verySee above at (b) Canon of the now Ro­mane Masse, saying in the Plurall [Sumpsimus] wee have recei­ved. And thereupon (seventhly) repugnant to the Complaints of your owne men, against your Abuse; who calling the joynt Communion, instituted by Christ, the Legitimate Masse; do wonder how your Priests sole-Communicating ever crept into the Church; and also deplore the contempt, which your private Masse hath brought upon your Church. Hitherto (see the Marginals) from your owne Confessions.20

Let us adde the Absurditie of the Commendation of your Councell of Trent, in saying, Wee commend the Priest's commu­nicating alone. A man may indeed (possibly) talke alone, fret alone, play the Traytour 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 covenant alone. Calvin saith indeed of spirituall Eating, which may be without the Sacrament (as you alsoQui dicunt Christum manducari spiritualiter à fidelibus posse, etiamsi Sacramentaliter non manducetur, at (que) eo cibo animam ali, vera quidem asseiunt. Acosta. les. de procur. Indorum Salut. c. 7. p. 532. confesse) that a Faithfull man may feede alone of the Body and Blood of Christ: But our dis­pute is of the Corporall and Sacramentall Communicating there­of.30 40

A SECOND CHALLENGE.
Against the former Prevarication, condemning this Romane Custome by the Romane Masse it selfe.

WEe make bold yet againe to condemne your Custome of Private Masse, and consequently the Commendation [Page 19] given thereof by the Councel of Trent. For by the Canon of your Masse, wherein there are interlocutorie speeches between 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 Claudius Espencaeus, sometimes a Parisian Doctour (one commended byClaudij Espen­cae [...] Theologi Parisi­ensis Tractatus de utra (que) M [...]ssa: q [...]a­rum alteram publi­cam, alteram priva­tam appellant. [...] Gilberti. Theologi Parisiensis. Gene­brard. Genebrard for his Treatise upon this same Subject of the Private Masse) albeit he agreeth, with the exe­crable Execration and Anathema of the Councel of Trent, against 10 them that hold Solitarie Masses to be unlawfull; yet after the ex­pence of much paper, to prove that some private Masse must needs have anciently beene, because Primitively Masse was ce­lebrated almost in all Churches every day; and that Saint See below at the letter (p) Chrysostome did complaine of the absence of the people: yet comming to determine of the poynt,Haec & similia pro privatatū Misla­rum usu & vetustate probabil [...] quidem sunt, sed minus [...]per­ta, nec n. qui oblatum dicunt, communica­tum negant, &c. E­spen. Tract. de utra (que) Missa fol. 226. [where also had beene objected the complaint of Chry­soslome, so. fol 222.] This Reason (saith he) is onely probable, but not evident; for although they affirme a dayly celebration of the Masse, yet doe they not deny a daily Communion.

Afterwards he seeketh the Originall and beginning of privat Masses out of privateMonachos, plus alioqui jam satis gra­vatos invid â primos privatàrum Missarum Authores fuisse, qui­da [...] faciunt. Espenc. ibid. fol. 227. Non est quòd ex publicarum Missarum Monachis cùm interdictione colligamus Privata­rum ab [...]eis inventio­nem. Ib. fol. 228. Monasteries: yet, not able to satisfie him­self 20 there, he commeth at length to debate a Controversie, where­with many were then perplexed, to wit, how it could bee said by a Priest, being alone, [The Lord be with you;] or Answer be made to, and by the said Priest, being then alone, [And with thy Spirit?]

To this end he propoundeth manyDominus vobis­cum. &c. Q [...]arè salu­tatio non Cleri mo­dò sed & plebis fuit. Ex horum verborum occasione mota olim jam tanta quaestio, quâ non alia sit in hodiernis de religione controversijs gravior aut magis agitata.—Gratianus respondet, prè credi, Angelorum in Missa praesentiam, et nobis orantibus assi­stentiam: ad Angelos igitur, cum deessent homines, salucationem hîc videtur retulisse. Ecquò enim aliò melius referret? An vel ad lapides? ut videtur ante illum Odo Cameracens. Episc. ad id Canonis [Et omnium circum­astantium] cùm postea, inquit, mos inolevit solitarias Missas, et maximè in coenobijs fieri, ubi non habeant quam pluraliter Collectam salutent, nec plures mutare possunt salutationes, convertunt se ad Ecclesiam, dicentes, se Ecclesiam in Ecclesia salutare, et in corpore totum corpus colloqui. Excruerat et ante hos Cardinalium Deca­num à fratribus Eremitis proposita quaestio, utrum singulares in cellulis, et oran [...]es juxta morem Ecclesiasticum, sibimet dicere deberent [Dominus vobiscum] quando nemo sit qui respondeat? quidam etiam inter se sic ra­tionabantur, Hoc lapidibus, aut tabulis dicendum. Respondet peculiari [...]pusculo, quod et ideò inscriptum, Do­minus vobiscum.—Ca. 4. In his docuit servandam Ecclesiae consuetudinem, et hanc Sacerdotalem salutatio­nem nec per traditionem permutari licere. Ecclesia siquidem Christiana tanta charitatis inter se compage in­vicem connectitur, ut in pluribus una, et in singulis sit per mysterium tota; et unaquae (que) electa anima per Sacra­menti mysterium plena esse credatur Ecclesiâ Thus farre Espen. uo sup. fol. 210. 213. & Gers. Tract. Quaestion. cum. Resp. Quià Sacerdos gerit vicem populi. Answers, which I re­ferre to your Choice; whether you will believe, with Gratian, that the words [Dominus vobiscum: The Lord be with you] spo­ken by the Priest, being alone, may be thought to have been spo­ken to Angels: or, with [...]ameracensis, unto Stones: or, with the 30 Heremites in their Celles, unto Formes and Stooles: or else, with the Deane of the Cardinals, teaching any Heremite being alone, to say, [The Lord be with you] as spoken to himselfe. All which imaginarie fooleries are so unworthy the Conceptions of but reasonable men, that wee may feare to be held inconsiderate, If wee should indeavour to confute them. Onely wee can say 40 no lesse, than that if the Apostle did condemne them, who [Page 20] speak with strange languages in the publike assemblie (although they that spake understood themselves) because that in such a Case1. Cor. 14. 23. If (saith hee) there be none to interpret, and there come in an Ignorant or Infidell observing this, will hee not say, you are mad? how much more extreame Madnesse must wee judge this to be, where men either talke to themselves, or else (as if they were metamorphosed into the things, whereunto they speake) unto formes, stones, stooles, and the like?

For Conclusion, heare the said Deane of the Romane Cardi­nals (from whom aSacerdos dicit [Pax omnibus vo­bis:] quoniam autem pro se-invicem precari est praeceptum Apo­stolicum, propterea populus quo (que) ei ip­sam pacem precatur, dicens, [Et cùm spi­ritu tuo.] Nic. Cabas. Arch. Thessal. Ann. Dom. 1350. Exposit. Liturg. cap. 25. Greeke Archbishop shall not dissent) speake reason, and withall tell you that the Correspondencie of 10 speech, used betwixt: Priest and People, was to unite the hearts of both Priest and People together. Wee say, with him, to unite them, not (as you do) to separate People from Priest by your solitary Masses; and yet to confound their speech by your [Dominus vo­biscum.] And if this may not prevaile with you, yet me-thinks the authoritie of Pope Gregorie, sirnamed the Great, might com­mand your beliefe. He, upon the forme of the Romane ser­vice, by an interchangeable speech betweene Priest and People, concludeth thatGreg. Papa. lib. Capitulari c. 7. Sacer­dos Missam solus ne­quaquam celebret; quià sicut is [...]a cele­brari non potest sine salutatione Sacerdo­tis, et responsione plebis: ità nequa­quàm ab uno debet celebrari, esse n. de­bent qui ei circum­stent, quos ille salu­tet, ad reducendum in memoriam illud Dominicum [Vbi­cun (que) sunt duo aut tres congregati.] Teste Cassandio Li­turg. fol. 96. Therefore the Priest should not celebrate Masse 20 alone. And yet behold a Greater Pope than he, even Soter, more ancient by 400. yeares, and also a Martyr, Soter B. of Rome An. 170. [who suffe­red Martyrdome, made this Decree for cele­brating of Masse:] Vt nullus Presbytero­rum praesumat, nisi duobus praesentibus, & ipse tertius habea­tur: quià cùm plura­liter ibi dicitur [Do­minus vobiscum] et illud in secretis [O­rate pro me] aper­tissimè convenit, ut ipsius respondeatur salutations. Witnes M. Harding Art. 1. Divis. 2 [...]. apud Iuellum. decreeing, as most convenient, (for Answer unto the Priest's vobiscum, and Orate) that there be two at least besides the Priest.

AnOne that of late writ to a Popish Lady, not discovering his name. Anonymus, not long since, would needs perswade his Reader, that by [Vobiscum] was meant the Clerke of the Pa­rish. But why was it then not said, Dominus tecum, The Lord be with thee? O, this forsooth, was spoken to the Clerke in ci­vility, according to the ordinary Custome of entitling singular persons in the plurall number: and this Answer hee called Sal­ving of a Doubt. 30

But any may reply, that if it were good manners in the Priest, to call upon the Clerke with [Vobiscum] in the plurall number, for civilitie sake, it must then be rusticitie in you [...] Church, to teach your Clerke to answer your Priest [Et cum Spiritu tuo: And with thy Spirit.] And againe, the answer is impertinent, for where the Priest is found thus parling with the Clerke, hee cannot be said to be Alone. And so the answer of this man must be indeed not Salving, but (as the rest of his man­ner of answering) a Quack-salving rather, and a meere Delu­sion.40 ⚜Which also the end of the first Institution of these words [The Lord be with you] doth furthermore declare, which was (as isMicrolog. [Don inus vobiscum, et cùm spiritu tuo] &c. Notandum ex his verbis semper deberi esse plures respondentes, et unum salutantem. Et Hugo de S. victore ait sic dici, ut reddat populum attentum. Teste Cassa in Lepnri [...]urg Cap. 31. confessed) to make the People more atten­tive to their Prayers.⚜

A THIRD CHALLENGE.
Against the same Custome.

A Custome Commendable, say your Fathers of Trent; Con­demnable, say wee, even from your owne Consciences, because you were never hitherto able to produce either any Commendable, yea or Tollerable example, expresly recorded 10 within the many Volumes of Antiquitie, of any celebration of the Eucharist, without a Communion; no, not in that onely ob­jected place ofChrysost. in E­phes. Hom 3. Frustr [...] habetur quotidiana oblatio, frustrà sta­mus ad altare, cùm nemo est qui partici­pet. Ob. à Bellarm. lib. 2. de Missa, cap 9. [Not that in these daily Celebrations None at all did com­municate with the Priest: for hee was accompanied, at least, with some Ecclesia-stickes, as is implyed in the words, (Stamus ad Altare) And it is no rare Hyperbale in Chrysostome to use the word, [...], for, a Paucitie.] Chrysostome, whose Speech is not a Grant, that absolutely All were absent from his administration of the Eucharist: but certainly it is a vehement Invective against all wilfull Absents. So farre was hee from allowing, much more from Commending Communicating alone, who else-where, a­gainst such as neglected to Communicate with the poore, ta­king his Argument from the example of Christ, That Sup­per (Chrysost. Illa coena (Christi) com­muniter omnes ac­cumbentes habuit. Tom. 4. in illum lo­cum Pauli; Oportet Haereses esse. 1 Co­rinth. 11. 19. saith he) was common to All. The very Argument of Saint 20 Hierome, saying (yet more obligatorily)Hieron. Coena Domini dicitur, quia Dominus in coena tradidit Sacramenta. Dominica coena debet om­nibus esse communis. In 1 Cor. cap. 11. The Lords Supper ought to bee common to All. Such Reverencers were the Primi­tive Fathers of the Ordinances of Christ. And as touching [For againe, if it should be strictly racked, so should he himselfe not have participated, and then was it no Masse at all. But Chrysostome's Rhecorique, in hyperbolizing, is noted esp [...] ­cially by your Senensis; as may be observed in Chrysostome's like Invective against the carnall security of men, even in the word, Nemo: Nemo divina sapit: nemo terrena contemnit: nemo ad coelum attendit. Hom. 12. ad Heb. Now, none is so senselesse as to thinke hereby that Chrysostome thought himselfe absolutely to bee wholly alone.] [Nemo, No man] in the testimony of Chrysostome, it is knowne to be taken restrainedly, for Few: and so[Frustrà stamus, &c.] Ex quibus verbis apparet, in his quotidianis Missis folos ferè Ministros & Cleri­cos, paucos verò aut nullos à populis communicâsse. G. Cassander de Liturg, Chrysost. [Yea and Espenseus durst not rely upon this Testimony.] acknowledged by your selves in the place objected.

⚜If all these premises cannot perswade you, wee shall pre­sent unto you one, who wil command your consent, Pope Inno­cent the third. Innocent. 3. de ossic. Missae. lib. 2. cap. 20. Statutum est autem in sacris Canonibus, ut nullus Presbyterorum Missarum solennia celebrare praesumet, nisi duobus praesentibus, sibique respondentibus, ipse tertius habeatur; quia cùm pluraliter dicitur ab eo [Dominus vobiscum] & illud in secretis [Orate pro me] apertissimè convenit, istius salutationi respondeatur à pluribus. It is decreed (saith he) that because it is said by the Priest in the plurall number [The Lord be with you] and 30 also [pray for mee] that none presume to celebrate without two, besides the Priest, to make answere to these Salutations. So hee, 40 even as you have heard Pope Soter to have said before him.

CHALLENGE.30

DO you see what your Church doth professe? See also, we pray you, notwithstanding, what your owne Doctours are brought toChristus altâ vo­ce pronuntiabat ver­ba illa [Hoc est cor­pus meum] ut audi­rentur ab Apostolis. Bellar. lib. 2. de Mis­sa, cap. 12. §. Quod attinet.—In Ec­clesia Orientali altâ voce recitari consue­visse non negamus Idem ibid §. Respon­do.—Certè ex Graecorum Liturgijs invenies tàm in Missa Iacobi Apostoli, & Clementis Romani, quàm in illis quae editae sunt à Basilio & Chry­sostomo, quòd ubi Sacerdos protulisset verba Consecrationis tam post panis, quàm post vini Consecrationem, populus acclamabat dicendo, Amen Idem etiam confirmatur ex Leone, Augustino, Ambrosio, & alijs mul­tis Patribu [...]. Salmero [...]. les. Com. in 1 Cor. 14. Disp. 22. p. 188. Moris enim fuit Ecclesiae primitivae, ut constat ex Leone magno, & Iustino Martyre, ut verbis Consecrationis altâ voce prolatis, populus responderet, Amen. Idem Tom. 9. Tract. 13. pag. 90. Col. 2. confesse (namely) first, that The example of Christ and his Apostles is against this uttering those words in a low and in­audible voice. Secondly, that The same Custome was controlled by the practice of of the whole Church of Christ, both in the East part thereof (from the testimonies of ancient Liturgies, and Fathers) & in the ancient Romane Church, by the witnessing of two Popes; in whose time the People hearing the words of Consecration pro­nounced,40 did answer thereunto, AMEN. Thirdly, that the same Innovation was much misliked by the Emperour Iustinian, who [Page 23] severely commanded by his Edict (asNovellà Con­stit. 123. Iustiniani severè praecipitur Sa­cerdotibus, ut in Eu­charistiae celebratio­ne verba clarâ voce pronuntientur, ut à populo exaudiantur.—[Which made Bellarmine to blaster after this manner:] Ad Novellam re­sponderi possit impri­mis, ad Imperatorem non pe [...]inere de ritu sacrificandi leges fer­re: proinde non mul­tum referre quid ipse sanxerit. Bellar. l. 2. de Missa. c. 12. §. ad Novellam. you know) that The Priest should pronounce the words with a cleare voice, that they may bee heard of the people. Whose authoritie you peremptorily con­temne, as though it did not belong to an Emperor to make Lawes in this kind. But forasmuch as the King of Kings, and the High Priest of Priefls, the Sonne of God, hath said of this, as of the other such Circumstances, [Do this,] who are you, that you should dare to contradict this Injunction, by the practice of any Priest, saying and speaking (yet not as Christ did, unto Them) but only to 10 himselfe, without so much as any pretence of Reason,Vtile est, ad re­verentiam tanti Sacramenti (ut Basil. rectè docet lib. de Spiritu Sancto c. 27.) & multum confert ad dignitatem & reverentiam mysteriorum, ut non assuescant homines eadem saepiùs audire: vel potiùs ut non offerrentur ad aures vulgi. Et in Liturgijs Graecis Basilij & Chrysostomi praescribunt quaedam sub silentio dicenda.—In Liturgijs Chrysostomi Sacerdos orat [...], quod non significat moderatâ vocae, sed planè secretò. In Lati­nis Liturgijs, Innocentio teste, praecipua pars Missae secreta erat. Bellar quo supra. [We oppose. 1. Never were any words held secret, so, as not to be heard of them that were baptized, and were allowed to bee Communicants. Basil speaketh of the rites of Baptisme to be kept secret, but to whom? [...]: and how secret? by silence of voice in the Congregation? no, but, Non convenit circumferri, [...]: And of what? of words? nay, but [...]. Neither doth Chrysostome's [...] nor Innocentius his Secretò inferre any more than such a Service, in respect of them that were not to be partakers of the Communion. Secondly, wee oppose concerning the poynt in question; that the words of Institution were in those times pronounced with an audible voyce both in the Greeke an Latine Churches (as hath beene confessed, and their owne Writings doe verifie:) Bafil. Li­turg. Sacerdos benedicens panem, [...]—altâ voce dicens; Accipite, Hoc est corpus meum. Chrysost. in 1. Cor. 15. Hom. 40. Vobis, qui mysterijs estis initiati ( [...]) volo in memoriam revocate eam dictionem, &c.] secundùm Graecam Edit. which might not likewise have moved the ancient Church of Christ, both Greeke and Romane, to the same manner of Pronunciation? Whereas the Catholike Church, notwithstanding, for many hun­dred yeares together, precisely observed the ordinance of 20 Christ.

THE SECOND CHALLENGE.
In respect of the necessitie of a Lowd voice, especially by the Romish Priest, in uttering the words of Consecration.

THe greatest silence, which is used by the Romane worship­pers, is still in the Priests uttering, or rather muttering the words of Institution [HOC EST CORPVS MEVM: and, Hic est sanguis meus:] albeit heere is the greatest and most necessa­rie 40 Cause of expressing them, for the satisfaction of everie understanding Hearer among you. For, those, you call the words of Consecration, the just pronuntiation whereof you hold to be most necessary: because if the Priest, in uttering of them, faile but in one syllable, so farre as to alter the sense of Christs words (which as you say may happen by six manner of De­fects) then the whole Consecration is void; and the thing which you adore, is in substance meerelySee Booke 7 c. 5. §. 2. Bread still. If therefore the [Page 24] People shall stand perplexed in themselves, whether the words, which are concealed, be duly uttered by the Priest to himselfe, how shall it not concerne them to heare the same expresly pro­nounced, lest that (according to your owne Doctrine) they be de­luded in a point of faith, and with divine worship adore Bread instead of the person of the Sonne of God? Whereof we are to entreat at large in dueIbidem. place, if God permit.

I. CHALLENGE,
Against the Romish Alteration of the Catholicke and Vni­versall practice of the Church, and the An­tiquitie thereof.

IN the examination of this point, Consider in the first place your owne Confessions, given by yourTempore Apo­stolorum totum po­pulum respondere so­li [...]ū in divinis officijs— [...]t longo tempo­re post in Occidente & Oriente Ecclesia. Tempore Chrysosto­m [...], & Cypriani, at (que) Hieronymi, eadem Consuetudo invaluit. Et Hieronymus scri­bit in pr [...]efat. lib. 2. ad Gal. In Ecclesijs urbis Romae quasi coeleste tonited audiri populum reboantem, Amen. Bellar. lib. 2. de verbo Dei, cap. 16. §. Sed.—Tempore Apostolorum, cùm celebraretur Sacrifi­cium hoc, Sacerdos dixit, [Hoc est corpus meum] & populus respondebat, Amen.—Et hic usus ma­navit in totam Eccle­siam usquè ad [...]lle & amplius annos. Maldon. les. Disp de Sacram. Tom. 1. de Euch Con [...]ect. 1. §. V­bi Scribit. Iesuits, and others, 10 acknowledging that In the dayes of the Apostles, and a long time after, even for a thousand yeares and more, the whole Church, and in it the People of Rome had knowledge of this part of Service, con­cerning the Sacrament, and used to say, AMEN. So you. And this is as much as wee need to require, concerning the judge­ment and practice of the true Antiquitie of this Custome. You will rather doubt (wee suppose) of the Vniversalitie thereof, because you usually goe no farther then your Dictates, which teach, that because there were generally but three generall and knowne tongues, Hebrew, Greeke, and Latine, therefore the di­vine 20 Service was celebrated thorowout the Church in one of these three. And because these could not be the vulgar lan­guage of every Christian Nation, it must follow (sayBellar. lib. 2. de verbo Dei, cap. 15 & 16. and so Others also. they) that the People of most Nations understood not the publike Prayers used in their severall Churches. And with this perswasion doe your Doctors locke up your consciences in a false beliefe of an universall Custome of an unknowne service of God. Which you may as easily unlocke againe, if you shall but use, as a key, this one Observation, viz. That the three common tongues (namely) Hebrew, Greeke, and Latine, although they were not al­wayes 30 the vulgar Languages, yet were they knowne Languages com­monly to those people that used them in Divine Service. Which one onely Animadversion will fully demonstrate unto us the truth of our Cause.

It is not denied but that the three Languages, Hebrew, Greeke, and Latine were, in primitive ages, mostTres hae hunguae universalissimae, ità ut Hebraica per to­tum fe [...]e Orientem: Omnes enim Ch [...]l­d [...]câ, aut Syriacâ 1. Hebrai [...]â, sed cor­ruptè loqueb intur. Graeca per totam Graeciam, & Asiam minorem [...]lim ac va­rias provincias latè patebat: Latin [...] au­tem per magna [...] Eu opae pute [...] va­gabatur. Ledesina les. in defens. Bellar. universall; inso­much, that the Hebrew was spoken (albeit corruptly) thorowout al­most the whole Easterne Church. The Greeke was currant thorow the whole Greeke Church also, and in the lesser Asia. And the La­tine was dispersed over a great part of Europe. It will now be ful­lie 40 sufficient to know, that the most of these Languages were certainly knowne, in publicke worship, unto all them of whom they were used in publicke Sermons, and preachings. For your owne Church, howsoever shee decreed of Praying, yet doth she forbid Preaching in an unknowne tongue.

Now therefore joyne (wee beseech you) the eyes of your bodies and minde together, in beholding and pondering our Marginals, and you shall finde, first (if wee speake of the [Page 26] [Concionatus est Gracè Chrysostomus apud Antiochenos, a­pud Caesarienset Basi­lius, apud Alexandri­nos Athanasius, apud Hierosolymitanos Ci­ryllus.] Thus frō Con­slantinople to Anti­och, throughout A­sia, was the Greeke Language universally knowne. Greeke Language) that there was a generall knowledge there­of, even among the vulgar people of the Churches of Antioch, Caesarea, Alexandria, and thorowout Asia. Secondly, if of the Latine, you may behold anciently the familiar knowledge ther­of in the Church of Rome, whereof SaintSee above at the letter (1) Hierome hath testi­fied, that The people were heard in the Churches of Rome resounding and thundring out their Amen. This in Churches unmixt. Third­ly, in mixt Congregations of Greeke and Latine, that theCum Ecclesiâ Rom. de Latinis & Graecis esset permix­ta, singulae lectiones de utra (que) lingua reci­tabantur: nam ab una lingua recitantes ab utrius (que) linguae populis intelligi non poterant. Rupertus de Divinis of ficijs. lib 3. cap. 8. Ser­vice was said both in Greeke and Latine. Fourthly, your owne generall Confession, yielding a common knowledge of the Latine tongue to the people of a great part of Europe: and wee 10 say also of Africke, (insomuch, that Augustine doth openly teach that the[Augustini sunt plurimi Tractatus & Sermones ad Hippo­ne [...]scs suos. With whom be rather chose to speake ossum then os: to the end they should understand him] Liv. Retract ca 20. Psalmum, qui ijs caneretur, per Latt­nas literas feci, prop­ter vulgi & Id [...]ota­rum notitiam. Idem Sermon. 25. de verb. Apost. Punicum pro­verbium est anti­quum, quod quidem Latinè vobis dicam, quià Punicè non om­nes nôstis. [So well was the latine know­en unto them. Item Tert. ad uxorem scripsit Latinè, Ad muli [...]res de Habitu, ad Foeminas de cultu, ad Virgines de velo, directing the same writings to them, thus; Dei Servae, Conservae, et Sorori meae, &c. Cyprianus saepe ad Martyres & plebem Latinè.] Latine tongue was better knowne to his Africans than was the Punicke, although this were their native Language:) And also ofCurabant Romani, ut & in pro­vincijs plurimi loquerentur Latinè, ita ut Hispanias & Gallias Latinas prorsus fecerint, veteribus illarum gen­tium linguis abolitis. Vives in Aug. de Ci. Dei lib. 19. c. 7. Nostri per totum ferè occidentem, per Septentrionis, per Africae non exiguam partem brevi spatio linguam Romanam celebrem, & quasi Regiam fecerunt—Nostra est Italia, nostra Gallia, nostra Hispania, Germania, Panonia, Dalmatia, Illyricum, & multae aliae na­tiones Valla praesat. in [...]. Elegant. Certè testimonium ex Hilario dictum videtur omninò cogere, ut credamus in Gallia fuisse consuetudinem, ut populus et Ecclesia caneret etiam antè Ambrosij tempora. Bellar. l. 1. de bonis operibus. c. 16. §. Fortasse. France, Spaine, Italy, Germany, Pannonia, Dalma­tia, and many other Nations in the North and West: particularly manifested by the Latine Homelies, (that is, Sermons) and wri­tings made to the people of Africke by Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine; and in France and Germany by the people, praying, and joyntly saying, AMEN.

Not to tell you of the now-Custome of the remote Christian 20 Churches, such as are the Egyptians, Russians, Ethiopians, Arme­nians, and others; all which exercise their publike Service in the vulgar and mother-tongues of their owne so distinct and dif­ferent Nations. For the which cause they can finde no better entertainment with your Iesuites, than to admonish you that Certum est (inquiunt Protestantes) Ruthenos, AEgyptios, AEthiopes, Armenos, & quosd [...]m alios celerbare divina Officia in Lingua vulgari.—Respondemus, nos non moveri Barbaro­rum moribus, Salomeron, Ies. Com. in 1. Cor. 16. Disp. 30. §. Septimò. You are not to be moved with the example of such barbarous people. O Iesuiticall superciliousnesse! to contemne them as Barbarous, in an example of praying in a knowne tongue: the contrarie whereunto (as namely, praying in an unknowne tongue) the A­postle condemneth as1. Cor. 14. 11. Barbarousnesse it selfe.

With the same modestie might you scoffe at, and reproach o­ther 30 more ancient Nations and Christians, commended by primitive Fathers, for celebrating their Oblations, Prayers, and Psalmes in their Nationall tongues; so, that one repeating the words first, the whole people with joynt voyce and heart accor­ded in singing. Among whom are recorded the converted 40 [Page 27] De ludaeis con­versis, Authors. in 1. Cor. 14 Aliquando Syrâ Lingrâ, ple­run (que) H [...]braeâ in ob­lationibus uteban­tur. Iewes, the Syrians, and All, aswell Greekes as Romanes, pray­ing in their owne tongue, and with harmonicall consent singing of Psalmes, in the publicke worship: as also theHier. ad Eustoch. Epitaph. Paulae. He­braeo, Graeco, Lati­no, Syro (que) Sermone Psalmi in ordine per­sonabant. Ad finem. Grecians, Egyp­tians, Thebaeans, Palestinians, Arabians, Phoenicians, and Syrians. This from the Testimonies of holy Fathers.

Whether therefore the tongue, wee pray in, bee barbarous or learned, it is not respected of God, but whether it be knowne or unknowne, is the point. In which respect we may usurpe the Similitude which S. Augustine hath; What availeth a golden 10 Key, if it cannot open that which should bee opened? or what hurteth a wooden Key; Orig. con. Celsum. lib. 8. Graeci Graecè, Romani Romanà, singuli (que) precentur linguâ suâ—. Non enim est Deus maxi­mus unus corum, qui certam aliquam lin­guam so [...]titi; caete­rarum iguari sunt. if it be able to open, seeing that wee desire nothing, but that the thing shut may be opened? By this time you see your Noveltie in your Romish Practice.

Behold in the next place the Iniquitie and prophannesse thereof, and how after the death of Pope Gregorie the first, which was about 608 years after Christ, your Roman Church degenerated as much from the (then) Romane truth, Bas [...]. ad Cler. Eccles. Caesarien Qui­dam Psalmos cau­satitur, et modos Psalmodiae—Vnum hoc numeris datur, ut quod canendum sit prius ordiatur, reliqui succinunt.—elucescente die pariter omnes veluti uno ore et corde confessionis Psalmum Deo offerunt—Horum gratia si nos fugitis, fugietis simul AEgyptios, Thebraeos, Palaestinos, Arabes Phoenicas, Syros & ut semel dicam omnes apud quos vigiliae, preces (que) communes (que) Psalmodiae in pre [...]o sunt. For the Sclavanians. See hereafter. 6. Chalenge at (d) in this point, as she did from her Romane tongue and Language it selfe. Wee are here constrained to plead the whole cause, for the de­fence 20 of a necessitie of a knowne worship, in respect of God, of Man, Aug. de doctr. Christ. l. 4. c. 11. Quid prodest, &c. and of Both.

A SECOND CHALLENGE,
Shewing the Iniquitie of Service in an Vnknowne tongue: and first of the Injury done by the foresaid Romane 30 Decree unto the soules of Men.

THe former Decree of your Councell for unknowne Service, how injurious it is unto man, we may learne by the Confes­sions, of Iesuites and others, Apostolus praeci­pit, ut Preces ad aedi­ficationem fiant, quemadmodùm pro­batur Rom. 15.—Plus lucratur, quoad intellectum et affe­ctum, qui non igno­rat quae orat.—Qui non intelligit, non ae­dificatur, in quantum non intelligit in speciali, licet in generali intelligat.—Ad fructum devotionis conducibilius intelligendo orare. Aquinas in 1. Cor. 14. Iubet Apostolus ut ad aedificationem abundent: melius est orare mente, distinctè intelligente ea quae orat, quàm confusè. Et ex hac doctrina habetur, melius esse ut publicae preces Ecclesiae nostrae; audiente populos in lingua Clericis & populo communi dicantur, quàm Latinè. Cajeran. Cardin. in eum locum. 1. Cor. 14. Paulus vult òmnes homines orare, etiam mente. Faber Stapulens. in eundem locum. Quid proficit po­pulus non intelligendo ea quae orat? Lyran in 1. Cor. 14. Ne benedicons (Sacerdos) diceret, Ego quidem in­telligo & gratias ago peregrinâ lînguâ: respondet Apostolus [Sed alter non aedificatur:] Id est, Indè nulla aedificatio Ecclesiae, cujus imprimis ratio habenda erat: ità ut nolit ullas preces publicas in Ecclesia celebrari ig­no [...]o prorsus Sermone,—qui non sit Graecis Graecus, Hebraeis, Hebraeus, Latinus Latinis, nam magna ex parte haec idiomata ab ijs, qui sunt ejusdem linguae, intelliguntur. Salmeron. Ies. Com. sup. eum locum. 1. Cor. 14. [which he confesseth of the Apostles times.] granting that The Apostles in their times required a knowne Language, Greeke in the Greeke Churches, and Latine in the Latine Churches: because first that this made for the Edidification and consolation of Christians. Secondly, 40 that Mangaineth more both in mind and affection, who knoweth [Page 28] what he prayeth. As for him that is Ignorant, you say, He is not edified, inasmuch as he knoweth not in particular, although in ge­nerall he doth understand. Thirdly, that the Apostle commandeth that all things be done to edification. Fourthly, that the knowne Service is sitter for Devotion: and thereupon some of you have furthermore Concluded, that It were better that the Service were used in a Language knowne both to the Clergie and People. And a­gaine, that People profit no whit by praying in a strange language. So your owne Writers, as you may observe in the Marginals.

Now what more extreame and intolerable Injury could you do to the soules of Gods people, than by imposing a strange lan­guage 10 upon them, thereby (according to your own Confessions) to deprive them, and that wittingly, of Edification, Consolation, and Devotion, the three chiefe Benefits that mans soule is ca­pable off, in the service of God? Thus in respect of your Inju­rie against Man.

A THIRD CHALLENGE.
Touching the Injurie done, by the same Decree, a­gainst 20 God himselfe.

YEt all this notwithstanding, you are bent to cozen Christian people with palpable Sophistry, by yourBellarm. lib. 2. de verbo Dei, cap. 16. De Canticis Spiritua­libus tempore Primi­tivae Ecclesiae Tert §. Porro consuevisse.—Quoniam igitur ista Cantica fiunt ad Po­puli consolationem, vult Apostolus, ut si­ant linguâ quae in­telligatur: ut Idio­ta, &c. Ibid. §. Quo­niam—Praete­rea tunc, quia Chri­stiani erant pauci, omnes simul psalle­bant in Ecclesiâ, & respondebant [...]nis officijs: at posteà, crescente populo, di­visa sunt magis offi­cia, & solis Clericis relictum est, ut com­munes preces & lau­des in Ecclesiâ pera­gant. Ibid §. Respon­deo negando.—Dem (que) finis praeci­puus illorum Canti­corum erat instructio & consolatio populi,—& nisi linguâ nota facta fuissent—perijsset praecipuus fructus ipsorum. At Divinorum officiorum nec est finis praecipuus instructio, vel consolatio popul [...], sed cultus Dei. Ibid. §. Deni (que) finis. Cardinall, who confesseth that the Psalmes in the daies of the Primitive Church, were sung joyntly of the people, Because they were ordained for instruction and consolation of the people, as the chiefe end. But as for the Divine Service, The Principall end of it (saith hee) is not the instruction and consolation of the people, but the worship of God. So he. Whom when wee aske, why the people then did all 30 joyne together both in Singing of Psalmes, and Answering the Minister in Divine Service, and Prayer? He saith it was because of the Paucitie, of the people, and rarenesse of the Assembly. Whereby it seemeth hee meant to maintaine Your Degenerate Romish Worship with Paradoxes. First, As if Psalmes, publike­ly sung in the Church to Gods glory, were not Divine duties and Service. Secondly, As if the Primitive Church, using both Psalmes and other Prayers in a knowne tongue (as hee confesseth) did not hold a necessitie of the common knowledge of both, for Instruction and Consolation. Thirdly, As if the Assemblies of 40 Christians were of such a Paucitie, in the dayes of Tertullian; when those Psalmes ordained for Instruction and Consolation were in use. And fourthly, as if People now adayes had not as much need of Instruction and Consolation, as they that lived in [Page 29] Primitive times; yea, and more, especially such People, who be­ing led blind-fold by an Implicite Faith, have reason to crave Instruction; and having their Consciences tortured and perple­xed with multiplicities of Ceremoniall Lawes, have as just cause also to desire Consolation.

As for your objecting the Worship of God by unknowne prayers, that may be sufficient, which your owne Catechisme (authori­zed by the Councel of Trent) teacheth you; where answering to that question, why God, although he know our wants before we 10 pray, yet will be sollicited by our prayers? it Cur Deus, cùm sciat quibus indige­mus, vult oratio­ne nostrâ sollicitari? Vult n [...]s [...]è pe tendo petere fidentiùs.—ut magis ad amorem incendantur—ac at saepiùs majori af­fecti laetitiâ ad cum amandum atque co­lendum incitemu [...] ar­dentiùs. Catech. T [...]id. vel Rom. part. 4. c. 2. pug. 386. saith, that he doth this to the end, that Praying more confidently, we may bee more in­flamed with love towards God: and so being possessed with more joy, may be exercised to a fervent worship of God. So your publike and generall Romane Catechisme.

The case then is plaine. From more Edification there ariseth more Consolation; from more Consolation there issueth more Devotion; from all these proceeds more siliall Love and dutifull Worship of God. Which was long since shadowed (asExod. 15. [Cante­mus Domino] Can­tabat Moses & Mi­riam, hempè Moses, [...]d est, pars intelle­ctus, & Miraiam, id est sensus purificatus: justum enim est in­telligibiliter & sensi­biliter Deo hymno [...] dici, utrumque in­strumentum concin­nè pulsari, tàm in­tellectum, quàm sen­sum, in solus Dei sal­vatoris laudem, & actionem Gratiarum. Hactenùs Philo Iudeaus. Pulcherrimus hic Tractatus moralis. Pererius Ies. in Exod. 15. Disp. 2. §. Exercitus porrò Philo Iu­daeus allegorizeth, witnessing your Iesuite) by Moses and Miriam 20 singing unto the Lord: Moses signifying the understanding part, and Miriam betokening the Affection; both notifying, that wee are to sing Hymnes both affectionately and understandingly unto God. Therefore, if you be men of Conscience, recant that your now objected Barbarous Paradoxe, Which (contrary to all anciently professed Divinity, and expresse Scripture, saying,1 Cor. 14. 15. I will pray with my spirit, I will pray with my understanding also) doth thrust mans Vnderstanding out of Gods worship, to the utter a­bolishing of [...], that is, his Reasonable worshipping of God; by making man (as SaintAugust. Expos. 2. in Psal. 18. Merulae, Psittaci, Corvi, Picae, & hujusmodi volucres saepè docentur ab hominibus sonare quod nesciunt: scenter verò ca [...]tare non avi, sed homini Divinâ voluntate concessum est. Augustine noteth) no better than 30 Ouzells, Parrots, Ravens, and Mag-pies, all which learne to prate they know not what.

THE FOVRTH CHALLENGE,
Against the said Romish Decree, as joyntly injurious both 40 to God and Man; from the Text of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 14.

IN the fourth place Wee are to speake of the Iniquity of your unknowne language in Prayer, joyntly against both God and Man; because that without the understanding of the Prayer it is impossible for a man (being of discretion) to pray unto, or to praise God as hee ought: and consequently to obtaine any [Page 30] blessing by prayer from God, according to that Apostolicall Doctrine, [...] Cor. 14. where hee saith of the man ignorant of the language of prayer, [ [...];] How shall hee say Amen, at thy giving of thankes, seeing hee knoweth not what thou sayest? To which Argument of the Apostles, taken from the Impossibility, your Dicit Apostolus [ut instruam] Expen­de vocem hanc, In­struam, quòd sit de praedicatione, non de Missae celebratione. Eckius Enchirid. Qu [...] Missa Latinè, § Quod ad & Bellar. Aliqui respondent, non agi hîc de preci­bus. Lib. 2. de verbo Dei. cap. 16. §. Ad hanc. Eckius and some Others answer, that the Apostle speaketh of Preaching, and not of Praying. What, not of Praying, Eckius? May it not be said of this your great Doctor, and Antagonist to Luther, that this man could not see the River for water? for (as yourImò sequitur [ [...]] quibus verbis Apostolus significat pre­cari, &c. Bellar. ibid. Cardinall confesseth) in the text it selfe the Apostle u­seth 10 these three words, Pray, sing, and give thankes. Will you now seeke an Evasion from MasterMaster Brerely in his Liturgie of the Masse. Tract. 5. Sect. 4 ad finem. Brerely Pr. collecting (as he saith) the Contrary in the Apostle, as affirming that not the whole vulgar, but some one was especially appointed to supply the place of the Vnlearned to say, Amen? Which reason hee may seeme to have borrowed from yourProvidet sapi­enter Ecclesia, ut Mi­nister vice totius po­puli respondeat: imò hoc est quod Aposto­lus ait, cùm subdit, Qui super locum Idiotae. Sixt. Senens. Biblio. lib. 6. Annot. 263. Hinc manifestè cōvincitur, fuisse tem­pore Apostoli Pauli unum, qui suppleret locum populi. Lede [...] sima Ies. de Scriptur. non legend cap. 26. 27. §. Praeteà ex. & Sa. Ies. Comment. in hunc locum. Senensis, who saith that The Apostle by him [That occupieth the place of the unlearned] meant the Clarke of the Parish, and not the vulgar people.

But this is thought of your Bellarmine, and others, to be but an unlearned answer, because that In the dayes of the Apostle 20 (saith Tempore A­postolorum nullum fuisse pro Laicis con­stitutum, ex Iustino constat. Et Graeca vox [ [...]] non significat, secundùm usum Graecae linguae, vice Idiotarum, sed unum esse ex Idiotis. Bellar. lib. 2 de Verbo Dei, cap. 16. §. Sed non videtur.—Ita est secundùm phrasin Grae­cam, ut sit sensus: Vnus ex Idiotis. Salmeron. Ies. in 1 Cor. 14. Disp. 22, §. Illud: And the English Rhemists in their Annotations on the same place. he) There was not any such office ordained, as is the Clerke of the Parish. And if there had beene any such, yet the Greeke phrase [ [...]] would not admit of any such interpretation. So he. ⚜ And how might not that Clerke be an Ignaro, see­ing you do confesse, that Sixtus Senens. Biblioth lib. 6. Annot: 263. Verùm etiam saepenu­merò nec ipsi Presbyteri nec Diaconi intelligunt quid orant. Oftentimes the Priest and Deacon understand and not what is prayed.⚜

Lastly, it can be no lesse than an extreme Infatuation to oppose (asSatisfacit Sacerdos, cùm preces etiam non intellectas absolvit: etiam meretur, modò in Dei laudes preces non intellectas peroret. Sic in Monasterijs professae, & Monachi non pauci orant, quae intellectu non modò non assequuntur. Sic enim Pueri orant, & est beneplacitum Deo. Eckius Tom. 2. Hom. 3. in festo Rogat. pag. 90. Etiam pueri orant, Ozanna, & preces eo­rum crant Christo gratissimae Salmer. les. in 1. Cor. 16. Disp. 30. §. Septimo. So the Rhemists in Matth. 21. vers. 16. and in 1. Cor. 19. pag. 463. do your Iesuit Salmeron, Eckius, and the Rhemists) the ex­ample of Children, because the Children crying Hosanna, and not understanding their prayers, were notwithstanding (say they) accep­ted 30 of Christ. Ergò the Priest, Monkes, & Nunnes, in praysing God, may be grateful to God although they understand not that which they pray. So they. An Objection taken (as you see) from Children, or rather, as it might seeme, made by Children, it is altogether so Childish. For the Apostle, as it were, foreseeing that this might possibly bee fancied by some fond and obstinate Opposers to the Spirit of Truth, doth in the very same Chapter 1 Cor. 14. 20. purposely prevent it, saying, Brethren, be not children in un­derstanding. For although, when a Childe asketh his Fathers 40 [Page 31] blessing onely with clapping his hands together, or uttering halfe syllables, it joyeth the Father, because his Childe now expresseth his duty, according to the Capacitie of a Childe: yet if the same Childe, after hee is come to the perfect yeares of discretion, should performe that duty in no better manner than by Childith babling, would the Father hold this to be Re­verence, and not rather plaine Mockerie? So is the Case be­twixt us and God, who2. Cor. 3. 1 [...]. accepteth every one according to that which hee hath, and not according to that which hee hath not: a 10 Childe in the capacitie of a Childe, but a man according to the apprehension of a man. In which consideration the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 13. 11. When I was a childe, I spake as a childe, but being a man, I put away childishnesse. Away therefore with this your more than Childish Objection.

Wee returne to the Impossibilitie of praying duely in an un­knowne tongue, which the Apostle illustrateth by two Simi­litudes, the one taken from an Instrument of peace, Vers. 7. Hee that knoweth not the distinct sound of the Pipe [ [...]] How shall he know what is piped? that is, it is impossible for him to apply him­selfe to the daunce. The other from an Instrument of warre, 20 Vers. 8. If the Trumpet give an uncertaine sound, who shall pre­pare himselfe to battell? As if hee would have said, It is impos­sible to know when to march forward, or when to retraite. So it is said of unknowne Prayer [ [...];] How shall hee that is igno­rant of the language say Amen? that is to say, (by the inter­pretation of yourPopulus igno­tae linguae quomodò respondebit, Amen? hoc est, animae prae­hebit assensum, cùm more Babylonice cō ­susionis qui dissident, nequaquam sensu a­ninusque conspirent. Acosta Ies. de Indo­rum salute, cap. 6. pag. 37. Iesuit) How shall people, ignorant of the tongue, answer Amen? (that is) yield consent unto the Prayer, seeing that they who dissent among themselves after a Babylonish confusion, cannot consent in minde and affection. So he. Or, as yourQuomodò di­cet, [Amen?] Cùm quid boni dicas non intelligit, nisi bene­dicas tantùm. Aqui­nas in hunc locum, 1. Corinth. 14. I adde Sander. de visib. Mo­narch. ad A [...]n. 1563. [Si benedixeris spiri­tu, Quomodò dicat Amen?] Significatur de precibus Ecclesiasticis, fateor, quas in spiritu, hoc est, in dono linguae peregrinae dicat tari nollet, ut in Latina Ecclesia Hebraeam, aut in Graeca Persicam: quia decessent plerunque viri docti & petiti illius linguae, qui populo interpretari possent. [Thus from the Apostle hee granteth, that Prayers are not to bee used, where the people have not the intepretation: although hee say, that Deus honorificentiùs colitur per lin­guam doctam, quàm per indoctam & vulgarem. As though where there is no respect of persons with God, yet there should be respect of the Tongues.] A­quinas; 30 How shall hee say, Amen, who understandeth not what good words thou speakest, but onely knoweth that thou blessest? Thus in one Transgression you commit a double Sacriledge, to wit, by Robbing God of his due Honour, and Men of their spirituall gra­ces and Comforts.

To conclude. These Premises do prove, that among many thousands of your people, assembled at a Romane Masse, and be­ing ignorant of their Service, not any such an one (a miserable Case!) can justly be held to bee a true Worshipper of God, who requireth of his Worshippers the* Calves of their lippes, and 40 not (as now they make themselves) the lips of Calves.

THE FIFT GHALLENGE,
Out of the Doctrine of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 14. more copiously, in confutation of your divers Objections.

IT were an easie matter to bee superfluous in the prosecuting of this Argument, by proving the truth of this Doctrine out 10 of the Testimonies of ancient Fathers, if it were imaginable that any Reply could bee made to that which is already sayd. But yet behold anIn his aforemen­tioned Writing to a Lady, &c. Anonymus, having had notice of most of these points, hath formed such Objections and Answers, as his pre­judicated and pourblinde Conceit could reach unto. First, and most common, in answere to the places objected out of 1. Cor. 14. affirming (out of the Rhemists Annotations) That the Apostle speaks not of the publike and set prayers of the Church; but of extra­ordinary & spirituall exercises of Exhortations and suddaine Pray­ers. So he. Wherein the man contradicteth your ownAlij dicunt Apo­stolum loqui de di­vinis officijs, viz. Haymo, Primasius, P. Lombardus, D. Thomas, & alij qui­dam ex Latinis. Teste Bellar. Lib. 2. de verbo Dei, cap. 16. Schoole­men, but especially the Apostle his direct saying. Verse 23. If the whole Congregation meete together, &c. What more publique 20 that the Assembly of the whole Congregation? And (to suppose that they were extraordinarie Prayers) what is more Consecta­rie and Consequent, than that if the Apostle note if for an A­buse, to practise such Extraordinarie Exercises of Preaching and Praying in a tongue unknowne, even because the Hearers are not thereby Edified? Doubtlesse the same Abuse, practised in pub­like and ordinarie Service, being more notorious and Common, must needs bee so much the more condemnable: as witnesse bothSee the sixt Chal­lenge following. Ancient Fathers, and your owneSee the former Challenges. Brethren, who have taught the use of a knowne Tongue, in all publique and ordinary 30 service of God, from this Text of Scripture, which (as you say) speaketh of Prayers extraordinarie. Which is a full Confutation of your former Objection.

Yea, but It is sufficient (saith he) that the vulgar people know, in generall, although they understand not the Prayers in particular. Which againe Contradicteth the Apostle, who in the sixteenth Verse will have the Private or Vulgarman to bee able to give consent to the publique Prayer, in saying Amen. And therefore re­quireth the Minister, Verse 7. as the Harper, to yeeld in particu­lar a Distinction of tunes [ [...]:] and Verse 8. as a 40 Trumpeter, [ [...]] to give a certaine knowne sound; that which your owne Doctors have also confessed.

A third Instance is taken out of Bellarmine, who saith that TheNon reprehendi­tur oratio non intel­lect, sed ei anteponi­tur oratio quae intel­ligitur, ut peter Vers. 17 [Tu quidem benè gratias agis, sed alter non aedisicatur] Bel­lar. quo supra. Apostle reprehendeth not an unknowne Prayer, but prefer­reth a knowne Prayer before the other, saying Verse 7. Thou, indeed, prayest well, but another is not edified. Flatly contradictorie to the whole scope of the Apostle, throughout the Chapter, as [Page 33] your owne Salmer [...] in les. See above Challenge 2. at the let. (z) Iesuite is forced to proclaime. The Apostle (saith hee) would have the people to be edified, because then all things ought to have beene done to the Edification and Consolation of the Assembly: and therefore hee would not, have any Publike Prayer used among the Hebrewes, but in the Hebrew-language; nor among the Grecians, but in Greeke, nor yet among the Latines, but in the Latine tongue. The meaning then is, [Thou indeed] namely, who art the Minister, and knowest the prayer, so far dost well; but in respect of others, which cannot understand, Not well, be­cause, They are not edified.

10 His fourth Objection hee wresteth out of the fourth Verse. [If I pray with my tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is without fruit.] So hee. As though that strange Tongue, here spoken off, were not understood by him that prayed. Which con­tradicteth the Apostle, Verse 4. Hee that speaketh with the tongue doth edifie himselfe: for never did any deny [...]t at hee, who had the miraculous gift of Speech in a strange tongue, did under­stand himselfe, although sometimes he wanted the gift of Inter­preting 20 it, for the understanding of all others. Therefore saith the Apostle, Verse 13. [Hee that speaketh with the tongue, let him pray, that hee may interprete it.] Fiftly, by the word [Spirit] Id est, si orem dono linguae: nimi­tùm, quam non in­telligam, [Spiritus] id est Affectus meus orat, sed mens est fine fructu. Ergo dicit Apostolus, non O­rationem, sed men­tem esse sine fructu. Bellar quo sup And this answere Master Brerely borrowed from Bellar. Tract. upon the Masse. p. 452. your Cardinall would have understood the Affection, as if Affection without understanding did profit him that prayeth: which is fully contrary to the Apostles doctrine, as witnesseth yourVox [Spiritus] à principiō us (que) ad finem Donum Spiri­tus peculiare signifi­cat, quo impellebātur lingus loqui. Si A­postolus in hac voce admitteret Homony­miam aliquam, Graeci Patres nos de eo admonuissent. Salmeron. Ies. in eund. locum. Salmeron in plaine termes; shewing that the word, Spirit, thorow-out this whole Chapter, signfieth not the Affection, but the miraculous Spirituall gift of speaking in Strange tongues, as also theVpon the same place both Ambrose, [Spiritu id est, linguâ ignotâ.] ⚜ And Chrysstome also upon Saint Pauls words [My Spirit prayeth, but my mind is without fruit] [...].— [...] calleth his Not knowing the Prayer, [...]. Hier. in 1. Cor. 14. Omnis sermo, qui non intelligitur, Barbarus est. [Spiritus meus orat, sed alter non aedificatur] Id est, Non est legenti instructuosus sermo, sed audienti, quià ignorat—Sic igitur legendum, ut intelligant alij [Quomodò dicet Amen?] i. e. quomodò praebebit consensum. Basil. in Reg. Contract. Reg. 278. de prece audienti incognitâ; [...]. And of their translation of Scriptures into their nationall tongues, Chry­sost. Hom. 1. in Ioh. Syri, Indi, AEgyptij, Persae, AEthiopes, & innumerae aliae gentes in suam transferentes linguam, homines barbari philosophari didicerunt. Aug. l. 2. de doctr. Christ. cap. 5. Ex quo [...]actum est ut Scriptura divina ab una lingua profecta—per varias interpretum linguas longè late (que) diffusa innotescere gentibus ad salutem. Fathers expound it.

30 In the next place the aforesaid Anonymus contendeth by Reason, but such as others reached unto him. Fathers say (saith hee) the words of Consecration should be kept secret. True, to them that were not capable of this Sacrament, butSee this proved Booke 7. Chap. 3.⚜ never to the licensed Communicants; because that Christ, and his Apostles, yea and the Vniversall Church primitive consecrated in an au­dible voice, and knowne language, as hath beene confessed. Yet furthermore. The Church (saith hee) used the said Hebrew word, 40 Allelujah, unknowne to the people. What then? know you not [Page 34] that in all Churches, of whatsoever language, is used also the Hebrew word, Amen? and if people doe not learne one or two words of a strange tongue, it is not for that they are wit­lesse, but because they are wilfull and carelesse.

Their last Reason. Some languages (as for example that in Italie) were Romane, and corrupted by invasion of Enemies of divers languages, and in the end became Italian, &c. yet the publike Service was not altered, but continued Romane as before. This Argument is à facto ad jus, all one with that Reasoning à Baculo ad angulum. Like as if some should conclude, that because 10 Stewes are allowed at Rome, they are therefore justly licensed. But wee demand, are men made for languages, or rather langua­ges for men? if the latter, then is that language to be used, which is knowne to serve best for the Edification and Consola­tion of Gods people in his worship.

A SIXT CHALLENGE.20
Out of the Doctrine of Antiquitie.

ALthough it were preposterous to exact of us a proofe, from Antiquity, of condemning the Service in a strange tongue, seeing (as hath beene confessed) the Primitive practioe is wholly for us; and therefore no Abuse in those times could occasion any such Reproofe: yet shall wee, for your better il­lumination, offer unto you some more expresse Suffrages of the 30 ancient Fathers, after that wee shall have satisfied your Objecti­ons, pretended to make for your Defence. Saint Augustine saith of the People, that their Safetie consisteth not in the vigour of their understanding, but in their simplicitie of believing. So in­deed dothAug. de Bap. l. 6. c. 24. Multi irruunt in preces, etiam ab Hae­reticis compositas, & per ignorantiae sim­plicitatem non valen­tes decernere, utun­tur eis, & plerunque precis vitium superat precantis affectus.—Non quià ista corri­genda non sint, ut populus ad id, quod plauè intelligat, dicat Amen. Idem de Cate­chizand. rudibus c. 9. Teste Cassandro in Liturg. pag. 102. Augustine forewarne the people, who although they knew the single words of the prayers of Heretikes, yet might possibly be deluded with the obscuritie of their Here­ticall Senses. The Difference is extreme. For Saint Angustines people understood the language of those prayers, in the obscure and involved Sense whereof they were unwillingly ignorant.40 But your Popish people are wilfully ignorant both of the Words and Sense. The oddes therefore is no lesse than this; they were simply, yours are sottishly ignorant: and Augustine wisheth that their Simplicitie were corrected; you hold your peoples blindnesse worthy to be commended.

Secondly, Origen saith, that when Christians are exercised in reading of holy Scripture, albeit some words be not understood, [Page 35] yet is that reading profitable. This Sentence also is alleged for countenancing ofOrigen. Hom. 20. in Ios Quae nos pro­fermus [...]aepe non in­telligimus, sed virtu­tes intelligunt. Ergo licet preces non in­tellectis usurpare. O [...] Bellar. l. 2. de verbo Dei, cap. 16. Prayer in an unknowne tongue; notwithstan­ding, that in a mans Reading of Scripture, God is said to speake un­to man: but in Praying, man is said to speake unto God. So that it may be both lawfull and profitable to the Reader, to finde some particular Scriptures, which God would have to excell the Ca­pacitie of the most learned, to humble them, to the admiration of his excellent wisedome, as the Fathers teach. Whereas contrarily an unknowne Prayer, wittingly used, is both unpro­fitable 10 and unlawfull, as hath beene copiously confessed by your owne Divines, from the Doctrine of the Apostle.

More objections out of the Fathers you have not. Wee will try whether wee can recompence your Nominalities (that wee may so call your impertinent Objections) with Realties and so­lid Proofes. Cast but your eyes upon the Marginals, consisting partly of the Relation of your owneIohannes Bil­let in summa de di­vinis officijs, In pri­mitiva Ecclesia (in­quit) prohibitum e­rat, ne quis loquere­tur linguis, nisi in­telligerentur.—At nostris tempori­bus, ubi nullus aut rarus inventur le­gens, vel audien [...], qui intelligat, com­pletum est quod à Propheta dicitur: E­rit Sacerdos ut popu­lus. Videtur potius elle racendum quam psallendum. Inno­cent. 3. in Conc gen. in lib. Decret. de of­fic. Iud. Ordinar. Quoniam in pleris (que) partibus—permix­ti sunt populi diversa­rum linguarum.—Pontifices civitatum provideant viros ido­neos, qui secundùm diversitatem lingua­rum divina illis offi­cia delebrent.—AEn. Syl. Hist. Bohem. c. 13. Cyrillo Romae Epis­copo supplicante, ut lingua Sclavonicâ res divina fieret—essent (que) non pauci qui contradicerent, andita est vox, tanquam è caelo, in haec verba missa, Omnis Spiritus laudet Dominum, & omnis lingua confiteatur ei: inde (que) indultum Cy­rillo. Hujusq. ex Cassand Lit. fol. 101 102. Cassander, and partly of ourCons. Aquisgranens. cap. 131. Psallentium in Ecclesia Domino mens concordare debet cum voce, ut impleatur illud Apostoli, Psalmam Spiritu, psalmam & mente. Collections, and you shall finde, among the Fathers, Ambros. in 1. Cor. 14. [Qui supplet locum Idiotae, quomodò dicet Amen ad benedictionem tuam, quià nescit quid dicis?] Imperitus enim nesciens quid dicitur, nescit finem orationis, & non respondet Amen. Ve­rum ut confirmetur benedictio: per hos enim qui respondent Amen, impletur confirmatio precis, ut omnia dicti veri testimonio confirmentur in mentibus Audientum—'[Sed alius non aedificatur.] Si igitur ad aedi­ficandam Ecclesiam convenitis, as debent dici, qu [...] intelligant Audientes: nam quid prodest, ut quis lingua loquatur, quam solus scit? ideò tacere debet in Ecclesia, us ij loquantur qui prosunt Audientibus. Ambrose denying that Hee, who is the person ignorant of the Prayer, can give consent unto it, by saying Amen: and thereupon 20 inferreth, that onely Such things should be spoken in the publike Congregation, which the Hebrewes understand. Chry­sost. in 1. Cor. 14. [Barbarus] Et ille mihi, & ego illi, non uti (que) ob naturam vocis, sed ob imperitiam—Et qui non intelligit quid loquatur, sibi est Barbarus. [Qui locum tenet indocti.] Indoctum promiscuam ple­bem intelligit, monstrat (que) non leve impedimentum esse, si non intelligat. [Omnia ad aedificationem.] AEdi­fieare enim Archirecti est opus, & per omnia proximum juvare—Si enim aedificandi gratiâ non venis, quid necesse est omninò venisse? Chrysostome noting a Man, Ignorant of the Prayer, to be no better than a Bar­barian to himselfe, not in respect of the nature of the voice, but of his owne Ignorance; and declaring Prayers, in an unknowen tongue, to be contrary to the Apostles Doctrine, who requireth that All things be done to edification. Ifidor. de Eccles. offic. lib. x. cap. 10. Oportet, quando oratur, ut ab om­nibus oretur. Isidore peremptorily affir­ming an [Oportet,] and duety, that All may be able to pray in pub­like places of prayer. Theoplylact noting thatTheophylact. in 1. Corint. 14. [Tu gratias benè agis, sed alius non aedificatur.] Proximi utilitate rejecta, inutiles erant hujusmodi gratiae. The giving of thankes to God is unprofitable, where the edification of the people 30 is neglected. Augustine, in his Comment upon the Psalmes, of­ten exhorting all sorts of men to sing them: and thereupon the 40 In the Preface of an unknowne Author, before the Prologue of Saint Augustine upon the Psalmes: Quo modo debite potest Deo psallere, qui ignorant quid psallat. Authour of the Preface before his Comment (as it were tu­ning [Page 36] his note to Angustines) doth deny that any can sing Psalmes as hee ought to God, who knoweth not what hee singeth.

⚜Who so desireth more, let him cast his eye upon the Mr. M [...]iric Casuubon Praehend. Cantuar. Transcript. Notarum Marginal. M. S. Patris sui Isaaci in Bellar. now extant in the Kings Ma. Di­brary at S. Iames.—Ab Bellar. (Edit. Pa­ris. 1608. pag. 111. C. D. Adversus im­plissimam hujus Ca­pitis doctrinam, me­mineris-veterem Ec­clesiam, [...] Romana. è diametro est hîc opposita, nihil studi­osiùs fecisse, quàm ut in vernaculas linguas verterentur: Biblia. Gotthieae versionis menuo apud Sozom. p. 90. Dalmaticae, Hi­er. To 4. p. 79. Arme­nae, Pachym. in vita Chrysost. [De illa Armena lingua, satis constat eam fuisse u­surpatam in Ecclesia. Vide locum Bellar. Tom. 6. p. 613. Scrip­turam sacram statim initio versam esse in omnes linguas, testa­tur Euseb. Demonst p. 88.] De Liturgia in vernacula lingua in Mesopot. locus Basil. 277. Syr. AEgypt. In­dica, Persica, AEthio­pi [...] Chrysost. [...] in Ioh. Earudem, & Scythicae; & Sau­romaticae, Theodor. [...], p. 81. ubi, no­ta verba: [...]. Idem clamat verbis penè eisdem Aug. lib. 2. de [...]dect. Christ cap. 5. Adde, in Iure oriental Bonifid. p. 243. tractatur haec quaestio, & pronun­ciatur oporte [...]o [...] linquā Arab. inter Sa [...]arenos. Vide Iuris orient Leuncla. p. 365. Vellem doctiss: Bel­lar. statum Quaestiones rectè concepisset initio hujus Cap. non enim quaeritur, An lingua latina fuerit olim sub Imp. Rom in usu [...] sacris, sed illud quaeritus, [...] sacrae administrari, & populo proponi debeant eâ linguâ qu [...]vel sit populo vernacula, vel certò, à populo intelligatur. Probate possumus veteris Eccles. opinionem fuisse, [...] populum intelligero mysteria Christianae religionis, & omnia impedimenta esse amovenda: quâ de re exstat locus in Constit, Iustini p. (1365) insignis, & p. 366 ex Paulo id ipsum probat Imperator: Loquitur autem ibide sacra E [...]aristia, & Baptismo Eodem referri potest, quod Const. [...] p. 372. conceditur Iudaeis, ut sacram Scrip [...] Graecam [...]guam vertant. & quamcun (que) aliam voluerint, & habuerint sibi notam, aut etiam [...] Vult enim [...]: & mox, [...], &c. Refer eodem locum aureum Chrysost. [...] falsco Scripture obscuritatem legi non deberi quia scripta non Rom: hon Heb. linguâ oliâ Casu [Clem [...] same words of the Apostle [Hee is a Barbarian] aeprooveth [...] philoso [...] lib [...] Marginals, where hee may see the Transcript of a Patri­zing Son of a most admirable Treasure of learning (M^r. Isaac Casaubon) relating his Notes out of Antiquity, to prove the generall Consent of Fathers, both for the Translating of Scriptures into the Mother-tongues of most Nations; as also the Liturgie, or Church-service universally used in the vulgar languages of severall Countries. ⚜ 10

And, lest that this might not suffice, wee have added the See above in the beginning of the 6. Sect. letter [...] Edict of the Emperour Iustinian, commanding a lowd voice in the Minister, that the people may understand his words. Next, a Canon of a Councell, requiring a [...] Concordance, both of voice and understanding 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 understanding.] Then, a Decree of one Pope, in his Councell, that provision be made, where people of divers Languages dwell in the same cities, that theirIbid at of the letter [...] Servioe may be done according to their Different tongues. After, the Resolution 20 of another Pope, to grant unto theIbid. Sclavonians, at their con­version to the Faith, that Divine Service might be used in their owne tongue; moved thereunto, as by a voice from heaven, soun­ding out that Scripture; Let every tongue praise the Lord. And lastly, aIbid Prohibition in the Primitive Church, that None should speake in languages unknowne to the people. ⚜And lest you may hereafter, according to your maner, scorne our zeale, in re­quiring the joynt prayers and thankesgivings publikely in the Church, by the voice of Men, Women, and Children, know yee thatBasil Hixam. Hom. 4. Immediately before the end. [...], &c. Quomodo non songe, pulchliis est, cùm in Ecclesia par [...], sonitus (qua [...] jusdam littus percellentis undae) virorum, mulierum, & infantium ex orationibers ad Deum nostium refusat? And in Reg. Contract. Qu. 278. Linguâ ignorâ, nihil utilitatis redit ad precantem. Saint Basil, delivering the judgement of 30 Gods Church in his time, held this an order decent and beau­tifull; censuring an Vnknowne prayer to be unprofitable to them that pray. ⚜ 40

[Page 37] When you have digested all these Premises, concerning the Equity and Necessitie of knowne Prayers in the publike and Di­vine Service, both in consideration of Gods worship, and Mans manifold profit, so amply confirmed by so many and uncontrol­able 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 Quod autem omnia vernaculè si­unt in Ecclesia, planè profanum est. Staple­ton spec. pravit. Hae ret. p. 580. Profanenesse? and to number it among Hereticall pravities. As for your owne People, who preferre an unknowne worship, what can wee say lesse, than that 10 all such Ignorants are but dumbe worshippers: and because of their ignorance, in praying they know not what, they are to be sent to accompany Popinjayes and Iack-dawes, accordingly as S.See above Sect. 7. in the Challenge 3. Augustine formerly hath resembled them.

⚜A SEAVENTH CHALLENGE, For Vindication, against Francis de Sancta Clara, a late Reconciler of our English Articles with the 20 Doctrine of the Romish Church.

A Romish professor at Doway published a Treatise this very yeare of our Lord 1634. VVhich hee calleth a Paraphrasticall Exposition of the Articles of the Church of Eng­land; whose ayme is not to draw the Romish professors to the English, but the English to the Romish; and by his see­ming Reconciliation to put upon our Church (as wee use to say) the Gull: albeit his whole Paraphrase be, indeed, no­thing but a Farrago of his selfe-fictions, and Opinations, 30 whereof his Paraphrasis or Exposition, upon this Article, will give you a shrewd guesse, if you shall have the patience to ex­amine such stuffe.

Our English Article Franciscus de S. Clara Professor Disac. Exposit. Artic. Confess. Angl. Art. 24 Linguâ populo non intellectâ preces pe­ragere, & Sacramen­ta administrare, ver­bo Dei, & primitivae Ecclesiae consuetudi­ni planè repugnat. saith, that To pray or administer the Sacrament in an unknowne tongue is plainely repugnant to the Word of God, and the Custome of the Primitive Church. The Article of the Church of Rome Contrarily: Concil. Trid. Sess. 22. Can. 9. Si quis dixerit, tantùm linguâ vulgari Mis­sam celebrari debe­re, Anathema sit. Hee that shall say that the Masse ought to be Celebrated onely in the vulgar tongue, let him be Anathema, that is, Accursed. The English Article hath two points. 1. That Prayer in a tongue 40 unknowne to the People that pray, is Repugnant to the Word of God. 2. That it is also plainely Repugnant to the Custome of Primitive Antiquity.

First of the Repugnance to the word of God.

The Romish Expositor, Paraphrasing upon these words [Repugnant to the word of God,] supposeth in the first place that thereby is meant the Doctrine of the Apostle, 1. Cor. 14. [Page 38] concerning Prayer in a Tongue not understood of him that pray­eth: and then for answere thereunto, repeateth onely their old Crambe, to wit, that by Prayers, there spoken off, are not meant the publike prayers in the set and solemne service of the Church of Corinth; but other theirParaph, Cre­diderim Sanctum Paulum vel de pri­vatis conventibus, vel de privatis collo­quiis, post omnia officia habitis, ibi agree. Private Con­vents and Colloquies. And whereas, the Apostle requireth of the Idiote, that is, Private or Lay-man (as wee call him) that hee understand his Prayer so, as to be able to give con­sent thereunto in publike, saying, Amen; heParaph. Idi­ota apud Apostolum i. e. Ille cui incumbit respondere. expoundeth this as understood of Him, who by office answereth Amen for 10 the rest of the People, whom wee name the Parish-Clerke. Both which have beeneSee the Chal­lenges above thorow­out. Confuted by your owne Schoole­men; and the Latter more especially by Bellarmine himselfe, in our former Sections, as you have seene.

A second devise of qualifying these words of our Article, [Repugnant to the word of God] is his owne, but thus:Paraph. De­crevit igitur Articulus esse Repugnans Scrip­turis, id est, non Doctrinae Scripturae, sed Scriptioni, seu Traditioni Scriptu­rae, quae fuit Corin­thijs in Lingua com­muni. The Article decreeth it to be repugnant to the Scriptures, that is, (saith hee) not to the Doctrine of Scripture, but to the Scrip­tion, or tradition of Scripture, which among these Corinthians was in praying in a common tongue. Here you have a dainty 20 Distinction betweene the word, Scripture, and Scription; the word Scripture to signifie the Doctrine of Scripture, and the word Scription, to betoken Tradition of Scripture. So hee, by an elegant Figure, which wee forbeare to name, but wish there were some sense in it. For was it ever heard off, that there was a Scripture without Scription? that is to say, a Writ without writing; or when as all Divines ever distin­guished of Traditions into [...] and [...] Written, which are the Scriptures themselves, and Vnwritten, which are without the same written word of God; Was it possible for 30 them to conceive of a Tradition in Scripture, which was not Scripture or word of God? If so, then whereas all Creatures are distinguished into Sensible and Insensible, it shall be possible to point out a Sensible Creature void of Sense.

His third Crotchet.Idem. Dum. dicit esse Repugnans verbo Dei, intelligi deberent Institutioni D. Pauli, non Chri­sti, cujus scripta sub nomine verbi Dei comprehenduntur: omnia tamen ab A­postolis demandata non sunt mandata Christi, ut ab om­nibus concessum est. When the Article saith [Repug­nant to the word of God] It is to be understood as meaning, Re­pugnant to the Institution and Ordinance of Saint Paul, not of Christ, Saint Pauls writings being comprehended under the name of Gods word: although all that are commanded by the Apostles are not therefore the commands of Christ, as all do con­fesse. 40 So hee. That there are in Scripture Apostolicall Consti­tutions, namely such as are fitted to the Churches, according to the Conveniences of the times, distinguished from Di­vine Constitutions, which are enjoyned the Church, as ne­cessary for all times, it is true. But that (both which this Paraphrase affirmeth) either S^t. Paul, in requiring a Knowno Prayer, delivered not therein the Doctrine of Christ, neces­sary [Page 39] for all times, or that our English Composers of this their Article (in affirming the Institution of Vnknowne Prayers to be Repugnant to the word of God) did not thereby understand the word and Commandement of Christ, in his Authenticall Scripture, are two as strange exorbitancies as your Glosser could make.

For the Apostle, to shew that hee taught a Doctrine which concerned all the Churches of Christ, and at all times, useth Similitudes to Illustrate his meaning, universally fitting all 10 ages and Congregations of Christians in their solemne pray­ers. If a Trumpet, (saith hee) or a Pipe give an uncertaine sound, who shall prepare himselfe either to the Battell, or to the daunce? applying those Similitudes as well to praying, as to preaching in an Vnknowne tongue. But every one of you will grant that the same Scripture, for necessitie of preaching in a knowne tongue, is the Divine Instituti­on of Christ, and not onely an Apostolique Constitution. Therefore (except you will separate that which Christ, by his Apostle, hath joyned together) you must confesse 20 the same necessitie of the Command of Christ for knowne Prayer. Besides, his Conclusion [How shall hee that under­standeth not, say Amen?] being as true of all Prayers, in all subsequent ages of the World, as it could be to the Church of Corinth, it prooveth the truth of the Divine Or­dinance of Christ therein. Thus farre of the meaning of S. Paul, now to returne to our Article.

Whereas you, and all that ever read Protestant Bookes know, that whensoever they affirme any thing to be Repug­nant to the word of God, they meane to the Scripture, as it 30 is the expresse Command and Ordinance of God, and of Christ; and that notwithstanding your Glosser should dare to tell us that the meaning of our Articling. [An unknowne Prayer to be Repugnant to the Word of God] must signifie, not Repugnant to Scripture, or to the Institution of Christ, but to Scription and Apostolicall Tradition; must needs ar­gue, in your Professor, some ecclipse of judgement, by the which also hee venteth out his Inference following.

A fourth straine he hath in his Inference from our English Article, as followeth.Idem. Vi hu­jus verbi probabiliter inferri potest, debere Ecclesiae officia apud nos hodiè celebrari in lingua Latina, qui­à per se loquendo est lingua communis, & communites intelle­cta: solùm autem asseritur in Articulo, Preces publicae fiant linguâ à populo in­tellectâ, quod sine dubio debet intelligi de lingua per se com­muni, non per Acci­dens loquendo. The Article affirmeth (saith hee) 40 that Prayers ought to be used in a tongue knowne to the people, therefore wee properly inferre, that Prayers in our Church may be in Latine, because it is a language commonly knowne. So hee, speaking of your Romish Latine prayers, not knowne of your owne people. As if one should argue, saying, Because the kingdome of England holdeth it necessary that the plea­ding of her lawes be used in English, in a tongue knowne and understood of her Subjects: therefore may it be thence Con­cluded [Page 40] that the Pleas of other kingdomes may be exercised in Latine, a common language, although not understood of the people of any Nation. Who seeth not in his Inference an extreme want of Logicke?

It is most notoriously knowne to you all, that The same Ar­ticle, against Vnknowne Prayers, is common to all the Chur­ches of Protestants, in a full Accordance, to condemne the contrary Profession and practice of the Romane Church, which justifieth her Custome of praying in a Language un­knowne to the people, as not Repugnant to the Law of God. And (reciprocally) you are not ignorant that your Councell of Trent, in her Anathema and Curse, cast upon all that should 20 say, That the Masse ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue, intended thereby to accuse all Protestants for condemning the Custome of the Church of Rome, as a transgression of the word and Commandement of God in holy Scripture. Now this your Paraphrazer, by his Moderation and qualification indeavouring to reconcile these Two Contradictorie Inten­tions, namely, of your Romish in condemning our English Article, and of our English Article, in condemning your Romish Canon: What it is but to affirme, that one Church hath opposed against the other for Causes they know not 30 what?

Paraph. Grae­ci apud omnes Iuris­dictioni Patriarchae Constantinopolitani subditos, licèt Grae­ci non sint, officia Idiomate Graeco ce­lebrant. SOme, whose vulgar language is not Greeke, yet being under the Greeke Patriarch of Constantinople, pray in the Greeke Idiome. So hee, for proofe of the lawfulnesse of the peoples praying in a language unknowne. But the In­stance is lame of the right legge; it sheweth indeed, and wee confesse, that many, whose native language is not Greeke, pray notwithstanding in the Greeke Idiome; but that they un­derstand [Page 41] and not these Greeke prayers (which is the onely point in question) it prooveth no more than Tenterton-steeple pro­veth Goodwin-sands. For we haveSee above Sect. 7 thorow-out. manifested the contrary in a full Section, (namely) that all such People, who, being not Greekes, and prayed in the Greeke Idiome, did notwithstan­ding understand that Greeke language wherein they prayed. Was your Paraphrazer in good tune, thinke you, when hee would not see this his marke, that he might speake to the pur­pose and matter in question?

10 Next, he being destitute of any other Instance in the Greeke Church, seeketh some other advantage in the Latine Church, in the dayes of Antiquity, from Saint Cyprian, and S. Augustine: Paraph. In Africa, ut testatur Cyprianus in orat. Domin. Et Augusti­nus de bono perse­verant. cap. 13. Mis­sas, & reliqua faci­ebant Latinè, licèt lingua vulgaris erat Punica, & Latina ab inferiori plebe non intellecta. They both witnesse (saith he) that their people in Africke said their Masse and other services in Latine, albeit their owne language was the Punicke, and that the meaner peo­ple were ignorant of the Latine tongue. So hee, joyning his witnesse together; but wee will take them apart, to avoid Confusion, for the better confuting of your Paraphraser, if hee will yet thinke himselfe confuted. Cyprian is alleged 20 to have said, as is premised, in his Exposition upon the Lords prayer: where there is not one syllable of mention of the people of Africke saying of Masse, or of their vulgar Punicke Language, or of their Ignorance of the Latine tongue. If this be not foule dealing, to produce a dumbe witnesse, and to father Sayings upon him, which hee never uttered, then will you thinke it farre more ougly, if the witnesse, being heard to speake himselfe, shall avouch the Contrary. Hearken then unto Cyprian, in the same Exposition of the Lords Prayer, instructing his Punicks and Africans as follow­eth. 30 Cypr. Sect. 22. Expos. in Orat. Dom. Quandò stamus ad orationem, Fratres dilectissimi, vigilare & incumbere ad pre­ces, toto corde debe­mus, nè quicquam tunc animus, quàm id solum cogiter quod precatur. Dearely beloved Brethren, when wee pray, wee ought to be watchfull, and attend our Prayers with our hearts, lest our mindes in praying thinke of any other thing, than on that which is prayed. So hee. Ergo, say Wee, The Africans, albeit their vulgar Idiome was Punicke, yet did they understand those Latine Prayers, which you your selves must likewise confesse, except any of your Priests could accordingly instruct your rude people, ignorant of the Latine tongue, wherein they pray, by saying unto them, Beloved Brethren, We, (that is, you and I) ought to attend to our prayers, and not thinke of any thing 40 but that which is prayed. If any of you should so exhort your seely people, to attend to that they understand not, might they not interpret that his Exhortation to be no better than meere Mockerie; and as plaine an exprobration, as if hee should entreate a bald man to combe his head, or a blind man to thred a needle?

Wee adde furthermore, that this Latine Exposition of the Lords Prayer was one of the Sermons of Saint Cyprian, and so [Page 42] stiled in the same place, Sermo sextus, his sixt Sermon, prea­ched promiscuously to all his people of Africke then assem­bled. Which is a demonstrable Argument that this people of Africke understood the Latine tongue; you your selves pro­fessing that Preaching ought alwaies to be used in a Language which the people do understand.

Saint Augustine is his second Witnesse, but for what? namely, that The Africans, albeit their Nationall Language was the Punick, yet did they pray in the Latine tongue, whereof they were ignorant. So he. And Wee answer, that in the place 10 alleged (which is his Booke de Bono perseverantiae, cap. 13.) there is no more mention of Punick tongue, or Latine Lan­guage, than there is of Welsh, or Irish. It may be that Saint Augustine hath something hereof in some other place, and so indeed he hath: for in a Sermon of his unto the Africans, he speaketh hereof as plainely, as if in direct termes hee had given this your Paraphraser the word of disgrace.Aug. de Verbis Apostoli. Serm. 24. Proverbium notum est Punicum, quod quidem Latinè vobis dicam, quia Punicè non omnes nôstis; Nummum quaerit pestilentia. There is (saith hee, preaching unto his Africans) a knowne Proverbe in the Punick tongue, which I will render unto you in Latine, be­cause all of you do not understand Punick: The Proverbe is this,20 The Pestilence seeketh money. So hee, shewing that the Afri­cans understood Latine better than Punick, although this were their Nationall Language. Farre otherwise your Glosser, that the Latine was unknowne to the Africans, because their native language was Panick. Whereby hee bewrayeth a (Proverbially so called) Punick Faith. Flatly contradicting S. Augustine, August. lib. 1. Confess. cap. 14. La­tina didici inter etiam blandimenta Nurricum. who furthermore confesseth of himselfe, saying, I learnt the Latine tongue from the fawning and flatte­ring Speeches of my Nourses. 30

This one Point being the first of his Paraphrase, that fell in our way, concerning any doctrine appertaining to the Ro­mish Masse, wee have beene the more Copious in Confuta­tion thereof, that our Reader might take a just scantling of the judgement of this Paraphrazer in the rest; and of those who were the Censurers, Approvers, and Authorizers of the 40 same: more principally Thomas Blacklous, Censura Tho­mae Blacklouse de Li­bellis de Articulis Con­fessionis Angl.—Ca­tholico animo con­scriptis, ut Errantes ad Christi caulam re­ditum inveniant. who shewes to what end this Tractate was writ, and approoved (as he saith) To bring those that wander out of the way unto the fold of Christ, Meaning, the Church of Rome. So then wee perceive it was not (as he seemeth to pretend) in the behalfe of Protestants, to free them from any of the former Censures and Anathe­ma's, or from the curses and cruelties of the Romish Church [Page 43] against them; but onely to ensnare them, if it may be, in the same Babylonish thraldome of Superstition and Idolatry, from whence by the marvailous and gracious providence of God they have beene delivered.

Therefore, from these our Premises, VVee Conclude Blacklous and his fellow Privilegers of this Booke, to be guilty of all the above-manifested strange dealings, in per­verting of the senses of the Articles and Authors by him alleged. Besides that, which surmounteth the rest, is the hai­nous 10 Crime of wilfull Perjurie, if they have taken the oath enjoyeth unto all Romish Priests by Pope Pius, after the Councell of Trent, swearing To expound no Text of Scripture, without the unanimous consent of ancient Fathers: yet now have allowed such an Exposition of the text of the Apostle, concerning Prayer in an unknowne tongue, which they were never able to justifie by any one Father of Primitive times, for the space of 600, that wee say not a thousand yeares after Christ, as hath beene sufficiently proved.

20 Before Wee end, Wee should aske your Censurers, what Church of Rome it is, whose doctrine they would reduce Pro­testants unto? Is it the old and primitive Religion of Rome? Why this is that which Wee so constantly professe. But meane they the Religion of the new Church of Rome, in her new Creede of new Articles, conformable to the Councel of Trent? Wee must say then of your Doctrine, as Christ said of Wine, No man drinking the Old, desireth the New, for hee will say, the Old is better. Luc. 5. 39.

CHALLENGE.

VVHat we may note of this your [Notandum] theApostoli pri­mùm manibus suis panem sanctum ac­ceperunt: & hujus ritus meminerunt ve­teres Patres. Nam Tert. lib. ad uxorem inquit; Eucharistiae Sacramentum nec de aliorum manibus, quam praesidentium sumimus. Et ex Cy­prian. Serm. de lap­sis, ob nonnulla ex­empla, quae produ­cit, constat, Eucha­ristiam in manibus Cōmunicantum La­icorum dari. Vt con­stat ex Concil Te­letano, cap. 14. & ex sexta Synodo in Trullo 101. ubi pro­hibentur fideles of­ferre vascula aurea & argentea, in qui­bus accipiant Eucha­ristiam, ut per ea communicent, sed proprijs manibus, I­dem colligitur ex E­pistol. Cornel. Pa­pae, quam refert Eu­seb. lib. 6. Hist. c. 35. & ex Dionys. Alex. ut refert Nicephor. cap. 9. & ex verbis Ambrosij. Suarez. les. Tom. 3. In Tho. Disp. 49. Sect. 6. initio. Hoc intelligi potest ex Greg. Nazian. Morom fuisse, ut Christiani Eucharistiam, quam accepissent, ad os ad­moverent.—unde relictam esse credo Consuetudinem in multis locis, quando non communicant, dùm Eucharistia ostenditur, manus tendant, quasi gestientes manibus sumere. Maldon. Ies. de Euch. §. Nova crea­tura. pag. 283. Con­fessions of your owne Iesuites will shew: first, that the Practice of the Apostles and Primitive Church, for above 500 yeares, was according to Christs Institution, to deliver the Bread into the hands of the Communicants. Secondly, that the 20 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 your 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 30 High-Priest Christ Iesus disdained not to deliver it into the hands of his Disciples. Or else to deny this liberty unto the people, as if their Hands were lesse sanctified than their mouthes.

But you will say that it is in Reverence, lest that the Body of Christ may (as you teach) light upon 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 use due Cautelousnesse, that it may be done without miscarriage; yet must you give us leave to retort your pre­tence of Reverence upon your selves, thus: Seeing that Christ 40 himselfe instituted, and his Apostles observed, and that the whole Church of Christ (for so many hundred yeares) thus pra­ctised the administration of this Sacrament from hand to hand, [Page 45] 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.]

40 CHALLENGE,

BVt Christ (you see) instituted this Sacrament onely 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 use your owne [Page 46] Temporibus Di­onysij Arcop. (ut pa­tet ex cap. 3. Hier.) omnes invitabantur, ad singula sacra, [ve­nite, fratres, ad com­munionem.] Chrys. Orat. ad Mart. Phi­log. Quotidianum Sacrificium in cassum fit, nemo accedit. As witnesseth Card. A­lan. l. 2. de Euch. cap. 30. pag. 648. Scien­dum est juxta anti­quos Patres, quod soli Communicantes divinis mysterijs in­teresse consueverant, [...]nde ante oblatio­nem jubebantur exi­re Catechumeni, & Poenitentes, sc. quià nondùm se praepara­verant ad communi­candum. Cossand. Consult. Art. 24. pag. 216. 217. [And hee further brings in Co­chla [...] de Sacrificio Missae, witnessing the same 1] Quòd olim tam sacerdotes quâm Laici quicunque Sa­crificio Missae non in­terant, peractâ cōmunicatione cum Sacrificante commu­nicabant: sicut in Canon. Apostolo­rum, & libris anti­quissimis Doctorum Ecclesiae perspicuè cognoscitur, Cassan­der Liturg. cap. 30. Nec propriè dici po­test Communio, nisi plures de eodem Sa­crificio participent Haec Micrologus cap. 51. de orat. ad populum Teste Espenc. Tract de privata Missa, fol. 232. col. 2. 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 capable Communicants to be present at the celebration of the Eucharist. As for them that came unpre­pared, and as not intending to Communicate, they commanded them to be gone, and to be packing out of doores. To this purpose your owne Relator telleth you, from other Authors, of the practice of Antiquity, and of other succeeding Churches, in not suffering any to be present, but such as did Communicate; 10 and of removing and expelling them that did not.

Nor can the Church of Rome justly take exception at this, seeing that in the Romane Church also (in the dayes of Pope Gre­gory the first,Sciendum est, ju [...]ta antiquos Patres, quod soli Communicantes divinis officijs interesse con­suverant. Microlog. de Eccles. observat. Et in Liturg. AEthiop. Si communicate non vultis discedite. In Liturg. Amen. Exeant foras. Nic. Cusan. Dico, inquit Dionys. Areop. quòd qui non parati erant ad suscep­tionem, expellebantur ex Ecclesia. Haec, Tesse Cassandro Liturg. cap. 26. pag. 59. which was 600. yeares after Christ) the office of the Deacon, at the time of the celebration of the Eucharist, was to cry aloud, saying,Diaconus diama­bat, [Si quis non communicet, det locum] Greg. Dial. cap. 23. [ [...]] &c. If any do not Communicate, let him give place. Where wee see the religious wisedome of that ancient Church of Rome, which could not suffer a Sacrifice to devoure a publike Sacrament, and to exclude a Communion. Whereunto the Scriptures gave the name of [...], that is, a 20 Gathering together, and [...], that is, a Communion; as also of The Supper of the Lord: Yea, and Calixtus, a Pope more an­cient that Gregorie, required that persons present should Com­municate: Ca­lixtus P. ut habetur de Consecrat. Dist. 2. C. Peracts.—Peractâ Consecratione, omnes communicent,—Sic enim Apostoli slatuerunt, & sancta, tenot Ecclesia. Because (saith hee) the Apostles had so ordained, and the holy Church observeth the same.

But what have Wee said? have Wee called this Sacrament The Supper of our Lord? so (wee thought) were wee taught by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11. before wee heard your lesuiteCalvinistarum & Lutheranorum in­scitia, Sacramentum hoc Coenam appellantium: atqui nullus in sacris literis locus est, ubi Coena vocatur. Vbi dicit D. Paulus. [I am non est Dominicam Coenam manducare] nullo judicio adhibito existimant illum Eucharistiam Coenam appellare—Non viderunt homines coeci quòd Luc. 22. 20. & Paulus, vers. 25. scribit [Postquam coenavit] usitatam & communem coenam, ante hoc Sacramentum, Coenam vocant. Maldo [...] Ies. in Matth. 626. pag. 14. Mal­donate denying this, and bitterly enveying against Protestants, terming them Blind men for want of judgement, for so calling it.30 But he must pardon us, if wee (though wee should suspect our owne sight) yeeld to the ancient Fathers of Primitive times, as to men farre more cleare-sighted than that Iesuite could be; who (as both yourVetustissimi Patres, Apostolorum authoritatem secuti, coenae Christi nom he sacram Eucharistiam interdum vocârunt; quòd in illo novissimae coenae salutari mysterio à Christo Domino sit instituta. Catech. Rom. por. 2. p. 171. Coena Dominica, ex Institutionis tempore, à D. Paulo dicitur. Lin­dan panop. l. 4. c. 37. Romane Catechisme, with Lindan, instruct­eth,40 [Page 47] and as your CardinallConstat Con­n [...]n Domini (sic enim Pacres consuc­verunt institutionem sacrae Eucharistiae appellare.—Idom (que) eile Coenam Domi­nicam m [...]nducare, quod Eucharistiam sumere, ut Aug. de­monstrat, fuisse di­stinctam à Coena Pasch [...]t. Baron. An. 34. num 45. Baronius confesseth) following the authority of the Apostles, used to call the sacred Eucharist, the Lords Supper, distinct from the Paschall Supper, which went be­fore it: amongst whom you haveDon [...]s. Arcop. Hier c. 4. [ [...]] Chrysost. Hom. 24. in 1 Cor. [...] Oe­cum [...]. [...] Cy­prian. lib. institut. de Coena Domini Bern. Tract. habe [...] de Coe­na Domin. Tert. li. 2. cap 4. ad u [...]orem; Convivium Domini­cum. Hier. in 1. Cor. Caeterum Dominica Coena debet esse omnibus communis, quia ille omnibus, qui aderant, discipulis ae­qualitèr tradidit Sa­cramentum. Anselm. in 1. Cor. Dominica coena omnibus Chri­stanis debet esse communis. Baron. quo suprà. Dionysius Areop igita, with Chrysostome, Cyprian, Augustine, Hierome, Anselme, Ber­nard. VVhereupon (with some of them) wee enjoyne a Necessi­tie of a joynt Communion with those that are present.

Will you suffer a Golden mouth to be Moderator in this Con­troversie? thus then. Whosoever thou art (saith Obsecro, si­quis ad convivium vocatus, & manus quidem laverit & ac­cubuerit, paratusquè & dispositus ad men­sam fuerit, & tamen nihil ciborum gustaverit, nonne inferet Convivatori contumeliam, à quo fuerat vocatus? Nonnè satiùs erit ei, qui talis est, omninò non comprauisse? ità tu quoque qui advenisti, & hymnum cecinisti cum omnibus re­liquis, ex Eorum te numero esse, qui digni sunt, hoc ipso confessus es, quòd non cùm indignis abscessisti. Quo­modò, cùm mansetis, de mensa ista non participas? indignus es igitur eâ communione, quae in precibus? [ [...].] Chrysost. Hom. 3. in Epist. ad Ephes. S. Chrysostome) that being fit to participate of this Sacrament shalt stand onely 10 looking on, and not eate, thou dost no lesse Contumely and reproach to the Sacrament, than a man invited to a Feast, who will not taste thereof, doth unto the Lord that invited him to be a Guest. So he. And to shew that it cannot be sufficient to behold it onely as a proper Sacrifice (as you pretend) the same Audi Chrysost. Hom. 61. ad pop. Antioch. & Hom. 3. ad Ephes. Frustrà hic offertur hostia salutaris & quotidianum Sacrificium; incassum Altari insistimus, cùm nemo est qui participet, nullus cui communicetur.—Quid stat, si è numero es poe­nitentium,—tu tamen hic interim persistis impudens? at ex ijs non es, sed inter eos, qui possunt esse par­ticipes. Espenc. de Missa privata. pag. 221. Item Chrysost. Hom. 3. ad Ephes. p. 773. Edit. Savil. [...]. Father (as you know) saith against such By-standers; Why doe wee waite at the Altar, offering (meaning See hereafter in the sixt booke. unproperly) a Sacrifice, when as there is none to Communicate? And why dost thou, impudent fellow, stand here still, not being one of them that participate there­of? But enough.

20 This then you perceive is a matter of no small importance, even by reason of the nature of this Sacrament, which is a Di­vine Banquet; being also enjoyned upon the Catholike Church by that Command of Christ, [Do THIS.] Therefore the Command and Precept comming, maketh you Transgressors for not Eating; even as by the first Command given into man­kind of [Eate not] our first Parents became Transgressors for Eating. So justly doth our Exhorta­tion before the Communion. Church require, that Gazers, who Communicate not, should depart. Wee forbeare to repeate that which wee have formerlySee above Chap. 1. Sect. 2. proved (to wit) that you, by 30 not dismissing the non-Communicants from beholding the celebration of this Sacrament, are condemned by the word, Masse, whereof you have so long boasted, untill that now your 40 Glory is become your shame.

CHALLENGE.

VVEe do not dispute against all manner of Reservation of 30 the Eucharist, for wee acknowledge some to be an­cient; but wee enquire into the religious use and end of Reser­vation: which, wee say, was not for any publike Procession, or Adoration, but onely for a Sacramentall Eating thereof. And how unjustly you call this your Procession (onely for publike A­doration) Laudable, wee are provided to demonstrate by the Confessions of your owne Iesuites and others (out of Cyprian, and other Fathers) who consulting first about Antiquitie, grant that, after the Celebration of the Eucharist, ancientlyPrisca consuetu­do erat dandi Eucha­ristiam infantibus, ut ex Cypriano & aliis constat: & si aliquae particulae superessent mos erat ut pueri im­puberes, qui Ecclesi­am frequentabant, accerderentur, ut eas consumerent. Suarez. Ies. quo sup. Disp. 46. Sect. 6. pag. 557. In Conc. Matisconēsi advocantur innocen­tes parvuli, ut dotur illis, si quid ex Sacra­menti particulis con­sumendum est. Bella. lib. 4. de Euch. ca. 5. §. Quarto profert—Licet Graeci antiquirùs pueris darent (ut de Consecrat. D. 2) parvuli tamen Sacramentaliter sumere non possunt, quià non utentur Sacramento, ut Sacramento, sed ut communi cibo, propter carentiam dis­cretionis. Summa Angel. p. 148. Pueris exhibitae, sed (ut sic dicam) perfunctoriè, nè ut credo corrumperentur. Espens. l. 2. de Euch. c. 12. Reliquias comburendas esse. Hesych in Lev. cap. 8. §. Quomodo ergò. The Remainders, which were left (lest they should corrupt and putrifie)40 were usually either given to the children under age (yet not to be re­ceived Sacramentally, but onely to be consumed by them:) or were burnt in the fire, or else eaten reverently in the Vestrie, [Page 49] called theThis [...] of Clement will Bellarmine have to be Vas quoddam, a Vessell, wherein the Sacrament was reser­ved: for hee thought that this would make for their priests Pixe, or Boxe. But hee is learnedly confuted, in this, by Dollor W [...]i­taker, Praelect. de Eu­char. p. 627. even out of Clement himselfe: who requireth that a Church should be built somewhat long, in forme of a Ship, and to have on both sides [...], like a ship. And the LXX in E­say. 22. doe render it thus; that Esay was commanded to enter into [ [...];] the word comming of [...], or [...], Tha­lamus, or Domus. And, in Clemēs, doth signifie Cubiculum Sacerdotum; where­in the Priests kept it for no other use than to Eate it. Pastophorium. Which was likewise the Custome of Rome in the Primitive age, asQuòd si re­manserint in crasti­num, non serventur, sed cum timore & tremore in Sacratio consumantur. Clè­mens p. apud Grati­an. de Consecrat. D. 2. Pope Clement witnesseth. And although in the times of extreme persecution Christians were permitted to take the Eucharist, and carrie it home to their houses, yet it was (as youQuont [...]am ini­minente persecutio­ne, domum deporta­bant, & asservabant; cum opus esset sumpturi—Consuetudo post per Conc. Toletanum antiquata. Durant de Rit. l. 1. c. 16. num. 11. grant) to no other end but that they might eate it: and this onely in the time of Persecution: After which time the same Custome was abrogated. So you. How then can you call the Reservation of the Hoast, for publike Procession, and not for Eating, Laudable, which hath beene 10 thus checked and gain-fayed by so syncere Antiquitie?

Secondly, when you please to reveile unto us the first Birth of your owne Romane Custome, you grant that it was not untill aHist. Mediol An. 1404. Circumferri coeptum, &c. Quam Processionē tantà laetiuâ & consensione, ac lae à so­lennitate prosecuta est Latina Ecclesia. Nam de Graeca nihil mihi constat. Espenc. de Euch. c. 8. p. 47. [We may adde, that there is no Extat of any such Circumgestation in the Greeke Church.] Thousand foure hundred yeeres after Christ. And must it then bee called a Laudable Custome, whereby (that we may so speake) beardlesse Noveltie doth take place of sage and gray­headed Antiquitie?

Thirdly, in discussing the end, which was destinated by our Saviour Christ, you further grant, thatPrimarius finis servandi Eucharistiam semper feat manducatio: servatur enim ad viaticum Infrimorum. Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. c. 5. §. Deinde. Sacramentū per se est dandum propter suum primarium effectum, & non aliâs. Suarez. Ies. Tem. 3. Disp. 52. Sect. 4. §. Secunda Sent. The primitive and principall end, prescribed by Christ, is for Sacramentall eating: and 20 that the Sacrament is to be given for this, as it's primary effect. And yet notwithstanding for you to bring in a Pompous ostenta­tion of not-Eating, and to call it a Laudable Custome, argueth what little Congruitie there is betweene your Practice, and Christs Institution; whichOrigen. in Levit. 7. Hom. 5. Nam Dommus panem, quem Discipulis suis dedit, dicens, A [...]cipite, &c. non distulit; nec servari jussit. Origen in his time urged against Reservation till the morrow. And how much lesse Laudable will this appeare to be, when wee consider the grosse and intollera­ble Abuses of your Processions, which are displayed by your owne Authours? Noting in them the very fooleries of theIta Romani factitabant, [...] aliae pleraeque Gentes, à quibus ad nos proculdubiò ritus hujusmodi manavit.—Nam Supplicationum nostrarum pompas solent ludicra quae­dam prae edere, ubi essigies aliqua magnis malis dehiscens, dentibusque sonitum faciens, & aliae oblectationes Iudiciae, in quibus Prophetae representantur, al [...]ti pueri, & chorus inducitur foeminarum; hic Davidem agit, ille Salomonem, alij Regi [...]s singu it, alij venatores Iudunt, Simiam, & jumenta inducentes. Sacerdotum alij Divoru [...] personas agunt, eorum imagines aut reliquias ferentes. Polyd. Virgil. Lib 6. [...]ivent. pag. 414. 415. Romane Pagans, by your fond Pageants, where Priests play their 30 parts, in representing the persons of Saints; others of Queenes, accompanied with Beares and Apes, and many like prophane and sportfull Inventions, and other Abuses: which occasioned some of your owne more devout Professors to wish, that this 40 your Custome were abrogated,Videtur hic Circum [...] estationis usus etiam cu [...] Ecclesiae lucro omitti posse, cùm sit recens, & diu absque ea Circungestatione Sacramento suus honos constiterit; plerunque non devotiom, sed pompae & ostentationi in­servit. Itaque vir summi judicij Alberus Crantzius laudat Nic. Cus [...]num Legatum per Germaniam, quòd abu­sum ejus, [...] nimis frequenti per singulas ferias Circumgestatione, sustulerit, & constituerit, quòd nisi infra tem­pus festi Sacramento dedicati, in publicum non deferetur: quia (inquit) ejus Sacramentum institutum est ad usua, non ad ostentationem. Cassand. Consult. At 22. Tit. de Circumgestatione. pag. 174. Thinking that it may be omit­ted [Page 50] 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 object (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; wee 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 oneChristus non distulit, nec servari jussit in crastinum. Orig. Hom. 5. in Le­vit. Panis iste reci­pitur, non includitur. Cyprian. de Coena Dom. col. 382. 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 wee may hold, in condemning of your pub­like 10 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 ofSic sanctiss. Sa­cramentum ad infir­mos deferendum est, ut illud sumant, non autem ut adorent tantùm; sicubi fit in aliquibus locis, quod Pius Quartus prohi­buit Declaratio Rom. Cardinal. in Concil. Trid. Sess. 13. Can. 6. [Set forth by Ioh. Gallemart, Academiae Duac. Catechist. pag. 115.] 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, 20 except you meane thereby to have it termed a Laudable Novel­tie, and a Laudable prophanation, 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 yourIn the seventh booke. Idolatrous Infatuation it selfe.

⚜The onely one that offereth to stand in our way, as ob­jecting any Authority from Antiquity, for Procession, is your Pamel. in Tert. ad Vx. l. 2. c. 4. [Si jejunia obser­vanda sunt, maritus (nempè Et [...]nicus) eâ­dem die convivium exerceat; proceden­dum erit, nunquam magis familiae occu­patio adveniat.] Vnde Pamelius; Processio­num ceremonias an­tiquas esse, vel ex hoc loco colligere potes. Gabriel Episc. Albispinae Lib. Obser. vat. Sac. Nùm illi homines ridiculi sunt, qui ex hoc loco Processionum ritus deduci fabulantur? quibus ho­minibus sc. vix liceret in Ecclesià convenire, eos volunt ceremonias suas vicatim et publicè exercuisse—Quapropter procedere nihil aliud apud Authorem significat, quàm domo exire alicujus officij exercendi causà; partem ut aegrotos, & indigentes visicarent, mox enim explicat se Tert. [Quis enim (inquit) sinat uxorem suam, visitandorum fratrum gratiâ, vicatim aliena, & quidem pauperiora quae (que) tuguria circuire?] Pamelius; with whom wee neede not to contend, be­cause 30 your owne French Bishop doth easily shoulder him out, proving that the Testimonie of Tertullian (speaking of his wifes Proceeding, or going out of her house, for visiting the sicke and poore) is ridiculously mistaken, for going in a publike Procession, even then, when it was scarce free for Christians to meete together in Churches, for feare of perse­cution. Wee proceede therefore to the next Transgres­sion. ⚜ 40

CHALLENGE.

IS not now this your Churches Rejecting 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 do, but (alas their miserie!) by collusion and cunning: for the same Synod of Sancta Synò­dus docet, Parvulos, usu rationis carentes, nullâ obligari neces­sitate ad Sacramenta­lem Eucharistiae com­munionem—Ne­que ideò tamen dam­nanda est Antiquitas, si cum morem ali­quando in quibus­dam locis servârunt, quia certè eos nullâ salutis necessitate fe­cisse, sine controver­sia credendum est. Conc. Trident. Sess. 2. ca. 4. Trent resolveth the point thus; The holy 30 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 nessarily 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 unto Infants. 40 In excuse whereof, your Councell of Trent adjoyneth, that the Church of Rome, in those dayes, was not condemnable; but why? Because (saith yourSee the Testimony below of the letter (r.) Councell) Truly and without Controversie wee ought to believe, that they did not give the Eucharist unto Infants, as thinking it necessarie to Salvation. Which Answere your owne Doctors will prove to be a bold, and a notorious untruth, be­cause [Page 52] (as your IesuiteEcclesia tunc ad­ducta fuit Euchari­stiam Infantibus da­re, argumento sump­to ex verbis Christi, [Nisi manducaveri­us carnem filij homi­nis, et biberitis san­guinem, non habebi­tis vitam in vobis.] Maldon. Ios. Disp. de Sacram. Tract. de Euch. §. Nono, p. 200 Etiam credebant In­fantes tunc baptiza­tos, nisi Eucharistiam perciperēt, salvos esse non posse, Idem Com. in Ioh. 6. 63. p. 717. sheweth) They then beleeved that Infants baptised 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 therefore held they it necessarie to the salvation of Infants.

That this was the beleefe of Pope Innocent, and of the Church of Rome under him, your Parisian DoctorInnocent. 1. Rom. Pont. Epist. 93. ad Conc. Milever. con. Pelag. responde­bat, quòd parvulos aeternae vitae praemiis, etiam sine baptisma­tis gratia posse do­nari, perfatuum est: nisi n. manducave­rint carnem filii ho­minis, non habebunt vitam in semetipsis: qui autem hanc eis sine regeneratione defendunt, videntur etiam mihi Baptismum cassate velle, cùm praedicant nos habere, quod in eos creditur non nisi Baptismate conferendum. [Whence Espencaeus thus:] Mirum, ejus temporis Pontifices ex Eucharistiae nece­cessitate Baptismi & ejus praecursoris urgere necessitatem; nisi idem, & ex eodem tùm loco, tùm Innocentii argu­mento & authoritate, adversus eosdem hostes urgeret August. Epist. 106. cont. Pelag.—Contra Aposto­licae sedis authoritatem, ubi de hac ipsâ re cùm ageretur, hoc testimonium exhibitum est Evangelicum, ne Par­vuli non baptizati vitam posse habere credantur. Si autem credunt sedi Apostolicae, vel potiùs ipsi Magistro & Domino Apostolorum, qui dicit, non vitam habituros, nisi manducaverint, & biberint, &c. Espenc. de Adorat. Euch. lib. 2. cap. 12. pag. 58. [Afterwards he bringeth in many other testimonies of Saint Augustine, and Ibid. pag. 59. he proveth that he did not retract his opinion.] Ejus haud dubiè sunt contra Iulianum libri, quo valentiorem habuit Adversarium neminem; in quem etiam scribendo mortuus est, ac proinde sententiam non retractâsse videtur: in quibus Iulianum obruit Majorum praejudicio, ab Innocentio Rom. Pont. exorsus, qui parvulos (ait) definivit, nisi manducaverint carnem filii hominis, vitam prorsus habere non posse. Espenc. Ibid. [And a little after he sheweth the loosenesse of Aquinas his Solutions. Albeit Saint Augustine was not constant in this opinion, but (as may be gathered out of Bedes Collectanies in 1. Cor. 10. Nulli aliquatenùs dubitandum, &c.) that al­though the Child do not participate, yet by Baptisme hee is made partaker of that which it signifieth.] 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, Binius Tom. 1. Conc. ex Rescriptis innocentii Papae ad Conc. Millevet. Epist. 25. Illud vero, &c. Hinc Binius: Hinc constat Innocenti sententia, quae 600. circiter Annos viguit in Ecclesia (quamque Augustinus secutus) Eucharistiam Infantibus necessariam fuisse. Conc. Trid. rectè decrevit, eam non solum non necessariam Infan­tibus, sed nè quidem decere ur eis distribuatur—Quidam viri non vulgariter docti existimârunt Innocenti­um hunc locum, [Nisi manducaveritis, &c.] in Baptismi sumptione interpretari. Sed decepti sunt, quòd vim argumenti, quo Pontifex utitur, non sunt assecuti. Ille enim ut Pelagium (qui docebat Baptismum Infantibus, Parente fideli prognatis, peccatum originale non contrahentibus, necessarium non esse) convinceret, hâc Ra­tiocinatione est usus: Quibus necessaria est Eucharistiae sumptio, usdem Baptismi sumptio magis esse necessaria; At infantibus omnibus esse necessariam Eucharistiae sumptionem, probatur per verba Iohannis [Nisi mandu­caveritis. &c.] Quae expositio praxi Ecclesiae nunc repugnat. [De Augustini sententia lege ipsum Augustinum, Epist. 106. Col. 148. Edit. Basil. 1543.] Haec Binius in Editione sua Colon. Ann. 1618. being omitted in his for­mer. Printed Volume, Auno 1606. explaineth the 10 same so exactly (See the Marginall Citation) that it will per­mit no evasion. And so much the rather, because that which the Tridentine Fathers allege, for cause of Alteration, doth confirme this unto us: It is undecent (say they) to give the Eucharist unto Infants. This may perswade us that Innocent held it necessary, els would he not have practized, and patroni­zed a thing so utterly Vndecent. ⚜ Besides one of yourIac. Gordon. Scorus lib. Contr. 8. c. 1. Prima abrogationis causa, quia frequens communio Infantium fieri non poterat nisi indecorè, & cùm periculo profanationis tanti Sacra­menti. Secunda causa, quià orta est Haeresis quorundam, qui existimârunt hanc communionem esse prorsus ad salutem necessariam Infantibus. pag. 111. Ie­suites spareth not to make a double cause of the Alteration of that Custome; one, to avoid the Vndecencie and Prophanation of the Sacrament (meaning, by the casting it up againe:) and 20 secondly, because of the Heresie of those, who thought the Reociving of this Sacrament necessarie for the Salvation of In­fants. Calling this opinion an Heresie.⚜

Wee dispute therefore. If the Church of Rome, in the dayes of 30 40 [Page 53] Pope Innocent the first, held it a Doctrine of faith, in the behalfe of Infants, that they ought to receive 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 be­leeved upon necessitie 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 shee now in an errour. Or doth shee not now erre herein? then did she formerly erre, and consequently 10 may erre hereafter, not onely in determining a matter to be Ne­cessary to Salvation, which in it self is Superfluous and Vndecent, but also in opinion Hereticall. Thus of the contrary custome of the Church of Rome, in elder times.

Even at this day also your Iesuite will have us to understand the meaning of your Church to be, thatNon quòd Infantes sunt incapa­ces hujus Sacramenti, sed quià hoc nunc magis expedit ad de­centiam, & reveren­tiam, quae aliquali u­tilitati parvulorum praeferenda est. Sua­rez. Tom. 3. Disp. 62. Sect. 3. §. Quocirca. Infants are capable of 20 the Sacrament of the Eucharist. ⚜ And not thus onely, but as un­reasonably altogether, you hold thatNon qui­cunquè usu rationis carentes arcendi sunt à sumptione Eucharistiae, sed hi, qui nunquam habuerunt usum rationis. Aquin. [...] 3. [...] Qu. 80. Art. 9 Mad-men, when they are destitute of reason and discretion, may notwithstanding be made Partakers of the same blessed Sacrament. Which is pro­per to those, who (as the Apostle teacheth) are to Examine themselves, to Remember thereby the death of Christ, and (Sacra­mentally) to Discerne the Lords Body. ⚜

CHALLENGE.

30 VVHereunto wee oppose the Authority of theConc Car­thag. 3. Eucharisti­am Catechumenis & mortuis dari prohi­bet, et consequenter pueris, qui utri (que) sunt divini illius cibi in­capaces, ut quidam ratiocinantur: quià tales non possint ac­cipere, nec comedere:—Et Lateranens. Conc. sub Innoc. 3. praecipit ut tantùm, cùm ad annos discretionis pervenerint, Euchari­stiam accipiant.—Quià verò & spiritualis manducatio et bibitio est, sine qua Sacramentalis non pro­dest, frustrà pueris Sacramentum et cùm periculo porrigeretur—Non igitur satis est quòd puer possit naturaliter edere, quia hoc possit trinus et quatrimus praestare: sed opus est ut possit Sacramentaliter edere, 1. cognoscere ibi esse Christum, et discernere ab aliis cibis. Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 11. in illa verba [Dedit Discipulis] pag. 78. Councell of Carthage, and of that (which you call the) Councell of Laterane, which denyed, as you know, that the Eucharist should be delivered unto Infants, accounting them uncapable of divine and spirituall feeding: without which (say they) the corporall pro­fiteth nothing. But wee also summon, against the former assertion eight of your ancientAnd of this opinion were Mayor, Petrus Soto, Paludanus, Alensis, Gubriel, Catha­rinus, Dom. Soto—Ration eorum (saith the same Ies.) quiâ hoc Sacramentum est cibus spiritualis: Ergò ac­commodatum eis solummodò qui possint actus spiritualis vitae exercere, quod parvuli non possunt. Suarez. Ies. quo sup [And to the former Schoole-men, to make them even, wee may adde also Summa Angel: Tit. Eucharistia.] Schoolemen, who upon the same Rea­sons 40 made the like Conclusion with us. And wee further (as it [Page 54] were, [...]resting you in the Kings name) produce against you Christ his Writ, the Sacred Scripture, whereby he requireth in all per­sons about to Communicate three principall Acts of Reason; one is before, and two are at the time of receiving. The first is 1. Cor. 11. [ [...],] Let a man examine himselfe, and so come, &c. The second [ [...],] To discerne the Lords body. The third is [ [...],] To remember the Lords death untill his coming a­gaine. All which Three, being Acts of Iudgement, how they may agree unto Infants, being persons void of Iudgement, judge you. And remember, wee pray you, that wee speake of 10 Sacramentall Eating, and not of that useSee above Sect. 10 before spoken of, touching Eating it after the Celebration of the Sacrament; which was for Consuming it, and not for Communicating thereof.

20 CHALLENGE.

BVtwee demand; what Conscience should moove your late Church of Rome to be guided by the authority of that for­mer Councell of Constance, which notwithstanding maketh no scruple to reject the authority of the sameRespondeo, Fu­it reprobatum Conc. Cō [...]antiens Mar­tino Pont. quantum ad eam partem, quâ statuit Concilium fu­isse suprà Papam. Bellar. lib. 1. de Conc. cap. 7. §. Quintum. 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 theDixit Petro Christus Cum fra­ter in te p [...]ccaverit, si te non audiat, Dic Ecclesiae, Ergo Ecclesiam Papae Iudicem constitut. Conc. Basil. apud AEnean [...]i Sylvium de gest ejusdem Concilij. Councell of 30 Basil doth prove) from the authority of Christ his direction unto Peter, to whom he said, Tell the Church. We returne to the State of the Question.

All Protestants, whether you call them Calvinists, or Luthe­rans, hold, that in the publike and set celebration of the Eucharist, 40 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 Objectors 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 [Page 56] 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 Ca­tholicke, with the after-contrarie Custome; and the Latitude thereof, together with the 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.10

The discussing of all which points will present unto your view divers kinds of Oppositions. In the first, is the Conflict of Religion with Sacrilege. 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 Paucity. In the sixt, of Wisedome with Folly: as also of Charity with Inju­stice and Impiety. In the seaventh, of Knowledge with Igno­rance; as likewise of Devotion with Prophanenesse. And all 20 these marching and warring together, without any possibility of Reconciliation at all.

20 CHALLENGE.

VVEe answere that your owneQuorundam opinio, est Apostolos factos sacerdotes per illa verba [Hoc faci­te.] Sed de his ver­bis non constat facta consecratione facta consecratione imme­diatè ea dixisse, an­requàm Euchristiam ub utra (que) specie de­dit, vel post—Quod si verba ista Christus post datam Eucha­ristiam illam dixit, manifestum est, il­lum non Sacerdoti­bus hinc dedisse: quod mihi ex literae decursu magis proba­tur. Alfon. de Castro con. Heres. Tit Eu­charist. pag. 158. 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 Priests, yet we answere, that your Consequence, (viz.) Ergò onely Priests are enjoyned to receive the Cup, will appeare to be both fond in it selfe, and to your owne selves pernicious. First, as fond, as if one should argue thus: It was at the first said only to the Apostles, Goe and baptize all Nations: Ergò none but the 30 Apostles have Command to Baptize, which office you permit aswell to women Laicke, as to men. Next pernicious, for say (Wee pray you) doe the words, [Drinke yee all of this] com­mand all Priests to drinke? then must this condemne the con­trary See above in this Chapter at the letter (b.) Practice of your now Church of Rome, which allow­eth the Cup to no Priest present, but onely to him that doth Conse­crate: which is directly confuted by the Example of Christ, who administred the Cup, unto all his Apostles, by your do­ctrine, Priests.

40 Againe, Do these words onely command the Priest to re­ceive the Cup? then likewise do you condemne your former Church of Rome, which hath sometime permitted the Cup unto Laike. Yea, and your Cardinall Alan [Hoc facite.] Quod cùm pertineat maxime ad potesta­tem sacerdotalem cir­ca consecrandum & sacrificandum, tamen Apostolus, 1. Cor. 11. resert quo (que) ad sumptionem sive Laicorum, sive Sacerdotum. Quod & Cyrillus facit in Iohan. lib. 12. cap. 38. Et Basil in Moral. Reg. 21. cap. 3. ut [Hoc facite] pertineat ad totam actionem Eucharisticam à Christo factam, & tàm à Presbyteris quàm a plebe posteà faciendam. Eodemque verbo impri­mis potestas consecrandi & offerendi, deinde etiam mandatum sumendi tàm Sacerdotibus quàm alijs fidelibus detur, cùm utrumque suo modo, licet prius exactius Sacrificium, quàm sumptio memoriam mortis Dominicae [...]ontineat. Alan. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 37. pag. 646. doth not sticke to tell [Page 58] you, out of the ancient Fathers, that the Command [Doe this] declared by Saint Luke, is applyed by Saint Paul to the receiving in both kinds, aswell of People as of Priest. And by virtue of the same Command of Christ, The Greeke Church hath alwayes observed the use of both kinds unto this day. So hee, justifying our contrary Consequence; even as also your Laici adulti te­nentur ex instituti­one Christi commu­nicare, jure divino: hoc thomas probat ex Luc. 22. [Hoc fa­cite in commemore­tionem mei.] quae habent vim praecepti, non tantùm de cele­brando (ait Scotus) sed etiam de admini­strando Sacramen­tum populo. Cosmus Phil. de offic. Sacer­dot. Tom. 1. de Sacri­fic. Missae. l. 2. c. 2. Cosmus Philiarchus defendeth, and confirmeth the same by Aquinas, and Scotus, the two most eminent Doctors of your Church, holding that Laicks are chargible to receive the Eucha­rist by virtue of the Command of Christ, in the same words of In­stitution, [Do this.]

⚜And lest you may thinke that wee seeke advantage onely from your private Schooles, you may find the Coun­cell 10 of Braccara (about the yeare 67 [...]) decreeing the se­verall Administration of both kindes to bee Commended to the Church, by the words of Christ his Institution. Lastly, Wee shall⚜Conc. Braccar. See the third Section following. prove, that the ancient Fathers with joynt con­sent collected, as well as Wee, a necessitie of the Peoples re­ceiving in both kinds, by right of equalitie with the Priest, from the same example of Christ, in his first Institution, even becauseSee afterwards in this Chapt. Sect. 9. at the Christ admitted it to all his Disciples then present:20 which were not true,* in the Mar­gin. if that the Disciples had had any pri­vilege in receiving either of Both, as they were Priests, as you have fondly fancied.

Next, although it were (sayNec quicquam valet quod objicitur [Similiter & Cali­cem:] quià non di­cit Similiter & Cali­cem dedit, sed solùm accepit. Bellar. ibid. §. Nec quicquam. you) said, [And in like man­ner Christ tooke the Cup] namely, as hee tooke Bread: yet the word [Similitèr, Likewise] hath Relation to his Taking, not to 30 his Giving.

CHALLENGE.

THis is flatly repugnant to the Gospell of Christ, where these words ofLuc. 22. 20. Saint Luke, [Likewise hee tooke the Cup] appeare by SaintMath. 26. 27. Matthew to have relation aswell to Christs Giving, as to his Taking of the Cup, thus; [Iesus tooke the Cup and gave thankes, and gave it unto them, saying, Drinke you all of this.]40 Yea and in Saint Luke, the text objected is so cleare, that it needeth no Comment: Hee tooke the Bread, and gave thankes, and gave it unto them, saying, &c. and likewise the Cup. Where the precedent word, expressing Christ his Act, is not Tooke, but Gave the Cup. And if any should seeke a Comment upon these words, he could finde none more direct than that of your lear­ned Arias Montanus, and Bishop Iansenius, [In like manner:] [Page 59] That (saySimiliter et Ca­heem] id est. Qualia feci [...] circa panem, ta­li [...] circa Calicem, Ac­cepit, gratias egit, di­videndum dedit, at (que) praecep [...]t ut biberent ab eo om [...]es: Quae omnia Lucas complexus est, dicens, [Similitèr & Calicem.] Iansen Episc. Concord. cap. 131. pag. 905. [Similitèr & Calicem postquàm coenavit, &c.] Id [...]est, accepit, et porte [...] omnibus, dicens, [Hic est Calix, &c] Arias Montan. in 1. Cor. 11. 25. they) as hee did with the Bread, so did hee with the Cup, he tooke it, hee gave thankes, hee gave it unto them All to drinke. All which Saint Luke comprized in these words; [In like manner Hee tooke the Cup.] So they.

Although it be said of Drinking of the Cup, [Do this in Re­membrance of mee:] yet the words [Do this,] (sayPost panis con­secrationem absolutè ponitur [Hoc facite] pòst Calicem verò idem repetitur, sed cum conditione, Hoc (inquit) facite quo­ [...]escunquè bibetis, &c. Caertè non fine causa Spiri [...]us San­ctus modum loquen­di mutavit, signifi­cans, non ut Calix debat. dari necessa­riò, sed modum prae­scribens, ut id fiat ed memoriā Dominicae Passionis. Bellar quo sup. cap. 25 §. [...]am. you) are spoken Absolutely of the Bread, and but Conditionall of the Cup, namely, [As often as you shall drinke it.] And upon this Conceit do two Iesuites raise up their Insultation,Mirabilis est Dei providentia in sanctis literis, nam ut non haberent Haere­tici justam excusationem, sustulit eis omnem tergiversandi occasionem. Nam Lucas [Hoc facite] posuit pòst datum Sacramentum sub specie panis: post datum autem Colicem non repetivit, ut intelligeremus Dominum jussisse, ut sub specie panis omnibus distribueretur: sub specie autem vini non [...]em. Bellar quo sup. c. 25. §. Resp. Mirabilis. Singularis Dei provide [...]tia, ut intelligamus minimè expedire, ut singuli fideles sub utraquè spe­cie communicent. Valent. les. Tract. de Euch c. 2. §. Et certè, p 483. saying; Be­hold here the wonderfull providence of God, whereby is taken from Heretikes all colour of excuse. So they, of us Protestants.

20 ⚜If this Providence, whereof you talke, be so Wonderfull; and Notorious; it is some Wonder to us, how your owne other Doctors missed the sight of it; who, in seeking most earnestly to avoyd the dint of Christs words of Precept [Drinke you all of this] devised an uncouth subterfuge, saying,[Bibite ex hoc omnes] Quae verba si non sint Praecipientis, sed invitantis, ut certè esse possint, tùm respondemus, &c. Petrus Arcad Corcyreut. Presb. S. T. D. de Concord Orient. & Occident. Eccles. l. 1. c. 10. These may bewords of Invitation, and not of Command. An Answer which might better become one on an Alebench, inviting his fellow to pledge him. Wee hasten to our Challenge, in answer to 30 your former Objection.

CHALLENGE.

TO this we answer, our of the Conclusions of your owne 40 Doctors, aswell of the new, as of the old Schooles; your Praecepit igi­tur Christus, in ver­bis Lucae, ut ipsà sumptione comme­moremus Passionem ejus; & non tantùm ut quoties illud sumeremus Passionem ipsius in memoriam revocaremus. Ac proindè praecepit, ut opere aliquo commemoratio fiat alicujus beneficij accepti, ex modo ipso praecipiendi. Praecepit etiam ut fiat opus ipsum, quis hoc non videat? Vasquez. les. ia 3. Thom. Disp. 113. cap. 2. At verò non est negandum, esse Praeceptum simplicitèr faciendum, alioquin non haberemus fundamentum Praecepti celebrandi in Ecclesia. Sot [...] in 4. Dist. 12. q. 1. Art. 12. Iesuite Vasquez, for the new, Concluding, that the words, [This do yee, as often as you drinke it, in remembrance of Mee,] as they command the end of the Celebration of this Sacrament, [Page 60] in the remembrance of the Passion of Christ: so doe they also com­mand the Act and manner therof, which is, by drinking of the Sa­cramentall Cup. Which hee holdeth to be so manifest a Truth, that hee thinketh no man to be so blinde, as not to discerne it, saying, Who seeth not this? Accordingly he allegeth Solo, for the old Schoole, concluding that the words [Drinke yee all of this, as often, &c.] Do simply command the act of Drinking: or else (saith he) the Church hath no ground, for the Priest that conse­crateth, to celebrate in both kinds. And this Obligation Cardi­nall Credimus eos rectè oblagari, dùm militainus in hac vi­ra, ad Sacramentum Fucharistiae, eo mo­do, quo perfectiùs significat Passionem: id est, sub utraqu [...] specie, &c. Card. Cu­san. Epist. 2. ad Bo­hem. pag. 831. Cusanus affirmeth to lye alwayes upon the Church; 10 Whereby your MasterWho in his Booke of the Litur­gie of the Masse, stan­deth so much upon the no command of Christ for the use of boto kinds, that he justifi­eth an ancient Ro­mane Custome (as he calleth it) of the Priest himselfe, recei­ving on Good Fri­day only under one kind.] Tract. 4. Sect. 4. pag 407. And Tra. 4. Sect. 7. pag. 421 [As often:] not sig­nifying the necessitie of Drinking. Brerely may see, and acknowledge his double Errour.

And, indeed, the Evidence is so great, that although all Ro­mish Vniversities should withstand it, we might herein appeale to common Sense: for Christ having first commanded his Disciples, saying, in the Celebration of this Sacrament, [Drinke yee all of this;] this is the Act: and adding further, saying, [As often, or whensoever as yee shall drinke it, do this in remembrance of mee,] which is the End so commanded; it doth equally im­ply a command of the Act of Drinking, aswell as of the End.20 Now the Catholike Church did alwayes hold, that there ought to be an Often Commemoration of the Passion of Christ, even untill his comming againe (as saith the Apostle) by the Ce­lebration of this Sacrament. And the word [ [...]] As often, or whensoever yee receive, &c. (being indefinite, and assigning no certaine dayes or times) giveth libertie to the Church to solem­nize this Memoriall at her convenient times; yet so, that When­soever the Church celebrateth this Sacrament, shee do it accor­ding to the forme of Christ his Institution, by communicating in both kinds.30

⚜Yet is not this all, but if you desire an Argument of Gods wonderfull Providence, you may see it in this, in deli­vering up your owne Cardinals to that Stupidity, as to be caught in their owne subtilty, by the cleare light of the Text, well discerned by your Divines of Enchirid. Coloni [...]nse de Sacramen. Euch. verb [Hujus.] Divus Paulus ape [...]tius reliquis habet: Quo­tiescun (que) manduca­veritis hunc panem, & poculum hoc bib [...] ­tis, mortem Domini annuntiabitis. 1. Cor. 11. 26. Colen in these words of Saint Paul, [As often as you do eate this Bread, and drinke this Cup.] Do you marke? the [Quotiescunque,] is applyed equally to both, The eating of the one, and Drinking of the o­ther. If then their Consequence were good, that the Church, by virtue of that [Quotiescunque,] had a libertie to abstaine 40 from the Cup, it would follow that (against the universall do­ctrine of both sides) the Church might celebrate the Com­munion without distribution of either of both, whereof more in the next Section.

If the Pope, sitting in the Assembly of his Cardinals, delive­ring unto each of them a Ring, to put upon their thumbes, should say, Do this as often as you come before mee, in testi­monie [Page 61] of my love: (Wee demand) Are they not, as often as they come into the presence of that Pope, chargeable to put on each one his Ring upon his thumbe, by virtue of the Popes Command? [Do this] who seeth not this, that doth not wil­fully blind-fold and stupifie his wits? Shall wee conclude? As your owne Doctors inferre from these words of Christ [Do this] that Laicks, who be of yeares, are bound by the Law of God to communicate: by the same Text may wee conclude, that they are likewise obliged to participate of the Cup.

10 ⚜And although our Argument, taken from the words of Christ [Do this as often] seeme to be hereunto of no force with your two Cardinals, who spy therein a wonderfull gappe of libertie for a non-use of the Cup, in the celebration of this Sacrament; yet your Councell of Trent pronounceth thatSee afterwards Sect. 4. at the letter (a) and Sect. 6. at (m). The Priest by these words. [Do this as often as, &c.] is commanded to consecrate in both kinds; Which indeed ought to be unto us an Argument of the singular Providence of God, to see the Adversaries of his Truth, to be Babylonishly Confounded by the Contrarietie of their owne tongues.

20 THE CHALLENGE, In Generall.

DO this] are (as you have heard) words Commandatorie, and being spoken of Both kinds, aswell for Consecration, as for Distribution, do oblige the Church of Christ to performe both kinds: so that it must needs follow, that the neglect of 30 the Act is a Transgression of the Precept of Christ. And so much the rather ought you to be perswaded hereof, because your choicest and most subtile Objecters, when, seeking to de­fend your Alteration, it became them to reason discreetly con­cerning this Sacrament (which the Fathers call [...], the Cup of Sobriety) yet do argue so intemperatly, as though they had beene over-taken with some other Cup: insomuch that they are confuted by their owne learned fellowes, by evi­dent texts of the Evangelists, and by common sense; Which gi­veth us just cause to turne their Wonderment against themselves, 40 saying, Behold the Providence of God! thus plainely to confound the wisedome of the Adversaries of his truth by themselves, in their greatest subtilnesse. Hitherto of the Comparison of the Ordinance of Christ with the Ordinance of the Romish Church.

CHALLENGE.

THis Argumentis is still inculcated, almost, by every Romanist, in defence of the Romish Custome of but in one kind, not­withstanding 40 it be twice rotten. First, in the Root and Antece­dent. For although Christ here had begun the Celebration of the Eucharist, yet doth it not appeare that he did now perfect it, in distributing either kinde to his Disciples; Nor is this likely, saith yourChristum hanc Eucharistiam porre­xisse, sententia est incerta, & non veri­sim. lis, Iansen. Con­cord. c. 126 p. 1070. Iansenius. And it is dead-rotten also in the branch and Consequence thereof, because that this Act of Christ in Emmaus is not to bee urged, as an Example to be imi­tated in the Church; which is demonstrable by an acknow­ledgment, [Page 64] of your IesuiteRespondendum est eam actionem es­se illis ipsis impera­tam, per illa verba [Hoc facite.] Hoc ipso enim quod juffi­sunt consecrate sub specie panis, confequenter intelligi de­bet, eos j [...]ss [...]s ess [...] consecrare sub specie vi [...] Nam hoc exigit necessariò natura Sacrificij, & Sacra­menti: si enim una species absque altera conficiatur, sacrilegium committitur. Quamobrem in Conc. Trident. absolutè dicitur, Sacerdotes jussos esse offerre utr [...]mque speciem illis verbis [Hoc facite in commemorationem meam.] Quae forma verborum solùm usurpata fuit à Christo circa panem. Valent. les. de usu Eucharist. c. 3. §. Respondendum. ⚜The words of the Synod. Sess 22. cap. 1. Corpus & sanguinem suum sub speciebus panis & vi [...] obtulit, ac sub earundem rerum symbolis Apostolus quos tunc novi Testamenti sacerdotes constituebat, ut sumerent, tradidit eisdem, eorum­què in sacerdotio successoribus, ut offerrent, praecepit per illa verba, [Hoc facite in memoriam mei.] Valentia. As for example. The Councel of Trent hath defined that the Priest, in Consecrating, is cōmanded by Christ his Institution to consecrate in both kinds; Because this (saith your Iesuite) both the nature of the Sacrifice and Sacrament doth exact: but by what words of Command? name­ly (for so he saith) by these words, [Do this as often, &c.] Accor­dingly your ObjectourLiturg. Tract. 4. §. 2. pag. 401. Master Brerely (as if hee had meant purposely to confute, and confound himselfe) The reason why the Priest receiveth both kinds, is, because hee is to represent the Sacri­fice of Christ upon the Crosse. But Bread cannot represent Christ dead, without some signe of Bloud.10

⚜Your Scottish Iesuite will prompt your English Priest, to say, that there may be aIac. Gordon. Scotus les. lib. Contro. 8. cap 4. In conse­cratione et sump­tione unius speciei est perfecta memoria mortis Christi—quae imperfecta dici potest integraliter, sed non essentialiter. Num. 19. Nec vide­tur necessario colligi, quòd obligatur sacer­dos consecrare vi­num—Num. 21. Fecit Christus in Emmaus cùm uni­cam speciem conse­crârat, fecit id quod absolutè praeceperat. Perfect commemoration of Christs death by consecration of but one kinde: and that Christ 20 did not command the Consecration of Both, as necessary. This hee fetcheth from the former Example of Christ at Em­maus; whom notwithstanding your IesuiteVasques les. in 3. Thom. Disp. 222. cap. 4. per totum. Re­praesentatio mortis Christi in ipsa conse­cratione hujus Sa­cramenti, non debet corpus sinè sanguine consecrari.—Cele bratio hujus Sacra­mēti est imago quae­dam Repraesentatio­nis Christi—Rat 1. Quià probaturhoc sa­crisicium non in consecratione unius speciei, sed utrius (que) fuisse à Christo institutum, quià alioqui ubi duae essent Consecrationes, duo essent sacrificia in Missa.—Altera, quià per alterius tantum speciei consecrationem non potest mors Christ commodè repraesentati—quià neutra species sola habet analogiam, similitudinem, aut p [...]oportionem cum [...]orte Christi ptout contigit, nempe per [...]effusionem sanguinis ex vulneribus. Vndè rectè fequitur, unae tantum speciei consecrationem, pro sacrificio Christi cruento, non fuisse à Christo institutam. Vasquez (if peradventure hee cannot reforme) will surely refute, even from your owne Romish Principle, which teacheth that the Sacrifice of the Masse is an unbloudy Sacrifice in it selfe, yet Commemorative and Representative of Christs death and Pas­sion; which was by the Effusion and Separation of Bloud from his Body. But this (saith he) cannot be represented [...] by one kinde. And thereupon hee Concludeth that Christ instituted 30 the Consecration of this Sacrament in Both kindes.

If then, because Christ ministred it not in Both kindes in Em­maus, it shall be lawfull for the Church to imitate him in that manner of Distribution of this Sacrament, it must as equally follow, that because hee is not found there to have Consecra­ted in both kindes, it may be lawfull for your Consecrating Priest so to do; not onely contrarie to your now Romane Cu­stome; but also (in the judgement of the Councell of Trent) con­rary to the Command of Christ, asSee above. See also hereafter Sect. 6. hath beene confessed. Twice miserable therefore is the darknesse of your Disputers,40 First, not to see the Inconsequence of this Objection: and next [Page 65] not to remember that common Principle, to wit, Extraordinary Acts (such as this was) are not to be Rules for ordinary Duties.

⚜Wherein, that the Vnconscionablenesse of all your Ob­jectors may be made more transparent, We adde out of your Schooles, that Christs Acts of Excellencie, (that is, which are proper to his owne Soveraignty) are neither Dispensable, nor Imitable. And such was this his abrupt not-dispensing of Both kinds unto his Disciples. Say, Father Vasquez, is not this most true?Vasquez. Ies. in 3. Thom Disp 2 [...]3. cap. 3. Supremâ au­thoritate coram Di­scipulis in castello Emmäus alterā tan­tùm speciem conse­cravit.—quod qui­dem eo tempore fieri maximè expe­dibat, cùm st [...]tim in fractione panis ag­nis is est.—Non possit Pontifex hanc obligationem Sacer­dotibus relaxare. Christ (saith this Iesuite) now at Emmaus 10 consecrated but in one kinde, by his Supreme authority; so pro­per to Christ, that the Pope himselfe cannot dispence with any Priest, that he should not consecrate in Both. So he. With what Conscience then could your Objectors urge this Example of Christ, for the Priests administring the Sacrament but in One kinde, which they themselves did see could not justifie either your Priests, or Popes, consecrating but in One kinde?

A SECOND CHALLENGE.

20 VVEe conclude. You have seene, by the testimonies of Cyprian, and Pope Iulius, that it was good Divinity, in their dayes, to argue from the Example of Christ his Institution negatively; by rejecting such Acts, and accounting them as contrarie to the Institution of Christ, which accord not with his Example, and which are not comprized within the Canon of Christ his [Hoc facite.] Which kinde of Reasoning, at this day, is hissed at in your Romish Schooles. What need many words? O tempora!

40 CHALLENGE.

OFrustrà susceptos Labores nostros! may wee say; for to what end is it for us to prove an Apostolicall Practice, or Pre­cept for Both kinds, when your Objectors are ready with the onely names of Pope and Church of Rome to stoppe the mouthes not onely of Vs Heretikes (as you call us) but even of Saint Paul himselfe, and of the other Apostles, yea, and of Saint Peter too? [Page 68] By which Answere notwithstanding you may perceive how little Saint Paul doth favour your cause, by whose Doctrine the Advocates for your Church are driven to these straits: but more principally if you call to remembrance, that our Argu­ment is taken from the Apostles Doctrine and Practice, as it was grounded by S^t. Paul himselfe upon the Doctrine and Precept of Christ. Thus, when wee appeale unto the Apostles Tradi­dition, you, by opposing, Thinke your selves wiser than the A­postles: which Irenaeus will tell you was the very garbe of old Cùm ad eam Traditionem, quae ab Apostolis, pro­vocamus eos, dicent se Apostolis existen­tes superiores, since­ram ingenisse ve [...]ita tem. Iren. lib. 2. ad­vers. Haeres. cap. 2. Heretikes. 10

CHALLENGE.

NOw after that wee have proved, out of your owne Con­fessions, the length of the Custome of Both kindes to have beene in the Continuance above a thousand yeares, after the first Institution of this Sacrament; and for largenesse thereof, in an universall consent thereunto, without any exception by any example ordinary, publike, and legitimate; and that you have heard also even the Fathers of your Church opposing against 10 it a contrarie custome not above the Compasse of three hundred yeares, and yet to call it [Diutissima] A Custome of longest continu­ance; what Tergiversation could be more shamelesse? But e­nough of this point. In the next place, because the same your Councel hath told us, that your contrary Custome was brought in [Rationabiliter,] with good Reason, wee are forth-with to dis­cusse the Reasons thereof.

CHALLENGE,

IT is now about twenty yeeres since the sayd Doctor (in Confutation of a booke of Master Brerelyes, intituled an A­pologie)40 published a Treatise, called the Protestants Appeale, wherein were discovered many hundred of Master Brerelyes Ignorances, Falsities, and Absurdities: who ever since hath had Master Parson's itch, (as hee himselfe called his owne hu­mour) which received a Salve that might have cured him of that itch, to bee medling with the same Doctor. Yet the only Exception, which hath since come to this Doctor's eares from [Page 73] your side, is this now objected point, concerning the Mani­chees: whereupon you have heard them both so urgently, and boastingly insist: and not so onely, but they have also divulged this pretended Contradiction in many Counties of this King­dome, to his reproach. Will you be so kinde, as but to heare an Answer, and then either wonder at, or hisse, or applaude, or him, or them, as you shall find just Cause.

Two things there were condemnable in the Manichees, one was their Act and Practice, in dismembring the Sacrament, by 10 not communicating in Both kinds: the other was their Opi­nion, which they held, for so doing; which was, as you have heard, an Hereticall Conceit, that Wine was the Creature of the Devill. Concerning this Hereticall opinion, no Protestant (sayd Protestants Ap­peale lib. 2. chap. 4. Sect. 3. Doctor Morton) doth charge the Church of Rome: but as for the Act of not Communicating in Both kinds,In the same Ap­peale, lib. 4. chap. 22. Sect. 10. he called it Sacrilegious, and concluded the Church of Rome, in this respect, to bee as guilty of dismembring the Sacrament, as were the Ma­nichees. And both these hee hath done by the Authority of PopeComperimus quòd quidam, sump­tâ tantummodò cor­poris sacri portione, à Calice sacri cruoris abstineante qui pro­culdubiò (quoniam nescio qua superstici­one docentur astrin­gi) aut Sacramenta integra percipiant, aut ab integris arce­antur, quià divisio unius ejusdem (que) my­sterij sine grandi sa­crilegio non potest provenire. Gelas [...]a­pud Gratian, de Con­secrat. cap. Comper [...] ­mus. D. 2. Gelasius, who decreed, in condemning the Manichees, 20 First against their Opinion, saying, Illi nescio quâ superstitione docentur astringi, &c. (That is) They are intangled in a kinde of Superstition. Then, for the Act of refusing the Cup, Because (saith hee) the diving of the same Mystery cannot be done with­out grievous sacrilege, therefore let these Manichees either re­ceive the whole Sacrament, or else let them be wholly excluded from receiving. So Gelasius,

Seeing then Doctor Morton, and all Protestants, cleare the Church of Rome from the imputation of the Heresie of the Ma­nichees, in respect of their opinion, and yet condemne them of the Manichean Sacrilege, in respect of the Act of dismem­bring 30 the Sacrament; with what spectacles (thinke you) did your Priest and Iesuite reade that. Answere of Doctor Mor­ton, to collect from thence, either your Churches Iusti­fication from a foule fault of Sacrilege, or else the Doctors foule Contradiction to himselfe, and that clearely forsooth, in the same respect? who themselves are now found to have beene so subtilly witlesse, as not to discerne Heresie from Sacrilege; an opinion from a fact; or a no-imputation of that, whereof neither Doctor Whitaker, nor any other Protestant ever 40 accused them, from a practice condemned by a Roman Pope him­selfe. Take unto you a Similitude. A man being apprehended in the company of Traytors, upon suspicion of Fellony, is fully and effectually prosecuted for Fellony onely; if one should say of him, that he was not convicted or condemned of Treason, but of Fellony, were this either a Contradiction in the party spea­king, or a full Iustification of the party spoken of?

You are by this time (wee thinke) ashamed of your Proctors, and of their scornefull insultation upon the Doctor, in the ri­diculous [Page 74] tearmes of Rabbin, and Magnus Apollo: who willingly forbeareth, upon this Advantage, to recompence them with like scurrility, being desirous to be onely Great in that, which is called Magna est Veritas, & praevalet.

By which Truth also is fully discovered the vanity of the An­swer both of M^r. Fisher, & of your Cardinall, saying, that Gelasi­us condemned only the Opinion of the Manichees; which is so trans­parant a falshood, as any one that hath but a glympse of Reason may see throught it, by the sentence it selfe, as hath been proved.

CHALLENGE,40

IF now Truth may be judged by the different Dispositions of Professors, then may this former Confession witnes for us, that there is as much difference betweene the Primitive and the now Romish Custome, as there is betweene lively Fervencie, and senselesse Numnes and Coldnes, that is to say, Godly zeale, [Page 85] and Godlesse Indevotion and Negligence: yet a Negligence not only approved (which is impious) but (that which is the height of Impiety) even applauded also by your Priests, among whom theVt nobis Iocu­pletissi [...]i testes, at­ (que) omni exceptione majores retulerunt, in Germania qui eò loci per omnia obedi­unt Romanis Ponti­ficibus, non solùm (Reverendi Patres) Calicem vitae non cupiunt, aut petere audent, &c. Gasp. Card Villalp. apud Act. Concil. Trident. pag. 222. §. Accedit. above-said Gasper Cardillo in the Councell of Trent, with exultation told their Father-hoods (as being a matter of great joy) that they who are under the Iurisdiction of the Church of Rome, in Germany, dare not so much as desire the Cup of life. 10 So hee.

CHALLENGE.40

ARe not these Opinators in number many; in name, for the most part, of great esteeme; their Assertion, in their owne [Page 93] opinion, full of assurance; and delivered to their Hearers, as the onely Catholike Resolution? And yet behold One, whose name alone hath obtained an Authority equivalent to almost all theirs, your CardinallArgumentum eorum, qui volunt Pronomen [Hoc] demonstrate corpus, est absurdum, quòd in hujusmodi propo­sitionibus, quae signi­ficant id quod tunc fit cum dicitur, Pro­nomina demonstra­tiva non demonstra­re quod est, sed quod erit. Et ponunt Ex­empla, ut si quis dum pingit lineam, aut circulum, dicat, Haec est linea, hic est Ci­culus. Quomodo e­tiam exponi debet Pronomen in illis verbis Domini, Ioh. 25. Hoc est praecep­tum meum—Haec explicatio non vide­tur satisfacere, prop­ter duas causas. Pri­mò, quià etsi Prono­men demōstrativum demonstret rem fu­turam, quandò nihil est praesens, quod de­monstretur (ut in ex­emplis allatis) tamen si quis digito aliquid ostendat, dum pro­nomen essert, valde absurdum videtur di­cere, pronomine illo non demōstrari rem praesentem. Atqui Dominus accepit pa­nem, & illum porri­gens, ait, [Accipite, Edite, H. E. C. M.] Videtur igitur demonstrasse panem. Neque obstat quod propositio non significat, nisi in fine totius prolationis: Nam etsi ità est de propositione, quae est ratio quaedam, tamen Demonstra­tiva Pronomina mox indicant certum aliquid, etiam antequam sequantur caeterae voces. Et sane in illis verbis [Bibite ex hoc omnes] valdè durum est, non demonstrari id quod erat, sed id tantùm quod futurum erat. Secundò si Pronomen [Hoc] demonstrat solùm Corpus, verba speculativa erunt, non practica. Bellar lib. 1. de Euch cap. 11. §. Nota secundò. Bellarmine, who, speaking of the same opinion of referring the word [This] to the Body of Christ, doth in flat tearmes call it ABSVRD. But not without good and solid reason, and that according to the Principles of Ro­mish Schooles; to wit, because before the last syllable of the last word [Me [...]um] be pronounced, the Body of Christ is not yet 10 present: and the word [This] cannot demonstrate a thing Ab­sent, and therefore can it not bee sayd, This is my Body. ⚜ With your Cardinall two other Iesuites take part, ingenuously confessing, thatVasquez in 3. Thom. Disp. 181. cap 12. [Hoc] non potest demonstrare nisi id quod est praesens. And Iacob. Gordonus Scotus. Ies. lib. controvers. controver. 4. cap. 1. num. 4. & 9. Si rem [...]neret panis substanti [...], pronomen, Hoc, necessario demonstraret panis substantiam quae remanet, ità ut sensus esset: Hic panis, est corpus meum: nam pronomen, Hoc, non potest non demonstrare rem praesentem. The Pronounce [Hoc, This] in Christs words, doth necessarily demonstrate a thing present.

A Reason pregnant enough in it selfe, & ratified by your pub­like Romane Hujus vocis [Hoc] ea vis est, ut rei praesentis substantiam demonstrer. Catech. Conc. Trid. Decree. co­jussu pij Quinti Pontificis Edit. ut in frontispicio libri cernitur. Catechisme, authorized by the then Pope, & Coun­cel of Trent: yet notwithstanding your fore-named Irish Iesuite, hearing this Argument objected by Protestants, rayleth down­right, calling it Accursed, as judged by the Church Hereticall, and 20 indeed Abominable. So he, who with Others, if they were of fit yeares, might be thought to deserve the rod, for forgetting their Generall Catechisme, & for defending an Exposition, which even in common sense may be pronounced, in your Cardinalls owne phrase, very Absurd; ⚜ And that the Body of Christ is not the Thing present, that can be demonstrated, your Pope Innocent proveth: Because Christ, in pronouncing of the words [This is my Body]Innocent. 3. Papa lib. 3. de offic. Missae cap. 26. Quaeritur quid demonstravit Christus, cum dixisset [Hoc est corpus meum:] non corpus, quia nondum illa verba protulerat, ad quam prolationem panem mutavit in corpus. Did not as yet utter the words whereby the Bread was changed into his Body. Absurd therfore must your former. Interpretation needs be, ⚜ else shew us, if you can, but 30 the least semblance of Truth for that Opinion.

The Similitudes which are urged, to illustrate your former Practicall and operative sense, are of these kinds; to wit, Even [Page 94] as if one (sayBellar. See before at let. (k) They) in drawing a Line, or a Circle, should say in the making thereof, This is a Line, or this is a Circle: or as if the Smith (sayHaec locutio [Hoc est corpus me­um] habet virtutem factivam conversio­nis panis in Corpus Christi, ut a [...] Tho­mas.—Pro si­mili, quod rudi in­tellectui satisfacere valeat, dari potest, ut si Faber accepto ferro clavum subito motu formans, dicat, Hic est Clavus—Clavus non est cum profertur oratio, sed fieri inter proferendum, & esse per prolationem verborum. Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 13. pag. 81. Col. 1. [Ex aliorum opinione,] & Iansenius Concord. cap. 130—ut faber clavum, &c. Others) in making of a Nayle, should say, This is a Nayle; So by Christ his saying [This is my Body] it was made presently the Body of Christ, at the very pronuntiation of the last word of this Sentence, [This is my Body.] But most concei­tedly your Iesuite Malloune, and that not without scurrility; Master Malloune in his late Reply, pag. 105. This is a K [...]tle for my wife, &c. ⚜ Egid. Conineks Ies. de Sacram. qu. 75. Art. 1. n. 36 Pronomen [Hoc] demonstrat [...]d quod continetur sub speciebus, abstrahendo ab eo quod sit panis, aut corpus Christi: ità tamen quòd non referatur ad illud instans, in quo pronuntietur, sed ad illud in quo propositio sit sufficienter pronuntiata—quod est commune non solùm omnibus Propositionibus practicis, quae significant quod efficiunt: sed ijs etiam quae significant aliquid fieri, faciemus diversas figuras. Propriè dicitur [Hic est Gir­culus] dùm tamen non est haec sigura dùm dico [Hic.] As a Taylor making a Kirtle, and saying (wee shall change onely his last word) This is a Kirtle for my Mistris CONCV­BINA. So they.10

CHALLENGE.20

THese kind of Subtilties are frequent in the mouthes of most Romish Priests, as often as they are compelled to shew what is demonstrated by the Pronou [...]e, This. But that these your Similitudes of making Circles, Lines, and Nayles, are no better than Iugling, and Gypsie-trickes of fast or loose, and fond devises forged in the braines of idle Sophisters, and uttered by your Circulary Priests, your owne Authours are ready to ma­nifest: for in these Examples of the Painters touching a Line, or 30 a Circle (as yourBellar. See before at the letter (k) Bellarmine sheweth) making and saying, This is a Circle; Is no true Proposition, untill the Circle be made. And then it is a figurative speech and not a proper, using the pre­sent Tense, Is, for the future, Shall be. So he. In like manner your IesuiteProfectò prope­sitio non est vera, ni­si postquàm factus est Cuculus: Sed oratio accipitur pro verâ, quia id, quod futurum est, accipitur pro jam facto, per Tropum, non juxta Proprietatem fermo nis: in quem sen­sum Christus plerun­que praesens pro fu­turo usurpavit: ut Matth 26. Apud te facio Pascha cum Di­scipulis meis, id est, confestim facio Pas­ [...]lta. Salmeron. Iesuit. Tom. 9. Traclat. 13 §. Secunda.—Si [Est] propriè accipia­tur, pro existere, du­rum est ut uniat sub­jectum cum praedica­to pro futuro tempore, quia falsa esset propositio, non solùm in orationibus speculativis, & significativis, sed etiam in practicis & factivis: ut si quis volens facere Circulum, rogatus quid est Hoc? respondeatque, Hic est Circulus, Profesiò propositio non est statim vera, &c. Salmer. Ibid. pag. 83. Salmeron affirmeth with a PROFECTÒ and full asseveration, that the speech of him, who, in drawing a Cir­cle, doth say, This is a Circle, cannot without a Trope or Figure, be judged true. So he.

And furthermore, who knoweth not that every Operative speech doth signifie not the Being of a thing; but the Making 40 therof, and bringing of it unto being? For although the Pain­ter be so nimble, in drawing a Circle, that his hand may go be­fore his tongue; yet when the Operative virtue consisteth not in working, by the agility of the hand, but in the orderly pro­nouncing [Page 95] of the words of a speech with the tongue, so that the Truth therof dependeth upon the utterance of the last syllable; it is impossible but the Priest, in uttering distinctly these words, [Hoc est corpus meum,] must say, This is, before he come to the last syllable of Me [...]um: and consequently in his sense no­tifie This to be Christ's Body, before (according to his owne judgement) the Body of Christ can have there any being at all.

By this is discovered the notable Vertigo and dizzinesse of 10 your Iesuite Maldonate; Hee, to prove that the Pronoune, This, doth relate to Christ's Body, standeth upon the like Ope­rative speculation; God (saithQuum Deus ex limo terrae hominem finxit tectè verè (que) di­cere potuiller, sump­to in manus luno, Hic est Homo. Et cum ex costa mulie­rem fabricavit, sump­ta costâ dicere pota­it, Haec est Mulier; quamvis cum pro­nunciasset Pronomen [Haec] nondum fu­isset mulier, ac signifi­câsset cùm ita locutus fuisset, limum non esse hominem, & co­stam mulierem; sed limum in hominem, costam in mulierem converti. Sic cùm Christus dicit, [Hoc est corpus meum,] significat panem mu­cari in corpus suum. Quemadmodum si in Cana Galileae, cùm aquam in vinum, &c. Maldon. Iesuit. in Matth. 26. Ita cùm Christus dicit, accep­to pane [Hoc est cor­pus meum] quamvis illud corpus nondum ille esset, sed futurum erat, illud eo pronomine demonstrat, nee sig­nificat panem, quem acceperat, esse corpus suum, sed mutari in corpus suum. Idem in Matth. 26. pag. 635. he) in creating man of the slime of the earth, might have truly said thereof, This is man: Or in framing Woman of the Rib of man, might have rightly said, This is Woman: or Christ in working his miracle in Cana of Galilee, might have said, (shewing the water) This is Wine. So he. When, notwithstanding, he is inforced in every one to alter the Verbe, Is, thus; Slime is changed into man: Rib is converted into Wo­man: Water is made Wine, as he himselfe confesseth; expoun­ding 20 the words [This is my Body] thus, Not that it was then his Body (saith he) which as yet it was not, but was about to be: nor that he signified the Bread to be his Body, but to be changed into his Body. So he. As if any thing could be said properly to be that, which as yet it Is not. ⚜ No, and therfore your Iesuite Gordon Gordonus Scotus Ies. Controvers. 4. cap 3. num. 15. [Hoc] demonstrat corpus futurum. And your Angles saith directly The Pronoune [THIS] demonstrateth the Body, which is about to be. As much as to say, This [Is] shal­be. Another of your owne Divines will tell you thatSi [Hoc] demonstrat corpus sub ratione corporis, Propositio speculativa esset, non Practica. Ies. Angles flor. Theol. quaest. Art. 10. Concl. 4. Which was also the Argument of Bellarmine. See above at the letter (k.) If the Pronoune [THIS] demonstrate Christ's Body, then cannot the speech of Christ be practicall (that is) to effectuate that which 30 it signifieth; and this will marre your doctrine of Transub­stantiation quite. ⚜ Hitherto of your first Interpretation.

CHALLENGE.20

VVHich Subtilty is notwithstanding discussed, disclosed, and exploded by your learnedArchbishop of Cae­sae. sive Christopherus de Capite fontium. var. Tract. Demon­strando corpus in ge­nere, nescio quid—dictum velis, cùm non Individua in Generibus suis, sed Genera in individuis demonstrentur, & Pronominis natura est sola singularia demonstrare.—Ideò si generi addas Pronomen [Hoc] demonstras non in genere sed in Individuo rem ipsam,—Conceptus communis non latet sub speciebus, nec in manibus portari po­test.—Propositio vera dicitur ex eo, quòd res est vera, vel non est vera: ergò non verborum dispositio consideranda venit—Rapiunt isti à rerum consideration lectorem, ut non res ipsas, sed intelligibiles formas loquendi contempletur.—Quibus dixerim, revertimini ad judicium, ô viri, & duas has tantùm res, corpus scilicet, & panem considerate, quarum alterum tantùm demonstrari necesse est. Quia Pronomen vice nominis Proprij positum pro solo singulari sumi potest, cum Scriptura duarum tantùm substantiarum, quae de­monstrari hîc queant, meminerit, viz. Panis, & Corporis, nescio cur fingunt Tertiam aliquam, quae nec pa­nis sit, nec corpus. In quo magnam vim Scripturae faciunt, infarcientes illi ex suo cerebro tertiam illam rem, cujus nullam habent mentionem, & quâ positâ, propositio esset falsa. Archiepisc. Caesariens. quo supra pag. 12. Si enim Christus ita loqueretur de pane, ante illius Transubstantiationem, mentiretur.—Non enim haec dici possunt de Pane consecrando, quò sit corpus Christi. Ibid. pag. 17. Solam illam substantiam fingularem demonstrabat, quae erat in Christi manibus, quae erat aut panis, aut corpus ejus: Tertiam igitur quaerere va­nissimus labor est, & absurditate plenus. Thus farre that Archbishop. Archbishop of Caesa­rea, and your IesuiteVulgata opinio est, illud Pro­nomen [Hoc] neque demonstrare corpus Christi. Quae sententia non videtur mihi probabilis esse, quia etsi vocabula solent aliquando habere vagam & indefinitam significationem, tamen aliud est loqui de signi­ficatione verbi, aliud de acceptione, quam Dialectici vocant suppositionem. Illa quae dicuntur Individua vaga significationem habent vagam, & indeterminatam, sed suppositionem habent semper certam, & determi­natam: nam etsi hoc Pronomen [Hic, haec, hoc,] quantum in se est, non magis significat hunc hominem, quàm illum, tamen cum ponitur in propositione (ut hic homo disputat) non potest accipi nisi determinatè pro hoc homine. Ergo necesse est ut illud Pronomen [Hoc] accipiatur determinatè, aut pro pane, aut pro corpore Christi—Nulla res potest esse nisi determinatè aut haec aut illa; Ergò non possunt haec Pronomina, si substantivè accipiantur, nisi pro hac vel illâ re determinata accipi. Mald [...]mat. Ies. de Sacrament. Eucharist. Tom. 1. §. Tertius error. pag. 216. 217. Maldonate, as an Opinion both false and 30 40 [Page 97] full of Absurdities. ⚜ With whom your Iesuite [...] 3. Thom Disp 201. cap. 2. Mi [...]hae [...] sen­ [...]entia videtur d [...]fici­ [...]s, licèt valde proba­bilis, quia [Hoc] si sumitur [...]dj [...]ctivè, ni­hil potest [...]l [...]ud de­monstrare, quàm cor­pus, & sic e [...]t Indi­viduum determina­tum, & sic non erit contentum sub speci­ebus, sed [Hoc] contentum. Sed si Authores intelligunt tantùm contentum sub speciebus, tan­quam singulare va­gum, &, ut ipsi di­cunt, quid consu­sum, tale Individu­um non potest Pro­nomine [Hoc] de­monstrari, quia de­monstrat [Hoc] rem sensui per se, aut per accidens, obvium. At vagum non potest ul­lo modo sensui de­monstrari, sed intel­lectui. Quidam pu­tant substantivè sumi (ibid. c. 3.) licèt non in sine solù [...] prola­tionis demonstrat id de quo praedicatur. Vasquez will take part; and your CardinallEt Cajetan O­puse. Non hoc cor­pus meum, est corpus meum: quia sic cor­pus Christi converte­retur in corpus Chri­sti. Cajetan with him. ⚜ 1. Because whensoever the Pronoune [This] is used in Speech, as, This man disputeth, it is alwayes in proper sense, as determinat­ly taken. 2. Christ spoke of that which was in his hand, but that was no vagrant, but a singular determinate Substance. And it is grosse, to say a man holdeth a confused substance in his hand. Which seemed to yourMr. Harding in his answer to the 24. Article, saying, Learne you what they meane, and if their meaning bee naugh, handle you them as you list; you shall not offend us any whit. Master Harding so uncouth and fond an opinion, that hee utterly refuseth to defend the Au­thours 10 thereof.

This, and much more have they written to the discove­ring and discarding of this idle figment, wishing furthermore that the Defendants of this opinion, of Individuum vagum, may returne to their wits againe, and cease to offer such violence to this holy Scripture [This is my Body.] So they. And worthi­ly, for these two words, Individuum, and Vagum, spoken of HOC, bee termes as Contradictory, as to call the same thing, singular-common, or determinate-confused. As for example, Quidam home, A certaine man, is in Logike Individuum vagum; 20 as when Christ sayd, A certaine man went from Hierusalem to Hieriche, &c. None of the Disciples hearing this, could there­upon point him out, saying; This man: or know thereby who, or what he was.

Wee, for further manifestation of your Absurdity in this point, will instance in your owne Example, for your Indivi­duum vagum, of the Herbe, which a man holdeth in his hand, saying, This hearbe groweth in my Garden, how can you say it is true in the proper sense? for if you take it determinately, the same Hearb numero is not in the man's garden, because it is in 30 his hand, and so it is yet Hoc Individuum determinatum. And if you speake of it in a confused Notion, no Abstract Notion can be held in a man's hand, it being the function of the braine, and not of the hand, to apprehend mentall Notions, or Gene­ralls; and so it is not Individuum at all.

But the Text saith of Christ his hand, [He tooke bread, &c.] THIS, which Christ, in so saying, pointed out with his finger, saith your[Ho [...] est corpus meum.] Hoc quod Christus digito de­monstrabat, cùm illa verba protulit. Sand. de visibil. Monarch. lib. 7. ad Ann. 1547. Sanders; but a man will have much adoe to point out an Individuum vagum (such as is an invisible, or a confused No­tion) with a visible finger. Wee would now conclude in the 40 words of a Parisian Doctor,Petrus Piche­rellus de Missâ. cap 3. Individui vagi commentum Au­thori Scoto [...] relinquo; but that something els is to bee added.

Another may be your Cardinall his owne Assertion, which he once made as a snare to catch himselfe in; for in yourCùm ante Consecrationem dicimus in Liturgiâ [suscipe sancte Pater hanc immaculatam hostiam] certè Pronomen [Hanc] demonstrat ad sensus id quod tunc manibus [...]enemus, id autem est panis. Bellar. lib. 1. de Missâ c. 27. §. Prima proposito. Ro­mish Masse, the Priest having the Hoast in his hand, prayeth [Page 98] thus; Receive, holy father, this immaculate Hoast. If you shall aske him what, in this prayer, the Pronoune: This doth demon­strate, hee telleth you readily and asseverantly saying; Certain­ly it demonstrateth unto sense that which the Priest hath in his hand, which is Bread. So he. Now why there should not bee the like certainty of Relation of the Pronounce [This] to Bread in the speech of Christ, as it hath in the prayer of the Priest, none of you (wee thinke) shall ever be able to shew.

Lastly, wee challenge you to shew, within the space of a Thousand three hundreth yeeres after Christ, out of all the An­cient 10 Fathers, any one Testimony that ever affirmed the Pro­noune [Hoc, This] to betoken any Individuum vagum, or Com­mon Substance; orels to confesse that this your doctrine is new, extravagant, and Adulterate. Nor yet can the Defenders ther­of say that this is all one, as to say, This, that is, that which is contained under the forme of Bread, because this is like as when one shewing his purse, shall say, This is money, meaning that which is in his purse; which is a knowne figure Metonymia.

Yet were it granted that [Hoc] betokened an Individuum vagum, as (to use your owne Similitude) when one saith of an 20 herb in his hand, This herb groweth in my garden; so Christ should have sayd of bread in his hand; This (that is the like kind of bread) is my Body: yet would not this make the Speech of Christ proper, or not figurative, because Christ's Body could no more be properly predicated of the kind of wheat-Bread; than it could bee of that bread of wheate then in his hand, as Christ himselfe hath taught us, and as we are to prove unto you. For speaking of his Body, he calleth it [...] the grane of wheat, Iohn 12. 24. not This grane; yet Christ's flesh is equally called improperly The grane, as This grane of wheate: whereof the 30 ancient Father Theodoret will reade you all a Lesson, in the sixt Section following. And now this so open and extreme civill warre among your selves, in confuting your owne Expositions, will further and confirme peace among us in that one Expositi­on, which we are in the next place to defend, as followeth.

WEe reason first Hypothetically; If the Pronoune This 40 demonstrate Bread, then the words of Christ are neces­sarily to bee taken improperly and figuratively. But the Pro­noune This doth demonstrate Bread. Our Conclusion will be; Therefore the words of Christ, necessarily, are to be taken figu­ratively. All this will be proved, confirmed, and avouched by Reasons, Authorities, and Confessions, which will admit no [Page 99] Contradiction. We begin at our proofe of the Consequence of the Proposition.