The Lords Supper OR, A VINDICATION OF THE SACRAMENT Of the Blessed BODY & BLOOD OF CHRIST: According to its Primitive Institution.

In Eight BOOKS; Discovering the Superstitious, Sacrilegious, and Idolatrous Abominations of the Romish Masse.

Together with the Consequent Obstinacies, Over­tures of Perjuries, and the Heresies discernable in the DEFENDERS thereof.

By THOMAS MORTON D. D. BP. of Duresme.

THE SECOND EDITION, Much enlarged, for CORROBORATION of sundry Points throughout the whole. Together with particular Answers to such Objections and Cavils, as have been hitherto made and raised by the Advarsary against this Work.

LONDON, Printed for R▪ [...]

And part of the Impression to be Vended for the Use and Benefit of Edward Minshew, Gentleman. M.D.C.LVI.

[...]

[...]OTIUM CUM DIGNITATE

The Right Hon.ble Charles Lord Halifax 1702

VTRIVSQVE ACADEMIAE CANTABRIG. & OXON.
Praeclaris Luminibus ac Ornamentis, caeteris­què Sacrae Theologiae Candidatis, & sin­cerioris Literaturae Studiosis Gratiam & Salutem in CHRISTO IESV.

SI quanto amoris studio Vtramque Academiam prosequor, tanto Honoris testimonio adornare eas possem (Ʋiri Clarissimi) certè quidem hoc qualecunqne Opus meum, vestro praesertim Nomini inscriptum, usque adeò excellens & singulare fuisset, ut nec ad con­ciliandam gratiam, nec ad culpam deprecandam Prae­fatione ullâ indigeret. In quo tamen si quae fortè Vobis occurrant (ut sunt sanè plurima) à nullo hactenùs, ex nostris partibus, Authore praevio in medium prolata; vestrae perspicacitatis erit, quanti momenti illa fuerint, dijudicare; quorum duntaxat Apices aliquot saltem at­tingere operae-precium esse duxi.

Sacramento Eucharistiae Resp. Christiana nihil un­quam sublimius, nihil sanctius habuit atque Augustius, [Page] quo Christiani quodammodò in Christum ipsum transfor­mamur. Huic Institutioni in frontispicio libri, ex aliorum Placitis, MISSAE cognomentum adjicio: quam vocem a­liquis fortassis omissam nimis velit. Quin esto tu bono ani­mo, quisquis es pius zelôtes, & Papisticae Missae exosor vehemens. Etenim nomen [Missa] secum omen suum apportat, quod cum à Dimittendis ijs, qui Eucharistiae participes esse nolunt, ortum suum traxerit, Romanam Missam planè jugulat, quae (veluti Amasios suos) Spe­ctatores meros omnibus lenociniis ad se allicit at (que) invitat; ac si in illo uno Theatrico spectaculo Religio ipsa Christi­ana ferè tota consisteret: quos tamen (modò Eucharistiae capaces) Antiquitas Catholica apud Graecos [...], apud Latinos Discedere jussit; et in persistentes, ut in homines praefractos & impudentes, graviter acerbe (que) invecta est. Haec de Operis Titulo praefari mihi libuit, nè in isthoc vo­cabulo, Missae, veluti in ipso vestibulo, impegisse videar.

Ex parte Operis primâ, quam Practicam dicimus, constat Institutionis Christi Canones decem, per Tri­dentinos Canones, in Romana Missa, perfringi (tantumnon jugiter) et violari; sed majorinè impudētiâ, an impietate, difficile est dicere: nam Depravationibus istis sufflaminandis mille annorū Consuetudini universali anteponūt sequioris aetatis Diutissimè, scilicet, retentam (ut aiunt) trecentorum annorum modernae Ecclesiae Romanae (en!) sapientioris usum contrarium. De­inde Praeceptum praximque Apostolicam à Pontifice Rom. Abrogari posse garriunt: quin & adversus Exemplum Christi, multis retrò seculis vel ab ipsis Rom. Pontificibus sanctè religiose (que) observatum, ob­tendunt Consuetudinem contrariam habendam esse [Page] pro lege: quin porrò hoc quo (que) parum est, quià, quamvis de contrario Praecepto Christi constaret, nihilo-minùs Ius ipsum divinum à Pontifice Romano re­laxari posse, Iesuita blasphemo ore pronunciat.

Sequitur pars altera, quam Dogmaticam nomina­mus, in multa Membra se diffundens, ità tamen ut ho­rum verborum Christi [HOC EST CORPVS ME­VM, &c.] ⚜ Quâ quidem Parti­cusâ integram Institutionis Christi narra­tionem (Insti­tutionis, inquā, non autem Ro­manae, ut dici­tur, Consecra­tionis formam) disertis verbis significavi. Ex quâ tamen mi­rum quantos clamores exci­tavit Papista quidam, vit sa­nè nobilis: cu­jus Postulatis justo quodam Tractatu (qui Anglicè inscri­bitur A Dis­charge) [...]atis superque factū est. ⚜ &c.] Expositioni literali Mysterij Romani de Eucharistia moles tota nitatur. Quanquàm dum in istis explicandis Adversarij nonnulli, Fridentinorum Patrum spiritu afflati, Tropum omnem ab eisdem longè exulare jubent; Alij tamen Tropos saltem Sex, velint nolint, coguntur agnoscere. Porrò, in una Particula [HOC] totius Controversiae cardo vertitur; de qua cum quaeritur, quid ea proprie designet, Pontificij Do­ctores in duas, eas (que) contrarias Opiniones distrahuntur Alij enim per, Hoc, Christi corpus denotari volunt; Alij ad aliud (quod ipsi commenti sunt) Individuum Vagum Pronomen illud referunt: ità tamen ut utri (que) Andabatarum more, à se invicèm vapulent, dùm hi pri­orem sententiam prorsus Absurdam, illi posteriorem Absurditatum plenam non dicunt modò, verum-etiam solidis Argumentis evincunt. Iam igitur, hoc uno fun­damento ipsorum Pontificiorum Contradictionibus (ut olim Turre Babel) diruto at (que) dejecto, alia de Transsubstantiatione, de Corporali Christi Praesen­tia, Conjunctione què cum corporibus Communi­cantium, de propriè dicto Sacrificio, & de divina deni (que) Adoratione, superstructa portentosa Dogmata omnia corruere & labefactari necesse est. De singulis, si pla­cet, pauca delibemus.

[Page] Primo in loco Transsubstantiationis non Dogma modò, sed & vox ipsa (contra quàm pisces) novitate sua foetet. Ecquid habent, quod opponant? nonnihil, nempè, Patres antiqui (inquiunt) de Conversione hujus Sacramenti verba facientes, Transformationis, Tran­sitionis, Transmutationis, Transelementationis voca­bula frequenter usurpârunt: unde ipsissimam suam Transsubstantiationem dilucidè probari gens Romana clamitat & vociferatur. Cum tamen Adversarios no­stros minimè lateat, eosdem Sanctos Patres pari liberta­te sermonis judicij (que) synceritate easdem voces singulas ad alias conversiones transtulisse, ut (Exempli gratiâ) nunc Verbi praedicati in Auditorem, nunc Corporis Chri­sti in Ecclesiam, nunc hominis Christiani in Christum, nunc deni (que) Corporum Christianorum in ipsam Chri­sti carnem. Vndè sequitur, ut quâ ratione praeclari isti Disputatores unam duntaxat Transsubstantiationem astruere conantur, eâdem ex ipsa lege Parium (ô homi­nes miserè fascinatos, alios (que) miserrimè fascinantes!) quatuor alias teneantur admittere.

In Membro tertio partis Dogmaticae quaestio de Cor­porali praesentia Christi in Eucharistia agitatur, quae (que) hùc pertinent omnia ad hoc unum Caput reducuntur; Quid sit illud, quod, juxta Christi institutionem, jam in­telligitur [Corpus meum?] Hoc Catholica Ecclesia per multa Secula, ab Apostolicis us (que) temporibus, nullum aliud esse credidit, quàm quod à B. Virgine Natum, Vnum, Vno in Loco Definitum, seu circumscriptum, Organicum quoque, & demum Sensuum omnium absolutissimâ integritate juxtà & Gloriae perfectione cumulatissimâ praeditum. At quod Romanenses Car­bonariis [Page] suis Discipulis obtrudunt, Deus bone! quale Corpus, & quàm minimè illud MEVM? Primò (id enim natura Transsubstantiationis necessariò exigit) Corpus, quale Pistores pinsunt, ex pane confectum; mox Corpus (nam (que) hoc discontinuitas locorum per se postu­lat) multiplex, quale Geryonis illud fuisse fingitur: post, Corpus, (quià non definitivè in loco) quale esse nullum potest, Infinitum: dein Corpus, (quià totum in qualibet parte Hostiae) quale quis vix somniare potest, Paraphysicum: insuper Corpus (ut ipsi aiunt) omni movendi, sentiendi, intelligendíque facultate destitu­tum, id est, coecum, surdum, exanime: Corpus deni (que) nullis non sordibus cuiusvis sterquilinij, & locorum, quae honestè nominari non possunt, inhonestissimorū obnoxium. Qualia Opinionum portenta, ut omninò Haeretica, veteres Patres semper execrati sunt.

Verùm enim verò diversarum aetatum subrancidas Historias, si numeremus, Tredecim proferunt, in quibus memoria de verissimae carnis, verissimique sanguinis Christi in Eucharistia Apparentiâ verissimâ Lectoribus cōmendatur. In quibus Miraculis, tanquam in Dei testi­moniis omni exceptione majoribus, Adversarij nostri miri­ficè gloriantur; et dici vix potest quantoperè miseros mor­tales hâc unâ Persuasione suâ dementârint: cùm tamen haec verissima, scilicet, si ponderentur, vanissima esse sin­gula cuivis liquere possit. Quem in finem bonis illis Histo­ricis valedicentes, rectà Scholas petimus, exploraturi an Scholastici eandem insanierint insaniam. Hi tantum abest ut istis Legendariis fidē assensionem vè praebeant, ut in ejusmodi Apparitionibus vel veram carnem Chri­sti, vel omninò veram carnem inesse ausint non pernegare [Page] modò, verum-etiam contrariam hanc suam sententiam ex­quisitis Rationibus defendere. Quanquā quid horū proba­tione opus est? quandoqudē nemo ferè est tàm mucosis na­ribus (modònon sensus suos prorsus obstruat) cui non subo­leat, imò qui non eas legēdo planè odoretur, et persentiscat has fabulas à maleferiatis hominibus anilitèr esse confictas.

Quartò, In Corporali sua (ut vocant) Christi con­junctione cum Corporibus Communicantium ni­hil aliud cernere licet quàm Capernaiticam quandam stupiditatem; quoties Pontificios audimus antiquas suas canere Cantilenas: se nimirùm Dentibus terere, guttu­ribus deglutire, hoc est, ut nos quidem interpretamur, verè devorare; atque insuper hominum visceribus per­miscere; & tandem (adsit verbo reverentia) in seces­sum egerere; imò tàm canum, muriumque, nec non vilis­simi cujusque animalis intestinis, quàm ullius etiam san­ctissimi viri, qui illius particeps esse potest. Quis deinceps miretur fuisse olim, qui Philosophos se dicerent, qui asse­rebant, Nivem sibi atram videri, Coelum consistere, & Terram motione suâ eâ (que) perpetuâ rotari?

Hosce scopulos praetervecti, in Contentionum labyrin­thum dilabimur, de Sacrificio Missae, tot Amphibolo­giis & verborum involucris, tot Opinionum Antilogiis, ceu viarum anfractibus, & sinuosis Maeandris undique implicitum, ut absque commoda aliqua Distinctione diffi­ciles, imò impossibiles habeat explicatus: eò (que) magis, quòd apud veteres Patres (ut quod res est libere fateamur) de Sacrificio Corporis Christi in Eucharistia Incruento frequens est mentio: quae dici vix potest quantopere quo­rundam, alioqui Doctorum hominum, ingenia exercue­rint, torserint, vexaverint; aut econtrà quam jactanter [Page] Pontificij de ea re se ostentent: cum tamen hic nodus uno hoc Distinctionis quasi cuneo facilè diffindatur. Vox, Corpus Christi, dupliciter sumitur, vel ut Subjectum Celebrationis Eucharisticae, vel ut ejusdem Corporis Ob­jectum. Si Subjectivè accipiatur pro eo, cui externa Ac­cidentia insunt, tùm non potest non Corporalem Prae­sentiam Christi designare: sin verò Objectivè tantùm, habitâ Relatione ad Christi corpus, vel ut olim in cruce pendentis, vel ut nunc in coelo regnantis, Praesentiam dun­taxat Symbolicam declarat; quoniam Objectum, licet rei cruentae, ut in Scena, ipsum est tamen Incruentum. Id quod sex Argumenta, è veterū Patrum testimonijs de­prompta, dilucidè demonstrant. Eadē igitur Distinctione quivis poterit ità prorsùs [...], ut non habeant quod contrà mussitent. Quid? quod praetereà etiam Ro­mana Missa Grandis Sacrilegij rea arguitur.

Ad extremum, extremae & nefandae Idolomaniae Rom. [...] ipsum, quae est Sacramenti Eucharistiae divina Adoratio, in medium protrahitur; ubi id, quod adorant, Posse esse adhuc Panem, propter ferè infini­tos Defectus, ipsi Adversarij ultrò concedunt: & Nos, Non posse illud non panem esse, juxta Veterum sen­tentiam, Rationibus circiter sexdecim evicimus: at (que) etiam quas Adorandi Formulas, ceu Praetextus, excu­sationis ergò, sibi tanquam larvas induxerunt, illis de­traximus, ut vultus eorum deformes horridi (que) appareant; us (que) eò ut illi Idololatricâ impietate Ethnicos aequare, Excusationis verò futilitate longè superare videantur. Quid tandem? tota ferè Missae defensio Manichae­orum, Eunomianorum, Marcionitarum, Eutychia­norum, aliorum (que) multorum Haeresibus scat et passim, [Page] ut in postrema nostra Synopsi, veluti in speculo, contem­plari quivis poterit. Dùm ista literis consigno, ostendun­tur mihi, inter alias, Theses duae, quas Isaacus Casau­bonus: [...] in Adversarijs suis, propriâ manu scriptis, post se reliquit. Prima; Iusta Causa est (inquit) cur Transsubstantiatio rejiciatur, ut evitentur Absurda. Altera haec est; Veteres nunquam dixerunt destrui Symbola, sed semper de Signis locuti sunt, quasi de re ipsa. Quae quàm verae sunt, & juxta Veterum sententiam ad Causam nostram oppidò necessariae, nostri muneris erit suo loco copiosè ostendere. Priusquàm verò perorare mihi liceat, vos orandi estis (Viri ornatissimi) ut de Adversari­orum nostrorum Iniquitate, de meo (que) erga vos studio ac Benevolentia nonnihil attexam.

Bellarmino, Alano, Maldonato, alijs (que) Romanae Missae Assertoribus suum, ut par est, ingenij acumen, ex­actum & perspicax judicium, omnium deni (que) tàm huma­nae quàm divinae literaturae accuratam cognitionem facilè tribuimus; ità tamen ut in ijs, dùm nostros Theologos criminantur, veritatem; dum suas opiniones defendunt, constantiam; dùm Patres, Patres crepant, objectant, incul­cant, fidem modestiam (que) desideremus. Ʋt nihil de Eorum Iuramentis dicamus, quibus se obstrinxerunt, non sine a­liqua notâ Perjurij; quod Synopsis nostra Secunda satis super (que) declarat.

Ad nostram quod attinet Sacratissimā Eucharistiam; quia à Ministro Elementa consecrantur et benedicuntur, non minùs Sacramenta sunt, quàm est aqua Baptisma­tis; quae tamen istos non pudet probris suis contaminare, dum partem alteram merum Pistoris panem, alteram Oenopolae vinum nudum appellant nequitèr. Deindè [Page] (ut alias eorum Calumnias praetervolem) quòd eorum de Corporali Christi Praesentiá in Eucharistiâ fanaticam Opinionem, tanquàm Impossibilem, propter implicitam Contradictionem, oppugnamus; Isti, quasi hoc esset Dei Omnipotentiae detrahere, in nos impotentèr debacchan­tur. Si cui lubeat singulas Operis hujus Sectiones percur­rere, vix in aliquam incidet aut Objectionem Adversari­orum pro sua Missa, aut Responsionem, aut deni (que) Scrip­turae expositionem quam non facilè observet ab aliis Pon­tificiis Doctoribus aut luculentâ ratione solutam, ener­vatam, explosam; aut deni (que) (quod majus est) per receptas Ecclesiae Romanae doctrinas oppugnatam. Nae illae prae­clara est istorum hominum constantia, qui si minùs viribus nostris, suâ tamen imbecillitate & dissensione vincuntur, at (que) succumbunt.

Praetereà de Pontificiorum Doctorum Versutia Obstinacia (que) satis queri vix possumus. Versutia eorum cernitur cùm in rebus aliis, tùm praecipuè in abutendis veterum Patrum Testimoniis, sive per falsas Editiones Translationes (que) ea dépravando; sive novo excogitato Commento illudendo; sive deni (que) adversis frontibus oppugnando: quorum omnium Exempla plurima Libri singuli sequentes vobis exhibent. Obstinaciae verò eorum specimen nullum potest esse illustrius, quàm (quod in altera Synopsi nostra videre est) ex Veterum senten­tiis factâ Collatione Eucharistiae cum Baptismate. Illi ad sua Dogmata stabilienda, de Praesentia Corporali Corporis Christi in Eucharistia, ipsius (que) adeò Adoratione Latreutica, objiciunt Nobis, Patres negâsse Eucha­ristiam esse nudum Panem. Nos reponimus, eosdem Patres paritèr negâsse, in Baptismate esse Aquam nu­dam. [Page] At opponunt, Veteres Eucharistiam Sacrificium vocâsse. Nos rursùs, Baptisma quo (que) Sacrificium no­minant. Illi, At apud Patres Eucharistia Sacramentum Terribile, & Venerabile dicitur. Regerimus nos, à Pa­tribus moneri homines ad Baptisma, utpote quod Vene­randum sit, cùm Tremore accedere. Pergimus dein, & per sexdecim [...] par pari referimus, quod Adversa­riorum nostrorū, nisi animos obfirment, Conscientias mor­deat & lancinet; sed manu tamen medicâ, ut sanet. Eant igitur Antagonistae nostri, &, cum de Antiquitate agitur, nos (ut solent) Novatores appellitent, nunquàm tamen efficient, quin ipsi (ut praeclarè olim Clariss. vir Iosephus Scaliger) Veteratores habeantur.

Redeo ad Vos tandem (dignissimi Viri) quorum inti­mos animorum conceptus audire mihi videor: quibus quoad possim, & liceat, occurrendum esse duxi. Primo in loco; Fateor equidem me jamdiù in istiusmodi Po­lemicis negotiis exercuisse calamum, non quod nescive­rim à Detractione neminem esse immunem, nisi qui nihil scriberet: sed quòd abundè noverim cùm pro salu­te Patriae, tùm verò maximè pro patria Salutis, atque adeò pro Fidei synceritate nullum non laborem esse subeundum. Secundò, multos alios multo majore cum profectu munere hoc defungi posse agnosco: veruntamen, quatenùs praestare quicquam valeam, illud S. Augu­stini aures mihi vellicat, animumque stimulat: Qui mendacium docet, (inquit) & qui veritatem tacet, uterque reus est; alter quià prodesse non vult, alter quia nocere desiderat. Nec profectò hanc Romulei stabuli (cùm purgandi non datur) exagitandi provin­ciam, in re Missatica, alio animo suscepi, quàm ut [Page] omnes (quibus veritas cordi est) intelligant, Nos An­glicanae Ecclesiae Alumnos Causam nactos esse Divinis literis consentientem maximè, Catholicae Antiquitatis suffragijs comprobatam, mille omnis ordinis Martyrum sanguine testatam; imò etiam (addendum est enim) cujusvis Christiani, si fieri posset, vel mille mortibus ob­signandam. Praetereà, Romanae Ecclesiae Tyrunculis omissis, Antesignanos ipsos libentiùs aggredior, du­plici ratione adductus; quià primò, his profligatis, illi non possunt consistere: deindè, ut clariùs constet, in illam Ecclesiam quadrare illud Christi; Si lumen, quod in te, tenebrae, ipsae tenebrae quantae? Quos tamen, dùm Argumentis persequor, non probris insector; quià in hoc altero Certaminis genere vincere vinci est: nam prae­clarè olim Artaxerxes Rex militi, hostem convitijs pro­scindenti, Non ut maledicas te alo, (inquit) sed ut pugnes.

Cur verò Vobis potissimùm has meas Lucubrationes dedicarem, plurimae me Causae impulerunt. Antiquitùs plurimi dicebantur Episcopi Catholicae sive Ʋniver­salis Ecclesiae, non solùm quòd Catholicam tenerent fidem, sed etiam quòd suam pro incolumitate Ecclesiae Ʋniversalis curam Scriptis & laboribus testarentur. E­gone igitur ut non illud studium ergà utramque Vni­versitatem profitear meum, quod ipsi (ut ità dicam) Vniversalitati debeam? Huc accedit (nam quidni fi­dorum Amicorum literis fidem habeam?) quòd cum vos Opus nostrum aliud, tribus abhinc annis publici juris fa­ctum, non vulgari animorum vestrorum significatione ap­probâsse intellexerim; hoc (que), quod nunc ad umbilicum per­duxi, non minori cum desiderio expectâsse (quorum illud [Page] GRANDEM ROMANAE ECCLESIAE IMPO­STVRAM detexit, hoc ROMANAE MISSAE IDO­LOMANIAM, tanquàm immane monstrum, confodicat) non committendum putavi, ut non grati animi meum hoc testimonium Vobis referrem. Quid? quòd Causae ipsius necessitas quo (que) id à me exigere videbatur, quae profectò in hac Causa homines Academicos nihil minùs quàm Academicos & Scepticos esse sinet; nè quis vestrûm (quod detestabile omen Deus obruat!) in Rom. Artolatriam prolabatur, quò vel Aliis scan­dalo, Majestati divinae odio, Sibi ipsi deni (que) certo exitio esse possit.

Postremò, in hanc spem adducor, nunquàm defuturos ex utra (que) Academia viros plurimos, Theologici juris con­sultiss. omnibus (que) armis instructissimos, non modò ad hu­jusce Causae patrocinium sustinendum, verumetiam ad Mataeologiam omnem Romanensium expugnandam. Pergite igitur ô macti antiquâ prudentiâ & veritate, pergite, inquam, & Amantissimum vestri diligite; quod rectius noveritis impertite, & precibus vestris adjuvate. In Christo Jesu valete, qui vos conservet in gloriam Gratiae suae! AMEN.

THO. DVNELMENS. nuper COVEN. & LICHF.

An Advertisement
To all Romish Priests and Jesuites of the English Seminaries, concerning the Necessitie of this ensuing Treatise; as also of the Authors Sinceritie, and his Adversaries unconscionable Dealing in their Allegations of Authors.

Grace, Peace, and Truth in CHRIST JESVS.

AMong all the Controversies held against your Romish Religion, none were e­ver more hott, to draw Protestants violently into the fire, than these two; First, the denying your Romane Church to bee The Catholike Church, without which there is no Salvation: Secondly, the affirming the Romish Adoration of the Sacrament of the Altar to be Idolatrous. Therefore have I especially under­taken the discussion of both these Questions, that seeing (as Saint Augustine truly said) It is not the punishment, but the Cause which maketh a Martyr; it might fully ap­peare to the world, whether Protestants enduring that fi­erie tryall, for both Causes, were indeed Heretikes, or true Martyrs: and consequently whether their Persecu­tors were just Executioners of persons then condemned, and not rather damnable Murtherers of the faithfull Ser­vants of Christ. And I doubt not, but as the first hath ve­verified the Title of that Booke, to prove your Doctrine, of the Necessitie of Salvation in your Romish Church, to be a GRAND IMPOSTVRE: So this second, which I now (according to my promise) present unto you, will [Page] make good, by many Demonstrations, that your Romish MASSE is a very Masse, or rather a Gulfe of many Su­perstitious, Sacrilegious, and Idolatrous Positions and Practises.

And because the very name of ROMANE CHVRCH is com­monly used as (in it selfe) a powerfull enchantment, to stu­pifie everie Romish Disciple, and to strike him deafe and dumbe at once, that hee may neither heare nor utter any thing in Conference, concerning the Masse, or any other Controversie in Religion; be the Protestants Defence never so Divine for Trueth, or Ancient for Time, or Vniversall for Consent, or Necessarie for Beleefe: I therefore held it requisite, in the first place, to discover the falshood of the former Article of your Church, before I would pub­lish the Abominations of the Masse; to the end that (for I [...]latrie in Scripture is often termed spirituall Adulterie) the Romish Church, which playeth the Bawd, in patroni­zing Idolatrie, being once outted, your Romish Masse, as the Strumpet, might the more easily either bee reformed, or wholly abandoned.

This may satisfie you for the necessitie of this Tra­ctate. The next must bee to set before you your owne de­lusorie trickes, in answering, or not answering Bookes written against you; especially such as have beene obser­ved from mine owne experience. One is, to strangle a Booke in the very birth: So dealt Master Brerely long since, by a Letter writ unto mee, to prevent the publish­ing of my Answere against the first Edition of his Apolo­gie, when hee sent mee a second Edition thereof to be answered, which both might and ought to have beene sent a twelve moneth sooner; but was purposely reserved not to bee delivered, untill the very day after mySee the Protestants Appeale in the beginning. An­swere (called An Appeale) was published. Of which his prevention I have therefore complained, as of a most un­conscionable Circumvention. Another device you have, to give out that the Booke (whatsoever,) written against your Romish Tenents, is in answering, and that an An­swere will come out shortly. So dealt Master Parsons [Page] with mee,In his Sober Reckoning. Certifying mee and all his credulous Readers of an Epistle which hee had received from a Scottish Do­ctor, censuring my Latine Apologies to be both fond and false; and promising that his Answere to them, Printed at Gratz in Austria, should be published before the Mi­chaelmas next following: whereas there have beene a­bove twentie Michaelmasses sithence, every one giving Master Parsons his promise the flatt lye. A third Art is a voluntarie Concealement; And thus Master Brerely, who having had knowledge of the fore-mentioned Booke of Appeale, manifesting his manifold Aberrations and Absur­surdities in doctrine, his ignorances and fraudes in the a­buse of his Authors; as in other passages throughout that Booke, so more especially the parts concerning the Ro­mish Masse: yet since hath written a large Booke, in de­fence of the Romish Liturgie or Masse, urging all the same Proofes and Authorities of Fathers; but wisely concealing that they had beene confuted, and his Falshoods discove­red. Onely hee and Master Fisher singling out of my Ap­peale an Explanation, which I gave of the Testimonie of Gelasius (in condemning the Manichees, concerning their opinion of not administring the Eucharist in both kindes) did both of them divulge it in their Bookes and reports also in many parts of this Kingdome, as making for the justification of their sacrilegious dismembring the holy Sa­crament, and for a foule Contradiction unto my selfe not­withstanding that this their scurrilous insultation (as is Bo [...]ke 1. cap. 3. Sect. 7. heere proved) serveth for nothing rather than to make themselves ridiculous. The last, but most base and de­villish Gullerie, is a false imputation of Falshoods in the alleging of Authors, which was the fine sleight of Ma­ster Parsons; a man as subtile for Invention, as elegant for Expression, for Observation as dextrous and acute, and as politike and perswasive for Application, as any of his time. Hee in an Answere to some Treatises, written against your Romish blacke Art of Aequivocation by mentall Reser­vation, and other Positions fomenting Rebellion (to wit) in his Bookes of Mitigation and Sober Re [...]koning, doeth [Page] commonly leave the principall Objections and reasons, and falleth to his verball skirmishes, concerning false Al­legations: and (as turning that Ironicall Counsell into earnest, Audacter & fortiter calumniare, &c.) hee chargeth mee with no lesse than fiftie Falsifications All which I spunged out in a Booke entituled an Encounter, and re­torted all the same Imputations of falshood upon himselfe, with the interest, discovering above forty more of his owne. Which may seeme to verifie that Cognizance, which your owne Brother-hood of Romish Priests in their Quodli­bets have fastened on his sleeve, calling him The Quintessence of Coggerie.

As for mine owne Integritie, I have that which may justifie mee; for howsoever any one or other Error may happen, in mis-alleging any one Authour, yet that I have not erred much; or if at all, yet never against my Conscience. Heereof I have many Witnesses; One with­in mee, a witnesse most Domesticall, yet least partiall, and as good as Thousands, mine owne Conscience: a se­cond is above mee, GOD, who is Greater than the Con­science. A third sort of Witnesses are such as stand by mee, even all they who have beene conversant with mee, in the Perusall and Examination of Authours Testimo­nies, by mee alleged; men of singular Learning and Iudgement, who can testifie how much they endeared them-selves unto mee, when any of them happened to shew mee the least errour in any thing. (Hee that shall say, Non possum errare, must be no man; and hee that will not say, Nolo errare, as hating to erre, can be no Christian man.) The last Witnesse, for my integritie, may bee the Bookes of my greatest Adversaries, Master Parsons, and Master Brerely, whose many scores of Falshoods have beene layd so open and published for a­bove sixteene yeares past in two Bookes (one called An Encounter against the Foreman, the other an Appeale a­gainst the Second) yet hath not any one appeared out of your Romish Seminaries, for the vindicating of them heerein.

[Page] ⚜Since this Part of this Advertisement thus given, there have some of your Engineers sought to undermine the whole Structure of this Treatise, by the odious Im­putation of Falsification; One was a L: Baron, and his Suggestor: Another, a notable Seducer, in his Letters to a noble Peere of this Kingdome: the Third, a Romish­ly inspired Detractor, who are, in this Second Edition, defeated by a Countermine of just Vindications, against their False and frivolous Exceptions. To say nothing of a late Hobgoblin his feigned Letter to a Ladie, upbrai­ding mee with such Taxations of some Falsities, which about six and twentie yeares since, were falsly charged upon mee by Master Parsons, as I proved in a Booke of Encounter. By which your Practice is confirmed that which I have often averred, That none may expect from you any Satisfactorie Confutation of this, or the like Treatises, seeing that instead of Shott, you answere only with Squibs. Goe on in the same Course, to make mee thereby a true Prophet, and (by my Vindications against your Calumniations) to occasion greater Advantage to our Cause, and just Defence thereof.⚜

By these Advertisements you may now easily conceive with what confidence I may procede in this Worke, wherein is displayed and layd open, in the discussing of these Eight Words of Christ his Institution of the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, [HEE BLESSED; BRAKE; GAVE; TO THEM; SAYING; TAKE; EATE; DRINKE,] your ten Romish Prevarications, and Trans­gressions. Afterwards, in the following Bookes, are re­veiled the stupendious Paradoxes, Sacrilegiousnesse, and Idolatrie of your MASSE; together with the notorious Obstinacies, some few Overtures of Perjuries (out of that great Summe, which may afterwards be manifested in your swearing to the other Articles of your new Romane Faith) and the manifold Heresies in the Defenders thereof: as also their indirect and sinister Objecting and Answering of the Testimonies of ancient Fathers throughout, as if they con­tended neither from Conscience, nor for Conscience-sake.

[Page] To Conclude. Whosoever among you hath beene fasci­nated (according to your Colliers Catechisme) with that one­ly Article of an Implicite Faith, let him be admonished to submit to that Duetie prescribed by the Spirit of God, to Trie all things, and to Hold that which is good. And if any have a purpose to Rejoyne, in Confutation either of the Booke of the Romish Imposture, or of this, which is against your Masse; I do adjure him in the name of Christ, whose truth wee seeke, that avoyding all deceitfull Collusions, hee pro­cede materially fromSed surdis canimus. poynt to poynt, and labour such an Answer, which hee beleeveth hee may answere for before the Iudgement seat of Christ. Our Lord Iesus preserve us to the glory of his saving Grace. AMEN.

THO. DVRESME, late of COVEN. & LICHF.

¶THe Additions, in this second Edition, are made more ob­vious to the Reader by two Parallel lines drawne along the Context, (at the beginning and ending thus marked ⚜) And the Testimonies of Authors (now) added in the Margin are dis­cernable from the other, by being noted with Numerall figures; as the Authorities, in the First Edition, were cited by the Letters of the Alphabet.

THE SVMMARIE or Generall Heades of the Eight Bookes of this ensuing Treatise; wherein also the Princi­pall Additions, throughout the whole, at the begin­ning and end thereof, are thus denoted, ⚜

BOOKE FIRST.

Chap. I.
  • THat the word [Masse] is vainly and falsly urged from it's Originall, to signifie Obla­tion or Sacrifice; and so confessed. pag. 1, 2.
  • ⚜A Vindication, against a Romish Suggester, concerning the Mixture of water with wine in the Encha­rist. pag. 5. 6.⚜
  • The two points of Christs Institu­tion, handled in this Controversie,
  • are
  • 1. Practicall.
  • 2. Doctrinall.
Chap. II.
  • Of the Practicall and Active points, pag. 7.
  • Ten Romish Transgressions against that one Command of Christ, [DO [...] THIS.] pag. 9.
  • I. Romish Transgression contradi­cting the word [BLESSED] p. 9.
  • ⚜The Testimonie of a Greeke Patriarke thereupon, pag. 12. And a Vindication against the adverse conceits of some. p. 14. &c.
  • II. Romish Transgress of Christ's word [BRAKE] for distribution ther­of. p. 15.
  • III. Romish Transgression of the word [THEM] in the pl [...]rall number, signifying a Communion, against their private Masse. pag. 17.
  • ⚜The Testimonie of Pope In­nocent 3. pag. 21. &c.
  • IV. Romish Transgr. of Christ's words, [SAID VNTO THEM] name­ly, in an audible voice. p. 22. &c.
  • V. Romish Transgression is against the same word [SAID VNTO THEM] to wit, by a language not understood of the Communicants, against the Cu­stome of Antiguitie, &c. p. 25.
  • ⚜A Vindication against Pr. de S. Clara, for his miserable maner of reconciling our English Article with their contrary Romish Canon. pa. 37. to p. 43.⚜
  • VI. Romish Transgression is a­gainst Christs words, [TAKE YEE] by not Taking with their hands. pag. 43. &c.
  • VII. Romish Transgression is a­gainst Christs words, [EAT YEE] by their approving of meere Gazers at the Celebration. p. 45. &c.
  • VIII. Romish Transgression is a­gainst [Page] the same word [EAT] by their other use than Eating, as their carry­ing it about in publique Procession. pag. 48.
  • IX. Romish Transgression, is a­gainst these words, [IN RE­MEMBRANCE OF MEE:] holding that Infants are capable of the Eucharist, and Mad-men al­so, pag. 51.
Chap. III.
  • X. Romish Transgressions of the Institution of Christ is against his words, [DRINKE YEE ALL OF THIS] &c. p. 54.
  • ⚜Other Testimonies from the Divines of Colen, pag. 60. The Councell of Braccara, pag. 63. and of Trent, pag. 64. Of the Jesuite Vasquez, pag. 64, 65. And of Pope Clement, pag. 75.⚜

BOOKE II.

  • OF the Doctrinall poynts in the Institution of the Eucharist. pag. 90.
Chap. I.
  • Of the Exposition of Christs words, [THIS IS MY BODY] in a figura­tive sense. pag. 91. Proved from these three words, THIS, IS, and MINE. ibid.
  • I. The Pronoune [THIS] properly betokeneth not Christs Body. p. 92.
  • ⚜The Testimony of Pope Inno­cent, pa. 93.⚜
  • Nor signifieth it any Individuum Vagum, confessed. pag. 95. Nor can Bread properly be called Christ's Bo­dy, confessed. p. 99. But that it noteth Bread, as representing Christ's Body, prooved. p. 100. &c.
  • ⚜A Confirmation hereof from the word, [Cup] pa. 105. &c.
Chap. II.
  • II. [Is,] Which Verbe doth open the figurative sense to be as much as [Signifieth] pag. 107 Eight Figures being confessed to be in the words of Christs Institution, p. 110. &c.
  • ⚜The Testimony of Vasquez Ies. for confirmation thereof, pag. 112.⚜
  • The Iudgement of the more ancient Church of Rome, and of the Greeke Fathers heerein. pag. 114, 115. Ro­mish Objections out of the Greeke Fa­thers answered. pag. 115. to 122. And of the Latine Fathers. p. 123.
  • ⚜A Vindication of Tertullians Testimony. pag. 124. Cardinall Bellarmine his perversion of a Te­stimony in Saint Ambrose. pag. 125. With a Supply of other Latine Fa­thers, as of Tertullian. pag. 124. Saint Augustine. pag. 126, 127. And of Facundus. pag. 128. Together with a cleare Myrror, wherein to discerne the Iudgement of Antiqui­ty, for a Figurative sense of Christs words. pag. 129.⚜
Chap. III.
  • Romish Objections against the Lite­rall sense Answered. pag. 132. tho­row-out.
Chap. IV.
  • ⚜The Pronoune Possessive [MY] Added as the third Key, for opening of the Figurative sense of Christs words [THIS IS MY BODY.] pag. 138. Whether it be taken Nar­ratively, [Page] or Significatively. pag. 139.⚜

BOOKE III.

  • OF the first Romish Consequence, arising from the depraved sense of Christs words, which is called TRANS-SVESTANTIATION. pag. 145.
Chap. I.
  • Conversion, held by Protestants, is Sacramentall; but that which is defended by the Romanists is Trans­substantiall, &c. pag. 146. tho­row-out.
Chap. II.
  • Romish Transsubstantiation not ab­solutely proved by Scripture it selfe, as is Confessed. p. 147. It is an Inno­vation both in Name, and in the Ar­ticle it selfe. pag. 151, &c.
Chap. III.
  • Romish maner of Transsubstantia­tion, whether by Adduction or Pro­duction, both confuted by Romish Do­ctors, as Absurd. pag. 153, &c.
  • ⚜The Testimonies of two Popes contradicting one another about Formall Transsubstantiation. p. 155. And a Confutation of both maners of Conversion, by their owne prin­ciples. pag. 156. With a Vindi­cation against a late Calumniator, concerning the ancient Saxons faith, in the Doctrine of the Eucharist. pag. 158, &c. And a Confirmation thereof from Christs speech, pag. 163. And of Pope Innocent the third. pag. 164. And from other Testimonies of Antiquity. pag. 169, 170. (The Iesuite Mallounes In­stance in Ioane Martlesse her nose, for her admirable faculty of smel­ling. pag. 873.) And from the existence of some new Accidents after Consecration. pag. 176. Fur­ther adding, to the Testimonies of Antiquity, that of Tertullian. p. 178. and an Objected Testimony of Pope Clement. pag. 179. and, out of Athanasius, what [...] is. pag. 182. Together with the Testimo­ny of Euphraimius Bishop of An­tioch. pag. pag. 187.⚜
Chap. IV.
  • The Vnconscionablenesse of Romish Doctors, in Objecting, for Trans­substantiation, the Fathers (there) calling it a Change by Omnipoten­tie. pag. 188.
  • ⚜The Testimony of Hilarie. pag. 191 And a Vindication of Cy­prian's Saying [Christs Body is crea­ted herein.] p. 192. and of another of his [Infusing Divine essence.] pag. 193, &c.⚜
  • Their further Vnconscionablenesse, in alleging the Fathers as denying it to be Common Bread. pag. 194, &c. Their forbidding us to judge it by Sense. pag. 195, &c.
  • ⚜The Iudgement of Master Isaac Casaubon, concerning Saint Cyril. pag. 197, 198.⚜
  • Their other Objections out of other Fathers anew. pag. 198, & 201, &c.
  • ⚜Two Testimonies of Gregory Nyssen, pag. 203. And of Cyrill the moderne Patriarch of Constan­tinople, [Page] against Transubstantiation. pag. 205. With Master Isaac Ca­saubon his Iudgement, concerning the Doctrine of Antiquity for this point. pag. 209, &c.⚜

BOOKE IV.

  • OF the Second Consequence of the Romish Depravid Exposition of Christs words [THIS IS MY BODY] viz. The Corporal presence of Christ in the Eucharist. p. 210.
Chap. I.
  • The Difference of Opinions De modo, of Christs Being in the Eucha­rist. pag. 210.
  • ⚜A double question concerning the [Quomodo [...]] p. 211.⚜
Chap. II.
  • Twelve miraculous Apparitions of True Flesh and Blood in the Eucha­rist, by Popish Historians related, and judicially proved by their owne Do­ctors to be but so many Illusions. pag. 217. unto pag. 227.
  • ⚜The Iesuite Malloun's vaunt of such like Miracles. pag. 221. And the Opinion of Vasquez the Iesuite to the Contrary. p. 222, &c. With a Digression for the Discussion of the miraculous separation of Christs Blood from his Body, out of a Romish Doctor Collius. p. 225, &c. And of Blood issuing out of Christs Images, from the same Author. pag. 227, &c.
Chap. III.
  • Of the Impossibility of the Romish Corporall Presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist, by reason of Contra­diction. pag. 228.
  • ⚜(The Testimonies of Theophy­lact and Iustine Martyr, for that pur­pose. pag, 229.⚜)
  • Confessed by Romish Doctors. pag. 230, &c. Of Sixe Contradictions implyed in the Romish Profession of the Corporall Presence. p. 231, &c.
Chap. IV.
  • I. Romish Contradiction is to make the same Body to be Borne and not Borne of the B. Virgin Mary. pag. 232, &c.
Chap. V.
  • II. Romish Contradiction is to make One Body, not One, by tea­ching it to be in diverse places at once. pag. 234.
  • ⚜The Confession of Conincks the Iesuite. pag. 235, &c. And the Profession of Saint Augustine in this point. pag. 244, 245. And that the Romish Objections out of Antiqui­ty are frivolous. 247. Adding ano­ther Testimony out of Chrysostome. pag. 248. And Greg. Nyssen. Ibid. Saint Augustines [Quodammodo] ex­pounded by Suarez. pag. 251, &c. With a Comparison, that Christs Body cannot be above nor below it selfe. p. 254. The Testimony of Vasquez in this point. p. 256. And of the Iesuite Conincks. Ibid.
Chap. VI.
  • Romish Objections and Pre [...]ences for proofe of a Body in divers places [Page] at once, from Colour and Voice, Confuted. pag. 258, to 264.
  • ⚜The Sentence of Pope Inno­cent. pag. 258.⚜
Chap. VII.
  • III. Romish Contradiction in ma­king Christs Body, Finite, to be Infi­nite. pag. 264.
  • ⚜The Testimony of Hilarie. pag. 266. and of. Athanasius. Ibid. And the Enthymeme of the Fathers. pag. 287. And the Doctrine of the Lu­therans. Ibid. And the Infatuation of the Iesuite Lessius, framing an Army of but One man. p. 268, &c.
Chap. VIII.
  • IV. Romish Contradiction, by tea­ching Christs Organicall Body, not to be Organicall. pag. 269. Contrary to the Iudgement of Antiquity. pag. 273, &c.
  • Chrysostomes Testimony, for Demonstration of Christs Body by Touch. pag. 276. And Cyrill of A­lexandria. Ibid. And the Testi­mony of the Iesuite Lessius, accor­ding thereunto. pag. 277. And of the Camels passing through the Nee­dles eye, in the Iudgement of Hie­rome. pag. 279. And a Vindication of the Testimony, under Pope Hi­laries name, for proofe of an whole Body in every part of the Host. p. 279, &c.
Chap. IX.
  • V. Romish Contradiction is in ma­king Christs Perfect Body, Vnper­fect. pag. 281. By their vile Do­ctrine of a Body of Christ, in the Sa­crament, voyd of all power of Motion, Sense, and Vnderstanding. Ibid.
  • ⚜The Testimonies of other Ie­suites. pag. 282, 283. And that this is both Contrary to Scriptures and Fathers. p. 283. 285.⚜
Chap. X.
  • VI. Romish Contradiction is in ma­king Christs Glorious Body▪ Inglori­ous. pag. 286, &c.
  • ⚜A pertinent Question. pag. 287. And a Vindication of Truth against Master Fisher a Iesuite his Defence of all (Romish) Seeming Indignities and Absurdities, which, by their Doctrine of Christs Bo­dily Presence, do Consequently ensue. pag. 291, to 300. And the Testimonies of the Fathers against Bellarmines jeere and scoffe. pag. 306, &c.⚜

BOOKE V.

  • Of the Third Romish Consequence of their depraved sense of Christs words [THIS IS MY BODY] by their Corporall Vnion with Christs Body. p. 308, &c.
Chap. I.
  • Protestants professe an Vnion Spi­ritually-reall. pag. 309, &c.
Chap. II.
  • [Page]That onely the Godly and Faith­full Communicants are Partakers of the Vnion with Christ, by this Sa­crament. pag. 311, &c.
  • ⚜That onely the Godly are united to Christ, by this Sacra­ment, in the Iudgement of Anti­quity. pag. 320, 321, &c. And Saint Augustines accurate Iudge­ment herein. pag. 323. With a Vindication of Saint Augustines Testimony, against the notable cor­ruption thereof by Doctor Heskins. pag. 325, to 328.⚜
Chap. III.
  • Of the Capernaiticall Heresie of the Corporall Eating of Christs flesh. pag. 328.
  • ⚜Tertullians Saying, that Christs flesh is not truly Eaten. pag. 331. And Saint Augustines Testimony about the mention of Christs As­cention into Heaven, in Answe­ring the Capernaites. pag. 331, &c..
Chap. IV.
  • That the Romish maner of Ea­ting of Christ's Body is suffi­ciently Capernaiticall, in Five kinds. pag. 333. First by Bodily Touch.
  • ⚜That the Fathers are not Con­scionably Objected as touching that poin [...]: Ibid. &c.
Chap. V.
  • II. Romish Capernaiticall maner of Eating is Orall Eating, by Tearing, in the dayes of Pope Nicolas the Se­cond. pag. 335.
  • ⚜The contrary Iudgement of Pope Innocent the Third. pag. 336. And Saint Augustine his Sentence [Wee Eate, in signifi­cante Mysterio.] pag. 344. And that the same Vnconscionable­nesse of Objecting is proved by some Romish Doctors themselves, very largely. pag. 346, 347, &c.⚜
Chap. VI.
  • Of the Third Romish Corporall Vnion of the Body of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants by Swallowing it downe. pag. 347, &c.
  • A further Evidence of Ori­gen his exact Iudgement. pag. 350. And the miserable straights of Ro­mish Doctors, in Answering the Sentence of Augustine, concerning the Eating of Christs flesh. pag. 352, &c.⚜
Chap. VII.
  • Of the Fourth maner of Romish Corporall Vnion with Christs Bo­dy, by a Bodily Mixture. pag. 354, &c.
Chap. VIII.
  • [Page]The Romish Objections of the Sen­tences of the Fathers, for a Cor­porall Vnion, by Mixture of Christs Body with mens Bodies: proved to be Vnconscionable. pag. 356, 357.
  • ⚜The Sentences of Hilarie and Cyril of Alexandria, so much pres­sed at large. pag. 358. And also a Confutation of the Romish Ob­jections, out of their owne Con­fessions. pag. 362. And further, that the Objected Testimonies of these Fathers make against the Ro­mish Corporall Vnion. pag. 365. Shewing that onely the Godly are Vnited to Christ. Ibid.
Chap. IX.
  • ⚜The Second kind of Romish Objections, which is from Simi­litudes used by the Fathers, from Feast, Guest, Viands, and Pledge; but most unconscionably Objected by the Romanists. pag. 366. yea that the same Testimonies plainely Confute the Romish Presence; together with the Reconciling of the seeming Repugnances of the Sentences of the Fathers, in Op­position to the Romish, and in an accordance with our Protestant Profession. pag. 369, &c. Adding likewise the Divine Contempla­tion of the▪ Fathers in their phra­sing of a Corporall Vnion of Christs body, with the Bodies of the Faithfull Communicants▪ p. 372, &c.
Chap. X.
  • Of Romish Historicall Obje­ctions, insisted upon out of Iustine Martyr, from the slander then rai­sed against Christians for Eating of mans flesh. pag. 374.
  • ⚜That this Objection is slan­derous. Ibid. And against the Hi­storicall Truth. pag. 375. As wilde is their second proofe; be­cause (say they) Iustine wrote to an Heathen Emperour. pag. 376. Confuted out of Iustine himselfe, and the Cardinall's Dilemma; by a more just Dilemma, and perti­nent. pag. 378, 379, &c. As also by an Impossibility, that the Heathen could be offended at the words of Iustine. pag. 380. Pro­ved out of Iustine and Attalas. Ibid. An Answer to Averroes his imputing to Christians the Devouring of Christs flesh. pag. 381, &c.⚜
Chap. XI.
  • ⚜The Fift and last most base Ro­mish Vnion of Christs Body, in passing it downe by Egestion into the Draught. pag. 382. Which to Antiquity would have beene held most abominable. pag. 384. That the Institution of the Sacra­ment was ordained to be food only for the Soule, by the Doctrine of Antiquity. p. 385, &c.⚜

BOOK. VI.

  • OF the Fourth Romish Conse­quence, from their depraved sense of Christs words [THIS IS MY BODY] by esteeming Christs Body present, to be a Properly and Truly Propitiatory Sacrifice. pag. 389, &c.
Chap. I.
  • That there is no Proper Sacrifice of Christs Body in the Eucharist, from any word of Christ his Institution of this Sacrament. pag. 390. But absolutely Confuted thereby. pag. 393, & 394. II. Not proved by any Sacrificing Act of Christ, at his first Instituting this Sacrament. pag. 398.
  • ⚜The Testimony of the Iesuite Vasquez. pag. 399.
Chap. II.
  • Proper Sacrifice of Christs Body in the Eucharist, not proved by any o­ther Scripture of the New Testament. pag. 400.
  • ⚜The Saying of the Councel of Trent. pag. 402, &c.⚜
Chap. III.
  • The Proper Sacrifice of Christs Body not proved by any Scripture out of the Old Testament. pag. 403, &c.
  • ⚜A Vindication of the Alle­gations of some Testimonies of Fathers, against a Calumnious Romanist. pag. 405. A Second Vindication of some other Testi­monies Objected. p. 406. As also an Argument against the Sacrifice according to the Order of Mel­chisedeeh. pag. 408, &c. And a Testimony of Athanasius, against the Translation of the Priesthood of Christ to any other; with whom agreeth Theodoret and Chry­sostome. pag. 411. To whom is joyned the Confession of the Ie­suite Estius against Bellarmine. pag. 414. Besides a speciall Chal­lenge against Bellarmine, in the point of Christs eternall Priest­hood, out of the Confession of Vasquez, at large. pag. 420. Ad­ding also a Typicall Scripture. Exod. 24. [The Blood of the Testa­ment] Objected by Bellarmine, and Answered by the Iesuite Vas­quez. pag. 424. And by Pope Leo long since. pag. 425. An Ob­jection Ro. from the Compari­son of the Figures of the Old Te­stament with the Sacraments of the New; Answered, pag. 426. With the Testimony of Athanasius. pag, 427, &c.
Chap. IV.
  • Of Propheticall Scriptures Obje­cted for the Romish Sacrifice. pag. 429. Malachie, 5. Ibid. And Psalme, 72. Of an Handfull of Corne. p. 433.
  • [Page] ⚜A Vindication of a Truth of an Allegation against a Rash Seducer. pag. 434. A Vindica­tion against another Romish De­tractor, shewing that Cardinall Bel­larmine hath not Objected Prophe­ticall Scriptures judiciously. pag. 435. And against the Objected [Iuge Sacrificium.] pag. 436, &c.
Chap. V.
  • Examination of the point of Sa­crifice from the Iudgement of An­tiquity, by Eleven Demonstrations. pag. 437, &c.
  • ⚜A Discovery of a Romish Absurd Defence concerning the Bloody Representative Sacrifice of Christ. pag. 446, 447, &c. And an Argument for the digni­fying of the Table of the Lord, so called, although aliàs termed an Altar. pag. 462, & 463, &c.
Chap. VI.
  • The Third Examination of the Po [...]m of Romish Sacrifice, is to Confute it by Romish Principles, and proving that there is no Sa­crificing Act therein. pag. 466. &c.
Chap. VII.
  • The Fourth Examination of the Doctrine of Protestants in the point of Sacrifice. pag. 407. And of the Veritie thereof. Ibid.
  • ⚜A Confirmation thereof out of the Romish Masse. pag. 474, &c.
Chap. VIII.
  • Of the Romish Sacrifice, as it is cal­led Propitiatory. pag. 474, &c.
Chap. IX.
  • How called Propitiatory, by An­tiquity, in a farre Different Sense. pag. 477. Namely Objectively onely, and not Subjectively; even as Protestants doe. pag. 478, &c.
Chap. X.
  • The Romish Propitiatory Sacrifice Confuted by Romish Principles. pag. 479, &c.
Chap. XI.
  • Of the Romish Irre [...]olute Do­ctrine, for Approbation of their Sa­crifice. pag. 483. Repugnant to An­tiquity. pag. 485, &c.
Chap. XII.
  • The Protestants Offering of Sa­cr [...]fice [Page] Propitia [...]ory of Complacencie, not of Satisfaction. pag. 487.
  • ⚜A Vindicat [...]on of some Alle­gations against the unjust Imputa­tions of one Popishly inspired, in diverse passages. pag. 491, &c. unto pag. 502, &c.

BOOK. VII.

  • OF the last Romish Consequence, issuing from the Romish depra­ved sense of Christs words; called Div [...]ne Adoration of this Sacrament. pag. 503, &c.
Chap. I.
  • That there was no Precept for, nor Practice of Div [...]ne Adoratio [...] of the Sacrame [...]t, at the time of Christ his Institution thereof. pag. 504, &c.
Chap. II.
  • The Objected Testimonies of the Fathers, in their Senten [...]es, fall farre short of the marke, which is Divine Adoration. pag. 506, &c.
  • ⚜An Addition of a Sentence of Sain [...] Augustine. p. 509. And of Saint Ambrose. p. 510, &c.⚜
Chap. III.
  • No Act Recorded, and Objected out of Antiquity, doth sufficiently prove a Divine Adoration of this Sacrament. pag. 511.
  • ⚜A necessary Vindication of the Testimonies of Dionysius, Pachy­meres, and Nazianzen, against the false traducement of a Romish Se­ducer. p. 521, &c.
Chap. IV.
  • Divine Adoration of the Sacra­ment is thrice re [...]ugnant to the Iudge­ment of Antiquity. pag. 524▪ Ge­nerally in their [Sursùm Corda.] pag. 526.
  • ⚜A Testimony of Saint Hie­rome. p. 527, &c.
Chap. V.
  • Romish Adoration of the Masse proved to be Idolatrous, by discus­sing their owne Principles. pag. 528. Both Materially, unto pag. 533. and
Chap. VI.
  • Romish Masse-Adoration proved to be Formally Idola rous, notwith­standing any Pretence that is, or can be made. p. 533, &c.
Chap. VII.
  • The same Idolatrous Adoration proved out of Foure grounds of Romish Profession. pag. 541.
  • ⚜An Answer to a Conceipted, Deceiptfull, and Impious Objection of a Iesuite (a Spectacle-maker) [Page] shewing his Spectacles to be false-sighted. pag. 545, &c.
Chap. VIII.
  • Of the Romish Idolatrous worship in their Masse, by Comparison, equall to the Heathen, and in one point worse. pag. 547, &c.
Chap. IX.
  • An Examination of the Worship and Reverence at the Reciving of this Sacrament, professed by Protestants. pag. 550, &c. And their Security in respect of Sixe Romish Perplexities. pag. 552, &c.

BOOK. VIII.

  • Conteining the former Additionals of divers Execrable points in the Defence of the Romish Masse, and the Iniquities of the Defenders thereof by divers Synopses and Generall viewes. pag. 557, &c.
Chap. I.
  • Of the Superstitiousnesse, p. 557. Sacrilegiousnesse, p. 558. and Idola­trousnesse of the Romish Masse. pag. 564.
Chap. II.
  • Of the Exceeding Obstinacie of the Defenders of the Romish Masse. pag. 566. Demonstrated in a Synopsis, wherein Baptisme is paralleled with the Eucharist, by the Testimonies of Antiquity. pag. 567. Overtures of Perjuries in Defense of the Romish Masse. pag. 574. Mixtures of ma­ny old Heresies with their Defence of the Masse. pag. 581. to the End.
FINIS.
[figure]

10 OF THE INSTITVTION OF THE SACRAMENT of the blessed Body and Blood OF CHRIST, &c.

20 The first Booke.
Concerning the Active part of Christ his Jnstitution of the Eucharist; and the TEN Romish TRANSGRESSIONS thereof.

30 Chap. I.

That the Originall of the word, [...]ASSE, nothing ad­vantageth the Romish Masse. SECT. I.

DIvers of your RomishNomen an­tiquissimum, Missa, (quod quidem fides Christiana profite­tur) ex Hebraica vel Chaldaica nomen­clatura acceptum esse videtur, Missah, i. e. spontanea oblatio, conveniens instituto Sacrificio. Baron. Cardin. Anno 34. num. 59. Est Hebra­icum. Tolet. les. & Cardin. Instruct. Sacerd lib. 2. cap. 4. Quidam, ut Reulin, Alcian, Xaintes, Pintus, Pa­melius existimant esse Hebraicum. As Azor. les. reporteth. Inst. Moral. par. 1. lib. 10. cap. 18. and Master Ma­l [...]un Reply, Sect. 4. pag. 231. Doctors would have the word, MASSE, first to bee (in the first and primitive Imposition and 40 use thereof) Divine. Secondly, in Time, more ancient than Christ. Thirdly, in Signification, most Religious, derived (as They say) from the Hebrew word Missah, which signifieth Oblation and Sacrifice; even the highest Homage that can bee performed unto God. [Page 2] And all this, to prove (if it may bee) that, which you call, THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASSE.

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

That the word, MASSE, in the Primitive Signification thereof, doth properly belong unto the Protestants: and justly condemneth the Romish manner of Masse. SECT. II.

THe word, MASSE, (by theMissa à Mis­sione dicta est, quo­niam Catechumeni eâ susceptā foras de Ecclesia emitteren­tur: ut in ritibus Pa­ganorum dici consu­everat, Ilicet, quod per Syncopen idem est, ac, Ire licet. Sic nostrum verbum, Missa, Ite, missa est. Salmeron. les. in the place above cited, pag. 390. 391. Sic accipi­tur in jure Canonico & in Patribus etiam, atque Conciliis. A­zor. les. Inst. par. 1. pag. 850. Gemina Missio; prima Cate­chumenorum, alia peractis sacris, Missâ completâ. Binius in the place afore cited. Esse à dimissione, per Ite, missa est, tenet Alcuin. Ama­lar. Fortunat. Durant quo supra. [And the other fore-named Authors, who confesse the word to be Latine, do hold that it commeth of Ite, Missa est; for] Iubebantur exire Catechumeni, & Poenitentes, ut qui nondum ad communicandum praeparaverant. Cassand▪ Consult. Art. 24. As also in his Tract. de solit. Missa. pag. 217. with others. (See more hereafter, Chap. 2. §. 5 where this point is discussed.) [As for the disraissing of the whole Congregation after the receiving of the Sacrament, by an Ite, missa est, it was used in the second place, af­ter the other. See Binius above.] ⚜This crosseth not the distinction of Penances, which were anciently in their de­grees. The first was [...], of teares, and groanes. 2. [...], of them who were admitted to heare in­structions. 3. [...], of such as went out before Consecration, somewhat after the Catechumeni. 4. [...], this was indeed of those, who were allowed to heare Masse at length, but communicated not: and this their presence, for looking on, was onely for Penance-sake, to see themselves excluded from the Communion of the faith­full. The last was [...], of them which were reconciled and communicated.⚜ Confession of Iesuites and Others, and that from the authoritie of Councels, Fathers, 10 Canon-law, Schoolmen, and all Latine Liturgies) is therfore so cal­led from the Latine phrase [Missa est] especially, because the company of the Catechumenists, as they also which were not prepa­red to communicate at the celebrating of this Sacrament, after the hearing of the Gospel, or Sermons, were Dismissed, and not suf­fered to stay, but commanded To depart. Which furthermore your Ies. Maldonate, out of Isidore, of most ancient authors, and of all other the Liturgies, is compelled to confesse to be the Most true meaning of Antiquity.

Which Custome of exempting all such persons, being every 20 where religiously taught and observed in all Protestant Chur­ches; and contrarily the greatest devotion of your Worship­pers, at this day, being exercised onely in looking and gazing upon the Priests manner of celebrating your Romane Masse, without communicating thereof, contrary to the Institution of Christ; contrary to the practise of Antiquity; and contrary to the proper Vse of the Sacrament (all whichSee Chap. 2. Sect. 9. hereafter shall bee 30 plentifully shewed) it must therefore follow, as followeth.Alij, ut Isidorus de divin. offic. diverunt Missam appellatam esse quasi dimissionem, à dimittendis Catechumenis antequam Sacrificium inchoaretur: quam sententiam colligo esse verissimam ex antiquiss. Authoribus.—Clambat enim Di­aconus post Concionem, Catechumeni exeunto, & qui communicate non possunt: ut constat ex omnibus Li­turgiis, ubi non potest nomen Missae accipi pro Sacri [...]icio. Maldon. les. lib. de 7. Sacram. Tract. de Euch. §. Pri­mum. pag 335.

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.

The Name of CHRIST his MASSE, how farre it is to bee acknowledged by Protestants. SECT. III.

THe Masters of your Romish Ceremonies, and Others, na­ming the Institution of Christ, Durand. Ra­tion. lib 4. cap. 1. & Durant de Ritib. l. 2. cap. 3. So Christoph. de Capite fontium Archicp. Caesar. var. Tract. de Christi Mis­sa, pag 34. Liturgiae veteres partes Missae Christi exactè re­spondent.—Mis­sa Christi Ecclesiae Missam declarat. call it his Masse: yea (and as 10 anotherDr. Heskins in his parlament, Book 3. Chap. 33. saith) Christ said Masse. And how often doe we heare your vulgar people talking of Christ his Masse? Which word MASSE (in the proper Signification already specified) could not possibly have beene so distastfull unto Vs, if you had not a­bused it to your fained, and (as you now see) false sense of your kind of Proper Oblation, and Sacrifice. Therefore was it a super­sluous labour of Mr.Liturg. tract. 1. § 1. Brerely, to spend so many lines in proving the Antiquity of the word, MASSE.

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.

Of the CANON OF CHRIST his MASSE; and at what words it beginneth. SECT. IV.40

CHrist his Masse, by your owneHoc ossicium Christus instituit, ubi dicitur, [Accepit le­sus panem] Durand. Rationl. p. c. 1. p. 165. Christus instituit, Luc. 22. Accepto pa­ne, &c. Duran [...]. de Rui. lib. 2 c. 3 p. 211. Confession, beginneth at these words of the Gospell, concerning Christs Institution of the Eucharist, Matt. 26. Luc. 22. [And Iesus tooke bread, &c.] which also we doe as absolutely professe.

What Circumstances, by joynt Consent on both sides, are to be ex­empted out of this Canon of Christ his Masse; or the words of his Institution.

It is no lesse Christian wisedome and Charitie, to cut off un­necessary Controversies, than it is a Serpentine malice to en­gender them; and therefore we exempt those Points, which are not included within this Canon of Christ, beginning at these 10 words; [And Iesus tooke bread, &c.] To know, that all other Cir­cumstances, which at the Institution of Christ his Supper fell out accidentally, or but occasionally (because of the then-Iewish Passeover, which Christ was at that time to finish; or else by rea­son of the custome of Iudaea) doe not come within this our dis­pute touching Christ his Masse; whether it be that they concerne Place, (for it was instituted in a private house:) or Time, (which was at night:) or Sexe, (which were onely men:) or Posture, (which was a kind of lying downe:) or Vesture, (which was wee know not what:) no nor yet whether the Bread was unleavened, 20 or the Wine mixed with water: two poynts which (as you know) Protestants and your selvesAntiquissimus decumbendi usus, more accumbendi nondum invento, ex Philone lib. de Io­sepho.—Iudaeo­rum mos jacendi in­ter Epulas. Amos cap. 2. 8. Foeneratores su­per vestimenta in pignus accepta dis­cumbunt juxta quod­vis altare: ubi vesti­menta pro lectis. Ca­saub. Exerc. 16. in Baron. [And lest any might object a neces­sitie of representation Aquae, quae fluxit è corpore Christi, Bonavent. q 3. D. 11. cleares it thus] Dicendum quòd per aquam illam non signatur aqua ista, nec è converso: sed aqua illa a quam Baptismatis signat. [Againe, concerning the difference of [...], it is plaine, that although Azymes were used by Christ, it being then the Pas­chall feast, yet was this occasionally by reason of the same least, which was prescribed to the Iewes, as was also the eating of the Lambe.] Graeca Ecclesia peccaret consecrans in Azymo. Tolet. les. instruct. lib. 2. cap. 25. Luthe­ram non disputant de necessitate fermenti, aut Azymi. Bellar. lib. 4. de Euchar. cap. 7. Res videtur else indiffe­rens in se, sed ità ut peccatum sit homini Graeco contra morem & mandatum suae Ecclesiae in Azymo: & nos in Latina Ecclesia, nisi in Azymo, sine scelere non facimus. Alan. Card. lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 12. pag. 267. Error est dicere alterutrum panem, sive Azymum sive fermentatum, esse simpliciter d [...] necessitate Sacramenti in hac vel illa Ecclesia: tàm Graecis quam Latinis licet consuetudinem suae Ecclesiae sequi. Suarez. les. Tom. 3. Dis. 44. §. 3 pag. 523. In fermentato confici posse, Ecclesia Latina docet, nam Azymus panis fermentato non sub­stantia, sed qualitate dissert. Salmeron les. Tom. 9. Tra. 12 pag. 75. Christus dicitur panem accepisse: ex quo in­telligitur quemvis panem propriè dictum esse posse materiam Eucharistiae, sive Azymum sive fermentatum. Ian­sen. Episc. Concord. cap. 131. pag 899. Major pars Theologorum docet, non esse aquam de necessitate Sacra­menti—Opinio illa Cypriani, quod attinet ad modum loquendi—quod ad [...]em attinet, non Catholicae Ecclesiae, fortasse etiam nec Cypriani. Bellar. lib. 4 de Euchar. cap. 11. §. Quinto. And of leavened Bread, Master Brerely Lit. Tract 4 § 6. pag. 413. When the Ebionites taught unleavened Bread to be necessary, the Church commanded consecration to be made in leavened Bread. grant not to be of the Essence of the 30 Sacrament.

⚜Whereupon I presumed to inferre, that this Ceremony of Mixture was in it selfe a matter Indifferent, to be disposed of 40 according to the Wisedome of the Church. This point falling in but upon the Bye, I then thought it not worthy the insisting on; and have beene since called upon by a Romish Opposite, to satisfie him, why I should father this o­pinion on your Church: as though this Mixture of water and wine had beene ordained by Christ, for his Church, un­der a necessity of Precept. Whereby I am occasioned to adde a

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.

The Poynts contained within the Canon of Christ his Masse, and appertaining to our present Controversie, are of two kindes, viz. • 1. Practicall. , and • 2. Doctrinall.  SECT. V.

10 PRacticall or Active is that part of the Canon, which concer­neth Administration, Participation, and Receiving of the holy Sacrament, according to this Tenour, Matth. 2 [...]. [...] [And Iesus tooke Bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to his Dis­ciples, and said, Take, eat, &c. And Luc. 2 [...]. 19. [...]. Do this in re­membrance of me. Likewise also after Supper he tooke the Cup, and gave thankes, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this.] But the Points, which are especially to be called Doctrinall, are im­plied in these words of the Evangelists; [THIS IS MY BODY: And, THIS IS MY BLOOD of the new Testament, 20 which is shed for you, and for many for remission of sinnes] We be­gin with the Practicall.

CHAP. II.
That all the proper Active and Practicall points (to wit, of 30 Blessing, Saying, Giving, Taking, &c.) are strictly commanded by Christ in these words (DOE THIS,) Luke 22. Matth. 26. & 1. Cor. 11.

SECT. I.

40 THere are but two outward materiall parts of this Sacrament, the one concerning the element of Bread, the other touching the Cap. The Acts concerning Both, whether in Administring, or Participating thereof, are charged by Christ his Canon upon the Church Catholike unto the ends of the World. The Tenour of his Precept or Command, for the first part, is [Doe this:] and concerning the other likewise saying, 1. Cor. 11. [...]5.] This doe ye as often, &c. Whereof your [Page 8] owne Doctors, aswell Iesuites as Others, have rightly[Hoc facite.] Alter sensus est, Fa­cite viz. quod feci—Christus accepit pa­nem, gratias egit, be­nedixit, &c. idipsum (que) praecepit Discipulis, corumque successo­ribus Sacerdotibus. Barrard. Ies. Tom. 4. lib. 3. cap [...]6. pag. 82. col. 2, [which sense hee also embraceth, although he excludeth not a second.] Illud [Hoc facite] posuit post datum Sacramentum, ut intelligeremus jussisse Dominum ut sub, &c. Bellar. lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 25. §. Resp. mirab. Idem. [Hoc facite] illud jubet ut totam actionem Christi imitemur. Ib. c. 13. §. Quod [...]lla.—Pro­nomen [Hoc] non tantum ad sumptionem, sed ad omnia, quae mox Christus fecisse dicitur, refertur: mandat n. facere quod ipse fecit, nempè, Accipere panem, gratias agere. Iansen. Episc. Concord. c. 131. pag. 903. Againe Bellar. Videtur tn. sententia Iohannis à Lovanio valde probabilis, qui docet verba Domini [Hoc facite] a [...]ud Lucam ad omnia referri (id est) ad id quod fecit Christus, & id quod egerunt Apostoli: ut sit sensus, Id quod n [...]nc agimus, Ego dùm consecro & porrigo, & yos dùm accipitls, &c. frequentate us (que) ad mundi consummati­onem. Profert n. idem Author veteres Patres, qui illa verba modò referunt ad Christi actionem, Cypr. l. 2. Ep. 3 Damas. l. 4. de fide c. 14. modò ad actionem Discipulorum, ut Basil. reg. mor. 21. Cyril. Alex. lib. 12. in Ioh. c. 58. Thus farre Bellar. lib. 4. de Euch. c. 25. §. Videtur.—[Hoc facite] Praeceptum hoc non potest referri ad ea, quae verbis antecedentibus in ipsa narratione Institutionis habentur. [Viz. to those circumstances, which goe be­fore that, He tooke bread, &c] nam ea vis est Pronominis demonstrativi [Hoc] & verbi [Facite] ut prae­ceptum quod his duobus verbis continetur, ad eas tantum actiones referatur, quas tum in praesentia Christus vel faciebat, vel faciendas significabat: quae quidem actiones continentur in ipsa narratione Institutionis, quae incipit ab illis verbis [Accipiens panem] Greg. Valent. les. Tract. de usu alterius spec. in Euch. c. 2 §. Id mani­festè—[Hoc facite] Ex tribus Evangelistis, & ex Paulo 1. Cor. 11. constat Christum sumptionem vini suo facto & praeceptione Ecclesiae commendasse. Alan. Card. de Euch. c. 10. p. 255. [Hoc facite] Pertinet ad totam actionem Eucharisticam à Christo factam, tàm à Presbyteris quàm à plebe faciendam. Hoc probatur ex Cyrillo l. 12. in Ioh. c. 58. ex. Basil. moral. reg. 21 c. 3. Idem Alan. ib. c. 36. p. 646. [Hoc facite.] Idem habet & Paulus 1. Cor. 11 qui na [...]rat id ipsum dici circa calicem, ea omnia complectens quae dicuntur de poculo accipiendo, &c. Quod Lucas complexus est, dicens, Similiter & calicem Iansen. Concord. c. 131. p. 905. [& Durand. l. 4. c. 1. is of the same minde, calling this Institution of Christ, Officium Missae.] Non dicit, Hoc dicite, sed [Hoc facite.] quia mandat facere quod ipse fecit, sc. Accipere panem, Gratias agere, Consecrare, Sumere, & Dare. Cajetan. Card. la Lucam pag. 304. in sine. determi­ned with a large consent; that the words [DO THIS] have Relation to all the aforesaid Acts, even according to the judgement of ancient Fathers; excepting onely the Time of the Celebration, which was at Supper: and which (together with Vs)[Coenantibus autem illis.] & [Postquam coenavit.] Non necesse est hujus­modi Sacrament [...] celebrationem aut coena praecedat, [...]ut consequatur, nam Christus ante coenaverat, non ut ex­emplum praeberet, fecit, sed necessariò, quia oportebat vetera Sacramenta prius implere, quàm nova instituere (id est) agnum palchalem priùs edere, quam corpus & sanguinem suum dare. Agnus autem non al [...]o tempore quàm coenae edi poterat. Mallon. Ies. in Mat. 26 super illa verba [Coenantibus autem.] &c. you say were put in, not for Example, but onely by occasion of the Passe­over, then commanded to be observed. Thus you.10 20

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.

TEN TRANSGRESSIONS, And Prevarications against the command of Christ [DO THIS] practised by the Church of Rome, at this day, in her Romane Masse. SECT. II.

10 VVEe list not to quarrell with your Church for lighter matters, albeit your owne Cassander forbeareth not to complaine that yourHas panis Ob­latas, quae nunc ad imaginem nummo­rum, & ad tenuissi­mam & levissimam formam, à veri panis specie alienam, red a­ctae sunt, per con­temptum, (ab ordinis Rom. Expositore) vo­cari minutias num­mulariarum Oblata­rum, quae panis voca­bulo indignae sunt: propter quas Ecclesiasticum officium ejus (que) religio per omnem modum confunditur. Cassand. Liturg. fol. 66. Bread is of such extreame thinnesse and light­nesse, that it may seeme unworthy the name of Bread. Whereas Christ used Solid and tough bread [Glutinosus] (saithPanis azymus glutinosus erat, & frangebatur five manu, five cultro. Lorin. Ies. in Act. 2. v. 42. § Indicat. your Ie­suit) which was to be broken with hands, or cut with knife. Neverthe­lesse, because there is in yours the substance of Bread, therefore we will not contend about Accidents and shadowes; but we in­sist 20 upon the words of Christ his Institution.

The first Transgression of the (now) Church of Rome, in contradicting Christ his Canon, is collected out of these words, [AND HE BLESSED IT;] which concerne the Couse­cration of this Sacrament. SECT. III.

FIrst, of the Bread, the Text saith [He blessed it:] next of the Cup, it is said [When he had given thankes:] Which words, in 30 Non dubium est quin apud Evange­listas [...] idem sit quod [...]: nam quod Matthae­us & Marcus dicunt [ [...]] post de calice loquentes, di­cunt [ [...]:] & vicissim quod Matth. & Marcus de pane dicunt [ [...],] Lucas & Paulus dicunt [ [...].] M [...]ld. les. in Mat. 26. and Stapleton. Antidot. in cum locum. Promiscuè unum pro altero indefi­nenter accipi. Salmeron. les Tom. 9. Tract. 12. Haec duo verba idem valent, ut Cyrillus admonet, & sicut ap­paret ex Evangelistis, & S. Paulo. Inde est quòd Ecclesia Latina, pro eodem accipiens has voces, simul con­junxit. Idem. ibid. pag. 76. Illud verbum Benedictionis est forma ejus Sacramenti, & idem est, Benedicere, & uti verbis Consecrationis ad elementa proposita. Alan. l. 1. de Euch. cap. 15. p. 294. Et Catechismus Trident. dicit idem esse Benedicere & Consecrare res propositas. Idem. ibid. Dixit S. Paulus [Calix Benedictionis, cui benedi­cimus] i e. cui benedicendo Sacerdotes consecrant in altari, ut exponit B. Remigius. Salmeron. Ies. quo sup. [See also Ians. Concor. c. 131. [...] & [...] idem valere, vide 1. Cor. 14. v. 16, 17. Marc. 8. v. 6, 7. Mat. 15. 36.] your owne judgements, are all one as if it should be said, Hee blessed it with giving of thankes. By the which word, Blessing, he doth im­ply a Consecation of this Sacrament. So you.

40 The contrary Canon of the (now) Romane Masse; wherein the Ro­mish Church, in her Exposition, hath changed Christs manner of Consecration.

The Canon of the Romish Masse attributeth the property and po­wer of Consecration of this Sacrament only unto the repetition of these words of Christ [This is my body,] & [This is my blood] &c. [Page 10] and that from the judgement (asCommunis sen­tentia est non solùm Theologorum recen­tiorum, sed etiam ve­terum Patrum, Chri­stum consecrâsse his verbis [Hoc est cor­pus meum, Hic est sanguis meus.] Bellar. lib. 4. de Euch. c. 13 §. Quod attinet—Probatur ex Conc. Florentino, & Conc. Trident. sess. 13. cap. 1. Barrad. les. Tom. 4. l. 3. c. 4. So also Suarez. les. Tom. 3. Disp. 58. Sect. 1. §. Dicendum—Omnes veteres his solis verbis dixerunt fieri consecrationem. Maldon. les. Disp. de S. Euch. pag. 134. formae ignoratione turpissime peccetur, ab Evan­gelistis & Apostolis docemur illam esse formam. Catechis. Rom. de Eu [...]h. num 18. Tenet Sacerdos ambabus mani­bus hostiam, profert verba Consecrationis distincte [Hoc est corpus meum.] Missal. Rom. jussu. Pij Quinti Pont. edit. Rubrica Canoni [...], & Aquinas part. 3. qu. 60. Art. 8. Some say) of your Councell of Florence, and Trent. Moreover you also alleage, for this purpose, your publique Catechisme, and Romane Missall, both which were authorized by the Councell of Trent, and Command of Pius Quintus then Pope (See the Marginals.) Whereupon it is, that you use to attribute such efficacie to the very words, pronounced with a Priestly intention, as to change all the Bread in the Bakers shop, and Wine in the Vintners Cellar into the body and blood of Christ. And your)Summa Angelica, tit. Eucharistia num. 25. de Pane. Sacerdos consecrans ex intentione Ecclesiae, unâ vice possit conficere tot hostias, quae sufficerent toti mundo, si necessitas esset Ecclesiae. Summa Angelica speaketh more largely concerning the bread (namely, if it were done conformably to the Intention of the Church) & two of your⚜ (1) Vasquez. qu. 74. Art. 3. Disp. 171. cap. 3. Veruntamen Sententia vera & com­munis est, Sacerdotem verè habere potestatem consecrandi quamcun (que) magnam quantitatem, sine termino, spe­ctatâ solùm ipsà magnitudine secundùm rationem quantitatis. & Egidius Coninck. les. de Sacramentis. Si mille ingentes panes, & integrum vas vini consecraret, talis consecratio non est invalida. qu. 74. Art. 1. & 2. ⚜ Iesuits concerning both kindes.10

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 youPossevin. 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.] Mr. 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.

⚜A Vindication, against the (possible) adverse Conceipts of Some.10

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.⚜

The second Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse; 10 is in their Contradicting the sense of the next words of Institution, [HE BRAKE IT] SECT. VI.

HE brake it.] So all the Evangelists doe relate. Which Act of Christ plainely noteth that hee Brake the Bread, for di­stributing of the same unto his Disciples. And his Command is manifest, in saying as well in behalfe of this, as of the rest, [Doe this.] Your Priest indeed Breaketh one Hoast into three 20 parts, upon the Consecration thereof: but our Question is of Fraction or Breaking, for Distribution to the people.

The contrary Canon of the (now) Romane Masse.

Ecce, in coena Christus fregit pa­nem: & tamen Ec­clesia Catholica mo­dò non frangit, sed integrum dat. Salme­ron. Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 34. §. Nam. p. 275. BE HOLD (say You) Christ brake it; but the Catholik Church (meaning the Romane) now doth not breake it, but giveth it whole. And this you pretend to doe for reverence sake, Lest (as yourA multo tem­pore non usurp [...]r fractio, sed singuli panes seu minores ho­stiae consecrantur, ad evitandum periculum decidentium mica­tum. Lorin. Ies. in Act. 2. 42. Iesuite saith) some crummes may fall to the ground. Nei­ther is there any Direction to your Priest to Breake the Bread, 30 either before or after Consecration, in your Romane Masse; espe­cially that, which is distributed to the people.

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.]

The third Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse; contradicting the sense of the next words of Christs Command, viz. [—GAVE IT VNTO THEM.] SECT. V.

IT followeth in the Canon of Christ his Masse, [And he gave 20 it unto them;] even to THEM, to whom he said, [Take yee, eate ye.] By which pluralitie of persons is excluded all private Massing; forasmuch as our High Priest Christ Iesus (who in in­stituting and administring of this Sacrament would not be a­lone) said hereof, as of the other Circumstances, [Doe this.]

The Contrarie Canon of the (now) Romane Masse.

This holy Synod (saith your Miss [...]s illas, in quibus solus Sacer­dos sacramentaliter communicat—pro­bat atque adeò com­mendat. Concil. Trid. Sess. 22. cap 6. Councell of Trent) doth approve and commend the Masses, wherein the Priest doth Sacramentally 30 communicate alone. So your Church.

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

Collectae, per figuram, dicebantue Preces, ab ipsa celebratione Missae, quùm ad eam populus colligebatur. Bellar. l. 2. de Missa cap. 16. §. Post salutationem.
Generaliter autem dicendum est, quôd illa est legitima Missa, in qua sunt Sacer­dotes, Respondens, Offerens, at (que) Communicans, sicut ipsa precum compositio evidenti ratione demonstrat. Durand. l. 4. c. 1. pag. 174. Walfridus Strabo, etiam aliqui antiquiores Scholasticorum Interpretes solam legiti­mam Missam fatentur, cui intersuit Sacerdos, Respondentes, Offerentes, at (que) Communicantes Cossand. quo supra.
See above at the letter (a)
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.

The fourth Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse, contradicting the sense of the next words, [—SAID VNTO THEM.] SECT. VI.

IN the aforesaid Canon of Christ his Masse it followeth, [And he said unto Them. ] Christ Saying, or speaking to his 10 Disciples, by commanding them to Take, &c. did, doubtlesse, so speake, that they might heare his Command; to wit, in an audible voice. Which done, he further commanded, concer­ning this same Circumstance, joyntly with the rest, saying, [Doe this.]

The contrary Canon of the Romane Masse.

But your late Councell ofSi quis dixerit, Ecclesiae Romanae ri­tum, quo submissâ voce pars Canonis, & verba Consecra tionis proferuntur, damnandum esse, A­nathema sit. Concil. Trident. Sess. 22. Can. 9. Trent pronounceth him Anthema, who shall condemne her Custome of the Priest, uttering the words of 20 Consecration in a lowe voyce. Whereby (saith your Quibus verbis Conc. verba Consecrationis altâ voce proferri prohibuit. Ledesima les. de Script, quavis ling. non legend. pag. 161. In inclinatione Sacerdotis, & oscultatione altaris, thurificatione secunda expletâ, Sacerdos se convertens ad populum, sub silentio dicit [Dominus vobiscum:] Et mox voce ali­quantulum elevatâ dicit, [Orate pro me, fratres.] Durand. Ration. l. 4. c. 32. initio. Iesuite) it for­biddeth the words of Consecration to be delivered in a loud and au­dible voice. So they.

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.

Your fift Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse, is a second [...]ontradiction against the Sense of the former 10 words of Christ [—SAID VNTO THEM] SECT. VII.

AGaine, that former Clause of the Canon of Christ, to wit [He said unto them] teacheth that as his voyce, Saying unto them, was necessarily audible, to reach their eares; so was it also Intelligible, to instruct their understanding: and therefore not uttered in a Tongue unknowne. Which is evident by that he 20 giveth a Reason for the taking of the Cup [Enim] For this is the bloud, &c. which particle [For] (saith your[ENIM.] Ea particula intelligitur in forma panis Bel­lar. l. 4. de Euch. c. 14 Cardinall) is imply­ed in the first part also. Now, whosoever reasoneth with another, would be understood what he saith.

The contrarie Canon of the (now) Romane Masse.

The Councell of Trent (saith your Concil. Trident. Sess. 22 c. 8. Statuit non expedire ut divi­num Officium vul­gari passim linguâ celebretur. Azor. les. Inst. Moral. par. 1. l. 8. c. 26. §. Verum enim-verò. Iesuite) decreed, that it is not expedient that the Divine service should be celebrated in a 30 knowne tongue. Whereupon you doubt not to censure the con­trarie Doctrine of Protestants to be Asserere Missas celebrandas esse lin­guâ vulgari, consi­lium est Schismati­cum—Haereticum—& non accep­tandum,—nè Ec­clesia dormitâsse ali­quandò, at (que) adeò er­râsse videatur. Salme­ron. les. Tom. 9. Tract. 32. Sect. 5. p. 251. Hereticall and Schismati­call, and no wayes to be admitted. But why? Lest (say you) the Church may seeme a long time to have beene asleepe, and to have er­red, in her contrarie Custome. So you. Our Church of Eng­land contrarily thus: Article 24. It is a thing repugnant to the Word of God, and Custome of the Primitive Church to have publicke prayer, and ministring of the Sacraments in a tongue not knowne of the people. This occasioneth a double Plea against your Church of Rome, first, in defence of the Antiquitie and Vniversalitie, next for 40 the Equitie of Prayers in a knowne tongue, in the publicke service of God.

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 (Mr. 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 St. 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?

A more full Confutation of the Glossers Qualification of the words of our English Article, viz. [Prayer unknowne is Repugnant to the words of God;] by his inter­preting it, as not meant strictly of the do­ctrine of Christ, but of the Tradi­tion 10 of the Apostle himselfe.

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?

Of the second part of the English Article.
The Article, [Prayer in an unknowne tongue is likewise Repugnant to the Custome of the Primitive Church.] The Glosser opposeth against this.
HIS FIRST INSTANCE.40

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

Our Conclusion, by way of Censure of this mans Exposition of the Articles of the Church of England, and of the Romish Authorizers of the same Treatise.

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.

30 The sixt Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse, contra­dicting the Sense of the next words of Christs Institu­tion, [TAKE YEE.] SECT. VIII.

THus said Christ to his Disciples; by which words what is meant, your Iesuite will expresse (to wit) thatQuia Apostoli non acciperent nisi quod ipse dabat, ver­bum Dandi Transla­tionem de manibus Christi in manus Discipalorum signi­ficat. Sabneron. les. Tom. 9. Tractat. 18. pag. 126. Videtur quod Christus aut singulis in manus dederit partem à se sumendam, aut patinam tradider it propinquioribus, &c. Iansen. Episc. Concord. cap. 131. Because 40 the Apostles tooke that which Christ gave, the word [GAVE] doth signifie a Delivery out of Christ his hands into the hands of them that did take. Here, you see, is Taking with hands; especially seeing that Christ, in giving the Cup, said, Drinke you all, Matth. 26. one delivering it to another, as it is said of the Paschall Cup, Luc. 22. 17. as it isIansen Concord. in eued. locum. Fracto pane in duodecim buccellas, singulis in manus dederit; & Calicem propinquiores sequentibus tradiderunt: sic enim dixit; Accipite, dividite inter vos. confessed.

The contrary Canon in your (now) Romane Masse.

Concerning this, It is to be noted (say Notandum est quòd laudabili­ter Ecclesia prospe­xit, ut ab isto mo­do olim licito, nem­pè accipiendi pro­prijs manibus Sacra­mentum, pro reverentia Eucharistiae, abstineant. Et rursus; Olim ex patina suis quisque manibus sumpsit suam particulam, ut moris fuit ad Sextam usque Synodum, nempè Caesar-augustanam: verum ob sacram hujus Mysterij singularem reverentiam Ecclesia instituit, nè Laici nudâ manu Eucharistiam attingerent, sed à Sacerdote in os sumentis mitteretur. Salmeron quo supra. Tract. 12. pag. 78. 79. you) that the Church of Rome hath judged it laudable, that Lay-people abstaine from ta­king the Sacrament with their owne hands: but that it be put into their mouthes by the Priest; which is so ordained for a singular re­verence. So you. 10

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.]

The seventh Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse. 10 contradicting the Sense of the next words, [EATE YEE.] SECT. IX.

AS in the third Transgression, wee, by these words of Christ [Hee gave it to them,] spoken in the plurall number, have proved, from your owne Confessions, a necessary Communion of the people in the publike Celebration thereof with the Priest, against your (now) Profession of private Masses; con­trary 20 to the ancient Custome and Vniversall practice of the Church,⚜For we insist not upon the fourth degree of Penance in the Greeke Church, called [...]; of such who, in poenam, staid to see themselves deprived of that Bles­sing, which others en­joyed See above, cap. 1. Sect. 2. concerning All capable thereof: So now out of these words [TAKE YEE, EATE YEE] wee observe that the persons present were Takers and Eaters of the blessed Eucha­rist, and not onely Spectators thereof. An Abuse condemned by our Church of England in her 25. Article saying, Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon.

The Contrary Canon of the (now) Romane Masse.

30 But your Practice now is slat contrary, in your Church, by admitting people of all sorts, not as the Lords Guests, to Eate of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; but as Gazers only to looke on it, as upon a proper Sacrifice: telling the People that they, seeing the Priest eate and drinke,Synod Trideat Sess 22. c. 6. Adstan­tes si dices, spirituali­ter communicant. In cujus (namely, the priests) persona to­tus populus spirituali quadam sumptione sanguinem Christi bibere gaudentèr de­bet credere. Ecchi [...] Enchirid. de Euch. c. 10. pag. 114. and A­costa the Ies. nec a­bove Sect. 5. let. (g.) Doe spiritually eate and drinke in the person of the Priest. And the onely beholding of the Priests Sacrifice, at the Elevation and Adoration thereof, is esteemed amongst you, at this day, the most solemne and saving worship, which any people can performe unto God.

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.

The Eighth Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse, by a second Contradiction of the sense of the former words, [EATE YEE.] SECT. X.

THis is the last Act of Christ, concerning the use of the first Element, viz. [Bread] saying, EATE YEE; even as hee said of the other, [Drinke yee;] and of both hee gave this 10 his joynt Command [Doe this.] Wherefore this Act of Ea­ting being thus prescribed, as the onely bodily outward end of this Sacrament, it doth exclude all other bodily Vses of mans invention. Accordingly our Church of England, Article 25. saith, Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be carried about, but to be duly used.

The contrarie Canon of the Romane Masse.

The holy Synode of Trent (saith your Statu [...] sacro­sancta Synodus Tri­dent. Sess. 13. cap. 5. Divinum hoc Sacra­mentum publicè in­terdum proponen­dum, vel circumfe­rendum esse per vias & loca publica cum solemni pompa & veneratione. Quae est laudabilis consuetudo. Suareg. Ies. in Thom. 3. Tom. 3. Disp. 65. Sect. 1. pag. 827. Iesuite) hath ordained 20 that this Sacrament be preserved, carried abroad, and publikely proposed to the people in Procession, with solemne Pompe and Wor­ship. Which is a laudable Custome.

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

The Ninth Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse, contra­dicting the Sense of the words following, [IN REMEM­BRANCE OF MEE.] SECT. XI.

REmembrance is an act of Vnderstanding, and therefore shew­eth that Christ ordained, the use of this Sacramen [...] on [...]ly for persons of Discretion and Vnderstanding, saying, [Do THIS 10 IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE.]

The Contrarie Canon of the Roman Church, in former times.

Your Iesuite Maldonate will be our Relater, ingenuously con­fessing, that in the dayes of Augustini & In­nocent [...] sentent [...] e­rat, quae sexcentos annos in Ecclesia vi­guit, Eucharistiam e­tiam Infantibus ne­cessariam esse; quae ab Ecclesia j [...]m re­jecta, Concil. Trid. statuente, non solum non necessarium esse, sed nè quidem decere Eucharistiam infan­tibus dari. M [...]ldanat. Ies. Comment. in Io­han. 6. 53. pag. 7191 Saint Augustine, and Pope Inno­cent the first, this opinion was of force in your Church, For sixe hundred yeares together, viz. that the administration of the Eu­charist is necessary for Infants, Which opinion (saith hee) is now rejected by the Councell of Trent, Determining that the Eucharist 20 is not onely not necessarie for Infants, but also that it is Indecent to give it unto them. So hee. Of this more in the Challenge.

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.

The now contrary Opinion, concerning the Romane Masse, at this day.

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.

CHAP. III.

The Tenth Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse, by the now Church of Rome, is in contradicting the Sense 20 of the next words following (concerning the second part of this Sacrament of receiving the Cup) [HE LIKE­VVISE TOOKE THE CVP, AND GAVE IT TO THEM, SAYING, DRINKE YEE ALL OF THIS.] And adding, 1. Cor. 11. [DO THIS, AS OFTEN AS YOV DO IT, IN REMEM­BRANCE OF MEE.] SECT. I.30

BY which words [Like maner of Taking, and Giving, and Saying, Drinke yee All of this] wee say that Christ ordained for his Guests as well the Sacramentall Rite of Drinking, as of Ea­ting; and hath tied his Church Catholike in an equall obligation for performance of both, in the administring of this Sacrament.

This Cause will require a just Treatise, yet so, that our Dis­course insist only upon necessary points, to the end that the ex­treme Insolencie, Noveltie, Folly, and Obstinacie of the Romane Church, in contradicting of this part of Christ his Canon, may be plainely displayed; that every conscience of man, which is not strangely preoccupated with prejudice, or transported with malice, must needs see and detest it. Wee have heard of the Canon of Christ his Masse.

The contrary Canon of the Romish Church, in her Masse.

Shee, in her Councel of Constance, decreed that Christus sub u­traque [...]pecie Disci­pulis administravit—Licet in primiti­vâ Ecclesiâ sub utra­que specie hoc Sa­cramentum recipe­retur,—tamen haec consuerudo, ut à Lai­cis sub specie p [...]nis tantùm reciperetur,—habenda est pro lege, quam non licet reprobare, Conc. Con­stant. Sess. 13. Although Christ, indeed, and the Primitive Church did administer the Eu­charist in both kindes; notwithstanding (say they) this Custome of but one kinde is held for a law irreproveable. Which Decree she afterwards confirmed in her Ipsa Synodus, à Spiritu Sancto edo­cta, & ipsius Ecclesi­ae judicium & consuetudinem secuta, declarat & docet, nullo divino jure Laicos, & Clericos non consecrantes, obligari ad Eucharistiae Sacramentum sub utra (que) specie sumendum: Etsi Christus venerabile hoc Sacramentum sub utraque instituit, & Apostolis tradidit Concil. Trident. Sess. [...]. 1. cap. 1. Councel of Trent; requiring that the former Custome and Law of receiving it but under one kind 10 be observed both by Laicks, yea, and also by all those Priests, who being present at Masse, do not the office of Consecrating. Contrarily our Church of England, in her thirtieth Article thus: Both parts of the Lords Sacrament, by Christs Ordinance and Commandement, ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike.

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.

The full State of the Question.

All Protestants, whether you call them Calvinists, or Luthe­rans, hold, that in the publike and set celebration of the Eucharist, 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.

The first Comparison is of the Institution of Christ with the Contrary: proving the Precept of Christ, for the Vse of Both kinds to all lawfull Com­municants, SECT. II.30

THere is one word twice used in the tenour of Christ his Institution; once concerning the Bread, [HOC FA­CITE] DO THIS:] the second time touching the Cup, 1. Cor. 11. 25. [HOC FACITE, QVOTIESCVNQVE:] DO THIS AS OFTEN, &c.] Both which whosoever should denie to have the Sound and Sense of a Precept, might be confuted by your owne Iesuites, Doctors, Bishops, and Cardinalls, among See all this above Chap. 2. Sect. 1. in the Margent. whom we find your Barradas interpreting it, Praecipit: your Valentian, Praeceptum: your Iansenius, Mandat: your Alan, Praeceptio: your Bellarmine, Iubet; each one signifying a Com­mand. But of what? this is our next Inquisition. And it is 40 found, that All of them acknowledge Christs Praecept, simply for the Bread: and Some of them, onely, but conditionally of the Cup, whereof we are now to speake.

The Acts of Christ were some belonging to Consecration, and some to Distribution, Manducation, and Drinking, Such as con­cerned Consecration of both kinds, being with common con­sent [Page 57] ackowledged to be under that Command of [Hoc facite,] are the Taking Bread and blessing it, &c. To the other, touching Administration of the Cup, whereof it is sayd, [He tooke it, and gave it to his Disciples] whom after he had Commanded, say­ing, [Drinke you all of this,] hee added the other Command set downe by Saint Paul, saying unto them, [Doe this as often as yee shall doe it in remembrance of Mee.] That by this Obligation hee might charge them to communicate in both kinds. A Pre­cept then it must needs bee, But wee are not ignorant of your 10 Evasions.

Your first Evasion.

Although (say Bellar. lib. 1. de Eucharistilia. cap. 25. §. Tertu [...]. you) it be said to his Disciples [Drinke you all, and, Doe this] yet it is spoken to them as they were Priest. And on­ly to the Apostles; saith MasterM. Brereley Li­turg. Tract. 4. §. 7. after the letter (y) and after (g.) Brerely. And againe, The A­postles did represent the Priests.

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.

Your second Evasion.

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.

10 Your third Evasion.

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.

Our second Comparison is of the Example of Christ, with the contrary Example. SECT. III.

WEre it that wee had no Precept of Christ to [Doe this] but onely the Example of his Doing it in the first Insti­tution, this should bee a Rule for us to observe it punctually, excepting in such Circumstances, which onely occasionally and 10 accidentally happened therein, asSee above Sect 2. hath beene prooved; and therefore not to dare to give a Non-obstante against the Ex­ample of Christ, as yourSee above in this Chapter Sect. 1. lit. (a.) Councell of Constance hath done: and whichRectè docent Iurisconsulti, non e­xemplis sed legibus judicandum.—Quae ab exemplis ducuntur argumenta per locum sunt à simili, quae non tàm ad aliquid firmandum, quàm ad id quod firmatur il­lustrandum à Diale­cticis esse traduntur. Salmeron. les. Tom. 9. Tract. 34. your Iesuite also teacheth, as if the Example of Christ were no argument of proofe at all. Which Doctrine wee are now to trie by the judgement of Antiquity.Cyprian. con. Aquarios Epist. 63. Admonitos nos sci­as, ut in Calice offe­rendo traditio obser­vetur, neque aliquid fiat à nobis, quàm quod pro nobis Do­minus prior fecerit. [And some-what af­ter] A divino Ma­gisterio non receda­mus. Cyprian confuteth the Aquarij (Heretikes that used onely Water in the Chalice) by the Example of Christ his Institution, because Nothing is to bee done of us, in celebrating of this Mystery, which was not done of Christ. So hee.20

In the dayes of Pope Iulius, Anno 337. there arose many gid­die spirits, which violated the holy Institution of Christ, in this Sacrament, when as some Consecrated Milke instead of Wine: others sopped the bread in the Cup: a third sort squiezed Grapes thereinto. These, and the like, that holy Pope did condemne, but how? by pretence of Custome only? no, but by the obliga­tion of Christ his Example, and Institution of this Sacrament, in these words following:Iulius P. apud Gratian de Consecra: Ca. Cum omne. Au­divimus quosdam, Schismaticâ ambiti­one detentos, contra divinos ordines & Apostolicas iustitutiones, lac pro vino, in divinis officijs dedicare: alios intinctam Eu­charistiam populo pro complemento communionis porrigere: quosdam etiam expressum vinum in Sacra­mento Dominici Calicis afferre: Alijs vero pannum lincum, musto intinctum, per totum annum reservare, & in tempore Sacrificij partem ejus aquâ lavare, & sic offeire. Quod cùm sit Evangel. cae & Apostolicae doctri­nae contrarium, & consuetudim Ecclesiasticae adversum, non difficilè ab ipso fonte veritatis probatur, à quo ordinata ipsa Sacramentorum mysteria processerunt. Cùm enim Magister veritatis verum salutis nostrae Sa­crificium suis commendaret Discipulis, nu [...] lac, sed panem tantùm & Calicem sub hoc Sacramento nosci­mus dedisse. Legitur enim in Evangelica veritate, [Accepit Iesus Panem & Calicem, & benedicens dixit Di­scipulis suis] Cesset igitur Lac in Sacrificando offerri, quià manifestum & evidens veritatis exemplum illuxit, quià praeter Panem & Vinum aliud offerri non licet. Illud verò quod, pro complemento Communio­nis, intinctam Eucharistiam tradunt populis, nec hoc prolatum ex Evangelio testimonium receperunt, ubi corpus suum Apostolis commendaret & sanguinem: scorsim enim panis, & scorsim Calicis commendatio [...]emoratur. Because these are contrary (saith he) to Evangelicall and Apostolicall doctrine, and Ecclesiasticall 30 Custome, as is easily proved from the fountaine of truth, from whence the Sacraments had their first ordinance; for when our Ma­ster of Truth commended this to his Disciples, hee gave to none Milke, but Bread onely, and the Cup. Nor doth the Gospell mention the sopping of Bread, but of giving Bread a-part, and the Cup also a-part, &c. So Pope Iulius. 40

[Page 63] ⚜Long after this, the Councel of Braccara (about the yeare of our Lord 675) withstood the Complementall Custome of receiving both kindes in dipped soppes: but wot you why? hearken; even becauseConc Braccar. 3. cap. 1. Iliud verò, quod pro comple­mento Communio­nis intinctam tradunt Eucharistiam popu­lis; nec hoc prosa­tum ex Evangelio re­cipit, ubi Apostolis corpus suum & san­guinem commenda­vit: seorsim enim panis, & seorsim ca­licis commendatio memoratur. Apud Binium, Tom. 2. It is not reveiled in the Gospell of Christs Institution. Ponder the Testimony in the Margin, and you shall find it point-blanke contradictorie to your opi­nion and practice. Which Reasoning of the Bishops of that Councell had beene very loose and lavish, except they had beleeved that the forme of Institution of Christ, concerning 10 the Participation of both kindes, was as Commandatorie, as­well for the People, as the Priest.

Those also that offered Bread and Cheese together, in this Sa­crament, are confuted by the Institution of Christ, who appoin­ted Bread, saithArtotyritae pa­nem & caseum offe­runt: qui excludun­tur per hoc, quòd Christus hoc Sacramentum instiruit in pane. Aquinas, part 3. quaest 24. Art. 1. your Aquinas. What can bee more direct and absolute? yet dare your men object to the contrarie.

20 The Romish Objection answered.

At Emmaus, Luke 24. Christ, meeting with certaine Disci­ples, taking bread and blessing it, and thereby manifesting him­selfe to them, is said immediately after the Breaking of Bread to have vanished out of their sights. Ergò, it may be lawfull (saith your Ex Luc. 24 30. Vbi Christus appa­tens duobus Discipu­lis in Emmaus, & accumbens accepit panem, & benedixit, & dedit eis: quo facto, aperti sunt oculi comm, & evanuit ex oculis, &c. [Hence doth Bellarmine conclude thus:] Ostendit hoc exemplum, quòd minimè existimandum sit, suisse imperatum omnibus illius usum in utraque specie. Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. cap. 24. §. Rursus. So also Ruffensis, and others. Cardinall) to use but one kinde. Because (saith Master Brereley Li­turg. Tract. 4. §. 3. pag. 402. Master Brerely) the Text sheweth, that Christ vanished away, not lea­ving 30 any time for Benediction, or Consecration of the Cup.

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!

30 Our third Comparison, is, by conferring Apostolicall Pra­ctice with contrary Practice. SECT. IV.

Saint Paul having more speciall occasion to handle this point, than any other of the Apostles, may worthily be admitted to resolve us in the name of all the Rest. Hee Catechizing the Corinthians, concerning the true use of the Eucharist, recordeth 40 the first Institution, thus:1. Cor. 11. 23. I have received of the Lord that which I deliver unto you, that the Lord Iesus, &c. And, after his Re­citall of the Institution of Christ, hee himselfe addeth [Ibid. Vers. 26. As often as you eate of this Bread, and drinke of this Cup, you shew the Lords death untill hee come againe. Ibid. Vers. 28. Let therefore a man examine himselfe, and so eate of this Bread, and drinke of this Cup.] From this wee seeke a Proofe both of the Apostolicall Practice, in the use of Both kindes, in this Sacrament; and of our duty in [Page 66] observing the same. But we may spare our paines of proving the use of Both kindes in the Church of Corinth, because (as your Antiqua Con­suctudo temporibus Apostolorum fuit in Ecclesia, sub utraque specie communican­di. In hac assertione nulla est Controver­sia. Tolet. Ies. in Ioh. 6. pag 602. So Ecchius Hom. 36. Nullum insiciari posse, Pau­lum hoc praecipisse Corinthijs. Cardinall Tolet confesseth) There is no controversie thereof.

As for the Proofe of our necessary Conformity, wee have the same Reasons, wherewith the Apostle perswadeth there­unto, [That (saith he) which I have received of the Lord, I deliver unto you, that Iesus, &c.] Thereby applying the Example of Christ his Institution for a Rule of their Practice: which this conjunctive Particle of Eating [AND] Drinking; To Eate [AND] Drinke, five times so coupled in this Epistle, do plain­ly 10 declare.

But you tell us, that in this place the Conjunctive [AND] is put for a Disjunctive, Or, thereby to teach the Church a liberty to choose whether they shall eate or Drinke: notwithstanding, you your selves have confessed that Christ spake absolutely, and without Condition, of the Bread, Take, Eate, Do this. And againe, 1 Cor. 11. 24. [ [...], And in like manner the Cup.] It is an AND Conjunctive, questionlesse. For seeing it cannot be denyed, that the Apostles Practice was both Eating and Drinking conjunctively, it is not likely or credible that the 20 sense of his words should be discretive; because this had beene, in words, to have contradicted his owne practice. Master Brerely opposeth, viz. The Apostle in the same Chapter saith v. 20 Hee that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement; also he saith vers. 27. whosoever eateth this Bread, and drinketh this Cup unworthily, &c. So he.

It is not to be denyed but that [AND] is often used in Scrip­ture for, [Or:] but Master Brerely his notions, as commonly else-where, so here also are too confused, by not distinguishing the divers use of [AND] namely, in Precepts, and Exhorta­tions 30 to an Act, from AND, in denunciation of judgement, in case of Transgression. As for example, The Precept is, Honour thy father, And thy mother, (Exod. 20.) here [AND] must needs be copulative, because of the Obligation of Precept of honou­ring Both. But the denunciation against the Transgressour, if it stood (as MasterMr. Brerely in his Lit. Tract. 4. §. 7. Vsual it is in Scrip­ture to use the Con­junctive, ET, And, for the Disjunctive. So it is sayd, he that shall strike his Fa­ther and Mother, shall die. When as both the Originall, the Roman Vulgar, and our Translations have it. (OR.)⚜ Brerely objecteth, feigning a false Text contrary both to the Originall, and vulgar Latine Translation) thus, Hee that shall strike his father, And mother, shall die: the particle [AND] must needs be taken disjunctively for, Or, (as indeed it is expressed in the Text) because the Transgression 40 of either parts of a Commandement inferreth an obliga­tion of guilt and judgement, as any man of sense may per­ceive.

Against this, albeit so evident a Truth, your Doctors will have something to object, or else it will go hard; even forsooth the contrarie practice of the Apostles, Act. 2. 42 where wee read of the faithfull assembled and Continuing together in fellow­ship, [Page 67] and in breaking of bread, and in prayers; because there is but mention onely of one kinde, which is Bread: whence they in­ferre a no-necessity of using the Cup. So yourAct 2. Ita de­scribitur com [...]unica­tio Eucharistiae [E­rāt enim persevoran­tes in doctrin [...] Apo­stolorum, & commu­nicatione fractionis panis, & Orationi­bus.] Quo in loco negari non potest quin agatur de Eu­charistia. Apostoli igitur in utra (que) specie consecrabant: sed po­pulis in una specie ministrabant. Bellar. l. 4 de Euch. c. 24. p. 64. Cardinall Bellarmine. And to answer, that the ministration of the Cup is understood by a figure Synechdoche, is an Answer onely imaginary and groundlesse, saith MasterLiturg. Tract. 4. §. 3. pag 403. Brerely.

But are they yet to learne that which every man knoweth, and your owne Iesuites have taught? that there is no Trope more familiar in Scripture than this Synechdoche of taking a part 10 for the whole? Or could they not discerne thus much in the same Chapter, ver. [...]6. where it is sayd, They brake bread through every house; Wherein (as your IesuiteExistamo de Eu­charistia non esse Sermonem, quonium de illo superiùs paulò Sermo habitus est. Lorin. les in eund. loc. And Cajetan. Card. F [...]ebat distributio pa­nis—ita quod acei­piebant cibus erat. Comment in [...]und. loc. Lorinus reacheth) there is not meant the Eucharist, but common foode? Whereby you can­not but understand implied, in their breaking of bread, their mu­tuall drinking together also. And yet in the like words spoken of the Eucharist, verse 42. [They continued together in breaking of Bread] you exclude the participation of the Cup. What shall wee say? was your spirituall appetite weaker than your corpo­rall, in reading these two Texts, wherein is mentioned onely 20 Bread, that you could discerne but halfe refection in the Eu­charist, and an whole in their bodily repast?

⚜Not to trouble you with the repeating of SomeMatth. 16. The Disciples are accused for eating bread with unwashed, hands, Mark. 3. They had no leisure to eate bread Luc. 12. Christ to the Pharisees house eate bread. 2. Thess. 3. We have not eaten our bread freely, &c. few Scriptures, among many, wherein the word, Bread, alone doth by a Senechdoche necessarily unply a perfect and full Refecti­on; else men (you know) should be clemmd, who should have Bread onely, without Drinke.

Besides, any man may guesse what spirit it favoureth of, that (in paralleling the authority of your Church with the authority of the Apostles) your Iesuites doe resolve, that although the 30 Apostles had constituted the Custome of Receiving in both kindes,Si daremus hunc ritum ab Apostolo fuisse traditum, cum tamen merè positivus sit, potuillet illum mutare, quid Ecclesia habet eūdem spiri­tum, & eandē autho­ritatem cum Paulo. Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 34. p. 277. Eodem modo Vasquez les. in 3. Thom. Disp. 215. 216. Nihilo minus Ecclesia & summus Pontifes poterit illud justis de causis abrogare; licet concederemus praeceptum hoc fuisse Apostolicum. Neverthelesse (say they) the Church of Rome, and Pope thereof, having the same authoritie with Saint Paul, may abro­gate it upon just Cause. And yet hardly can you allege any Cause, for abrogation of that Practice, which Saint Paul might not have assumed in his time.

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 St. 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

Our fourth and fift Comparisons are of Primitive Custome with the contrary Custome, in respect both of the Antiquitie and Vniversalitie thereof. SECT. V.

BEfore wee shall say any thing our selves of the Primitive Custome, in using Both kinds in the administration of this Sacrament, and the extent thereof, both in the longitude of Continuance, and latitude of Vniversality, wee are ready to 20 heare how farre your owne Doctors will yeeld unto us, in both these points, touching the publike use of Both kinds. Wher­fore, hearken but unto the Marginals, and you shall finde your Iesuites, with others, uttering these voyces:Olim per multa secula sub utra (que) spe­cie [...]gebatur Lai­cis, ut ex multorum Sanctorum scriptis didicimus. Alfons. à Castro in hac ipsa con­troversia [...] pag. 158. Vsus utrius (que) speciei à primitiva Ecclesia comprobatus fuit: in posteriori etiam Ec­clesia multi Latini et Occidentales illum retinuerunt. Graeci quo (que) hodiè & Ori­entales licitè & san­ctè, quod ad ipsum ritum attinet, cum observant Salmeron. les. Tom. 9. Tract. 37. pag. 308. Minimè ne­gamus quin utraque species frequentissi­mè olim etiam ad­ministrata fuerit, ut apparet ex Paulo, Atl anasio, Cyprian. Hier. Leone, & Hist. Tripart. ex Greg. & passim ex alijs veterum Te­stimonijs: item (que) ex D. Thoma, qui etiam suo tempore in aliquibus Ecclesijs administratum Calicem fuisse significat. Valent. les de usu Euch. cap. 8 §. Alioqui. pag. 496. Ingenuè tamen & apertè confitemur, morem ge­neralem extitisse communicandi etiam Laicis sub utra (que) specie, sicut hodiè fit apud Graecos, & olim erat in more positum apud Corinthios, & in Africa. De quo more loquitur Cyprian. Athanas. Dionys. Etiam proba­tur ex Ecclesia Latina, at (que) in hunc usum erant olim Calices ministeriales, & paterae ad differentiam calicum & paterarum, in quibus Sacerdotes offerebant. Salmeron. Tom. 9. quo sup. Tract. 35. §. Ingenuè p. 294. B. Gre­gorius, & Sexcenta hujusmodi proferri possent—Vsus utrius (que) speciei à Christo & Apostolis, & à Primitiva Ecclesia, qui illum usurpâ [...]unt, comprobatus fuit. In posteriori etiam Ecclesia multi Latini & Occidentales illum retinuer [...]nt: Gr [...] i quo (que) hodiè. Salmeron. ib. Tract. 37. § Deinde. Satis compertum est, universalem Ecclesiam Christi in hunc us (que) diem, Occidentalem seu Romanam mille annis à Christo, in solenni praesertim & ordi­naria hujus Sacramenti dispensatione, utramvis panis & vini speciem omnibus Christi membris exhibuisse. Cassand. Consult. pag 166. 167. [And lest any doubt should be made of Gregory the first Pope of that name, his testimony is cited in Gratian, among the Popes Decrees. De Consecrat. Dist. 2. Quid sit sanguis. Sanguis in ora fidelium funditur.] Wee must con­fesse, Wee doe confesse; yea, Wee do ingenuously confesse a Custome of both kinds (aswell to the Laicks as Priests) to have beene in the Primitive Church most frequent and generall: as is proved by the ancient Fathers both Greeke and Latine, among whom are Leo and Gregorie (both) Popes of Rome; yea and universall also for a long time, continuing a thousand yeares in the Church of Rome, and in 30 the Greeke Church unto this day. So they.

Where wee see both the Antiquity and Vniversality thereof to the full, which it were easie for us to have shewne Gradatim, descending downe from the first Age unto the twelfth; but that when wee have as much confessed as neede be proved, it might 40 [Page 69] be judged to bee but an importunate diligence and Curiositie to labour any further. Neverthelesse, if peradventure any should desire to see one or two Testimonies for the last Age, hee may satisfie himselfe in theBern. Serm. 3. de ram [...] palmarum, de Sacrament. corp. & sanguinis Dom.—Nemo est qui nesciat hanc tàm singularem alimoniam eâ primâ die (viz. Palm [...]rum) exhibitam & commendatam, & m [...]ndatam deinceps frequentari. Algerus lib. 2. c. 8. de Sacram. Iste mos inolevit in Ecclesia ab ipso Christo, qui corpus suum & sanguinem di­visim consecravit & dedit. Vide etiam Rupertum de divin of fic. lib. 6. cap. 23. Margent at the first sight.

The Romish Objections, concerning Primitive Custome.

10 Divers Objections are urged on your side, to abate something of the Vniversality of the Custome of Both kindes, which we de­fend; but if they shall not seeke to decline the Question, and to rove about, as it were, at unset markes, their Arguments are but as so many Bolts shot altogether in vaine. For our defence is o [...] ­ly this, that in the publike solemnization and Celebration of this Sacrament, in an Assembly of Christians freely met to com­municate, no one example can bee shewne in all Antiquity, throughout the Catholike Church of Christ, for the space of a thousand yeares, inhibiting either Priest, or Laick, from 20 Communicating in both kindes, who was duly prepared to re­ceive the Sacrament. As for the examples which you usually object, they are of no force at all, beingOh: Consuetu­dinem Eucharist [...]m domum deferendi, &c. Sol. [By reason of persecution, and the p [...]icity of Ministers: but afterwards abo­lished by the Church: as was the ministra­tion thereof to In­fants.] Ob: Com­munio olim Laicis data [...]n poenam gra­vis delicti. Bellar. lib. 4 de Euch. cap. 24. Sol. [As if the pu­nishment of the La­icks Communion could signifie Partaking in one kind.] which is confuted by Durant. lib. 2. de Ritib. cap. 55. Nonnulli credi­derunt Laicam Com­munionem appella­tam, quòd sub unica specie etiam Clerici, imò Sacerdotes ipsi non conficientes cō ­municant, nunc sub una specie. Quare ve­rius est, Laicam com­munionem dictam, quia extra sacratio­rem locum, ubi Sacrificium fit, ubi Sacerdos conficiens, tùm Ministrie [...] nunicabant. And by Pamelius in Cyprian. Epist. 152. Laicum communicare, nihil aliud est quam inter Laicos. i. e. extrâ cancellos—hoc est, extra cho­rum, ut hodiè loquimur. Lorinus les. in Act. 2. Reverà distinctio non in specie utra (que) et una esse videtur, quoniam utra (que) species concedebatur (nempe Laicis) sed in destinato loco, separato pro Clericis. [And there were two punishments of Priests anciently, [...], privari Clericatus honore, et [...], Excommunicari. ⚜Yea and Gabriel Episc. Albispinae l. 1. Observat. Sacr. 3. Confuting Bellar. by name: Si opinio Bellarmini probabilitate niteretur, Canones illam non praetermissuri erant, quandoquidem Laici illis temporibus sub utra (que) specie communicabant. ⚜Ob: Ritus erat, ut Communio praesanctificatorum esset sub una specie, die Parasce­vis, corpus fine specie sanguinis. Sol. [The word it selfe being in the Plurall, [...], prae sanctificata, confuteth this Objection, and so doe the Liturgies.] proved to be either private, or illegitimate, or false, respectively. Hitherto of the Primitive Custome.

Notwithstanding all this, will your Romane Church boast of her contrary Custome of after-times, telling us, in her Councels, that her Custome of administring the Eucharist but in one kinde is rightly observed, as a Custome, which hath beene [Diutissi­mè 30 observata, ] that is, of very long continuance. Many yeares by­passed, saithIn Conc. Constant. de usu unius speciei. Cum hujusmodi consuetudo ab Ecclesia & sanctis patribus rationabiliter introducta, & hactenus diutissime observata sit, habenda est prolege. Eodem modo Conc. Basil. penè eisdem verbis: Deinde latam legem quamplurimis retrò annis Con­suetudo jucundissima effecerat. Gasp. Cardillus apud Act. Conc. Trident. p. 220. 221. 223. your Villalpandus. But most precisely your Ie­suite Secundum certum est, Ecclesiam praesentem, & quae illam praecessit per trecentos aut ducentos annos, Laicos sub altera specie in multis Ecclesijs communicate consuevisse, ut docet S. Thom. in Ioh. his verbis. Secundum antiquae Ecclesiae con­suetudinem omnes sicut communicabant, corpore, ità & sanguine: quod etiam adhuc in quibusdam Ecclesijs servatur, ubi etiam Ministri altaris continuò & corpore & sanguine communicabant. Salmeron. les. Tom 9. Tract. 35. §. Secundum cortum. pag. 284. Salmeron: It is certaine (saith he) that the Church, for these three or two hunded yeares, hath used to communicate to the 40 Laity under one kinde. So they.

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.

Our sixt Comparison is of Reasons, for the Vse 20 of Both kindes, collated with Reasons objested to the contrary. SECT. VI.

A Sacrament (according to the common definition) is a Visi­ble signe of an invisible Grace; and so farre is a Signe true and perfect, as it doth fully represent the things that are ordained to be signified thereby: Signification being the very proper na­ture and end of a Signe, as well in sacred, as in prophane Rites.30 Come now and let us industriously and calmly debate this mat­ter, which wee have in hand, both in respect of the thing signi­fied (which is the Sacrament, or spirituall Object) as of the party Communicating, who is the Subject thereof.

Our first Reason is taken from the due Perfection of this Sacrament, which must necessa­rily be in Both kindes.

The things Spirituall (as all Christians professe) are the Body 40 and Blood of Christ, which are signified in the Sacrament of Bread and wine; These two then are not two Sacraments, but one Sacrament formally, (as youSee afterwards at the letter (m.) know) which therfore ought to be performed in Both, or else the Act will be a Sacrilegious dismembring of the Sacrament of Christ. This shall we easily [Page 71] prove from the Principles and Confessions of your owne Schooles. Your Church professeth to celebrate the Eucharist, both as it is a Sacrifice, and as it is a Sacrament. As you hold it to be a Sacrifice, you generally teach that Both kinds are necessarily to be received of the Priest, because they both belong to the Essence thereof. So yourSed nos nullam scimus Sacramenti mutilationem, ne (que) partem dimidiam Laicis esse substra­ctam, siquidem duae species requiruntur necessariò ad Sacri­ficium, sed ad essenti­am Sacramenti quae­libet ex duobus suf­ficit.—Proinde Sa­cramentum sub spe­cle panis est verum & integrum Sacra­mentum, quandò su­mitur per modum [...] ­nius refectionis. Bel­lar. Apol. con. Praefar. Monit. pag. 102. And Alfons. à Castro de nac Controv. pag. 157. Sacerdos hac lege de­vinctus est, ut quoti­escun (que) celebret, nec panem sine vino, nec vinum absque pane consecrari faciat: quoniam etsi integer Christus sub quali­bet specie lateat, non tamen quaelibet spe­cies totum Christum significat, sed panis sol [...]m carnem significat, species vini solum sanguinem repraesentat, illiusque solius me­moriam gerit. Cardinall. Consult with yourVnum dicitur quod est perfectum: sic cùm dicitur una domus, unus homo. Est autem unum in perfectione, ad cujus integritatem concurrunt omnia quae requiruntur. Aqum. part. 3. qu. 73. Art. 12. Ex parte Sacrament [...] convenit, ut utrum (que) sumatur, scilicet corpus & sanguis, quòd in utroque consistit perfectio Sacramenti. Idem thid. quaest. 80. Art. 2. Etenim obligatio perficiendi istud Sacramentum illi solùm ex natura rei, id est, spect [...]tâ Sacramenti dignitate, incumbit, qui illud etiam conficit: debet enim is, quando-quidem rem tam divinam facit, non utcunque facere. Ita (que) tenetur inprimis utramque speciem consecrare, tùm ut huic Sacramento omnis perfectio sua substantialis, etiam quoad rationem individuam, constet. Valent. les. de usu Eucharistiae, cap. 6. §. Etenim. pag. 492. Respondendum est, eam actionem esse illis ipsis impera­tam per illa verba [Hoc facite, &c.] See above Sect. 3. at (g) where Vasquez the Iesult is cited in 3. Them. Disput. 215. Aqui­nas, your Iesuites Valentia, and Vasquez, and they will say as much in behalfe of the Eucharist, as it is a Sacrament; their rea­son is, Because both kindes, making but one Sacrament, ought to be 10 celebrated perfectly, and therefore is the Priest bound to consecrate this Sacrament in both kindes by that command of Christ, saying, [Do this:] nor can this be omitted without Sacrilege. So they.

If such be the necessity of consecrating in both kindes, under the hand of the Priest, then lieth the same obligation upon the Church likewise, for distributing it in both kindes unto the people, to whom it is to be administred, in token of Christ his Passion for them applicatorily, both in his Body and Bloud: but the Bread only can no more represent the Blood of Christ in the mouthes of people, in the eating thereof, than it can by Con­secrating 20 it in the hands of the Priest: and consequently the dismembring thereof, as you do, must necessarily condemne both Priest and People. A Consequence, which your figment of 30 See hereafterr, Sect: 8. Concomitancie cannot possibly avoid.

A Corroboration of the same Reason, against the Sacrilegi­ous dismembring of this Sacrament, by the Testimony of Pope Gelasius; and a Vindication of Doctor Morton from the Traducement of other your Priests and Iesuites. 40 SECT. VII.

THe Hereticall Manichees forbare the use of the Cup in this Sacrament, in an opinion, that wine was not created by God, but by some evill spirit; whom Pope Gelasius did therefore con­demne by his publike Decree: which Hereticall opinion (as once IAppeal. lib. 2. Chap. 1. pag. 140. said) cannot justly be imputed unto the Church of Rome, in her manner of abstaining from the Cup in the Eucharist. This [Page 72] SayingIn his Answer to his Majestie. Master Fisher the Iesuite, of late, thought good to pervert to his owne use, thus. The Crime wherewith some Pro­testants charge us, that our receiving under the sole forme of Bread is to jump in the opinion of the Manichees, wee may (as Doctour Morton confesseth) reject as injurious, saying with him, that it was not the Manichees abstinence from w [...]ne, but the reason of their forbearance that was judged Hereticall. So hee. But this mans march is but slow.

Master Brerely,In his Booke of the Liturgie of the Masse, Tract. 4. §. 4. pag. 407. a Romish Priest, one well esteemed among you, for his exceeding labour and paines in defending the Ro­mish Cause, to his power, by his many Bookes, almost in eve­ry particular, commeth on more roundly, as followeth: Do­ctor Morton himselfe (saith he) shall plead in our behalfe, who saith 10 that the Manichees did heretically celebrate the Eucharist onely in one kind, in an opinion that wine was not created by God, but by some evill spirit, and were therefore anciently condemned for Heretiques: but the Romanists are not to bee accused of this here­sie of the Manichees, in their not distributing of both elements of bread and wine. And to object this against that Church were an accusation injurious, for it was not the Manichees abstinence from 20 wine, but their reason thereof which made them hereticall, said hee. So your Priest; yet what of all this? So clearely doth Doctor Morton (saith hee) cleare us from the foule and false im­putation urged against us by Doctor Whitaker, who noted the Ad­ministration but in one kind, now used by the Romish Church, to have had it's originall from the Manichees: and so clearely doth hee contradict both Master Whitaker and himselfe, in one place accusing us, in another excusing us, in one and the same Respect: of which foule fault of Contradiction in so great a Rabbin when he cleareth himselfe, instead of being Bishop of Litchfield, hee shall bee unto mee ever Magnus Apollo. Thus farre Master Brerely.30 Alas! what will become of the Doctor, being as you see, thus fiercely assaulted by two at once, one a Iesuite, the other a Ro­mish Priest, both conspiring together to make the Doctor ridi­culous?

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 Mr. 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.

Our second Reason is in respect of the perfect Spirituall 10 Refection, represented by this Sacrament. SECT. VIII.

ANother Object, represented in this Sacrament, is the food of mans soule, in his faithfull receiving of the Bodie and Blood of Christ, which because it is a perfect spirituall Refection, Christ would have it to be expressed both in Eating and Drink­ing, wherein consisteth the perfection of man's bodily suste­nance: and therefore are both necessarily to be used, by law of Analogie betweene the outward Signe, and the thing Signified 20 thereby. Two of yourNam in alteru­tra [...] sive panis sive vin [...] significatur sufficienter refect [...] animae Bellar. lib. 4. de Eucharist. cap. 20. §. Vtranuc. pag. 639. Est etiam in specie quod [...] signifi­catio refectionis spi­ritualis—quià u­nam & eandem rese­ctionis gratiam spiri­tualem significat [...] ­bus & potus. Valent quo supr. de legis. usu Eucharist pag. 491. Iesuites (from whom Master Fisher hath learned his Answer) seeke to perswade their Readers, that the Soules refection spirituall is sufficiently signified in ei­ther kinde, whether in Bread, or Wine. But be it knowne unto you, that either all these have forgotten their Catechisme, autho­rized by the Fathers of the Councel of Trent, and confirmed by Pope Pius Quintus, or else Those their Catechists forgot them­selves in teaching, thatOptimo jure in­stitutum est, ut sepa­ratim duae consecra­tiones fierent: pri­mò enim ut Passio Domini, in qua san­guis à corpore divisus est, [...]magis referatur—Deinde, maximè consentaneum fuit, ut quoniam Sacra­mento, ad alendam animam, utendum nobis erat, tanquam cibus & potus institueretur, ex quibus perfectum corporis alimen­tum constare, perspicu [...] est. Ca [...]echis. Rom. part. 2. de Euch. num. 29. This Sacrament was instituted so, that two severall Consecrations should be used, one of Bread, and the other 30 of the Cup; to the end, both that the Passion of Christ might be repre­sented, wherein his Blood was separated from his Body: and because this Sacrament is ordained to nourish man's soule, it was therefore to be done by Eating and Drinking; in both which the perfect nourish­ment of mans naturall life doth consist.

Aquinas, and your Iesuite Valentia, with others, are as expresse in this point, as they were in the former; who although they (as we also) hold that whole Christ is received in either kinde, (for Christ is not divided) yet do theyHoc Sacramentum ordinatur ad spiritualem refectionem, quae conformatur corporali. Ad corporalem autem refectionem Duo requiruntur, scilicet cibus, qui est alimentum siccum, & potus, qui est alimentum humidum. Et etiam ad integritatem hujus Sacramenti duo concu [...]unt; scilicet, spiritualis cibus, & spiritualis potus, secundùm illud, Ioh. 6 [Caro mea verè est cibus]—Ergò, hoc Sacramentum multa quidem est materialiter, sed unum formaliter & perfe­ctivè. Aqui. part. 3. quaest. 73. Art 2. Etsi negandum non est, quin ejus refectionis spiritualis vis & commo­ditas clarius utr [...]que re s [...]nul, scilicet cibo & potu, atque adeò utraque specie significetur: ideò enim hoc Sa­cramentum, quod atti [...]et [...] ad relationem individualem, perfectus est in utraque simul specie, quàm in altera. Greg de Valent. les. de usu Sacr. Each. c. 6. §. Secundum. p. 491. Hoc est convenientius us [...] hujus Sacra­menti, ut seorsim exhibeatu [...] fidelibus corpus Christi in cibum, & sanguis in potum. Aquin. quo sup. qu. 76. Art 2. maintaine that This Sacrament, as it is conformable both to Eating and Drinking, so 40 [Page 75] doth it by Both kindes, more perfectly expresse our spirituall nourish­ment by Christ: and therefore it is more convenie it that both be exhibited to the faithfull severally, as for Meate, and for drinke. So they. For although, in the Spirituall Receiving, Eating and Drinking are both one, even as the appetite of the Soule in hun­gring and thirsting is the same; as where it is written, Matth. 5. Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousnesse, &c. yet in this Sacramentall communicating with bodily instru­ments it is otherwise, as you know.Sub specie pa­nis sanguis sumatur cum corpore, & sub specie vini sumatur corpus cum sangui­ne: nec s [...]nguis sub specio panis bibitur, nec corpus sub specie v [...] editu [...]: quià si­cut nec corpus [...]bitur, ità nec sanguis come­ditur. Duraad. Rati­tional. lib. 4. cap. 42. pag. 326. The blood of Christ is 10 not drunke in the forme of Bread, nor is his Body eaten as meate in the forme of Wine, because the Body cannot be said to be drunke, nor the blood to be eaten. So your Durand, and so afterwards yourSee hereafter Sect 10. ⚜Who also observeth that, concerning spirituall Repast, [...]aasen. [...]. cap. 59. Dominus dicit, uno [...]actu fidei famein tolli, & si­tim: ac proindè u­nico actu fidei dici­tur manducare & bi­bere. Christ saith, that by the onely act of Faith both hunger and thirst is taken away: therefore wee are said both to eat and drinke by the same and onely act of Faith.

Wherefore you, in with-holding the Cup from the People, do violate the Testament of Christ, who requireth in this a perfect representation visible of a compleate and a full Refection spiri­tuall; 20 which is sufficient to condemne your Abuse, whereby you also defraud God's people of their Dimensum, ordai­ned by Christ for their use. Concerning this second,Answer to his Majestie. Ma­ster Fisher (one of the society of Iesuites) was taught to An­swer, that the Full causality (as he said) and working of spirituall Effects of the soule cannot be a wanting to the Sacrament under one kind; because of Christ his assistance. So he. We should aske, whether a greater Devotion, and a more plentifull Grace are not to be esteemed spirituall Effects, for the good of the Soule, 30 which areSecundum Ale­xandrum de Hales—Major fructus ex perceptione utrius (que) speciei habetur. Sal­meron. les. Tom. 9. Tract. 37. § Neque benè p. 303. Per acci­dens tutem non est [...]ubium quin usus u­triusque speciei possit esse fructuosior, eò quod potest majorem devotionem commo­vere in percipiente. Vndè fiat, ut propter majorem dispositio­nem consequitur ille veriorem gratiam ex Sacramento. Valent. les. Ibid. pag. 493. §. Per accidens. confessed to be enjoyed rather by Communicating in Both kinds.

⚜Will you have any more? know then that your Ro­mane Pope Clement did absolutely teach thatVasquez. les. in 3. Thom. quaest. 80. Disput. 215. cap. 2. Probabilior sententia mihi semper visa est eorum, qui dicunt majorem-fructum gratiae ex utraque specie, quàm ex a [...]erutra percipi: & proindè illos, qui calicem sumunt, novum augmentum Gratiae consequi. Ità Alexander Cassalius, Arboreus, Clemens Pont. 6. Remandus (Et i [...]margine suâ; Hinc sententiam Suarez, Disp. 35. § 6. ut probabilem defendit.) Hanc sententiam absolutè secuti [...]s est Clemens 6. in Bullâ ad Regem Angliae 1341. in quo ill [...] concessit, ut in gratiae augmentum in utra (que) specie communicaret.—Sacramentum hoc institutum est in modum Convivij, Ioh. 6. [Caro mea verè est cibus, & languis meus verè est potus:] nam in Convivio nihil aliud est quàm cibus & potus, quorum quilibec suo particulari modo reficit. A greater augmentation of Grace is obtained by Communicating in Both. Which was the Cause (saith your Iesuite) that Hee dispenced with the King of England to participate in Both. For con­sider (we pray you) that the Assistance of Christ doth especially concurre with his owne Ordinance, and therefore much rather where the forme of a Sacrament, ordained and instituted by himselfe, is observed, then where it is (as of you) so notoriously 40 perverted, and contemned. Yet because you may think we rest upon either our owne, or yet of other your Doctors Iudgement [Page 76] in this Defence, we shall produce to this purpose, the consona [...] Doctrine of ancient Fathers.

Our third proofe is taken from the manifold Reasons of ancient Fathers, for Confirmation of the Necessity of the Communicating in Both kinds. SECT. IX.

FOr the proofe of the necessary use of Both kindes, in the so­lemne and publike dispensation of this Sacrament, the parti­cular 10 Testimonies of many ancient Fathers might be produced, but your owne Authors will ease us of that labour, by relating andSatis comper­tum est, universalem Christi Ecclesiam in hunc usque diem, Oc­cidētalem autem seu Romanam mille am­pliù à Christo annis, in solenn; prae fertim & ordinaria hujus Sacramenti dispensa­tione, Vtramque pa­nis & vini speci­em omnibus Christi membris exhibuisse—atque ut ità facerent, inductos fuisse pri­mò Instituto exem­ploque Christi, qui hoc Sacramentum, corporis & sanguinis sui, duobus hisce pa­nis & vini symbolis Discipulis suis, fide­lium Communican­tium personam re­praesentantibus, pre­buit: [...]um quià in Sa­cramento sanguinis peculrarem quādam virtutem & gratiam hoc vini symbolo significatam esse crede­bant: tùm ob ratio­nes mysticas hujus Instituti, quae à veteribus variè adducuntur, viz. ad repraesentandam memoriam Passio [...]is Christi in oblatione corporis, & sanguinis effusione, juxta illud Pauli, [Quo [...]iescunque comederitis panem hunc, & Calicem Domini biberitis, mortem Dom [...] annunciatis donec venerit] Item ad significandam integram [...]o­fectionem sive nutritionem, quae cibo & potu constat, quomodò Christus inquit, [Caro mea verus est cibus, et sanguis meus verus est potus.] Item ad designandam redemptionem & tuitionem corporis & animae; ut corpus pro salute corporis, & sanguis pro salute animae, quae in sanguine est, dari intelligatur. Ad significandum quoque Christum utram (que) naturam assumpsisse, corporis & animae; ut utramque redimeret. Cassand. Consult. Art. 22. pag. 166. 167—Christus licet totus sub una specie, tamen administrari voluit sub duplici, primò, ut totam na­turam assumpsisse se ostenderet, ut utramque redimeret: panis enim ad corpus refertur, vinum ad animam.—Si in altera tantùm sumeretur,—tum mortem suam ad alterius salutem valere significaretur. Pet. Lombard. 4. Dist. 11. Hic Calix pari cuactis conditione sit traditus. Theoph, in 1. Cor. 11. In veteri Testamento quaedam Sacerdos, quaedam populus comedebat, nec poterat populus participare illis, quorum Sacerdos particeps erat: nunc autem omnibus unum corpus proponitur, & unum poculum. Chrysost. in 2. Cor. Hom. 18. Coena Domini omnibus debet esse communis, quum ille Christus Discipulis suis omnibus, qui aderant, aequalitèr tradidit Sa­cramenta, Hier. in Cor. 11. Quomodò ad martyrij poculum eos idoneos fecimus, si non ad poculum Domini ad­ [...]mus? Cyprian, Epist. 54. ad Cornel. Episc. Rom. de pace lap [...] danda. Etiam Lombardus lib. 4. dist. 11. ex Am­brosio ad 1. Cor. 11. Valet ad tuitionem corporis & animae quod percipimus, quià caro Christi pro salute corporis, sanguis verò pro anima nostra offertur. confessing as much, in effect, as we did intend to prove, viz. That the ancient Fathers were induced to the Continu­ance of the Custome in Both kindes, First, by the Example and Institution of Christ. Secondly, by some particular Grace, which they held to be signified by the Cup. Thirdly, for the Repre­sentation, that it had to the Passion. of Christ; distinctly and respectively to his Body and Blood. Fourthly, to resemble the Redemption, which man hath in his Body by Christ's Body, and 20 by his Blood in the soule. Fiftly, To expresse by these Sym­bols the perfect spirituall Nourishments wee have by his Body and Blood. Sixtly, To understand that this Sacrament doth equally belong to People, as well as to Priests: (which they with great earnestnesse enforce, with joynt consent, as a ne­cessary [Ius] and Right belonging to both.) Seventhly, that the Cup of the Eucharist doth animate soules to receive the Cup of bloody Martyrdome, when the time should be. ⚜Eightly, by the Precept of Christ;Vasquez in 3. Thom. Qu. 801. Disp. 216. cap. 6. Iustinus in 2. Apo­log. pro Christianis, postquam descripsit communionem sub utra (que) specie, subjungit: Apostoli enim in Com­mentati [...]s suis, quae Evangelia dicuntur, ità sibi Christum praecepisse tradiderunt. Respondeo, Nullum aliud prae­ceptum Domini Iustinum ibi agnovisse praeter, [Hoc facite in memoriam mei.] Very well, and [Hoc facite] is as full a Command us [Hoc manducate] or, [Hoc bibite.] Iustine one of the most ancient 30 40 [Page 77] Guides in Christs Church saying plainely, that Christ com­manded Both kindes to be received

And the Commandement, which Iustine meant, your Iesuite attributeth to Christs saying, [DO THIS] And Cyprian as directly as succinctlyCyprian Serm. de Coena Dom. Evan­gelium praec [...]pit, ut bibatur. Resp. Satis est si bibatur à Sacer­dotibus, licet non à Laicis. [But this is refuted by the Fa­thers, who will admit of no Inequality a­mong Christians, in communicating of this sacred Banquet.] The Gospell commandeth the drinking of it; yea and Saint Augustine was so peremptory for the Common use of the Cup, that hee called Christian mensAug. Ser. 2. Feriae Pase [...]ae. Simul hoc sumimus, simul bibimus; quià simul vivimus. Teste Cas­sandro in Exposit. & Homilijs in Hymnum aquinatis. Nec cor­pus sine sanguine, nec sanguis sine corpore jure communicatur [...] at (que) is communican­di ritus usquè ad Tho. Aquin [...]tis [...]ta­tem & amplius in Ecclesia Catholica obtinuerat—tandem ista antiquà Distri­butio non, ut an [...]eà, necessaria, sed ut li­cita tantum haberi coeperit. Ibid. [Bibere] in this Sacrament, to bee their [Vivere] and that lawfully the one cannot bee communicated without the 10 other. ⚜Whereunto may bee added the Constant profession of theGraeci dicunt esse necessariò sub u­traque specie panis scilicet, & vini com­municandum, adeo quidem, ut qui sub una specie tantùm communicat, etiamsi laicus sit, peccate di­catur, quod (ut aiunt) contra Christi Prae­ceptum agat, qui sub utraque specie com­municare praecepit. Prateol. Elench. Haeret. lib. 7. tit. Graeci. [⚜For proofe that the Cause of Priest and people, in the receiving of this S [...]crament, is equall, we have these, Sayings of Antiquity. Dominica coena omnibus debet esse communis, quià dabatur omnibus Discipulis, qui aderant. Hier. in 1. Cor. c. 11. Est ubi nihil dissert Sacerdo [...] à subdito, ut in tremendis Christi mysterijs: non sicut in veteri lege partem Sacerdos, partem populus, & tunc non licebat po­pulo participare eorum, quorum particeps erat Sacerdos. Verùm nunc omnibus unum Corpus proponitur, unum poculum. Chrys [...]st. in 1. Cor. Hom. 27. Ille corpus aequaliter dedit, Tu autem quod commune est non commu­nicae: etenim pro omnibus pariter factum est, & [...] portione distributum. Cyprian. de Coena Dom. Haec mensa omnibus ex aequo proponitur. Theodoret. in 1. Cor. 11. Hic Calix pari—cunctis conditione tradi­tus. Theoph. [...] 1. Cor. 11.] Greeke Church, in obeying the Canon of Christ, and hol­ding it necessarily to be observed of the people also, by receiving in Both kindes; and that otherwise wee transgresse against the Institution of Christ.

All these Testimonies of Primitive Fathers, under the Con­fession of your owne Doctors (besides our other Collecti­ons) are so many Arguments of the Consonant Doctrine of Antiquity, for proofe of an Obligation of Precept upon the Churches of Christ whatsoever, for the preservation of the 20 perfect forme of Christs Ordinance, in the administring of the Sacrament in Both kindes. Vpon this evidence may you justly call your fellow-Priest Mr. Brerely to account for his bold As­sumption, saying, thatLiturg. Tract. 4. §. 9. pag. 425. a [...] Eighthly. No Doctor (speaking of ancient Fathers) can bee produced either expressely, or else by necessary Consequence, affirming the necessitie of the Laicks receiving under Both kindes: Your selves perceiving now not onely One, but many ancient Doctors to have expressed not only One, but Many Necessities inferring the same. And then you may furthermore question him for his next as lavish Assertion, affirming, in his fift An­swer, 30 that The Authorities objected, for the necessity of Both kinds, speake not of a Sacramentall, but onely of a spirituall Receiving with the mouth of their hearts. When shall we find conscionable dealing at this man's hands?

Having thus finished our Assumption, wee shall more expe­ditely satisfie such your Reasons, or rather Pretences, which you 40 bring to disguise your sacrilegious Abuse.

The Romish Pretences for their Innovation and Alteration of Christ his Institution, by the publique use of but One kind. SECT. X.

WEe heare theConcil. Trid. Sess. 21. Cap. 2. Gravibus et justis de Causis. Councel of Trent pretending (as they say) Iust reasons of altering the primitive Custome and use of both kindes, but naming none, which we may well thinke was because they deserved not the mention: surely, such they were, that your Iesuite had rather that you should beleeve 10 them, then try and examine them; It being your part (asPorrò causas, quae Ecclesiam move­runt, ut consuetudinē communicandi sub altera probaret, at (que) etiam pro lege obser­vanda esse decerne­ret, non tàm nostrum est discutere aut in­quireie, quàm ipsi Decreto simpliciter obtemperare, existi­maréque omninò eas fuisse justas, ut re­ctissimè ex Conc. Trid. definitum est. Greg. Volent. Ies. dele­git. usu Sacr. Euch c. 10. §. Porrò, p. 499. hee saith) Rather to thinke them just, then to discusse them. But wee are not bound to your Rules of blinde Obedience. God will have us to use the sight, which hee hath given us, lest If the blinde leade the blinde, both fall into the Ditch. And whether the Reasons, which are given by your Doctors, be not blinde Seduce­ments, wee are now to try. Some of your Reasons are taken from extraordinary Cases, some Instances are common to all other Churches Christian, and some are made as being peculiar to the Church of Rome. 20

The first kind of Romish Pretences, from extraordinary Cases.

The first pretence is thus alleaged;Ob inopiam vini, cujus in pleris (que) Christianitatis parti­bus magna penuria. Valent. ibid. & Sal­meron. Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 34. §. Ad quin­tum, pag. 279. And Rossens. in like man­ner. Bellar. also addeth another Reason to this: Movit Ecclesi­am uniformitas, ut Concordia populi Christiani in Sacra­mento hoc percipien­do, quod est Sacra­mentum pacis & unj­tatis, propter eos, a­pud quos vinum in­veniri non potest: ut sunt, aliquae provin­ciae boreales, ubi vi­num non invenitur, qui existimarent se Christo curae non fu­isse, aut non ità ut alias provincias, quandò Sacramentum instituit. Lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 28. Many Northerne Coun­tries are destitute of Wine, and therfore one kind is to be used for Concord, and Vniformity-sake. Will you be answered from your selves? Aquinas, making the same Objection of want of Wine, and Wheare in forreine Countries,Licet non in omnibus terris nascitur vinum aut triticum, tamen ad omnes terras facilè deferri potest, quantum sufficit ad usum hujus Sacra­menti. Aquin part. 3 qu. 74. Art. 1. Sufficit quòd Balsamum potest ad omnia loca transfetri, Idem. ibid. qu. 72. Art. 2. Resolveth that Notwithstanding, Wheate and Wine may be transported easily to all parts. Accordingly doth he resolve of the want of Balsame, u­sed in your Consecration, and yet it is farre more scarce than 30 Wine or Wheate. Yet what Northerne Country almost can you name, that hath not abundance of Wine for many persons, e­ven unto riot, and can they not as well have it in moderate mea­sure, for a sacred Rite?

But what talke you of Vniformity and Concord, in this Case of Alteration, (which are your two next Pretences) wherein not­withstanding the Church of Rome is dissenting from the Greeke, and all other Christian Churches in the World? Or if this were a necessary Cause, why did not your Church allow the use of Both kindes to the Church of Bohemia, but twice raised a fierce 40 warre against them? for which your IesuiteBis Princepes Germaniae ad Bohemos (quòd Communionem sub utra (que) specie communicarent) debellandos arma sump [...]cre, hortatore Cardinale Iuliano S. Angeli, Apostolicae sedis Legato doctissimo paritèt et rerum gerendarum prudentiâ ornatissimo viro: quanquàm bellum non satis felicitèr successit. Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 36 pag. 284. Salmeron see­meth [Page 79] to be full sorry; marrie it was, because that warre had not his wished successe. Is their Concord in Hostility? Againe, be­cause you (thirdly) pretend Vniformity also, why then do your consecrating Priests onely receive both kindes sacramentally, and all the other Priests in Communicating participate but in one? or how is it that you allow a privilege toSee a little af­ter at (p.) Popes, Cardi­nals, Monkes, and noble Personages, to receive in both kindes, and deny this liberty to Others? Is there likewise Vniformity in Disparity?

10 Your fourth Pretence is, because divers areMulti sunt ab­stemi [...], qui vinum non ferunt. Bellar. lib. 4. de Eucharist. cap. 28. Abstemious, and have an Antipathy against Wine, and some sickly persons also can hardly receive without Irreverent casting it up againe. If the particular reason, whichDicendum, quòd vinum modicè sump­tum non potest mul­tum aegrotanti noce­re. Aquinas part. 3. quaest. 74. Art. 1. Aquinas giveth, saying, That Wine moderately taken of such can do no hurt, may not satis­fie, yet this being also a Cause accidentall, and extraordinary, you ought to be regulated by this generall Rule, That extraor­dinary Cases ought not to justle out ordinary Lawes and Customes. For, that Command of Christ to his Apostles, Go preach to every Creature, stood good in the generall, albeit many men happe­ned 20 to be deafe. Saint Peter requireth of every Christian of sit yeares, that he be prepared to give an answer of his faith to eve­ry one that asketh; which precept was not therefore alterable, because of multitudes of many that were dumbe. Finally, to close up with you, he that by the rule of Hospitality is to cheere up his guests, doth not prescribe that, because some mens stomackes are queasie, and not able to endure Wine, or else some meates, therefore all others should be kept fasting from all meates and Drinkes: and the Eucharist (you know) is called by Saint Paul, The Supper of the Lord, and by ancient Fathers, an 30 holy See above Chap. 2. Sect. 9. in the Ch [...]ll. Banquet.

The second kind of Romish Pretences is of Such, which might have beene common to other Churches.

The other Causes above-mentioned were common to the primitive Church of Christ, wherein the use of Both kindes was (notwithstanding) preserved and continued; except that you will say, no Northerne Nations were Christians in those 40 times: and that no stomackes of Christians were dis-affected to wine, in loathing it, &c. But two other Pretences you have, which you thinke to be of more speciall-force, to forbid the use of this Sacrament in Both kindes; One is Because (saith yourPrimò movet Ecclesiam consuetu­do recepta, & appro­bata consensu Gen­tium & Populorum. Bellar. quo sup. Cardinall) such is the now-received and approved Custome of Nations and People. So he. But first to argue, that your Church did therefore forbid the use of both kindes, because she had approved the contrary Custome, is a meere Nugacitie [Page 80] and Tautologie; and as much as to say, Shee would forbid it, because shee would forbid it. Secondly, saying, that the Vse of but One kinde had indefinitely the Consent of Nations and Peo­ple, is a flat falsity, because (as hath beene confessed) The Greeke Church (not to mention AEthiopians, AEgyptians, Armenians, and Others) have alwayes held the Contrary Custome. Lastly, to justifie your Churches Innovation, in consenting to the humour of People of latter times, what can you censure it lesse than a grosse and absurd Indulgence?

The other Motive, which theMover Eccle­clesiam, & quidem vehementer Irreve­rentia & profanatio­nes tanti Sacramenti, quae vix evitari pos­sent in tanta fideli­um multitudine, si omnibus daretur sub utra (que) specie. Bellar. ibid. Cardinall calleth a Vehe­ment presumption, and which all your Objectors most earnestly 10 urge, is the Cause of Irreverence, lest the blood might be spilt, especially in such a multitude of faithfull Communicants: and also lest any particle of the Hoast fall to the ground, saith Master Liturg. tract. 4. §. 6. Brerely.

We have but foure Answers to this mighty Objection. First, that this was not held a Reason to Christ, or his Apostles, or to the Church of Christ, for many ages, when notwithstanding the multitudes of Communicants were innumerable. Secondly, that The Casuall spilling of the Cup, saith yourVtriusque speciei usum illicitum esse at (que) sacrilegium ait­falsum est, quòd usui Calicis annexum sic peccatum vel sacrile­gium, propter pericu­lum effusionis: nam si haberet adjunctum peccatum, neque Christus Dominus, neque Apostoli in primitiva Ecclesia, nec Orientales mo­do, nec Occidentales ante Conc. Constan­tiense, ne (que) deni (que) Sacerdotes celebran­tes eo uterentur ritu. Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 37. §. Deinde p 308. Salmeron, is no sinne, else would not Christ have instituted the use of the Cup: nor 20 would the Apostles, or Primitive Church aswell in the West as in the East, in their communicating; nor yet the Priest in consecra­ting, have used it. So he. We might adde, by the same reason should people be forbid the other part also, lest (as your Priest said) any particle thereof should fall to the ground. Furthermore, for the avoiding of Spilling, you (as your Cardinall Alan Cernuntur hodiè ex antiquitate relictae quaedam fistulae ar­genteae & aureae ve­lut canales, calicibus vetustioribus adjun­ctae, ut per eas sine effusione hauriri pos­set sanguis è calice, quarum in Ordinario Rom. sit mentio. Et adhuc in Missa so­lenni Pontificis ad­hibentur, ubi ministri Cardinales, aut il­lustriores personae communicant sub u­tra (que) specie, posterio­rem speciem fistulà hauriētes: sed ista in­strumenta non fuisse in usu apud plebem in parochialibus Ecclesijs planè existimo, sed tantum in sacris Cardinalium, Canonicorum, et Monachorum Conventibus. Alan. lib. 1. de Euch cap 47. p. 495. rela­teth) have provided Pipes of silver, which are used by Popes, Car­dinals, Monkes, and some other Illustrious lay-Personages. Surely, there being no respect of persons with God (as said Saint Peter) we thinke that he, who will be Saint Peter's Successor should have 30 taken out with Saint Peter that lesson of Christ, of loving the whole flocke of Christ, aswell Lambes as Sheepe; not to provide Pipes or Tunnels for himselfe alone, and his Grandes, for recei­ving this part of the Sacrament, and to neglect all other Chri­stians, albeit never so true members of Christ. For this wee all know, that1. Cor. 11. Ita (que) fratres mei, cum con­veneritis, invicem expectate.] Dominus ex aequo Tibi & pauperi mensam proprij corporis, & poculum sangui­nis tradidit. Teste Salmeron. les. Tom. 14. Disp. 19. pag. 153. Our Lord Christ prepared his table aswell for the poore as the Rich, according to the Apostles Doctrine, by your owne construction, answerable to the Doctrine of ancient Fathers. And that the Pretence of Reverence cannot be a suffi­cient Reason of altering the ordinance of Christ, we may learne 40 from ancient Histories, which evidently declare that the opini­on of Reverence hath often beene the Damme and Nourse of manifold Superstitions.

As for example, The Heretikes calledSee §. 9. Discalceati, in pre­tence of more humility, thought that they ought to goe bare-foote. TheSee above Sect. 8. (g) Encratitae, in pretence of more sanctity, abhorred marriage. TheAquarij solam aquam apponendam asserebant, sobeieta­tis conservandae cau­sâ vinum vitantes. Alsons. à Caflto cont. Id eres. Tit. Euchari­stia, Har. 6. Aquarij, in pretence of more sobriety, used water in this Sacrament. The Manichees wanted not their pre­tence of not drinking wine in the Eucharist, because they thought it was created by an evill Spirit. And yet were these judged by Pope Gelasius to be Sacrilegious. ⚜Hence was it that your Iesuite demanded,Nic. Causin. Ies in his booke called the Holy Court. pag. 539. How was it possible (saith he) that the 10 Heresie of Eutyches, being nousled under a false zeale of Reve­rence towards the person of the Sonne of God, might not in­snare the Empresse Pulcheria, a woman? Yea, and what greater defence had the Pharisees, for all their Superstitions, than that of Reverence? whom notwithstanding Christ did pierce thorow with so many Vae's, for annulling of the Precepts of God, by their Traditions, under the pretence of religious Reverence and sanctity.

In briefe. It was the opinion of Reverence that made Saint Peter to contradict our Lords Command, when he said, Thou 20 shalt never wash my feete: yet how dangerous it had beene for Peter to have persisted in opposition, the Reply of our Saviour doth declare: If I wash not thy feete (faith Christ) thou hast no part with me, &c. Vpon which Text SaintDiscamus Chri­stum, prout vult, ve­nerari, honorato nam (que) jucundissimus est honor, non quem nos putamus; nam & eum Petrus hono­rare putabat, cùm sibi pedes eum lavare prohibuit: sed non erat honor, quem a­gebac, sed contrarium Chrysost. Hom. 60. ad pop. Antioch. Tom. 1. Chrysostome rea­deth unto you this Lecture. Let us therefore learne (saith he) to honour and reverence Christ, as he would, and not as wee thinke meete. And sure we are, that he would that same which he com­manded, saying, [Do this.] Therefore our next Difference, be­tweene our defence and yours, is no other than obedient Reve­rence, and irreverent, or rather irreligious Disobedience.

30 As for your Pretence of manifesting hereby aSi sic tanta esset degnitas Laico­rum, circà sumptio­nem corporis Chri­sti, quanta Clerico­rum? Gerson. Tract. de utra (que) specie. Greater dignity of Priests than of Laicks; it is too phantasticall for the sin­gularity; too harsh for the noveltie; and too gracelesse for the impietie thereof: seeing that Christ, who gave his Body and Blood an equall price of Redemption for all sorts, would have the Sacrament of his Body and Blood equally administred to People, as to Priests; as you have heard the Fathers themselves pro­fesse.

The Third kinde of Romish Pretences, which are more pe­culiar 40 to their owne Church, in two points.

First, becauseMovit Eccle­siam, ad hunc usum stabiliendum & lege firmandum, quòd vi­deret, ab Haereticis, et ex errore oppug­nari. Sacramentarij autem non credunt Concomitantiam sanguinis Domini cùm corpore in specie panis: undè etiam ij Lutheranorum maximè urgent utram (que) speciem, qui cum Sacramentarijs rident Concomita [...] ­tiam. Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. c. 28. §. Secundò. Heretikes (saith Bellarmine, and meaning Pro­testants) do not believe Concomitancie, that is to say, that the blood of Christ is received under the forme of bread: but for this Con­comitancie the Church was moved to prescribe the use of the Eucha­rist [Page 82] in one kinde. So he. And this point of Concomitancse is that whichIn his booke de­dicated to K. Iames. Master Fisher, andIn his Liturg. of the Masse pag. 396. Master Brerely most laboured for, or rather laboured upon. And albeit your Romane Maximè om­nium ad convellen­dam eorum haeresin, qui negabant sub u­tra (que) specie corpus Christi contineri. Catech. Rom. par. 2. c. 4. nu. 50. Ca­techisme judgeth this the principall Cause of inducing your Church to preferre one kinde: yet wee (whom you call Here­tikes) believe that the devout Communicant, receiving Christ spiritually by faith, is thereby possessed of whole Christ crucifi­ed, in the inward act of the Soule: and only deny, that the Whole is received Sacramentally, in this outward act, under one onely part of this Sacrament, which is the present Question.10

And in this wee say no more than your Bishop Iansenius judg­ed reasonable, who hath rightly argued, saying, Verùm non fa­cilè apparet quomo­dò apertè exterior il­la sumptio dici possit bibitio: manducatio rectè dicitur, quià su­mitur aliquid ibi per modum cibi: sed quo­modò bibitio, cùm nihil sumatur per modum potus? non n. diceremus eum & manducare et bibere, qui panem tinctum vino sumeret, quam­vis sumat quod fa­mem tollat et sitim. Proindè, secundùm horum sententiam videtur omninò di­cendum—cum di­citur manducare, & bibere, non ratione actus exterioris, qui manducationis tan­tùm speciem habet: sed ratione actus in­terioris, nempe, ratio­ne fidei. Iansen. Con­cord in Evang. pag. 457. It doth not easily appeare how the outward receiving of Christ, under the forme of Bread, should he called Drinking, but onely Eating, being recei­ved after the manner of meates, as that is called Drinking onely, which is received after the manner of drinke. Drinking therfore and Eating are distinguished by Christ, in the outward Act. So he, even as your owne Durand Rationale. lib. 4. c. 54. Vna pars abs (que) alia sumpta non est com­pletum Sacramen­tum, cùm panis cor­pus significat, non potest sacramentali­ter sumi sinè altera specie. before him had truly concluded, with whom Master See Booke 2. Cap. 2. § 4. Brerely will beare a part.

Therefore your Concomitancie (if wee respect the Sacramen­tall 20 manner of Receiving) is but a Chimaera, and as great a Sole­cisme as to say, that the Body and Bones of Christ are drunke, and his Blood eaten: contrary to the Sacramentall representa­tion, in receiving Bread and Wine, as hath beene proved.

Next, when wee aske you, why onely your Church will not reforme and regulate her Custome, according to the Insti­tution of Christ, and the long practice of the primitive Church? you answer plainly, and without Circumlocution, that the Rea­son is, Lest that your Church might seeme to have erred in her alte­ration if the ancient Custome. And this yourSecunda ratio, quià qui Concomitantiam negant, ex alio perni­tioso errore petunt utram (que) speciem: quià nimirum existimant jure divino esse praeceptum; & propterea totam Ecclesiam longo tempore in hac re turpiter enâssè. Bellar. quo. sup. §. Secundo. Cardinall Bellar­mine 30 and the IesuiteRectissimè facit Eccle­sia, quod ipsa praxi contratiâ refutat eorum haeresin, qui utram (que) speciem jure divino necessariam omnibus esse perperam contendunt. Quae ratio jure optimo inter caetera cosiderata est in Conc. Constant. contra Bohemos; & in Conc. Trident. contra recen [...]iores Sectarios. Greg. de Valent. Ies. Tract. de usu Eucharist. cap 10 §. De­indè, pag 499. Valentian use and urge as a neces­sary Reason, for confutation of Protestants, who held the necessity of publike Communion in Both kindes. Which Reason your owne Orator Gaspar Cardillo proclaimed as (in a manner) the sole cause of continuing your degenerated use, Ego existimo, Patres, non solùm nullam legitimam causàm essè, sed ne (que) fingi posse, cur de consensu vestro Laici calicem bibant: ne (que) pati ullo modo velitis à more vestro quempiam decedere latum unguem.—Inprimis, quoniam Ecclesia illud praecepit, ut alteram tantùm speciem Laicis porrigamus, cut meritò nobis obtemperandum est, quià nihil agit sine magna ratione, ne (que) in hujusmodi legibus ferendis er­rare potest. Deni (que) si latam legem nullâ evidenti necessitate convellatis (Patres) suspicari multis in mentem veniet, aut vos illam temerè aullo (que) consilio tulisse olim suscipisse (que), aut susceptam cùm ratione & servatam diutissimè in Christiana Republica, nulla vel causa vel ratione pro nihilo ducere, quo nihil sieri potest gravirate vestrâ, aut hujus amplissimi ordinis majestate indignius. G [...]spar Cardillo Villalpand. Orat. apud Act. Conc. Trid. pag. 219 221. 222. Lest that the Church (saith hee) may seeme to have erred. 40 [Page 83] What can more savour of an Hereticall and Antichristian spi­rit, than this pretence doth? For an Heretike will not seeme to have erred, and Antichrist will professe himselfe one that cannot erre: which Character of not personall erring was ne­ver assumed of any particular Church, excepting only the lat­ter Church of Rome.

Our Assumption. But the Church of Rome (which will seeme that shee cannot possibly erre, in her not administring the Cup unto Laickes) is knowne to have erred 600. yeares to­gether 10 in the abuse of the same Sacrament, by administring it (in an opinion of Necessity) unto Infants, as hath beene plenti­fully See above Chap. 2. Sect. 11. witnessed by eminent Doctors in your owne Church. Hence therfore ariseth another difference; betweene the pro­fession of our Custome and yours, which is, betweene Christ and Antichrist. All this while you do not perceive that your opinion of Concomitancie will ruinate the foundation of your Doctrine of Transubstantiation. But hereofIn the third Book. hereafter.

20 The seventh Comparison is betweene the maner of Instituti­on, and manner of Alteration thereof. SECT. XI.

THe beginning of the Institution in Both kindes is knowne and acknowledged to have beene authorized by him, who is the [...] of the new Testament, even Christ our Lord, by whom it was established and published among all his Disci­ples, at his last Supper. But your Custome of only One kinde, 30 How (wee beseech you) came it into your Church? tell us. Nullâ praecep­torum vi, sed con­sensu quodam taci­to tàm populi quàm Cleri sensim irrep­sit dicta consuetudo. Roffens. con Cap Ba­byl. Tract. de utraque Specie, f. 28. Estque hoc diligenter no­tandum, alterius spe­ciei communionem non tam Episcopo­rum mandato, quàm populi usu & facto conniventibus tamen praesulibus, irrepsi le: populus enim ob va­ria incommoda pau­latim à Calice absti­nebat. Episcopi prop­ter varia effusionis sanguinis, aliaque pericula tacendo hanc abstinentiam comprobabant: quae abstinentra à calice cùm tempore Constantiensis Concilij ferè per Europam universalis esset, non erat damnanda, sed con­tra Haereticos insurgentes defendenda. Coster. Ies. Enchirid. Tract. de Commun. sub utraque specie. pag 359. Credere par est, ex communi fidelium populorum & Orthodoxorum Praesulum tacito consensu receptam: quando autem primum inceperit, mihi non constar. Alfons. de Castro l. 6. Tit. Eucharistia, Haer. ult. It came not in by any precept, but crept in by little and little, by the abstinence of the people, and by the Tacite and silent con­sent of the Bishops. So your Bishop Roffensis, and your Iesuite Costerus, and Fryer Castro. This confessed unknowne manner of Alteration of this your Custome, as it doth utterly refute your common Objection, viz. That every Doctrine and Custome must beejudged ancient and Catholike, the beginning whereof is not knowne; so doth it more especially put your Master Brerely to his blush, who durst make the same Objection in this very 40 Case, in defence of the use of but One kinde, to proove it to have beene from the beginning, because No first knowne be­ginning of our Catholike practice (Li­turg Tract. 4. §. 9. at the ead thereof. saith he) can bee instanced. [Page 84] And yet behold here no certaine beginning of this Romish Cu­stome; yet notwithstanding confessed to be an Alteration, diffe­rent from the Custome, which formerly for a thousand yeares was held a Catholike Custome.

Was not the Church of Rome then a wise and a worthy Mistris of Churches, trow you; to suffer her selfe to be guided by the humour of People in a matter of this nature? what other diffe­rence can this make betweene our Custome and yours, but that which is betweene divine Ordinance and popular negligence? or as betweene a publike Professor, and a Theevish Creeper? Heresie is certainly a disease, but wore you what? the2. Tim. 2. 15. Apostle 10 noteth it to be a Cancer, or Gangrene, which is a disease Creeping by little and little, from joynt to joynt, untill it have eaten up the vitall parts; such a Cancer was this your Custome, if you shall stand to your owne former Confessions.

Our last Comparison is betweene the Contrary Dispositions of Professors, one in continuing, and distinguishing; a second in mixing; the third in rejecting Both kindes. SECT. XII.20

THe comparison, betweene the divers Dispositions of Pro­fessors, none will be more willing to shew than your Iesuite Quod verò at­rinet ad tempora, tri­plicem in coetu Chri­stiano statum, Nico­laus de Cusano Car­dinalis expendit; fer­ventis nimirùm, ca­lidae, & frigentis. Ini­tio enim fuit Ecclesia ad fundendum pro Christo sanguinem fervens, & tunc data est illi utra (que) species, ut sanguinem Domi­ni bibens, sanguinem suum pro illo liben­ter effunderet.—In sequenti statu Eccle­sia fuit calida, licèt non ità fervens, & tunc non dabatur bina species, sed panis tantùm sanguine infusus, ut ex quibusdam veterum Patrum sententiis Concilijisque colligi potest. Tertius status est Ecclesiae frigentis ac tepidae, & in ea tantùm altera species, panis scilicet, sine infusione sanguinis Laicis dispensatur, Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 34. §. Quod verò. pag. 277. Salmeron, who will have you, out of Cardinall Cusanus, to ob­serve three States of the Church. The first is in her Fervencie; The second in her Warmnes; The third in her Coldnes. In the first state of her Fervencie, when the Christians affected Martyr­dome for the Gospell of Christ, then did the People (saith he) com­municate in both kindes. In the second state, which was in her Warmnes (though not so hot boyling as before) They then used 30 to dip the Hoast into the Chalice, and so were made joyntly par­takers of Both, in one. But in the third state of Coldnes, the peo­ple were allowed the Sacrament only under one kinde. So he.

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.

A GENERALL CHALLENGE, Concerning this last Transgression of Christ his Massè. 20 SECT. XIII.

IN this wee are to make an open discovery of the odious Vn­charitablenesse, the intolerable Arrogancie, the vile Perju­ry, the extreame Madnesse, and Folly, together with a note of plaine Blasphemie of your Romish Disputers, in Defence of this one Romane Custome of forbidding the Cup to faithfull Commu­nicants. For what Vn [...]aritablenesse can be more odious, than when they cannot but confesse, that there is more spirituall grace in the receiving of the Communion in Both kindes, do notwith­standing boast, even in the open Councel of Trent, of some of 30 their Professors, who, in obedience to the Church of Rome, do not onely (See the last te­stimonie above. their owne words) not desire the Cup of life, but also dare not so much as desire it. Which Vaunt, wee thinke, besides the Impietie thereof, inferreth a note of prophane Tyranny.

Secondly, when wee compare these Fathers of Trent, with the Fathers of most primitive Antiquity, they answer,Tertio loco ob­jiciunt Ecclesiae sapi­entiam, antiquita­tem, atque potesta­tem; atque potesta­tem; aiunt enim, Ec­clesiam primitivam, quae antiquior & sci­entiâ at (que) vitae san­ctitate praestantior erat, utraque specie usam fuisse: nostra igitur illam imitari debet, praesertim eum eandem atque illa habet potestatem in ejusmodi legibus positi­vis sive abrogandis sive dispensandis. Respondemus, non esse dubium quin Ecclesia primitiva nostrae majore charitate, ac proindè uberiori sapientia praecelluerit, nihilominus tamen interdum contingit minùs sapientem in aliquo maliùs sapere, quâm alium absolute sapientiorem. Saepe etiam accidit, minùs perfectum hominem vitare aliquem errorem, quem melior non vitat. Salmcron. Ies. Tom. 9. Tractat. 38. §. Tertio loco. pag. 320. Al­though the primitive Church (say they) did exceed our's in Zeale, Wisdome, and Charity, neverthelesse, it falleth out sometimes, that the wiser may in some things be lessè wise than another. Which an­swer, 40 if wee consider the many Reasons, which you have heard the Fathers give, for the use of Both kinds, and their consonant practice thereof, what is it but a vilifying of the authority of all [Page 86] ancient Fathers? and indeed (as the saying is) To put upon them the Foole. The like answer two of their Iesuites made to the Practice of the Apostles, saying that your Church, having the same spirit, hath the same power to alter the Custome: whereas we have proved, that the ground which the Apostles lay, for their Custome, was the Institution of Christ. But that which the Ro­mane Church allegeth, is meerely a Pretence of Plenitude of her owne Authority; It is impossible therefore that in so great a Contradiction there should be the same Spirit. And can there be a more intollerable Arrogancie than is this, which this Ro­mane 10 spirit bewrayeth in both these?

Thirdly, upon the Consideration of this their Contempt of Apostolicall and primitive Antiquity, in this Cause, wee finde that your Romish Priests are to be condemned of manifest per­jurie also; for in the Forme of Oath, for the profession of the Ro­mish Faith, every Priest and Ecclesiasticke is swornForma Iura­menti, per Bullam Pij quarti. Apostoli­cas & Ecclesiasticas Traditiones admit­to,—Ego spon­deo, & juro, &c. To admit of all Apostolicall and Ecclesiasticall Traditions; as also to hold what theCaetera omnia à Concilio Tridenti­no declarata & con­firmata firmissimè te­neo. Ibid. Romanam Ecclesiam Magistram esse Ecclesiarum cre­do, &c. Councel of Trent hath decreed. But this Custome of administration of Both kindes, as hath been acknowledged, was an Apostolicall Custome, and from them also remained in an 20 Ecclesiasticall profession and practice thorow-out a thousand yeares space; which your Church of Rome, notwithstanding, in her Councel of Trent, (whereunto likewise you are sworne) hath altered and perverted: which doth evidently involve your Priests, and Iesuites in a notorious and unavoydable Per­jurie.

Fourthly, As for the note of Foolishnesse, what more mad folly can there be seene in any, than to take upon them a serious Defence of a Custome, for satisfaction of all others, and yet to be so unsatisfied among themselves? so that both the Obje­ctions 30 urged by Protestants against that Abuse, are fortified, and also all your Reasons for it are refuted, either by the direct Te­stimonies of your owne Doctors, or by the common Principles and Tenents of your Church, or else by the Absurdities of your Consequences issuing from your Reasons and Answers; divers of them being no lesse grosse, than was your objecting the An­tiquity and Generality of the particular Romane Church, for lesse than three hundred yeeres, and to preferre it before the confes­sed Vniversall primitive Custome of above the Compasse of a Thousand yeares continuance before the other.40

Fiftly, the last is the note of Blasphemy; for this name the contempt of Christ his last Will and Testament must needs de­serve; and what greater contempt can there be, than contrary to Christ his [Do this] (concerning Both kinds) to professe that Sacrilegious dismembring of the holy Sacrament, which Gelasius the Pope himselfe had anciently condemned? or if this be not Blasphemous enough, then, supposing that Christ indeed had [Page 87] commanded Consecration in Both kindes, upon divine right, yet notwithstanding to hold it very probable (as saith your Iesuit Licet Gabriel, & quidam alij senti­unt divini juris esse, ut Sacerdos in utra (que) specie sacrificet, ni­hilominùs tamen o­pinantur authoritate Romani Pontificis fieri posse, ut in una tantum specie sacri­ficet, viz. in conse­cratione panis sine vino, quià putant multa esse juris divi­ni, quae remittere & relaxare queat Pon­tifex ob publicam a­liquam & gravem necessitatem: ut vi­demus votum, jus-j [...] ­randum, Matrimo­nium ratum, non consummatum, au­thoritate Pontificis relaxari & dissolvi. Et ità in hac questio­ne prima puto proba­bilius & verius esse (ut dixi) juris esse divini, ut Sacerdos in duplici specie sacrifi­cet. Et nihilominùs existimo valdè pro­babile, authoritate Pontificiâ, ob publi­cam & urgentem ne­cessitatem, praedi­ctum jus divinum re­laxari posse. Sed quia nunquàm est rela­xatum, ego consili­um darem ut nun­quàm relaxaretur. A­zorius Iesuit. Tom. 1. Iustit. Moral. lib. 10. cap. 19. §. Tertium. pag. 857. Azorius) that the authority of the Pope may dispense therewith. But because Divine right was never yet dispensed with, I (saith hee) would give my Councel that it never may be. O Iesuite! thus to deale with Christ his Command. If hee or any other Ie­suite had made as bold with the Pope⚜Extravag. de verbo signific. Tit. 14. Cap. 4. G [...]ossa. Do­minum Deum no­strum Papam. insituled in your pub­like Glosse, OVR LORD GOD THE POPE) as this doth with Christ himselfe, saying unto him; Any of your decrees (holy 10 Father) may be dispenced with by any Iesuite of our Societie: yet because no Iesuite hath taken upon him hitherto so much, my councell is that none of your Deerees be ever dispensed withall. The Pope, wee suppose, albeit he would thanke this man for his councell, for not Doing so; yet doubtlesse, would he reward him with a welcome into the office of his holy Inqui­sition, for his judgement, to thinke it lawfull so to do: namely, to leave it to the discretion of every Iesuite, to dispense with his Papall Decrees. And notwithstanding the Iesuites [Suppose] wee may depose, that your Romish licence, for but One kinde, 20 is a dispencing, or rather a despising of the Ordinance of Christ.

⚜And this the Iesuites themselves do thinke,See above in this Chapter, Sect. 3. in the Chal. 1. which may appeare in that Conclusion, which your Iesuite Vasquez gave concerning Christ Consecrating the Eucharist but in one kinde before his Disciples at Emmaus. Where he resolved, that This was an act of Christs Supreme authority, not imitable by the Church. And that the necessary Obligation of Consecrating in Both kindes is not dispensable by the Pope. So hee. Wherfore the Act of Christ being equally an Administration in only 30 one kinde, and Both these equally done by the same Supreme Excellencie, and authority of Christ; the determination and Resolution must necessarily be this. That the Administra­tion and Consecration in only One kinde are equally Indi­spensable.

We are already wearied with citing of the manifold, vilde, odious, and irreligious Positions of your Disputers and Pro­ctors, for this your Cause; yet one Pretence more may not be pretermitted, least we might seeme to contemne the wit and zeale of your Iesuite Salmeron, against the use of this Sacrament 40 in Both kindes. The use of Both kinds (saithDispensandus non est utrius (que) spe­ciei usus Hereticis, quia non sunt danda sancta Canibus: nec Catholicis, quia debent distingui ab Haereticis, qui communicant sub duabus. Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 37. 5. His potius. pag. 411. he) is not to bee allowed to Catholikes, because they must bee distinguished from Heretikes: nor to Heretikes, because holy things are not to bee given unto Dogges. Now blessed be God! that we are esteemed as Heretikes and Dogges, to be distinguished from them, in this [Page 88] and other so many commanded Acts, wherein they have distin­guished themselves from all Primitive Fathers, from the Apo­stles of Christ, and from Christ himselfe.

An Appeale unto the ancient Popes and Church of Rome, against the late Romish Popes and Church; in Confutation of their former Transgressions of Christ his Institution. SECT. XIV.10

THe ancient Popes and Church of Rome were (as all the world will say) in authority of Command, and in sincerity of judgement equall, and in integrity of life Superiour unto the latter Popes of Rome and Church therof; yet the ancient held it as a matter of Conscience for the Church, in all such Cases belonging to the Eucharist, to be conformable to the Precept 20 and Example of Christ, and of the Apostles. So, you have heard,P. Calixtus. See above Chap. 2. Sect. 9. Pope Calixtus (Anno Christi, 218.) requiring all persons present at the Masse to Communicate. For which rea­son it was (wee thinke) that PopeP. Greg. Ibid. at ( [...]) Gregory (Anno 60 [...].) commanded every one present at the Masse, and not purposing to Communicate, to Depart. There is an History related by AEneas Sylvius (after, Pope Pius the Second) which sheweth the reason why anotherSee above Chap 2. Sect 7. Chall. 6. (21) Pope of Rome, with his Consistory, yeelded a liberty to the Sclavonians, to have Divine Service in their Nationall Language, and reporteth that it was thorow the 30 sound of that voice (which is written in the Psalmes) Let every tongue praise the Lord. P. Iulius. See above Chap. 3. Sect. 3. Pope Iulius (Anno 336.) was much busied in repressing the Sopping of bread in the Chalice, and o­ther like abuses of the Sacrament in his time: and the reason, which he gave, was this; Because (quoth he) these Customes are not agreeable to Evangelicall and Apostolicall Doctrine: and our Church of Rome doth the same. Where he addeth, concerning the manner of Communicating,Ibid. Wee reade (saith hee) that both the Bread and Cup were distinctly and severally delivered. As if he had meant, with the same breath, to have confuted your 40 other Romish Transgression in distributing to the people the Sa­crament, but in one of Both. And who can say but that Gregory and Leo, both Popes,See above Chap. 3. Sect. 5. observing the same use of Christ, had the same Resolution? Sure we are that PopeP. Gelasius. See above Chap. 3. Sect. 3. (r.) Gelasius (Anno 404) called the Abuse, in dismembring of this Sacrament, by re­ceiving but in One kinde, A Grand Sacrilege.

[Page 89] Wee reade of a Councell held at Toledo in Spaine, under Pope Sergius, stiledSynod. Tolet. 16.—Conc. Generale, sub Sergio Papa Ba­ron. ad An. 693. This Councel, cap 6 saith. Quontam quidā non panes mundos atque integros, sed crussu­l [...]m & particulam of­ferunt—quod ne­quaquam in sacrae authoritatis historia gestum perpenditur; ubi legitur Christum benedixisse & dedisse panem, &c Apud B [...] ­nium, Tom 3. And this being, by Baroni­ [...], a Generall Coun­cel, could not conclude without the Popes consent, in your judge­ments. Generall (Anno 69 [...].) reproving those Priests who offered Bread in crusts and lumps. But with what reason were they reprehended? Because (saith the Councell) that fashion is not found in the Sacred storie of the Evangelists. All those ancient Popes, who held the Example of Christ, in his In­stitution and Apostolicall Customes, to be necessary Directions of Christ his Church in such points, concerning the ministration of this Sacrament, being so utterly repugnant to your now Ro­mish 10 Opinions and Practices; it must follow, that those former Popes being admitted for Iudges, whom all Christians acknow­ledged to have beene Apostolicall in their Resolutions, the now Romish Church and her degenerate Profession must needs be judged Apostaticall.

Now,20 30 40 from the former Actuall, we proceed to the Doctri­nall 20 30 40 points.

THE SECOND BOOKE,10 Concerning the first Doctrinall Point, which is the Inter­pretation of the words of Christ's Institution; [THIS 20 IS MY BODY: THIS IS MY BLOOD.] LVKE 22.

The Doctrinall and Dog­maticall Points are to be di­stinguished into your Ro­mish.

  • 1. Interpreation of the words of Christ his Institution; [This is my Body, &c.]
  • 2. Consequences deduced from such your Expositions: such as are Transubstantiation, Corporall Presence, and the rest.

CHAP. I.30
Of the Exposition of the words of Christ, [THIS IS MY BODY.]
The State of the Question in Generall.

BEcause (asIn scripture ex­plicandà haeresis est manifesta, sicut figu­rata propriè accipere, ità quae sunt propriè dicta ad Tropicā lo­cutionem detorquere: nam in verbis [Eu­nuchi sunt qui se ca­strāt propter regnum coelorum &c.] Aug. and to the same pur­pose also, lib. 3. de Doctr. Christ. Saint Augustine saith of points of faith) It is as manifest an He­resie, in the interpretation of Scriptures, to take figurative speeches properly, as to 40 take Proper speeches figuratively (And such is the CAVEAT, which—Hoc caven­dum, nisi in manife­stum Haerescos sco­pulum impingere ve­limus Salm. Ies. Tom. [...] Proleg. 12. pag. 227. Sal­meron the Iesuite giveth you) it will concerne both You and Vs (as we will avoid the brand of Heresie) to search ex­actly into the true sense of these words of Christ; especially seeing wee are herein to deale with the Inscription of the Seale [Page 91] of our Lord IESVS, even the Sacrament of his Body and Blood. In the which Disquisition, besides the Authority of Ancient Fathers, wee shall insist much upon the Ingenuity of your owne Romish Authours.

And what Necessitie there is to enquire into the true sense of these words, will best appeare in the after-examination of the diversSee hereafter Booke, 3. 4. 5. 6. Consequences of your owne Sense, to wit, your Do­ctrine of Transubstantiation, Corporall, andGratian Sa­cramenta Christi sus­cipiendo, carnem ejus & sanguinem mate­rialiter significamus. De consecrat. dist [...] Quà morte. Materiall Pre­sence, Propitiatory Sacrifice, and proper Adoration: All which 10 are Dependants upon your Romish Exposition of the former wordes of Christ. The Issue then will be this, that if the words be certainly true, in a Proper and literall sense, then wee are to yeeld to you the whole Cause: But if it be necessarily Figura­tive, then the ground of all these your Doctrines being but san­dy, the whole Structure and Fabricke, which you erect there­upon, must needs ruine and vanish. But yet know withall, that we do not so maintaine a Figurative sense of Christ his Speech, concerning his Body, as to exclude the Truth of his Body, or yet the truly-Receiving thereof, as the Third and Fourth Bookes 20 following will declare.

That a Figurative sense of Christ his speech [THIS IS MY BODY, &c.] is evinced out of the words themselves; from the Principles of the Romish Schooles. SECT. I.

30 THere are three words, which may be unto us as three keyes to unlocke the questioned Sense of Christs words; wher­of two are the Pronoune [THIS] and the Verbe [IS] not onely as they were then spoken by Christ himselfe, but also as they are now pronounced by the Minister of Christ. And the third key is the Pronoune [MY] whereof hereafter. Wee be­gin with the word [THIS.]

40 The State of the Question, about the word [THIS.]

When wee shall fully understand by your Church (which Conc. Trident. Sess. 13. cap. 1. Verba illa à Christo com­memorata, & à Divo Paulo repetita, pro­priam significatio­nem prae se ferunt. holdeth a Proper and literall Signification) what the Pronoune [THIS] doth demonstrate, then shall wee truly inferre an in­fallible proofe of our figurative sense.

All Opinions concerning the Thing, which the word [THIS] in the divers opinions of Authours, pointeth at, may be redu­ced [Page 92] to Three heads, (Vasquez in 3. Thom. Disp. 201. cap. 1. Omnes opiniones ad tres tantùm calsses reduci possunt: nam quidam [Hoc] reserunt ad substan­tam panis: alij ad a­liquod commune, quod statim post con­versionem demon­stret. Deni (que) non­nulli ad id solum quod in sine prolati­onis verborum, quod est corpus. as you likewise confesse:) namely, to signifie either This Bread, or This Body of Christ, or else some Third thing different from them both. Tell you us, first, what you hold to be the opinion of Protestants? Lutherans and all Calvinists (saith yourLutherani & omnes Calvinistae pronomen [Hoc] propane positum esse dicunt, quià panem Christus in manu acceperat, & di [...]it [Hoc est corpus meum.] Ma [...]don. Ies. in Matth. 26. §. H [...]c omnes.—Lutherus in verba Evangelistae. Habent hunc sensum; Hic panis est corpus meum. Iesuite) thinke that the Pronoune [THIS] pointeth out Bread. But your Romane Doctors are at oddes a­mong themselves, and divided into two principall Opinions. Some of them referre the word [THIS] to Christ's Body, Some to a Third thing, which you call Individuum vagum. In the first place wee are to confute both these your Expositions; and after to confirme our owne.10

That the first Exposition of Romish Doctors, of great learning, (re­ferring the word [THIS] properly to Christ his Body) perverteth the sense of Christ his Speech; by the Confessions of Romish Doctors. SECT. II.20

DIvers of your Romish Divines of speciall note, as well Ie­suites as Others, interpret the word [This] to note the Bo­dy of Christ, as it is present in this Sacrament, at the pronuncia­tion of the last syllable of this speech [Hoc est corpus meum:] Because they are wordsSee hereafter, let. (k. n. o.) &c. Practicall, (say they) that is, working that which they signifie (namely) The Body of Christ. And this sense they call Most cleare: and, in their Iudgements, there can be no better than this. So your[Hoc] designat corpus, ut est in termino prolationis: & hic est sensus lu­culentissimus. Staple­ton. Prompt. Cath. serm. Heb. sacra upon these words, [Hoc est corpus meum.] Stapleton, Hoc] nihil aliud quàm corpus Christi demonstrat. Sand. de visib. Monarch. Ad annum 1549 p. 629. Sanders, to­gether withDe­monstrat corpus ipsum, in quod panis convertitur in sine propositionis; nec est Tautologia, quemadmodum neque in illo, [Hic est filius dilectus.] B [...]rrad. Ies. de Inst. Euch. c. 4. Barradius, Vrique pronomen [Hoc] quod attributi locum tenet, necessariò spectat, [Hoc est, inquit Christus, corpus meum] id est opus, quod ego pa­nem accipiens, & benedicens, operor, & conficio, corpus meum est. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9. Tract 9. pag. 120. §. Ad hoc. [Of which last clause of Salmeron, Hoc, id est, Hoc opus, I say onely that Opus erat Salmeroni medico] Salemeron, Chavaus. Ies Comment. in formam juramenti fidei, inscriptio libri est, Professio verae fidei, §. 49. pag. 468. Chavausius; these last three being Iesuites; to whom you may addeIn his booke of the Liturgie of the Masse, pag. 138. Tract. 2. Sect. 3. Master 30 Brerely his Answere, saying that these words Most evidently relate to Christs Body. As evidently (saith also your Iesuite Nallou [...] his late Reply against Doctor V [...]her, pag 204. Malloun) as one pointing at his Booke, should say, This is my Book.

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.

40 Similitudes objected, for defence of their former Exposition, and confuted by their owne fellowes.

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.

That the second Romish Exposition, referring the Pronoune [THIS] to demonstrate a Third thing, called Individuum vagum, or In­determinate 40 substance, perverteth the sense of Christ his speech [THIS IS MY BODY:] proved by the Confession of Romish Doctors. SECT. III.

A Third thing, differing both from Bread and the Body of Christ, which Romish Sophisters have lately invented, is [Page 96] that which they call Individuum vagum; by which is meant, a substance confusedly taken; as when one (to use your owne ex­ample) having an Hearb in his hand shall say, This hearb groweth in my garden: in which speech the word, Hearb, which is de­monstrated by the Pronoune, This, is not taken determinately, for that singular Hearb in his hand, (for that doth not now grow in his garden) but is taken vagè and confusedly, for the common Species, nature, or kind of that hearb. And this opi­nion is defended bySententia haec est, Pronomine il­lo designari aliquid commune Substantiae panis & corporis Christi; Commune (inquam) non se­cundùm Rem, (illud enim nullum esse po­test) sed secundùm rationem seu deno­minationem, viz. sub ratione contenti, sub his accidentibus continetur corpus meum. Ita Guitmandus (where he reckons up 15 other School men:) ubi Pronomen [Hoc] substantive sumitur, & demonstrat in confuso Ens, sivè substantiam con­tentam sub illis speciebus—ut cùm quis dicat, Haec herba nascitur in horto meo: illud Pronomen [Haec] non significat hanc numero herbam, sed herbam huic similem Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. in Thom. Disput. 58. §. 7. pag. 755. Secundùm rationem Substantiae tùm communem tùm Individuam vagam. Greg. de Valent. lib. 1. de Praesent. corp. Christi. cap. 9. §. Respondemus. pag 377. Quia Sacramenta significant quod efficiunt, & non efficitur in hoc Sacramento ut corpus Christi sit corpus Christi, quia ita semper fuit, nec ut panis sit corpus Christi, id enim fieri nequit, sed efficitur, ut sub speciebus illis sit corpus Christi, sub quibus anteà erat panis: [Hoc] non demonstrat panem, vel corpus, sed contentum sub speciebus. Bellar. lib. 1. de Eucharist. cap. 11. §. Est igitur. Bellarmine, with other Iesuites, and Doctors of your Church, (* Sixteene in number ) as the one­ly 10 sufficient and conclusive Resolution of this point, touching the proper Exposition of the words of Christ, concerning the Pronoune, THIS.

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.

The third Proposition, which is (according to the judgement of Protestants) that there is a Tropicall and unproper sense, in the Pronoune [THIS.]

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.

That it is impossible for Bread to be called the Body of Christ; or Wine his Blood, without a Figure. SECT. IV.

THe common Dictate of naturall Reason, imprinted by 10 God in man's heart, is a Maxime, and hath in it an univer­sall Verity, which neither man nor Divell can gain-say, and is Confessed by your selves, viz. Disparatum de disparato non pro­priè praedicatur; That is, nothing can be properly and literally affirmed joyntly of another thing, which is of a different nature, viz. It is impossible to say properly that an Egge is a Stone or (to take your owne Disparatum de disparato non p [...]aedicatur, valet igi­tur argumentum Si [...]oc est lac, non est terrum: ita etiam valebit, Si hoc est corpus non est panis; cum repugnet, u [...]am n [...]turam de alt [...]râ diversâ dici, ut homi­nem eise equum, ci­tra tropum, vel Me­taphoram. Salm Ies. Tom 9. Tract. 16. §. Primum igitur p. 109. examples) wee cannot call A man an horse, without a Trope or figure, because their natures are repugnant. So Salmeron. And this he holdeth necessary. Or thus: Ne ipse qui­dem Deus, qui est summa veritas, un­quam efficiet, ut hae propositiones, uxor Lot est Sal, aqua est vinum, asinus est ho­mo, in sensu compo­sito sint verae. Ar­chiep. Caesar. defens. fid. de Real. Praes. cap 58. God, who is perfect Truth, will never make those Propositions to bee 20 true at the same time, viz, that the Wife of Lot is Salt, or Water is Wine, or an Asse a man. So your Archbishop. Yea, to come nea­rer to the point: Observandum; cum dicitur vinum est sanguis, docetur esse sanguinem per similitudinem, reipsâ autem & propriè est vinum. Et cum dicitur sanguis est vinum, intelli­gitur vinum e [...]se p [...]r similitudinem: nec enim reipsâ aut propriè esse potest aut vinum sanguis, aut sanguis vi­num, cum res sunt ipsae diversae inter se, & termini ut vocant disparati. Beld. 2. de Euch. c. 9. §. Observand. Wee cannot say that this wine is blood, or that this blood is wine, but by a Similitude or Representation, because they differ in nature. So Bellarmine; adding furthermore that it is Non potest fieri ut vera sit Propositio, in qua subjectum supponitur pro pane, praedicatum pro corpore Christi: Panis enim & corpus res diversissimae sunt. Bellar. l. 3. de Euch. c. 19. §. Primum. Impossible the Proposition should be true, wherein the Sub­ject is Bread, and the Predicate is taken for the Body of Christ. And, Bread and Christs Body (saith your Eodem tem­pore panis triticeus, & corpus Christi esse non possunt, quià disp [...]rata sunt. Sand. de visib Monarch. ad An­num. 1549. [To object De Christo [...] Deus est homo, were vaine, because that is spoken by reason of the Hypostaticall Vnion, whereby [...]ccidit Deo ut sit homo, per hypostaticam unionem, non per mutationem, which Vnity maketh God and man in Christ reciprocall. And wee also meane. Disparata absoluta, not Relata, for thus the same man is father and sonne.] Sanders) cannot be pro­perly affirmed one of another. ⚜Also your Iesuite Estius Ies. Com in 1. Cor. 1. 14 Non intendit Christus his verbis [Hoc est corpus meum] affirmare panem quem tenebatin manu, esse corpus suum: quae affirmatio ab­surda & manifestè falsa effet. Estius: To affirme Bread to be Christs bodie, is a Proposition false, and 30 absurd. As false (saith your Iesuite Iacob. Gordonus Scotus Ies. Controv. 4. cap 1. num 4. Non magis dici po­test, Panis est corpus Christi, quàm aurum est plumbum, aut hic homo est bestra—non potest dispar tum de disparato verè & propriè dici, nisi quis velit contendere Christum verè & proprie dici Iudam, aut Deum Diabolum. Gordon) as to say Christ is Iudas, or God is the Devill.

And indeed it is as impossible Bread should be properly a body of flesh, as a body of flesh to be Bread; which is grounded upon our first Maxime, which your Iesuite Salmeron expresseth thus. 40 Quoties verbum [Est] res diversarum naturarum, quae à Latinis dicuntur disparata, unit & copulat, ibi necessariò ad figuram & Tropum recurramus. Salm. Ies. Tom 9. Tract 10 pag. 138. As often as the Verbe [EST, IS,] joyneth things of divers [Page 100] natures together, we are necessarily to have recourse to a Trope and Figure. Will you be content that your Glosse, as the tongue of your Church, may have the last word? Then hearken to it: Si panis est corpus Christi, ergo aliquid quod non est natum ex virgine est corpus Christi: & ità animatum est inani­matum. Gloss Decret. de Consecrat. dist. [...] can. Quia. If Bread be Christs body, then something is Christs body, which is not borne of the Virgin Mary; and then also the same body must be sayd to be living, and not living, both at once. So your Glosse, confessing hereby an Impossibilitie of this Predication, Bread is Christs Body, in a proper and literall sense. Our Proposition then standeth firme and infallible; our Assumption will be found as true.10

That the Pronoune [THIS] doth as verily notifie Bread, in the words of Christ, as if hee had expressely said, This Bread is my Body; proved first by Scripture. SECT. V.

THe Text of the Evangelist Luke 22. is light sufficient in it selfe; [Iesus tooke bread, blessed it, brake it, and gave it to 20 them, saying, Take, Eate, THIS, (namely) which they Tooke, and they tooke THIS, which he Gave; and he gave THIS, which hee Brake; and he brake THIS, which hee blessed; and blessed THIS, which hee himselfe Tooke; and THIS, which he tooke, was Bread, [Iesus tooke Bread.] We appeale to your owne Consciences, who never hitherto could say, that in all these Sayings of Christ there was made any Change or alte­ration of THIS which hee tooke, till the last word pronoun­ced by the Priest, which is [Meum;] nor yet can you deny, but that hee tooke that, which was properly, and substantially 30 Bread. At the writing of this Sorites, we light upon an Answer from one MasterM. Malloune. in his late Reply. pag. 200. His Sorites; That which the Go­vernour of the feast in Cana of Galile tasted, was the same which the Ministers brought him: that which they brought him was the same that others drew out: that which others drew out, was the same which others before them powred into the Pots; but that which others powred into the Pots was water. Therefore that which the Governour of the feast tasted was water. So he. [None is so witlesse but will easily, from the light of the Text, tell him, that the water was changed into wine, before the Governour of the feast tasted thereof: whereas, in the tenure of Christ his speech, you your selves could never point out any former change at all, before the last syllable, Me-um.] Malloune, encountring it with another, but a false Sorites, invented by himselfe, to the discountenancing of this true one; onely we intreat you, that at the reading therof, you will not laugh at his foolery. (See the Margin.)

Your Grammaticall Objection is Childish.40

CardinallSi [Hoc] ac­cipitur substantivè, tum sensus erit [Hoc] i. e. Haec res: quod si de Pane dicatur, absurdissima propositio erit, non enim potest dici Hoc de Re quae cernitur, & apertè cognoscitur, nisi sit generis neutrius illa—Nemo enim demonstrans de Patre suo, diceret, Hoc est Pater meus. Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 10. §. Porrò. Bellarmine your chiefe Master, and also your [Page 101] Schoole-fellowAlthough the word Bread had not beene expressed, yet being present in Christs hand, and pointed unto, Hoc could not bee taken substatively no more then one should say of his Father, Hoc est Pater meus M. Brerelye's Liturgy, pag. 137. Master Brerely, as if they would put Pro­testants to Schoole, tell them that [Hoc] taken for a Substan­tive neuter cannot agree with Panis, it being a Thing then seene and knowne, and not being of the neuter gender: no more than for a man to say, De Patre, Hoc est Pater meus. A strange thing, that great Clerkes, when they take upon them to teach others their Grammer, should be so farre overtaken, as to need to bee put in mind of theirAccedence, Quià per hanc acceditur ad Grammaticam. Accedence, (if ever they learned it) which telleth them that The neuter gender, substantively taken, will agree 10 with any thing that hath no life, whether seene or not seene. In which respect there might bee a difference betweene, Hoc de Patre, and Hoc de Pane. For although Priscian would cry out, if he heard one saying, Hoc lana, or Hoc lapis, wherein [Hoc] is taken Adjectively: yet if a Question being raised, concerning the lightnesse and heavinesse of Wool, and of Stone, one shew­ing the Wool in his hand should say, Hoc est leve; the other pointing at the Stone, should say, Hoc est grave, would any thinke that Priscian would be offended? for [Hoc] in Latine, neutrally taken, more than others would be for [...] in [...] Exod. 8. 19. [...] 1. pet. 2. 19. [...] Gen. 2 13 Greeke, taken 20 for [...], [...], for [...]. Not to trouble you with that in your Summa Ange­lica. tit. Eucharist. quaest. 23. Propositio esset magis propria, si demonstrando Ci­bum diceretur [Hoc est Corpus meum.] Summa Angelica, wherein [Hoc] neutrally taken, is made to agree with Cibus.

And although Protestants bee so inexpert in the rudiments of learning, yet will you not thinke that others, whom you call Catholikes, could bee so deceived; who (as your Iesuite wit­nesseth) Dicent Calvini­stae, Pronomen illud Graecum, [...], & Latinum, Hoc, Sub­stantiva esse: quod & multi Catholici dixerunt, ideò opus non esse ut genere conveniat, sed posse esse, Hoc quod vobis do, est corpus meum. Teste Maldon. Com. in Matth. 26. pag. 633. were Many, that taught that [Hoc] in the wordes of Christ, put Substantively, may without any Inconvenience a­gree with Panis, in [This,] meaning [This] which I give you.

⚜Will not this suffice? then advise you with your lear­ned 30 Bish. Iansenius, to know why heIansen. Con­cord. Evang. Cap. 131. in haec verba, [Bibite ex hoc omnes.] Grae­cè [...], Hic est san­guis meus, ubi pro pronomine mascu­lino, verti potest neutrum, Hoc, ut ità sit [Hoc est sanguis meus:] quae versio magis convenit ei quod p [...]aecedit, Bibite ex hoc omnes—Nam si dieas, Hic est san­guis meus, videtur esse sensus, Hic sanguis est sanguis meus. Certè Cypr [...]nus in Epist. ad Caecil. legit, Bibite ex hoc omnes, nec tamen malè noster vertit Interpres, qui [...] frequenter hoc modo [Hic] ponitur pro [Hoc] ut Exod. 16. inter­rogantibus de Manna, Quid est hoc? respondit, Ille est panis, cum videretur dicendum, Istud. said of the other [Hic est sanguis meus] That it had beene more agreeable to have ren­dred it thus [Hoc est sanguis meus:] where he giveth his Rea­son for it, and fortifyeth it when he hath done by the same Translation, [Hoc est sanguis meus] out of Saint Cyprian. It would but vexe you to tell you furthermore thatGabriel. Biel. Lect. 48 pag 4 14 lit. K. Hoc est corpus meum.] Ad similitudinem, quâ diceremus, viso Angelo sub specie Bumanâ, Hoc est Angelus. Ga­briel Biel durst illustrate the same [Hoc] spoken of [Panis] by this Saying, [Hoc est Angelus] spoken of an Angel in the shape of a man. Lastly, what will you thinke of the Scholler­ship of your owneEgid. Conicks Ies. de Sacram. qu. 75. Art. 1. num. 36. Ibid. Loct. 48. Bonaventura dicit, Hoc, quod est subjectum, demonstrat panem. Bonaventure, who adventureth to say 40 that [Hoc] the Subject of Christ's speech, demonstrateth Panem, Bread? Are you not yet ashamed of your Rash­nesse? then must we now put you unto it.

[Page 102] In your owne vulgar Latin Translation, it is said of Evah, the wife of Adam, Saluteron Ies. Tom 9 Tractat. 16. §. Nec tursus—Adam de Evâ ex co­stâ ejus desumptâ, Hoc nunc os ex offi­bus meis. Hoc est os, Gen. 2. what Insobriety then is this in your Disputers, so eagerly to reach that blow unto the Protestants, wherewith they must as necessarily buffet their owne Mother Church, by which the same Translation is made Authentike; and wound their owne Consciences, being them­selves bound by Oath to defend it in all their disputations? Away then with these Puerilities, especially now, being bused in a matter of so great importance, wherein consisteth the founda­tion of all the maine Controversies, concerning the Romane Masse. For, if the Pronoune [This] have Relation to Bread, 10 there needs no further Dispute about the figurative sense of Christ's speech.

⚜ Notwithstanding, Wee have not yet done, but further­more to put every one of you to his Grammer. Wee have heard of a Romish Priest, who, having many unconsecrated Hoasts before him, used this forme of Consecration: Haec sunt Corpora mea: These are my Bodies. Which Report your See afterwards Book. 7. Chap. 5. Sect. 2. Author, indifferently, thinketh might have beene either true, or fabulous: however, it justly occasioneth us to make this serious demand, to wit, when any of your Priests, ha­ving 20 before him on the Altar not one loafe alone (as Christ had, which he blessed, saying, [This is my Body, and after brake it into parts, distributing them to his Disciples:) but many round hoasts, now to be consecrated; Wee aske, by what congruity he can pronounce of such a multitude of these Hoasts (which he meanes to consecrate) This is my Body? have you (ô the onely Grammarians!) any Grammer for this.

We returne to the Schoole of Christ, the holy Scripture, to consult (about Christ's meaning) with his Disciple Saint Paul, 30 where he professeth to deliver nothing, concerning Christ his Institution of this Sacrament, but that which he had1. Cor. 11. 23. Received of the Lord. Him we desire to expound unto us the words of Christ, delivered by Three Evangelists, and to tell what hee gave unto them, and what he called his Body: and he telleth us plainly, saying;1. Cor. 10. 16. The Bread, which wee breake, is it not the Com­munion if the Body of Christ? alluding to those words of the Evangelists, He brake it, and that was Bread. And that you may know that this was Catholike Doctrine, in the dayes of Anti­ty,40 wee adjoyne the next Proposition.

That it was Bread and Wine, which Christ called his Body and Blood; in the judgement of An­cient Fathers. SECT. VI.

FOr proofe hereof, behold a Torrent of AncientI. Irenaeus; Ac­cipiens panem, Cor­pus suum esse confi­tebatur Lib. 4. cap. 57. II. Tertull. Chri­stus panem corpus suum appellat. Lib. adversus Iudaeos, Cap. quod incipit. Itaque. III. Orig. Nec mate­ria panis est, sed su­per illum dictus ser­mo est, qui prodest non indignè come­denti. In Matto. 15. IV. Hieron. Nos au­diamus panem, quem fr [...]git Dominus, esse corpus Se [...]vatoris. E­pist ad Hebdib. Qu. 2. V. Ambros. Panem fractum tradidit Di­scipulis suis, dicens; Ac [...]ipite, Hoc, &c. Lib. 4. de Satrament. cap 5. VI. August. Iu­das manducavit pa­nem Domini, &c. Tract 59. in Iohan. VII. Cyr. Hier. [...]. Catech. My­ [...]lag. 4. pag. 518. VIII. Cyr. Alex. Cùm Christus ipse sic af­firmat, ac dicat de Pane, Hoc est corpus meum, &c. C [...]tech. 4. Idem. [...]. Dial. 1. cap. 8. And againe else-where; [...]. X. Gau­dent. brixtens. Cùm panem consecratum Discipulis porrigebat, sic ait, Hoc est Corpus meum, Tract. de rati­one Sacram. XI. Cyprian. Vinum fuisse, quod sanguinem suum dixit Christus Epist. 63. XII. Clemens A­lexand. Benedixit vinum, cum dixit, Accipite. Paedag. lib. 2. cap. 3. XIII. Isid [...]r. Pan [...]s, quia confirmat cor­pus, ideò corpus Christi nuncupatur. Lib. 1. de officijs, cap. 18. Fathers pressing upon you; Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Hierome, 10 Ambrose, Augustine, Cyril of Hierusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, Gaudentius, Cyprian, Clemens of Alexandria, and Isidore; Thirteene to the dozen, whose sayings wee may best know by their owne Idiome, and Tenure of speech. The first noting Christ to have confessed Bread to have beene his Body. The second, Christ to have called Bread his Body. The third, that Christ's speech was spoken of Bread. The fourth, that That which hee broke, was bread. The fift, that It was Bread which he brake. The sixt, that It was Bread of the Lord, and not Bread the Lord, received of Iudas. The seventh, that the words [My Body] 20 were spoken of the Bread. The eighth, that Christ saith of the Bread [This is my Body.] And the same Father, as if he had stu­died to take away all Scales of doubtfulnesse from the eyes of your mindes, illustrateth the matter thus: So (saith hee) did Christ call his Body Bread, as else where he calleth his flesh a Grane of Wheate; [Except the Grane of Wheate die, it bringeth forth no fruit.] The ninth, that Christ gave to the Bread the name of his Body. The tenth, that Christ said of the Consecrated Bread. This is my Body.] The eleventh, that It was Wine which he called his Blood. The twelfth, that He blessed Wine when he said drinke. 30 And the last; The Bread strengthning man's Body was therefore called the Body of Christ. Yet need not this Father be reckoned for the Last, if wee affected to be supersluous. All these so Lear­ned and Ancient Fathers (sufficient Grammarians wee trow) teaching the Pronoune [This] to demonstrate Bread, do as ab­solutely confute your Romish Exposition, to prove the speech Figurative, [...]s any Protestant in the world could do, if hee were permitted to plead his owne Cause.

40 CHALLENGE.

WEe will try what a Syllogisme will do, that, after your Po­sall in Grammar, wee may encounter you with Logike.

[Page 104] The Major. No Bread can possibly be called a Body of flesh, with­out a figure. (This Proposition hath had the Vniversall con­sent of all Schooles, by virtue of that Maxime of Maximes, See above §. 4. Disparatum de Disparato, &c.)

The Minor. But in these words, [This is my Body,] the Pro­noune [This] doth demonstrate Bread. (This hath beene the generall Exposition of Fathers.)

The Conclusion. Therefore the words of Christ, [This is my Body] are to be taken figuratively. Except you will contradict both the Generall confession of your owne Schooles, and Vni­versall 10 consent of Ancient Fathers; besides the now cleare light of the words of Christ.

That it was Bread, which Christ called his Body, is proved manifestly from your owne Romish Positions and Principles. SECT. VII.

YOur first Position is this; The word [This] must either point out Bread, or the Body of Christ, or that Third common 20 Substance, which you call Individuum vagum. But to referre to word [This] unto the Body of Christ, is (as hath beene See above §. 2. confessed) Absurd. And that the word [This] should signifie your Individuum vagum, is an Exposition full of Absurdities, as hath beene alsoSee above §. 3. acknowledged. It remaineth therfore that the Pronoune [This] pointeth out precisely, Bread.

A second Principle you have, to wit; That these words [This is my Body] are words of Consecration, and Operative, so that by [This] is meant that which is Consecrated, and (as your Coun­cell Concil. Tri­dent. Sess. 23. c. 4. Fit Conversio totius sub­stantiae Panus in cor­pus Christi. of Trent speaketh) changed into the Body of Christ. But, by 30 the Decree of the same Councell, not the Body of Christ, nor a­ny Third thing, but Bread only was then consecrated and changed into the Body of Christ. Ergo the Pronoune [THIS] hath only Relation to the Bread.

⚜We might adde, for a third Principle, the above inge­nuous See above Chap. 1. Sect. 2. Confession of your Iesuites, granting that the Pro­noune [THIS] in Christs words did designe That thing which was then present, whereof Christ sayd, [This is my Bo­dy:] when as (which hath likewise beene confessed) That thing was neither Christs Body, nor any third thing differing 40 from Bread. And therefore (say we) could betoken nothing but Bread.

CHALLENGE.

A New Syllogisme would bee had, to put the matter out of question.

Major. No Sense, which is Impossible, can be given properly [Page 105] to the words of Christ, [This is my Body,] (This needeth no proofe.)

Minor. But to call Bread Christs Body, properly, is a Sense Im­possible. (This hath beene your owne constantSee above § 4 profession.)

Conclusion. Therefore cannot this Sense be given properly to the Body of Christ. How can you avoyd the necessity of this Consequence? All arising from the nature of Predication, in this Proposition, wherein the Subject is Bread; the Copula, Is; and Predicate, Body of Christ. Which because it cannot be 10 properly predicated either of Bread determinate, as to say, This Bread in my hand is Christs Body; or of Bread undeterminate (which you cal vagum) as to say, This kind of Bread is the Body of Christ, it demonstratively sheweth that your Doctors can have no greater Adversaries, in this case, than their owne Conscien­ces, which will appeare more fully in that which followeth.

⚜A Confirmation, that in the words [Hoc est Corpus Meum: This is my Body] the Pronoune [HOC, THIS] is ex­pressely spoken of Bread; by the Analogie it hath with 20 the other Pronoune [HOC, THIS] spoken of the Cup. SECT. VIII.

AS all the motions of every wheele of a Watch have their activity from the spring; so may. We say that all the Controversies, touching the Romish Masse, in the Doctri­nall parts thereof, concerning Corporall Presence, Transub­stantiation, Vnion, and divine Adoration, attributed to that which is in the hands of the Priest, depend, as on their 30 of-spring, upon the proper and Literall Sense of these words, [Hoc est corpus meum, This is my Body:] and this their Interpretation resteth upon the proper signification of the Pronoune [Hoc, This] as you have already heard. Which if it betoken Literally Bread, as all Protestants affirme, then by Vniversall consent, of even the Romish Doctors them­selves, the speech of Christ must as necessarily bee a Fi­gurative and Tropicall speech, as was that of Saint Paul, say­ing, The Rocke was Christ. The Romish therfore, to avoid this, have devised other Interpretations of Christs words, 40 as you have heard. Some (for they are divided among them­selves) will have the Pronoune [Hoc, This] to betoken Christs Body, as if Christ had sayd, This my Body is my Body. The other Opinators holding the former to bee ab­surd, say that by [Hoc, This] is meant not this definite Bread it selfe, but This (Individuum vagum) kinde of Bread is my Body; which hath beene condemned by their other parties (and truly) as an Exposition full of Absurdities.

[Page 106] Wee now pursue this point further, by examination of the Speech of Christ, concerning the other Element, de­livered SaintMatth. 26. 27. Matthew and SaintMark. 14. Mark thus. He tooke the Cup, and gave it (the Cup) to them, saying, Drinke you all of this, (viz. Cup) For this (namely still, Cup) is my Blood. And is further proved to point out the Cup by SaintLuk. 22. Luke. and Saint1. Cor. 11. Paul, who both deliver it thus: This Cup is the new Testament, &c. But here in these words, [These Cup is, &c.] the Word, Cup, by Vniversall Consent is taken Tropically for the liquor in the Cup. Therefore did not Christ intend,10 in that which you call his Consecratorie Words, a Proper and Literall Sense; when otherwise it had been as easie to have said either (according to the first Exposition) [This Blood in the Cup, is my Blood:] or else answerably to your second Inter­pretation, [This kinde of Wine in the Cup is my Blood:] albeit this also bee as Tropicall and Figurative, as to have said, [This Wine is my Blood.]

Which your Church of Rome perceiued right well, and therefore, for avoyding the Trope and Figure, hath shee de­vised a new forme, thus. [Hic est calix sanguinis mei:20 This is the Cup of my Blood,] different from all the Evange­lists, even in that which you call a Forme of Consecration; as if in her high presumption shee had professed to correct the forme of Christ his Institution. A perfect Argument of a novell, naughtie, ruinous, and tottering Cause. If any Protestant had made so bold with Scripture, O what out­cryes and vociferations should wee have heard! and that this was done to facilitate your Answer, where you say,Vasquez. in 3. Thom. Disp. 109. cap. 4. Ego existimo nullum esse Tropum in verbis essentiali­bus formae. The Words or forme of Consecration Are without Tropes, your Iesuite Vasquez collecteth. Wherein notwithstanding hee 30 forsaketh his Master Aquinas, even now when hee doth Glosse and Comment upon him; for sure it isAquin. part. 3. Quaest. 78. Artic. 3. ad 1. Dico, Hic est calix sanguinis mei, est locutio figurata: uno modo, est se­cundùm Metonymi­am, Continens pro Contento. d­quinas concludeth most directly, saying of these Words, [This is the Cup in my Blood:] that It is a Figurative speech called Metonymia. Hitherto of the first Key of explication of Christs words.40

CHAP. II.
The Second Key in Christ's Words [Hoc est Corpus meum: This is my Body,] opening the Figu­rative Sense thereof, is the Verbe [EST, IS.]

FOr that [Est] in these words hath the same 10 sense, as, Signifieth; as if Christ had sayd ex­presly of the Bread, This signifieth my Body: and accordingly of the Wine, This signifieth my Blood, may be proved by three Proposi­tions infringible.

Our first Proposition. The Verbe [EST] being joyned with a thing that is a 20 Signe, is alwayes figurative, and the very same with this word, SIG­NIFIETH. SECT. I.

FOr although the Verbe (Est) be indeed so absolutely simple, in it's owne nature, that it cannot be resolved into any other word (as all other Verbes may be in like Case) yet doth it (albe­it accidentally) necessarily inferre a figurative Sense, and is as 30 much as Signifieth, or Representeth, whensoever it joyneth the Signe and the Thing signified together. As for Example, A man pointing at a signe hanging before an Inne, and saying, This is Saint George, the Verbe Is can inferre no other Sense than Signifieth. Why? even because the thing, whereof it speaketh, is a Signe signifying Saint George. And Bread in this Sacrament is in all Catholike Divinity a Signe of Christs Body. Therefore the Verbe [Is] can have no other Sense than [Signifieth.]

The former Proposition confirmed by all like Speeches, whether 40 Artificiall, Politike, or Mysticall. SECT. II.

YOur owne Iesuites, and common Experience it selfe will ve­rifie this Truth. First, In things Artificiall, asMetonymia, tropus est in Scriptu­ris frequentissimus, quâ continens pro contento, & contrà signatum pro signo usurpari solet; ut ostensâ imagine Herculis, dici­mus, Hic est Hercules. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9. proleg. 12. Can. 15. To say of the [Page 108] Picture of Hercules, This is Hercules, is a figure. Secondly, In things Politike, as when aTestamentum saepè sumitur pro Le­gato, seu Re testatâ. Bartrad. Ies Institut. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 5. Legacie, given by Will and Testament, is called the man's Will. So they. And indeed what is more Common, than for a man to say of his Testament, This is my Will? Of his name subscribed, This is my hand? And of the waxe sealed, This is my Seale? When as his Will (properly taken) is in his heart, his hand is affixed to his Arme, And his seale may be in his pocket. Thirdly, In Mysticall and Divine Rites; as in Sacrifice, even among the Heathen, according to that Example out of Homer, which is notable. The Gree [...]as and Trojans, when they entred into a league, which was to be racti­fied 10 by a Sacrifice of Lambs, upon which both sides were to take their Oathes, this their Act is thus expressedSalm Ies. Tom 9. Tract. 15. §. Malè e [...]m. [Idem priùs habuit noster Bez [...]in Luc. 22. 20.] [...] that is, They brought with them two Lambs, their faithfull oathes. Where Lambs, the rituall signes of their faith­full Swearing, are called Oathes. An Example (I say) even a­mong the Heathen, which is as apposite to our purpose, and op­posite against your defence, as can be.

Our Second Proposition, answerable to the first.20 All the like Sacramentall Speeches, in Scripture, are figuratively understood. SECT. III.

IN all such like Sacramentall Speeches, both in the old and new Testament, wherein the Signe is coupled with the Thing signified, the Speech is ever unproper and Figurative, and the Verbe [Est] hath no other force than, Signifieth. This Truth 30 is confirmed abundantly by the Testimonies of your owne Ie­suites, and others, who come fraught with Examples. First, concerning the old Testament, Noting that the Sacrifice of thePascha signi­ficat transitum, qu [...]à Angelus transivit do­mos Israelit [...]rum: haec ratio nominis redditur, cum dicitur, [Transibit enim Dominus [...]um vide­rit sanguinem in u­troque poste.] [...]ansen. Ip [...]sc. Concord. in Matth. 26. [It was therefore more than boldnesse in Bellar­mine, l. [...] de Euch. cap 11 §. Quaedam to say; Agnus erat propr [...]è Transitus, Agnus being in the Predi [...]ament of Substance: and Transitus in the Predicament of Action. Paschall Lambe, being but a Signe, was called the Passe­over, or passing-over. Secondly, that [...] hoc [...] loco dicitur spiritualis, ex qua Deus eduxit per mi [...]culum aquam, quià Signum [...] è l [...]tgre Christi [...] Sa [...]meron. Ies. in 1. Cor. 10 [Petra autem erat Christus.] Id est. Petra significab [...]t Christum: ubi signum appellat nomine rei significatae. Pe [...]er. Ies. Com. in Dan 2. p. 85. [ [...]etra erat Christus.] Erat autem Christus Petra, certissima scilicet significatione. Arias Mont. in 1. Cor. 10. & Piata. Ies. ia Is 51. The Rocke, being but a Signe of Christ, was called Christ. ⚜ Albeit your Doctor Heskins, long ago ventured to confute this Sense, saying, In his Parliament of Christ. B. 2. Chap. 3. Christ was the spirituall Rocke, not the materiall: and af­terwards concluding thereupon, that it is no figurative speech 40 in the Saying of Saint Paul. A Doctor-like Conclusion for­sooth! which even Petits in Common learning would easi­ly [Page 109] confute by Retorsion, thus: If Christ was by the Apostle called the Spirituall Rocke, then was the figuratively called The Rock, as well as he was figuratively called Vine, and Doore; even because he was not a Vine, or Doore Materially, but Spiritually. ⚜ Thirdly, thatCircumcisio soedus d [...]tu, & signum toe­deris. Bellar [...]b. 1. de Ea [...] 11 § Se. und [...]. Circumcision, being but a Signe of the Covenant, was called the Covenant. So likewise in the new Testament, both concerningChristus cum Nicodemo spiritua­lutè: intelligendus. Muddon. Ies. in cum locum. [...]ob. 3. Baptisme, which in Christ his speech to Nicodemus (being but a Signe of Regenera­tion) is called Regeneration. AndSep [...] sumus Rom 6. 4. Id est, Christum sepultum represent [...] To­let. Ies [...] e [...]m [...]. Baptizing, which being 10 a Signe of the Buriall of Christ) in the speech of Saint Paul, is called Buriall: and concerning the Eucharist, the Communi­cants therof are called One Bread, Cor. 10 16.

Finally, that the most proper Interpretation of the Verbe [Est, Is,] in such like speeches, importeth no more, than [Sig­nificat,]your Iesuite Q [...]ò [...] verò in [...] [...]is orationibus [Pe­tra erat Christus; Semen erat verbum De [...], Ego sum Osti­um] verbum substan­tivum sit interpretan­dum pro Significat, aut sigurat; non ei id accidit ex n [...] tu [...]â suâ, aut per se, sed quoni­am Pecta illa a [...]iter cum Christo conjungi non potest, quam per sig [...]um—Inde sit, ut parvi refer t [...]sivè di­cas, Petra erat signum Christi, vel significabat Christum Salmeron. Ies Tom 9. Tract. 16. §. Primum igi [...]ur. pag. 118. Salmeron will testifie for us: In these speeches (saith he) The seed is the Wond, I am the Doore, The Rocke was Christ; the Verbe [Is, and, WAS] must be interpreted for SIGNIFIETH, or figureth; not of it's owne nature, but because the word, Rocke, cannot be otherwise joyned with Christ, than by a fi­gure 20 or Signe. So he. Even as Master [Petra erat Christus] Soler ita expon [...], Petra significabat Christum, id non ità accidit quòd verbum [Ess] pro significat, ex se coll [...]cetur, sed quontam [Petra] illa al [...]ter cum Christo cohaerere, quam per fimil [...]udinem, & signu [...]on potest. Sund de Visib. Mona [...]. ad Annum. 1550. pag. 141. Sa [...]ders also is com­pelled to confesse in a like Case.

30 CHALLENGE.

THus have wee argued from Induction and Enumeration of Texts of Scripture, in all like Sacramentall Speeches: which Exposition, by Analogy of Scriptures, was ever held of all Divines the most absolute and infallible manner of expoun­ding the Scripture that can be. The Truth whereof ariseth es­sentially out of the Definition of a Sacrament, which as well the whole Catholike Church, as your Romish, hath defined to bee a visible Signe. But no visible Signe can be joyned to any thing signified thereby, in like Predication, without a Figure, 40 as hath beene both copiously proved and confessed.

Our third Proposition, viz. Eight Confessed Figures are apparently found in the words of Christ his Institution of this Sa­crament. SECT. IV.10

THat the Pronoune, THIS, used aswell in these words of Christ [This is my Body] as in the other [This is my [...]lood] inferre a figure,See the Sections [...]ing before. hath beene proved to the full, and so will be acknowledged by your owne publikely authorized Romane See the Sect. 6. now following. Glosse it selfe: which may be sufficient to muzzle our Op­posites, who please themselves in nick-naming Protestants, calling them Toutists, of the word, [...], which is the word, THIS; and Tropists, because of their professing the words of Christ to be Tropicall, and figurative. But how much more 20 confounded must they needs be, when it shall confessedly ap­peare, that there are Eight figures moe in the words of Christ his Institution of this Sacrament?

Let us begin with the word, BROKEN, thus; [This is my Bo­dy, which is Broken for you.] 1 Cor. 11 24. Say now, do you thinke indeed, and that seriously, Christ to have signified hereby that his Body in this Sacrament was therefore really Broken? Si propriè loqui velimus, falsae sunt istae Propositiones, Corpus Christi man­dicatur à nobis, cor­pus Christi teritur, corpus Christi devo­ratur, corpus Christi frangitur: quia ipsi modi, qui significan­tur his verbis, non conveniunt Corpori Christi. Maldor, de Sacrament. Tom. 1. pag. 144. Sacramen­talis locutio esset, si corpus Christi dice­retur frangi, a [...]der­tibus teri: haec enim non possunt nisi Sa­cramento-tenus in­telligi, quia non propriè corpus Christi frangitur, sed Sacramentum Idem. Comment. in Matth. 26. Fran­gi cùm dicitur, est Metaphotica locutio, quia fractio propriè significat divisionem, & discontinuationem par­tium, quam constat non fieri in partibus corporis Christi Suarez. Ies. in Thom. Tom. 3. Disput. 47. Sect. 4. §. Exempla tertiae pag. 577. ⚜ Nay (say two of your Iesuites, viz. Suarez and Maldonate) for then should the Speeche of Christ be false: but it is figurative­ly and Metaphorically spoken. And they Will give you good 30 reason hereof, collected out ofAquin. part. 3. Quaest. 77. Art. 7. Non potest dici, qu [...]d corpus Christi verè frangatur, per quam fractionem unum fiat multa, quia impossibile esset tunc, ut totum sit in qualibet par­te. Aquinas your chiefe School­man. See afterwards, Book. 5. Chap. 5. Sect. 2. in the Margin. Because the word, [Broken] properly taken signifieth a separation of the parts of that Body, which is said to be broken. But there is no separation, or discontinuation of the parts of Christs Body in this Sacrament. So they. To which purpose your Bi­shop Iansenius. See hereafter. Book. [...]. Chap. 1. Sect. 4. Iansenius will have us to observe a Reason wherefore the word [Broken] is left out of your Romane Missals (to wit) Lest that some should be so fond and seelie as to conceive that Christ's Body is truely Broken. And upon this Contemplation your Bishop of Winchester Stephen Gardiner is peremptorie. 40 Stephen Gardiner in his Explication of the Sacrament of the Altar. If one aske (saith he) if the Body of Christ be broken, I have [Page 111] learned to say, No, because that glorious Body cannot now be broken and divided, for it is whole in every part. What then (will some say) doth the word [Broken] signifie in the speech of Christ? and your Iesuite Salmeron is ready to instruct them out of the Fathers, thatSalm. ron. Ies. See afterwards, B. 6. Chap. [...]. Sect. 2. It signifieth the crucifying of his Body with speare and nayles upon the Crosse.

The like will be confessed of the Verbe, EATE, in those speeches of Christ, [Take, Eate] which being properly taken, (say the above-namedSee above in the Margin, at the l [...]tter (a) Iesuites) would make the speech 10 of Christ to be false: because, not the Body of Christ, but the Sa­crament is properly Eaten. The Reason is expressed by your Iesuite Salmeron, Salmeron. See afterwards, Book. 5. Chap. 5. Sect. 2. Reall eating (saith he) requireth a reall touch and tearing of that which is eaten: but Christ's Body is not torne with the teeth, because this is Impartible. So he, Which is as plaine as can be, to prove the word, Eate, (as it is applied to Christ's Body) to be absolutely figurative.

In like manner, in the words of Christ's Institution, Wee reade that he said, [DRINKE you all of this:] which you re­ferre properly to Christ's Blood, albeit you holding Concomi­tancie 20(asSee above, B. 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 8. Out of Iansenius and Du­rand. you do) that is, that Christ's Blood is not separated out of his Body more in this Sacrament, than it is out of the Sa­crament, but is still the same Body which hath its Blood in the veines thereof, therefore you cannot affirme truely that Christ's Blood is properly Drunke; Witnesse your great Pedagogue Mr. Brerely. Mr. Brereley. Li [...]rg. Tractat. 4. §. 8. If we should attend to the propriety of speech, neither is his Blood properly drunke in the Chalice, but onely the forme of Wine, seeing the Blood hath the same manner of Existing as under the forme of Bread, (to wit) not divided nor separated from the Bo­dy, but included in the veines, and then in the Body. Do you not 30 heare? Christ's Blood is not properly drunke, if not properly, then figuratively; as figuratively, as if one, swallowing the Body of Christ, should be said to Drinke his Body.

Wee aske Master Brerely, what then is that which is properly drunke out of the Chalice? and he saith, onely the forme of Wine, that is to say, a meere Accident. Hardly can it he said that a man properly drinketh the Ayre, which he breatheth, al­though it be a substance: and are you brought to believe meere Formalities to be truely Potable?

40 VVee passe to two other Figuratives, whereof wee reade, for the first part, [Take, this is my Body, which is Given for you:] and of the other, [This is the newe Testament in my Blood, which is Shed for you.] In both which words [GIVEN, and SHED,] as they are spoken in respect of the time, Wee ex­pect from you a Confession of the figure Enallage, which is the using of the present tense for the future; your Iesuite[Corpus quod pro [...]vobis datur] Id est, quod offeretur pro vobis in cruce mactatum. Valent. Ies. lib. 1. de Missa. cap. 3. §. Igitur. [Of the word, Eato, literally false, so your Iesuites. See Book. 5. Chap. 4. §. 2.] Va­lentia testifying for the first, [Given] that is (saith he) which shall be offered upon the Crosse. And your Iesuite Salmeron for [Page 112] the other [Blood which is Shed.]Graecus Textus [Effunditur.] Non est negandum mo­rem esse Scripturae, ea dicere jam esse, quae futura sint, u [...]hìc [ef­funditur] quià paulò post in cruce essun­dendus. Salmeron. Ies. in 1. Cor. 11. p. 154 & Sa. Ies. in Matth. 26. Graecè, Effundi­tur: praesens pro fu­turo. So Cajetan in Matth. 26 [Effundi­tur] nempè tempore passionis; jam enim inceperat effundi. It is not denyed (saith he) but that it is the manner of Scripture to speake of a thing, as now done, which is after tobe done, as in this place, [Is shed] because shortly after, it was to bee shed upon the crosse. So likewise your Iesuite Sa. And that this is among you the true and Com­mon exposition of these words of Christ, your BishopIansenius. See afterwards Book. 6. Chap. 1. §. 2. at (q) Ian­senius doth not forbeare to testifie. So then, in both these words [Given, and Shed] there are two figures, in respect of the Time.

Wee are furthermore to consider the Word, Shed; in re­spect 10 of the Act, wherof your owneSee Book. 6. Chap. 1. §. 4. for the three first: and Book. 4. Chap. 2. § 3. for the last. Doctors have thus determined. 1. your Bellarmine. Christs blood, at his Insti­tution of this Sacrament, did not passe out of his Body. 2. your Alfonsus. Christs blood was never Shed after his Resurrection. 3. your Iesuite Coster. True effusion of blood is a separating it from the Body, which in Christ was onely on the Crosse. 4. you may adde to these the stiffe Resolution of your Iesuit Suarez [...] Christs blood to be separated out of his Veines, who can beleeve? And if this bee not to bee beleeved, then to say that it is not Figura­tively sayd to be Shed, is altogether as incredible.20

⚜ Will you be pleased that your Iesuite Vasquez may de­termine this point throughout. HeVasquez Ies. in 3. Thom. Qu. 78. Art. 3. Disp. 199. cap. 1. Ego verò ex­istimo utrum (que) ver­bum, Datur, & Fran­gitur, Effundetur, sen, Effunditur, quae po­nuntur in addita­mentis formarum, multò meliùs ad pas­sionem & crucem re­ferri, quàm ad fra­ctionem & effusionē Eucharistiae. (Al­leaging to this pur­pose the consent of Cajetan, Theophy­lact, Euthymius, An­selm, and Chrysost.) Adding, Rationes verò pro hac nostra sententia & interpre­tatione sunt (me Iu­dice quidem) effica­cissimae—paulò post, Non est effusio sangui [...]is in Eucha­ristia, per modum Sacrificij, sed repraesentatio & sigura illius: in calice enim Domininon separatur sanguis à corpore Christi, ac proindè reipsa non effunditur. concludeth all these words, [Broken, Given, Shed] to relute to Christs Passion in a future sense: bringing with him Cajetan, Theophylact, Eu­thymius, Anselm, and Chrysostome for his Authors: and will have you to know that hee hath most forcible Reasons for this Interpretation, besides this his owne, to wit, That the Blood of Christ cannot bee sayd to bee Shed, which is not properly se­parated out of his Body in the Sacrament. Aquinas will speake as confidently of Breaking, thatSee above confessed. It is impossible it should bee 30 broken, which is a dividing into many parts. Now further­more concerning the same words, [Broken, Given, Shed,] in respect of the Time, as that they signifie the Future time of Christs Passion, youBooke 6. Chap. 1. §. 2. [...] shall have yet moe of your owne Do­cotors averring as much, so that your Romish Suggester shall have little cause to complaine of the paucity of our wit­nesses. ⚜

It followeth in the words of Christs Institution, [This is the Cup of the new Testament in my blood.] Now what of this? hear­ken to your Bishop Iansenius. [Hic. Calix est novum Testamentum.] Non potest accipi in proprio sensu, sed in eo, quem clari [...]ra verba Matthaei et M [...]rci indicant & exigunt. Sivè enim Calix su [...]atur provasc [...] potorio, sive Synechdochic [...] pro sanguine in poculo con­tento, non potest consistere ut in ijs verbis sit propria locutio—Nemo enim dix erit propriâ locutione vascu­lum illud potorium fuisse novum Testamentum, cùm incertum sit an adhùc exstet illud poculum: at novum Te­stamentum est aeternum Sed nec sanguis in calice contentus potest esse novum Testamentum propria locutione, quià lex Evangelica in Epist. ad Heb dicitur novum Testamentum, & apu [...]l Matth. & Marcum sanguis dicitur hov [...] Testamenti. At unic [...]m est n [...]um Testamentum. Ianse [...]. Concord in [...] locum, pag. 910. These wordes (saith he) can­not 40 [Page 113] not be taken properly, whether the [Cup] bee taken for the vessell, used for drinking, which was a temporall thing, and therfore could not bee the Testament of Christ, which is aeternall: or else whether you take it for the matter in the Cup (which is a Figure called Sy­nechdoche) for it being the blood of the new Testament, could not bee properly the Testament it selfe. Yea, and your Iesuite Salmeron pointeth out in the same words, a double Figure;Subest in his duplex Metonymia, 1. quuà Con [...]in [...]ns po­n [...]ur pro Contento, id est, poculum, sive Calix, pro vino, eò quod vinum in ipso continetur. 2. est, cò quod contentum in poculo foedus, vel Testamentum dici­tur novum, cùm sit ejus symbolum prop­ter species.—Te­stamentum hoc in loco potest sumi prolege Evangelica, quae veteri legi opponitur, ut rem Testamento legatam testatamvè significet. Quemad­modùm haeres dice [...] ­solet, Hic fundus est Testamentum Patris me, Id est portio hae­reditatis à patre meo legata; in quem sen­sum Apostolus loquitur ad Heb. Iesus est sponsor melioris Testamenti. Id est haereditatis Salm. Ies. Tom 9. Tract. 15. § 3. p. 98. A double Figure (saith he) is here, the [Cup] being put for the thing con­tained in the Cup: and [Testament] being taken for the Legacie 10 that is granted and given by the Testament; wi [...]h whom the Testamentum sumitur pro leg [...]to Metonymi [...]è, continens Testamentum sumitur pro contento legate, s [...]u haereditate, quae Testamento continetur. Barrad. lib. 3. de Euch. c. 5 pag. 79. Tom. 4. Iesuite Barradas doth consent.

Hereunto may be added Christs Tropicall Saying in the 6. of Iohn, where Christ calling that, which he giveth to be eaten, his Flesh, in the same Chapter he calleth his Flesh, which is to bee eaten of the faithfull, Bread. Which none of your side durst hitherto interpret without a Figure. And yet againe, the Apostle speaking of the Mysticall body of Christ, which is his Church, assembled at the holy Communion, to participate of this Sacrament, saith of them;1. Cor. 10. 17. Wee being many are one bread 20 and one Body: for wee are all partakers of that one Bread. But why? Even as one Bread consisteth of many cornes, so doth one Church of Christ of many faithfull persons, saith yourSicut unus panis ex multis gran [...]s, &c. Aquia. in cum locum. Aquinas. But none of you will deny, that the Apostles naming the Com­munion of the Faithfull to bee one Bread, or Loafe, is altogether Figurative.

30 CHALLENGE.

COllect wee now the Parcels above-mentioned. First in the word [This] necessarily referred to Bread, inferring one Figure in the former Chapters: And next, in this Section, one Figure, in the word, Broken; Another in the word, Eate; A third in the word, Drinke; A fourth in the word, Given; A fift and sixt in the word, Shed: A seaventh in the word, Cup: An eighth in the word, Testament: nine in all, and then your 40 Gybes and Tants, against our Figurative Exposition of Christs words, as so many bolts shot upwards, must fall directly upon your own pares. Of your Bellarmines Objection of the word, Shed, hereafter, in the sixt Booke, and 2. Chapter.

⚜ It is no better than Hemlocke which you put into your Disciples mouthes, to stupifie them withall, when you reach them to stand to the Literall words of Christ, lest that o­therwise Christs speech should bee accounted a Lie. First [Page 114] against your owne knowledge, who are not ignorant, that Truth is not opposed to Figurative, but to False speech: else all the Parables of Christ, which are altogether Figura­tive, should be called false; which were Blasphemie to af­firme. And also against the acknowledgement, already spe­cified, confessing that Bread cannot, in a proper and Literall sense, be truly called Christs Body. And the generall Rule is, that Truth in a Figurative sense cannot be so in a Literall; no more than a Literall Truth can be Figurative and Tro­picall.10

That the Figurative sense of Christ's words is agreeable to the Iudgement of the more Ancient Church of Rome. SECT. V.

YOur old and publike Romish Glosse saith plainly;Coeleste Sacra­mentum, quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem, dicitur Cor­pus Christi, sed im­propriè: unde dicitur suo more, sed non re [...] veritate, sed signifi­cante mysterio: ut fit sensus, vocatur Corpus Christi, id est, significatur. Gloss. Decret. de Consecrat. Dist. 2. Can. Hoc. est. This heavenly Sacrament, because it doth truely represent the flesh of Christ, is called the Body of Christ, but improperly, not in the truth of the thing, but in the mysticall Sense, to wit, it is called the 20 Body of Christ, that is, it signifieth his Body, So your Glosse, which you may not deny to be the glosse or Tongue of your whole Church, because it hath beene confirmed by the same Authority of PopeGregorius XIII. Papa. In the privilege before the body of the Canon Law. Gregory the thirteenth, wherewith your Extravagants, and former Decrees of Popes have beene Authorized.

CHALLENGE.30

IF all Protestants should meete at once in one Synod, and should conspire together, as labouring to prove a figurative Sense in these words of Christ [This is my Body,] I suppose that a more exact, perspicuous, copious, and ponderous Proofe could not be desired, than hitherto hath beene evinced from your owne Confessions; grounded aswell upon sound and impregnable Reasons, as upon direct Testimonies of holy Scriptures.

That the former Figurative Sense of the words of Christ is a­greeable 40 to the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers of the Greeke Church. SECT. VI.

YOu will needs defend your literall Exposition by the ver­dict of Ancient Fathers, and wee appeale to the Venera­ble [Page 115] Senate both of Greek and Latin Fathers. TheGraeci Patres vocant Eucharistiam [...], quae sunt apud nostros fi­gurae, Sacramenta, Signa; & haec om­nia [...] accepere. Alan. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 30. p. 383. Diony s. c. 1 de Eccle. Hier. Theod. Dial. 1. Macarius Hom. 27. Nazianzen. Orat. in Gorgon. vocant Eu­charistiam, [...] post recitatio­nem horum verbo­rum, [Hoc est cor­pus meum.] Teste Bellarmin. lib. 2. de Eucharist. cap. 15. §. Sed.—Dionys. Ep. 9. ad Titum, lo­quens de saris Sig­nis, & tropicis locu­tionibus; dicit Chri­stum Iesum in Pa­rabolis per typicae mensae apparatum deifica mysteria trà­dere. Eodem modo Gregor. N [...]zianz. Orat. 11. vocat Antitypum pretiosi corporis & sanguinis Domini. Euseb. lib 8. Demon­strat. in fine: Christus Discipulos hortatur, ut sui ipsius corporis imaginum repraesentent. Teste Suarez. Tom. 3. in Thom Quest. 74. Disp. 46. §. 4. pag. 547 & [...]52.—Theod. Dial. 1. cap. 8. Scis quod Deus [...]—Ipse igitur Salvator noster [...] Paulò post interrogando docet; [...] Greek gene­rally calling the Elements of Bread and Wine, in this Sacrament, Some, Types, Antitypes, and Symbols (that is) Figures and Signes: Some calling Christ his Speeches Tropical, or Figurative; and his Table Typicall: Some saying that Christ would have his Disciples hereby Represent the image of his Body. And one as expressely as any Protestant can speake (even Theodoret by name) that Christ here gave to the Signe the name of his Body, as else-where he gave to his Body the name of the Signe.

10And againe, [...] Ibid. Origen also in Matth. 15. calleth materiam panis, Symbolicum corpus. Christ, as hee called the mysticall fruit of the Vine, after sanctification, the Blood of the Lord: So the fruit of the naturall Vine did he call the Blood of the Vine. So he Marke, no otherwise is the Wine in the Eucharist called Christ's Blood after Consecration, than the juyce of the Grape is called The Blood of the Vine. Which who knoweth not to be improperly and figuratively spoken? ⚜

You cannot deny but these Phrases of Signes and Symbols are most frequent in the writings of all the Greeke Fathers, which wee take to be a convincing Argument, untill you can 20 give us some reasonable Solution hereunto. To this purpose you, leaving the principall Objections, fasten onely upon cer­taine Crotchets, and thereupon you bestirre your selves.

30 THE FIRST CHALLENGE.
Against the first Romish Answer, touching the word, Type, and Antitype, used by the Greeke Fathers.

40 THree kindes of Answers have beene applyed, as Three wedges to dissolve this difficulty; but a knot of wood cannot be loosed with a wedge of waxe, such as every of your Answers will appeare to bee. The first interpreting Types and Antitypes not to be taken for Signes, but for Examples, is at the first hearing rejected by yourPrima solutio; Vocem Antitypon non accipi pro Sig­no, sed pro Exem­plari, &c. sed haec opinio facilè rejici potest, quia vox ea nunquam sumitu [...] pro exemplari. Bellarm. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 15. Cardinall, and others.

The Second, alleged out of Damas [...]en, and much insisted upon by some favourers of your Romish Sense: namely, that the Fathers should call Bread and Wine Antitypes; but not [Page 116] after Consecration. So they. And if so, then indeed we should have no cause to oppose. But this Answer is proved to be ap­parantly false by yourAltera solutio est aliorum, Panem & Vinum Antitypon dic [...], sed ante Con­secrationem, non po­steà; ita respondit olim Ioh. Damasc. lib. 4. de fide. cap. 14. Et Epi. in 7. Syn. Art. 6. Tom. 3. sed invenimus apud Ba­silium Eucharistiam dici Antitypon cor­poris, post recitatio­nem istorum verbo­rum, [Hoc est corpus meum]—Tamen Theod. apertiffimè eam sic vocat, Dial. 1. & Macar. AEgypt. Hom. 27. imò Dion. Arcop. Eccl. Hier. c. 1. Naz. orat. in Teste Gorgon. Bellar. ibid. Etiam Clemens in Constit. Billius Com. ad Eliam Cretensem, in Orat. 11. Nazianz Hanc interpretationem (Da­masceni) refellunt Bessarion Card. & Turrian. Durant. de Rit. lib. 2. cap. 39. Cardinall, and others, out of the ex­presse Testimonies of these Greeke Fathers, viz. Dionysius, Areopagita, Clemens, Iustine, Macarius, Basil, and Nazianzene. The third Answer is your Cardinals owne, yet but faintly ur­ged, with aFortassis Basilius & alij Graeci Patres non vocant Typum aut Figuram, sed Antitypa, quia Antitypa non sunt quaelibet figurae, sed illa tantùm, quae nihil fere differunt à veritate. Bellar. ib. quo supra. Peradventure they called them Antitypes, but not Types after Consecration: and hee is encountred by your Negari non potest quin nonnunquam nomen Typi inveniatur in Patribus, ut ex Hieronymo paulò ante notavi. Idem reperitur apud Chrysostomum Hom. 16. ad Heb. & Billius apud Nazianz. Annot in orat. 11. in sine. Quare probabile valdè existimo vo­cem Antitypi in eadem significatione usurpari hoc loco, quo Typi, seu Figurae, Suarez Ies. quo supra. pag. 554. Suarez and Billius, acknowledging that the words Types and Antitypes are used of the same Fathers in one and the same 10 signification. ⚜ As doth likewise your IesuiteVasquez. in 3. Thom. Quest. 78. Artic. 1. Disput. 197. cap. 4. Noster Turtanus putat non posse hoc Sa­cramentum vocari Typum corporis Christi: sed benè Antitypon, quin Typus significat figuram rei, quae tem ip­sam non continet: Antitypon autem figuram quae rem ipsam in se habet.—Haec tamen sententia mihi non probatur. Vasques maintaine, against your Iesuite Turrian. ⚜ This our Objecti­on how strong it is, may be seene by your much, but vaine strugling.

⚜ A Corroboration of the Iudgement of Antiquitie, in naming 20 the Eucharist Type, and Antitype.

None can need any better Instructor, in this point, than was one (albeit a Protestant) most conversant in Greek Antiquity,30 namely Mr. Isaac Casaubon. He instanceth most especially in Cyrill of HierusalemCyrillus p. 522. de Chrysmate disse­rens, ait fideles [...] Locus ille conside­ratione digniffimus. Sic enim docet: Quando fideles baptizantur, eos accipere [...]. At de isto Christo ita loquitur: [...] Ecce, opponuntur [...] Sp. Sancti, & [...]. Chri­stum in Baptismo suo accepisse ipsam essentiam Sp. Sancti in se advenientis: sed nos accipere tantùm [...], quod tamen ipse appellat Sp. Sanctum. Et sanè ita passim legimus in S. S. hos aut illos accepisse Spiri­tum Sanctum, quùm intelligamus non ipsam essentiam Sp. Sancti, sed vim & [...] Sp. Sancti. Cur non idem dicemus de S. Eucharistiâ? Patres vetustissimi dicunt nos in eâ accipere [...] corporis Christi: ergò non accipimus [...]: dicitur camen quod accipimus [...]; sed eo modo, quo modò dice­bamus capi Sp. Sanctum. Itaque illud etiam quod accipimus dicitur Gratia, &c. Haec Isaacus Casaub. teste filio suo pientissimo Meirico, ex M. S. Paternis. telling you that the materiall oyle, wherwith Christians were anoynted, was called by Cyrill the Antitype of Christs owne anoynting, which was the Spirit of God it selfe. That The essentiall Spirit of God is opposed to the An­titype, which was materiall oyle. And, notwithstanding, that the same Antitype is called by Cyrill the Spirit of God; and after, that the Christians are sayd to receive the Spirit; 40 [Page 117] when neverthelesse they receive not the essence, but the Energie and efficacious operation of the same Spirit. That learned man concludeth; The most ancient Fathers (saith he) sayd that we receive the Antitype of Christ in the Eucharist: Therefore they meant, that we do not receive it essentially.

You, for want of other support, presse the sentence of Cyrill of Alexandria. Ob. Cyril. Alex. ad Coelosyr. Episc. Nè dubites an verum sit, cùm dicit manifestè [Hoc est corpus me­um:] sed potens fide tene verba Christi. Doubt not (saith he) of the truth of Christs speech, when hee saith manifestly [This is my Body] but rather beleeve his words, This is that Testimony of Cyrill, 10 which although it bee out of an Epistle, not found in the an­cient Editions, but of a latter date, and but some few yeares agoe set forth (as your Iesuite Possevin. Ap­parat. Tit. Cyrillus Alex.—Paucos ante annos edlta est ejus Epistola ad Coelo­syr. Episc. [And Bel­larm. seemeth not to be so confident hereof, when in objecting this, he had rather remit his Reader to Garce­tius, to see the place, than insist upon the words himselfe, say­ing; Solet citari Epi­stola ejus ad Coelosy­rium, vide locum apud Ioh. Garcetium. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 26.] Possevin confesseth) yet doubt not we to embrace it in Cyrils sense: who having now to deale with such Heretikes, who taught that Christ had but a seeming Phantasticall Body, doth refute them by Christs speech of this Sacrament, saying, [This is my Body.] Which, Sacramentally spoken and understood, must needs evince, that Christ had a true naturall Body in himselfe, because this Sacrament was instituted to bee a Signe of a true, and 20 truly-crucified Body, not a Signe of a Figure, but of a reall thing: and therefore requireth in the Receiver not fancie, but faith to beleeve that Christ had a Substantiall body, which is the very Argument of Tertullian See Sect. [...]9. fol­lowing. afterwards, a­gainst the same delusion of the sayd Heretikes.

Chrysost. in 1. Cor. c. 10. Hom. 24. [Quoniam unus pa­nis, & unum corpus multi sumus.] Quid enim appello, inquit, communicationem? [Idem ipsum corpus sumus.] Quidnam est panis? [corpus Christi.] Quid autem fiunt qui accipiunt corpus Christi? non multa, sed [unum corpus.] Nam quemadmo­dum panis ex multis granis unitur, ut mi­nimè grana appare­ant, sed tamen grana sunt, verum incertâ discretione conjuncta invicem: ità & nos Christo cōjungimur, non enim alio corpo­re tu, alio ille aliter, sed eodem omnes. Chrysostome, being so eminent a Doctor of the Greeke Church, may in no case be left out: he comparing the Speech of Christ, calling Bread his Body; and the words of the A­postle, in calling the Companie of the faithfull Communi­cants also the Body of Christ, asketh, concerning the first, 30 What is Bread? and answereth, The Body of Christ: and accordingly touching the second, What those faithfull Com­municants are made, which receive the Body of Christ? An­swereth, They are made the Body of Christ. But the faithfull Receivers (as you know) are not properly Christs Body.

The onely A [...]nswer that your Cardinall would affoord us, is, thatBellar. l. 2. de Euch. c. 22. Respon­det, Loquitur Chry­sostomus de pane consecrato. Chrysostome spake of Bread Consecrated, and not before Consecration. Which Answer doth fortifie our Argument, to shew that Chrysostome held it to bee Bread 40 still after Consecration, as appeareth in his other saying concerning the same Consecrated Bread, or [...] Loafe (as it signi­fieth the mysticall Body of Christ) in that As Bread is united of many granes of Corne, not discernable, but yet are still the granes of Corne, joyned secretly one with another. So are wee joyned together with Christ his owne Body. So Chrysostome. Which words can in no wise bee affirmed of your Romish meere Accidents of Bread, wherein there is no mixture of [Page 118] any Granes of Corne, or of Vnion one with another in one Loafe, whereby to betoken the Vnion of godly Christi­ans joyntly in one Christ. And therefore certainely Saint Chrysostome beleeved the continuance of the substantiall matter of Bread, after the words of Consecration.

All these former Testimonies of Antiquity fight as well also by necessary Consequence against your Individuum va­gum, that is, [THIS,] you know not what: even as Iustine, one of the ancientest of Fathers, doth declare, wherein hee saithIustin. Quaest. & Resp. ad Graecos. Qu. 229. pag. 151. [...]. There is not any Thing, but it is [This same Some­thing:]10 there is not a Body which is not [This same Body.] So he, according to Aristotle, denying any thing to bee called [This Thing] properly, which is not absolutely and determinately This one Individuall thing. Your quaintest device is yet behind.⚜

A SECOND CHALLENGE, Against the last and most peremptory Romish Pretence, making Christ in this Sacrament to figure, and to represent him­selfe,20 as a King in a Stage-play.

THe Solution, which seemeth to your Disputers most per­swasive, is thus set downe by your Cardinall, and your Iesuite Suarez, viz.Solutio. Eucha­ristiam etiam post Con secrationem di­ci posse Antitypum corporis & sanguinis Domini, non solùm quia species panis & vini sunt figurae cor­poris & sanguinis Domini ibi reverâ existentium, sed eti­am quià corpus & sanguis Domini, ut sunt sab illis specie­bus, signa sunt ejus­dem corporis & san­guinis, ut fuerunt in Cruce, repraesentant enim passionē Chri­sti: & ideò fortassis Basilius. Et alij Patres non vocant Eucha­risti [...]m figuram aut typum, sed Antity­pum &c—Ità si Rex aliquis, gravissimo bello confecto, idem ipsum bellum ad oblectamentum populo in scenâ praesens seipsum bellantem repraesentare vellet. Bell l. 2 de Euch. cap. 15. Antitypa corporis & sanguinis Christi dicuntur, quià corpus & s [...]nguis Domini, ut sunt sub illis speciebus panis & vini in Eucharistia, signa sunt cor­poris passi, & sanguinis estusi in Cruce. Suarez. quo suprap. 554. Graeci Patres cùm passim vocant Sacramenta Antitypa,—nihil aliud sibi volunt quàm habere Sacramenta maximam similitudinem cum ijs rebus, quarum sunt Sacramenta. Bellar. lib. 1. de S [...]am. in gerere cap. 9. The Greeke Fathers called Bread and Wine, Antitypes, and Signes of the Body and Blood of Christ, be­cause the same Body and Blood of Christ, as they are in this Sacra­ment, under the formes of Bread and Wine, are Signes of the same his Body and Blood, as they were on the Crosse. Like as a King, who having gotten a vistory in battell, should represent himselfe in a Stage-Play, as in a fight. So They. But without any Sen­tence 30 of any Father, for countenancing so egregious a figment; so farre were the Fathers from using that counterfeit Testi­mony, which passeth under the name of Saint Augustine, as if he had said; The flesh of Christ is a Sacrament of his flesh: and inferring from hence, that The Body of Christ, as it is in this Sa­crament, is a signe of it selfe, as it was upon the Crosse.

And they are no small Babes, who vent out this proofe; by nameBillius com. in Nazianz. orat. 11. Audiamus quid Augustinus dicit in Prosperi sententijs; Caro inquit, ejus est, quam forma panis opertam in Sacramento accipimus; sanguis, quem sub specie vini potamus; Caro, viz. carnis, & sanguis Sacramentum est sanguinis, carne & sanguine utro (que) invisibil [...]\i, & intelligibili, & spirituali significatur corpus Christi visibile, plenum gratiae, & di­vi [...]ae Majestatis Gardiner. Episc. Winton. Augustini verba, ut li [...]era sonat, intelligit. Item Claudius Sainctes repetur, & allegari ait, ut corpus Christi ostenditur, quatenus in Sacramento est, seipsum significare, ut erat in cruce, sui (que) Sacramentum esse & figuram, & figuram esse passionis suae; Eandem sententiam apertissime tuetur Roff [...]ns & Iohan. Hessell Haec Billius. Billius, Gardiner Bishop of Winchester, Claudius 40 [Page 119] Sainctes (one of name in the Councel of Trent) Fisher Bishop of Rochester, and Hessell. But how prove They this? Out of any of the works of Augustine? No, where then? Wee are re­quired to seeke it in Prosper; where againeTrithemius. Ex sententijs Augustini, versibus hexametris & pentametris mix­tum opus prosa pul­ [...]erri [...]um quod [...] voluit, Epi­ [...] [...]mma, sic incipit, [...]um Sacris, &c. [But of the other Intituled, Sententiarum ex o­peribus Augustini, beginning thus, Inno­centia, hee maketh no mention; yea, and e­ven in this (as it is now set out among the works of Prosper.) p [...]inted Coloniae A­grippinae. An. 1609. apud Arnoldum Cri­thum, It is not to bee sound.] it is not to be found. Whither next? forsooth it is so cited by Peter Lom­bard, and there it appeareth that Peter Lombard had it out of his supposed Brother Gratian; wee say, Gratian, whose bookes have beene lately reproved, and condemned by one of your Antonius Au­gustinus Archiepis [...]o­pus Tarracon. De e­mēdatione Gratiani. Arch-bishops, for many False allegations of Testimonies of 10 Fathers. And when all is done, if eitherLombardus. At­tende his diligenter, quia Tropo quodam utitur hic Augusti­nus, quo solent res significantes rerum sortiri vocabula, quas significant; Visibilis species panis vocatur nomine Carnis, & species vini sangui­nis, &c. Lib. 4. distinct. 10. Apud Billium quo supra. Peter Lombard orGratian. Ca­ro, Id est, species Carnis, sub quo later corpus Christi,—Est Sacramentum C [...]ruis Christi, & sanguis, Id est, species vini, sub qua later sanguis Christi, est Sacra­mentum sanguinis Christi De Consecrat. dest. 2. Cap. Hoc est quod. in Glossa. Gratian, who are the Relators, may be admitted to be the Interpreters of that coyned Sentence, they will say that the word Flesh, there specified, is taken for the Shape or forme of flesh; and the word Blood, for the outward forme of Blood; which spoyleth your Play quite: wherein you will have the Flesh of Christ under the outward formes and shape, in this Sacrament, and not the outward formes and shape themselves, to be the Signe of the same Body on the Crosse. So easie it is for Hunters to pursue their Game with loud cries upon a false sent.

20 Wee returne to your Cardinall, and to Suarez, who inven­ted the Similitude of the Stage-Play for their Answer, which is indeed rather a Childish Playing, than Theologicall reaso­ning; yet it is but a mad sport to argue against Conscience; as this your Cardinall must needs have done, whoSee above at (c) confes­sing that the Greeke Fathers did therefore call Sacraments, Anti­types, because of the great Similitude they have with the things they represent; yet now adventureth to say, that the Body of Christ, as it is in the Eucharist, is a Signe of the same Body of 30 Christ, as it was upon the Crosse; notwithstanding the Body of Christ, as it is in the Sacrament, (according to your owne faith) is soChristi corpus, ut est in hoc Sacra­mento, nullo oculo humano, vel intellectu Angelico videri potest. Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. Disp. 53. Art. 7. §. 4. & 5. Sub singulis ut [...]üs (que) speciei partibus Christus totus est, et integer continetur. Concil Trident. Sess. 18. cap. 3. Invisible, that it cannot be seene of Angels; so Indivisi­ble, that it cannot be parted or divided; and so Vnbloody, that there is not the least tincture of Blood to be discerned there­in.

Wherefore to perswade your Disciples, that those grave Fathers ever taught that the Invisible, Indivisible, and Vnbloody Body of Christ, as in this Sacrament, was or could be the Signe of his visible, torne, crucified and bloody Body upon the 40 Crosse; and so to note an Antitype, which is (as you call it) theSee above at (c) Greatest Similitude, is all one, as to finde out the greatest Similitude in the greatest Dissimilitude. Which yet is the more intollerable, because it is against the ConfessedBillius. Eucharistiae Sacramentum dicitur Antitypon, et Typus, seu Symbolum, ratione [...]pecierum pa [...]s et vini, quae in oculorum sensum cadunt: et haec est communis ratio, quae à Theolo­gis as [...]erri solet. Haec ille Com. in Naz. orat. 11. Common [Page 120] opinion of your owne Divines, who have taught that The Sa­crament of the Eucharist is called Type and Antitype, because of the formes of Bread and Wine. So your Billius. May you not now discerne the notable perversnesse of your Disputers, and that they devised this Stage-Play, ad faciendum Populum, to please and delude their Readers? thereby to fit themselves the better for the Pageant; whereof wee shall be occasioned to say more in theBooke 6. c. 5. §. 7. sixth Booke.

That the onely Objection out of the Greeke Fathers, concerning the Pronoune [HOC] in the Testimony of Epiphanius,10 advantageth not the Romish Cause. SECT. VII.

COmpare but Epiphanius his owne Epiphanius in Ancorato. Videmus quod accepit Salva­tor in manus, veluti Evangelista habet, quod surrexit à Coe­na, & accepit haec, & cum gratias egisset, dixit; Hoc meum est, & hoc: & vide­mus quod non ae­quale est, ne (que) simile, non imagini in car­ne, non invisibili dei­tati, non lineamentis membrorum, hoc e­nim rotundae formae est, & insensibile quantum ad potenti­am, & voluit per gra­tiam dicere, hoc me­um est, & hoc: & nemo non fidem habet sermoni, qui enim non credit ip­sum esse verum, exci­dit à gratia & salute. Ob. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch cap. 20. words, your Cardi­nall's Cum docere vellet Epiphan. homi­nem verè factum ad imaginem Dei, licet non facile app [...]reat in quo consistat similitudo inter Deum et hominem, cum Deus incorporalis sit, immensus; et dicit multa esse ejusmodi quae aliud sunt, aliud videntur, ponit exemplum de Eucharistia, quae verè est corpus Christi, & tamen nihil minus est, quam quod appareat exterius, cum sit [...]o­tundum et insensibile; & proinde validè dissimile corpori Christi. Hic sanè locus omninò convinci [...], nam quod dicit, oporet credere ipsum esse verum, excludit Tropos, praesertim cum addat, excidere à Salute qui non credit: quod etiam addit ciedendum esse, licet sensus repugnent, apertissime testatur, non cum loqui de signi­ficatione, sed de re ipsa. [words to be observed in the Greeke are these: [...]. The last words shew that Insensible is taken according to power, that is, actively.] Objection, and our Answer, and then make your owne determination, as you shall thinke good. Man is said to be made after the Image of God. Epiphanius, not able to define what this Image consisted in, whether it be man's soule, or minde, or virtue; notwithstanding resolveth thatc All men have the Image of God in them, but yet not according to nature,20 (namely, that substantiall nature which is in God) because God is Incomprehensible and infinite, &c. This is the maine point which Epiphanius will now illustrate: but how? By something (saith your Cardinall) which seemeth to be that which it is not: And Epiphanius instanceth in the Eucharist, wherein Christ ta­king into his hands those things which the Evangelists do mention, he said of the one [HOC] This is mine, viz. Body; and of the o­ther, This is mine, viz. Blood: hereby understanding (saith your Objector) The Eucharist, which is truely the Body of Christ, although it seeme not to be so, outwardly, being of a round figure,30 and Insensible (or without sense) and therefore farre unlike to be the Body of Christ. So he. Who, thinking he hath overcome, doth raise up his Iö, and Triumph, saying, This argument is throughly convincent, because Epiphanius addeth, He who belie­veth not the words of Christ, doth fall from Salvation: adding further, that they are to be beleeved, although our senses gaine­say it.

You have heard the Objection, which seeming to so great a 40 Champion so greatly Convincent, you will give us licence to [Page 121] make a full Answer. First, by HOC ET HOC, THIS AND THIS (by the Interpretation of Epiphanius) are meant, The things which the Evangelist did mention; and the Evangelist mentioned (as you know) Bread, [He tooke Bread, He tooke the Cup,] meaning Wine in the Cup, namely, according to theSee above Chap. 1. §. 6. former generall Consent of the Fathers, [HOC] signifyed Bread in one part of the Eucharist, and Wine in the other. But Bread neither in the Substance, nor in the Accidents can be called Christs Body, without a Trope, as hath beeneSee above Chap. 1. §. 4. Confessed: which is our first confutation of your Cardinal, who concludeth that Epiphanius excludeth all Tropes out of Christs Speech of [HOC.]

SecondlyEpi­phanius in An­corato. Habent omnes id quod est secundùm I­maginem Dei, sed non secun­dùm naturam: non enim se­cundùm aequa­litatem habent homines, Deus enim mente in­cō prehensibilis est, cum spiri­tus sit super omnem spiritū. All men (saith Epiphanius) have the Image of God, al­though 10 not according to nature, or equality; because God, the Spirit of Spirits, is Incomprehensible. Then he seeketh a Similitude from the Eu­charist, an Image of a thing which seemeth to be that, which in na­ture and equality it is not. Now in the Eucharist there are two things to be distinguished, the one is the Naturall, the other is the Sacra­mentall Being thereof. The Naturall Being of the Elements, as of Bread and Wine, cannot make this Similitude; because, whether they be taken as Substances or Accidents, [Hoc, This] hath no propor­tion with the word which is called [Meum] meaning Christs Body, because the Hoc (as Epiphanins saith) is a Round figure. But as Hoc 20 and Hoc are Sacramentall Images, representing Meum and Meum, Christs Body and Blood: the Bread broken to betoken his Body cruci­fyed, and the Wine poured out a-part, to signifie Christs Blood Shed: so will the Similitude be most Harmonicall. Even as Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, although they differ in nature, yet are they repre­sentative Signes and Images of the Body and Blood of Christ. So the Image of God in man, hath a resemblance of the Godhead, although in respect of Nature and Equality it be as different as Finite and Infi­nite, Comprehensible and Incomprehensible. According to which Analogicall, Mysticall, and acramentall sense, upon the hearing of these words of Epiphanius, Whosoever will not believe Christs words, as hee said, falleth from grace, wee willingly shall say Amen. The ra­ther, 30 because Epiphanius being an Adversarie to the Marcionites, who denyed Christ to have a True Body, but onely Phantasticall, notwithstanding whatsoever proofe from mens senses, who saw and felt them; they could not digest the Faith of the Romish Church, which teacheth that that, which Epiphanius calleth Bread after Con­secration, should be (contrary to the Demonstration of [...]oure Senses, as of Seeing, Smelling, Feeling and Tasting) meere Accidents.

Thirdly (a place as observable as any other) He saith of this, [Hoc] 40 which is of a round figure, and differing in nature and proportion from that [Meum] which is the Body of Christ, that it is [...], Insensible: But how, Passively? as not being able to be perceived? No, for then it could not be perceived to be Round. But Actively, as not able to perceive any thing, in which respect hee opposeth it to [Meum,] which is the Body of Christ. Which againe manifestly contradicteth [Page 122] the abominable cōmon doctrine of your Church, as you have heard, of Believing the Body of Christ, as it is in this Sacrament, to be un­able either to see or heare, or exercise any faculty of sense without a Mi­racle; as is shewed, Book. 4. Chap. 9. Sect. 2.

In the last place I require Iustice from your selves against a Pro­ctor of yours. The Case is this: Bellarmine said (quoth I) that Epi­phanius taught, We are to believe these words of Christ, although they be repugnant to our senses: which last words [Although they be repugnant to our senses] said I, No man of sense can find in Epiphanius. This saith the Proctor is a false Taxation. And I, for my Iustification, shall de­sire 10 no other Advocate than Bellarmines owne words, Hic locus E­piphanij omninò convincit, quia addit etiam (nimirum Epiphanius) Hoc esse credendum, licet sensus repugnent. And now when you shal summ up the Premises, you will easily judge how the Testimonie of Epi­phanius will be held to be Convincent.

That the same Greeke Fathers have expresly unfolded their Meanings, touching a Figurative Sense. SECT. VIII.

THe Iudgement of a whole Councel of Greek Fathers may well 20 suffice for the manifestation of the Iudgement of that Church; They in their Councel at Trullo, alluding to these words of Christ, [This is my Body] saying, Let nothing be offered, but the Body and Blood of Christ, that is (sayIn san­ctis nihil plus quàm corpus & sanguis Christi offeratur, ut ip­se Dominus tradidit, hoc est panis & vinū aquâ mixtum. Concil. Constāt. apud Binium, [which Canon was made a­gainst the A­qua [...]ij (those who would use no Wine) Can. 32.] called Sy­nodus quini­sexta. They) Bread and Wine, &c. If we had not told you that this had been the speech of Greek Fathers in a Councel, you would have conceived they had bin uttered by some Heretike, as your Charity useth to call us Protestants. Neither may the Authority of this Councel be rejected by you, as unlawfull in the point of the Sa­crament, because your Binius, in opposing against some things in this Councel, yet never tooke any Exception against this Canon. 30

We may not let passe another Testimony, used by the ancient Fa­ther See above, §. 6. at the Let. (x). Theodoret, namely, That Christ called the Bread his Body, as he called his Body Bread, Matth. 12. saying therof, Except the grane of wheat die, &c. insomuch that interchangably in the one place, He gave to the Signe the name of his Body, and in the other, He gave to his Body the name of the Signe. So he. As Protestantly as either Calvin or Beza could speak. And you cannot deny, but that when Christ called his Body Bread, it was an improper and Figurative speech. And therfore, if you will believe Theodoret, you are compellable to confesse, that Christ, in calling Bread his Body, ment it not in a proper & literal sense.40

Wee were about to proceed, but that your Doctor Hes­kins will needs crosse us in our way, by objecting the Cur­rent of Oecumenius in his Exposition of those words of the A­postle, Wee are all one Body, inasmuch as wee are partakers of one Bread, saying: Dr. Hes­kins in his Par­liam. of Christ. Booke 3. C. 28. Oecū. in 1. Cor. 11. Quid est panis? Corpus Christi: Quid efficiunturij qui participant? Corpus sanè Christi, quia ait Apostolus, [unus panis, & unum corpus sumus, quia de uno pane participamus] ex multis namque granis (ut exempli gra­tia loquamur) unus panis factus est; & nos multi ex uno pane participantes efficimur unum corpus Christi. What is one Bread? the Body of Christ: [Page 123] and what are they made that partake of this one Bread? The Body of Christ: for this one Bread is made of many granes, and we being many partakers of one Bread, are made one Body. Hence your Doctor; In my judgement this needeth no explanation: for asking a question [what is Bread?] he answereth, [The Body of Christ.] Note then (Reader) he saith not it is a Signe of Christs Body, but the Body of Christ VERILY, where he speaketh both of the Bread partaken, which he saith is Verily Christs Body; and also of the Partakers, who be made the my­sticall 10 Body of Christ; wherein the Reader may see how rightly he confirmeth the Catholike faith. So he.

And so wee thinke he doth; but then must not your Po­pish, be this Catholike faith, because Oecumenmus calleth (so) Bread the Body of Christ Sacramentally, as hee calleth the Partakers of the same Bread, or Loafe, the mysticall Body of Christ. But the Partakers and Communicants are Christs my­sticall Body only Figuratively, and by Analogy; therfore the Bread is named the Naturall Body of Christ Figura­tively, and as the Symboll thereof; as Christ himselfe cal­leth 20 it, by the Iudgement of Antiquitie, throughout the Second Booke. Which therfore the Apostle here calleth Bread, after Consecration; and, as Oecumenius noteth, such Bread as consisteth of many granes of Corne; which must needs be Substantially Bread, thereby to represent the people, con­sisting of many Persons in one Communion. [...]o but Oecume­nius (saith your Doctor) speaking of Bread, called Christs Body, nameth it VERILY Christs Body, which is (if it be lawfull to speake rudely) a very-Lye. For the words, Verè Corpus Christi, Verily Christs Body, are attributed to the Partakers of the 30 Bread, which are the mysticall Body of Christ; and not either to the Bread, or Naturall Body of Christ. Hitherto of the Greeke Fathers.

That the same Figurative Sense of Christs words is avouched by the Testimonies of the Latine Fathers; more largely (now) insisted on. SECT. IX.

40 SOme of the Latine Fathers (we confesse) seeme in some pla­ces to deny all Figurative sense, but this they doe even by a Figure calledAs is afterwards many wheres discove­red. Hyperbole, that is, only in the excesse of Speech, thereby to abstract the minds of sensuall men from fixing their thoughts upon externall Rites, and to raise them up to a Sacra­mentall and Spirituall Contemplation of the Body and Blood of Christ. But as for the direct and perspicuous Sentences of these [Page 124] Fathers, they clearely and exactly teach a Figurative sense in the words of Christ; (to wit)Tertull. con­tra Marcion. lib. 4. pag. 233. Edit Paris. Profellus est Chri­stus se concupivisle edere Pascha ut su­um: indignum enim ut aliquid alienum concupisceret Deus: acceptum panem & distributum Discipu­lis corpus suum fecit, Hoc est corpus me­um dicendo, id est, Figura corporis mei: figura enim non fu­isset, nisi veritatis es­set corpus. Caeterum vacua res, quod est phantasma, figuram capere non potest. Tertullian whose words are as plaine as any glasse can be, saying of Christ, Hee distributed his Body, that is, a Signe of his Body.

⚜The Fantastike Marcionites held, that Christ had no essentiall Body, but onely a figurative, and Fantasticall. These Heretikes Tertullian confuteth by Christ his Institu­tion of the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, (as theAt the let. (p.) Mar­gin will shew you) thus: Nothing that is fantasticall is capa­ble of a figure; because this were to make a signe of a Signe,10 or figure. But Christ in this Sacrament gave a Signe of his Body: Therefore Christ had (namely, in himselfe) a Reall and Substantiall Body, and not fantasticall. That he gave a Figure of his Body, hee proveth out of the Gospel, where hee is found desirous to eate his owne Passeover with his Disci­ples, when taking Bread, he made it his Body, saying, This is my Body, that is a figure of my Body. So he, as Protestantly as can be spoken.

Which our Collection, your miserable shift, how to ridde your selves of it, doth rather confirme unto us;Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 7. Illud Tertulliani [Hoc est corpus meum] Id est, non significat panem Eucharis [...]ae esse sigu­ram corporis Domi­ni, sed quod fuit olim figura in Testamen­to veteri, nunc in ve­ritatem corporis mu­tatum esse—Con­jungitur enim figura corporis mei, cùm hoc, ut sit sensus, Hoc, Id est, Panis qui olim fuit figura cor­poris mei. The 20 Sense is this (saith your Cardinall) THIS, that is, This Bread which was once (namely, in the old Testament) a signe of my Body. So he. O the profundity of this Answer! Is a Signe, saith Tertullian; that is, Was a Signe, saith your Cardi­nall. If one, saying of the Sun-rising, It is in the East, and your Cardinall should comment, saying, that is, It was in the East; would you believe him? And that Tertullian meant directly that the Bread, which he now spoke of, signified not the Bread of the Old Testament, but the Bread of the Eucha­rist, as it was a Signe then representing the Body of Christ; 30 two reasons may perswade us. First, because Tertullian ob­serveth that Christ (concerning the participating of the Eucharist) said, That hee desired to eate his owne Passeover; meaning, the Eucharist, as distinct from the Iewish Passeover. Next, because he confuteth the Heretikes, who denyed that Christ had a true Body, by this Sacrament, because Bread herein was a figure of a Body, And Christ's figures were not of things only imaginary; but also reall and essentiall.

And this is confessed by your IesuiteMaldon. Ies. de sacra Euchar. §. 13. Conjectura. pag. 295. Dicet aliquis cur Ter­tullianus figuram vo­cavit potiùs quàm ve­ritatem. Respons. Id propositam quaellio­nem postulasse, vo­lebat enim probare contra Marcionitas, Christum habuisse verum corpus, quia illi negare non pote­rant fuisse Euchari­st [...]am figuram corpo­ris. Si autem fuit si­gura, fuit veritas: quia fantasma sigu­ram non caperet. Maldonate, to have beene the Argument of Tertullian, who once againe 40 sheweth that Christ called Bread his Body, in saying, [This is my Body] as the Prophet Ieremy called his Body, Bread, in saying, Let us put Wood upon his Bread, meaning his Body. So Tertullian, shewing them both to be spoken equally in a fi­gurative sense. These are so directly repugnant to your Ro­mish doctrine, that one of your Church, in his Admonition before the words of Tertullian, seemes to impute unto Ter­tullian. [Page 125] the Heresie (which you commonly lay to the charge of us Protestants)Beat. Rhe [...]n. Admonit. ante lib. Tertull. Error putan­tium corpus Christi esse tantùm sub sigu­ra, condemnatur est. Of thinking the Body of Christ to be onely in a figure in this Sacrament of the Eucharist.

Next, Cyprian, thus; Cyprian. Serm. de Vact. Et signifi­cantia & significata ijsdem vocabuliscen­serentur. Things signifying and signified, are called by the same words. Vpon the which ground he made bold to say, that Christ's Body is Created in this Sacrament: by [Bo­dy] understanding Bread, saith your Cardinall Bellarmine. Hierome, Hier. cont. Iovia. Typus sanguinis. Wine, the Type of Christ his Blood. Gelasius, Gelas. cont. Eu­tych. Quod in ejus imagine profitemur. Apud Bibliothec. Pa­trum. Tom. 5. p. 475. Bread, the image of his Body. Ambrose, Ambros. de Inst. mister. cap 9. Post consecrationem cor­pus Christi significa­tur.—Et 1 Cor. 11. Mysterium esse Ty­pum sanguinis. After consecra­tion 10 Christ his Body is signified.

⚜Whereupon we are compelled to complaine against your Cardinall Bellarmine, who even there, where he professed­ly laboureth to extract, out of the Fathers, your Romish sense from the words of Christ [This is my Body] for a proofe of the literall exposition thereof, as they sound, [This is my Body] and not as Protestants teach, This signifieth my Body; misallegeth the words of Saint Ambrose to his owne pur­pose, thus; Before the Benediction of Christ's words This is my Body] one kinde of thing is named, and after Consecration 20[It is the Body of Christ: ] insteed of these words [After the Consecration, Bellar. lib 4. de Eucharist. cap 13. §. Gregor. Nyssen. Explicat Ambrosius lib 4. de Sacrament. cap. 4. quae sint ver­ba Domini, in quibus Sacramentum confi­citur, recitans illa [Hoc est, &c.] Et in lib. de. Init. Myster. cap. 9. Ipse clamat Dominus Iesus, Hoc est corpus meum, ante benedictionem verborum coelestium alia species nomina­tur, post consecratic­nem corpus Christi est. the Body of Christ is signified.] Iust Protestant­wise, as can be. Do but now tell us, how you wish wee should censure this Errour; whether as a wilfull Falsity? and then should you eclipse his Credit and Authority: or else only as a Temeritie? and then ought you to Censure as indifferently of such escapes (if any such happen) of Prote­stants, according to the Law of Equitie—Veniam peti­musque Damusque vicissim.

Saint Augustine (whom one of your profession hath of late 30 more choicely singled out for a Patron of your Romish defence) hath unanswerably impugned your Romish Faith in this very point, proving other Sacraments to agree with this, in like of Predication, and that herein the Eucharist hath not Prerogative above the rest. Aug. lib. 3. de Doctr. Christ. Figu­rata locutio. Idem cont. Adimant. Ma­nich. cap. 12. Non dubitavit dicere, [Hoc est corpus me­um] cum signū daret corporis sui. Idem E­pist. 23. ad Bonifac. Tom 9. Sacramenta propter similitudi­nem earum rerum, quas repraesentant, plerun (que) etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt. Sicut ergò secundùm quendam modum Sacramentum corporis Christi, corpus Christi; et Sacramentum sanguinis Christi, sanguis Christi: ità Sacramentum fidei sides est—Sicut de ipso Baptismo ait, Consepulti sumus per baptismum in mortem Christi: non dicit, sepulturam significamus, sed prorsus ait, Consepulti sumus.—Sacramentum igitur tantae rei non nisi ejusdam rei vocabulo nuncupavit. [And intripreting that which he called Fidei Sacra­mentum, hee sa [...]:] Respondetur, Parvulum baptizatum credere propter fidei Sacramentum. Sacraments (saith he) for the very Similitude and likenesse, wihich they have with the things wherof they are Sacraments, do often take the names of those things which they do signific, as when the Sacrament of Christ's Body (saith he) is after a certaine manner called the Body of Christ. But how? Hee ad­deth (as if hee had meant to stop the Mouthes of all Opposites) 40 As it is said by the Apostle of Baptisme [we are buried by Baptisme into the death of Christ, ] He saith not we signifie his buriall, but ab­solutely saith [we are buried:] therfore hath he called the Sacra­ment [Page 126] or Signe of so great a thing by the name of the thing signi­fied thereby. So hee, even the same Hee, who will bee found like himselfe in the following passages of this and other books, especially when wee shall handle the Manner of eating of Christs Body, which Augustine will challenge to bee Figura­tively meant.

⚜ Your Answerers are so puzzled with Saint Augustine his Testimonies, that you may doubt whether rather to pity their perplexities, or else to hate their perversenesse; as you may see by another Testimony of the same Father,10 which wee may not let passe.Aug. con. Adi­mant. cap. 12. Scrip­tum est, sanguinem precoris animam ejus esse.—Possum in­terpretari praeceptum illud in signo esse positum: non enim dubitavit Christus dicere, Hoc est corpus meum, cum signum dedit corporis sui. Christ doubted not to say, [This is my Body,] when hee gave a Signe of his Body: even as (hee saith) hee might interpret that Scripture, Deut. 12. The blood of the Beast is the life of the Beast: The blood is a signe thereof. Where his sole ayme is to expound the Verbe [Est,] to bee no more than it Is a Signe or Signifieth. But whether (as yourBell. l. 2. de Euch. cap. 24. [in his two last, as it were in his best Answeres.] Aug. intelligere non nu­dum signum, sed cum re ipsa conjun­ctum: nec corporis absentis, ut sanguis signum, non animae absentis. 2. Sol. Sig­num corporis immo­lari in Cruce. Cardinall fancieth) it was a Signe of Christ's Bo­dy present in the Eucharist, or rather as absent after, on the Crosse, Aug. regardeth not to mention, but meerly to teach here (which he doth more exactly else-where) that where­soever 20 any thing is predicated and affirmed of another thing, of a different nature, (as when the Signe is called by the name of the thing signified) the speech is Figurative; as Christ by the Apostle is called Rocke; August. quaest. super Levit. cap. 57. Non est dictum, Pe­tra significat Chri­stum, sed Petra erat Christus: sic solet loqui Scriptura, res significātes, tanquàm res quae significan­tur, appellans. & Tract. 77. It is not said, (saith Saint Augustine) The Rocke signifieth Christ, but, the Rocke is Christ: which is usuall (saith he) in Scripture, which calleth signes of things by the names of the things themselves, which are signified thereby.

It will not be impertinent to adjoyne hereunto your Iesui­ticall Interpretation of these words of the Apostle, [The 30 Rocke was Christ,] and after to compare it with this of Saint Augustine, that thereby we may the better discerne Light from darkenesseIa [...]. Gordon. Ies. lib. Controv. 3. cap. 7. num. 21. [Petra erat Christus, 1. Cor. 10.] Germanus & litera­lis sensus non est iste, Petra significat Christum, ut putant Adversarij, qui ex hoc loco contendunt probare, verbum sub stantiv [...]n, Est, ali­quandò usurpari pro, significat, ut indè fa­ciliùs ign [...]ris persua­deant verbum, Est, in verbis Christi idem valere quod sig­nificat. The Literall and Proper Sense of these words (saith hee) is not that which our Adversaries (meaning Protestants) doe hold [The Rocke signified Christ:] contending hereupon to prove that the Verbe [EST] is some­time used for [SIGNIFIETH] that thereby they may the more easily perswade that the word [EST] in Christs Speech is the same, in Sense, with [SIGNIFIETH.] So hee. What Heretike could have more confronted Saint Augustine, 40 than your Iesuite hath, by denying the words [The Rocke was Christ] to bee in true Sense, Did Signifie Christ? Se­condly, that [Est] elsewhere is used in Scripture for [Sig­nificat:] in both which Saint Augustine is as absolute an Ad­versarie; and yet no more in these than, indeed, in the whole Cause concerning the Corporall presence of Christ in this Sa­crament.

[Page 127] And the cause of Saint Augustines interpretation is plaine: For Adimantus the Manichee objected to the Iewe;Aug. cont. Adimant. quo sap. A­dimantus Manichae­us [...]it, secundùm in­tellectum Iudaeorum, qui dicunt sanguinem esse animam, sequi, &c. That they understood by the other Text [The blood of the Beast is the soule thereof] not that it was conteined in the soule, or joyned with the soule: but that it is the soule it selfe. This is that Li­terall interpretation, which Augustine declineth, and ex­poundeth the words as spoken Figuratively, Signe, for the thing signified, asSee above at the letter (u). hee did in the speech of Christ, saying of Bread, This is my Body. And doth notCyril. Hier. Catech. Mistag. 2 [...]. Cyril call Bap­tisme the Antitype of Christs Passion?

Saint Augustine desireth to have one word more. Aug. in lib. Sent. Prosperi. De Consecrat. Dist. [...] Cap.—Hoc est quod dicimus sicut ergò coelestis panis, qui Christi caro est, suo modo vocatur corpus Christi, cum reverâ sit Sacramē. u n cor­poris Christi; illius videlicet quod visibi­le, quod palpabile, [...] mortale in cruze po­situm est, vocatur (que) ipsa immolatio car­nis, quae Sacerdotis manibus sit, Christi passio, mors, crucifi­xio: non rei verita­te, sed significante mysterio. The 10 Heavenly Bread (saith hee) which is Christ's flesh, is called after a maner the Body of Christ, when as indeed it is the Sa­crament of Christ's Body, to wit, of that Body which is vi­sible, palpable, mortall: and the Immolation of his flesh, which is done by the hands of the Priest, is called Christ's Passion, Death, and Crucifixion, but not in the veritie of the thing, but in a Significant mysterie. So he. Which words, if they should need a Comment, can have no better, than is your owne publike privileged Romish Glosse upon them, say­ing, Gl [...]ssa in eum locum. [Coelestis] Id est Coeleste Sacra­mentum, quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem, dicitur cor­pus Christi, sed im­propriè; unde dicitue suo modo, non rel veritate; sed signisi­cante mysterio, ut sit sensus, vocatur cor­pus Christi, id est, Significat. The Heavenly Sacrament, which truly represen­teth 20 Christ's flesh, is called the Body of Christ IMPROPERLY, where it is said to be after a certaine maner the Bodie of Christ. There are foure principall Observables in this one sentence of Saint Augustine.

I. Your Doctors have vilified our Sacrament, because wee, judging it to be Bread, do but onely account it a Sa­crament of Christ's Body; Saint Augustine doth here re­prove them, as directly as if hee had said, Though it be but a Sacrament of Christ's Body, yet is it to be estee­med as Heavenly Bread. II. As often as you reade of the Bread called Christ's Body, you straine it to your owne sense, as directly demonstrating Christ's Body: Saint Augustine tel­leth 30 you that it is in it selfe onely the Sacrament of his Bodie. III. Yea but (say your Doctors) The Body of Christ herein is a Sacrament and [...]gne of himselfe, as he was on the Crosse: Nay will S. Augustine say, not so, for the Body of Christ is Invisible, and insensibl [...] unto us; but the Sacrament is a thing repre­senting unto us a visible, palpable, and mortall Body of Christ. IV. Your men are still instant to interpret it of Christ's Bo­dy Corporally present therein; and S. Augustine offereth to 40 illuminate your understandings by the light of a Similitude, saying, The thing in the hands of the Priest is so called Christ's Flesh, as his Immolation of Christ's Body, heerein, is called Christ's Passion: and that it is not properly, and lively so meant, but [Suo modo] that is, (as your owne Glosse ex­poundeth it) IMPROPERLY. Can any thing be more re­pugnant [Page 128] to your Romish Doctrine of this Sacrament; than this one Testimony of Saint Augustine is from point to point?

The Bp. Facundus, who lived about the yeare 546. (an Au­thor much magnified by yourIac. Sirmun­dus. Ies. Epist. Dedic. ante lib. Facundi. Maximam Romanae sedis potestatem ce­lebrat. and Baron. Ann. Chri. 546. num. 24. Prudentissimus Ecclesiasticus Agoni­stes Facundus. Iesuit, as one who extolleth the Authority of the See of Rome; and by your Cardinall, as a most wise Champion of the Church) must needs deserve of you so much credit, as to think that he would write nothing, con­cerning this Sacrament of Christ, which hee judged not to be the received Catholike doctrine of that his Age. Hee 10 thus;Facundus l. 9. defens. Trin. Cap. 5. Sacramentum Adop­tionis suscipere dig­natus est Christus: & quandò circumci­sus est, & quandò baptizatus: & potest Sacramentum Adop­tionis, Adoptio, nun­cupari, sicut Sacra­mentum corporis & sanguinis ejus, quod est in pane & poculo consecrato, corpus ejus & sanguinem dicimus: non quòd propriè id Corpus ejus sit Panis, & po­culum sanguis, sed quod in se myste­rium Corporis & sanguinis continet. The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, which is in the Bread and Cup, wee call his Body and Blood, not that it is properly his Body and Blood, but because it containeth a mysterie of his Body and Blood. Iust the dialect of Protestants. Your Iesuit vainly labouring to rectifie this sentence, by the sentences of other Fathers, in the end is glad to perswade the Readers to pardon this Father Facundus: If Peradven­ture (Idem. Sir­mundus Ies. Annot. in locum istum Facun­di. pag. 404. Quod si durius hic fortasse & obscurius quippi­am locutus videatur, dignus est veniâ, & qui à benigno inter­prete vicem officij recipiat, quod & alijs studisè, quorum dicta notabantur, non semel exhibuit. saith hee) hee hath spoken somewhat more harshly or ob­scurely, as one who himselfe having interpreted other mens Say­ings favourably, may deserve the like Courtesie of others. Thus that Iesuite. But what Pardon can the Iesuite himselfe merit 20 of his Reader, in calling the Testimony Obscure, and darke, which the Father Facundus himselfe, by a Similitude, ma­keth as cleare as day, Thus; As Christ, being Baptized, recei­ved the Sacrament of Adoption: the Sacrament of Adoption may be called Adoption; even as the Sacrament of Christ's Body is called Christ's Body. A saying which in your Church of Rome is now accounted a downe-right Heresie.

We shall take our Farewell of the Latine Fathers, in the Testi­mony of Bish. Isidore, who will give you his owne Reason, why 30 Christ called Bread his Body:Isidor. Hispalensis. Panis, quem frangimus, corpus Christi est, qui dicit, Ego sum panis vivus, &c. Vinum autem sanguis ejus est, & hoc est quod scriptum est, Ego sum vitis vera. Sed Panis, quià confirmat Corpus, ideò corpus Christi nuncupatur: Vinum autem quià sanguinem ope­ratur in carne, ideò ad sanguinem Christi resertut—Haec autem sunt visibilia, sanctificata tamen per spi­ritum Sanctum, in Sacramentum divini corporis transeunt. Lib. 1. de Offic. cap. 18. Bread (saith he) because it strength­neth the Body, is therfore called the Body of Christ: and Wine, because it maketh Blood, is therefore referred to Christ's Blood: but these two being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, are changed into a Sacra­ment of the Body and Blood of Christ. So he. 40

⚜ A Cleare Glasse, wherein the judgment of Antiquitie, for a Figurative sense of Christ's words [This is my Bo­dy,] may be infallibly discerned. SECT. X.

POnder with your selves, for Gods cause, the accurate judgement of Ancient Fathers, in their direct dilucida­tions 10 and expressions of their understanding of Christ's mea­ning, in calling Bread his Body in this sense, viz. that It signi­fieth his Body, as a Signe thereof. The Councel of Trùl­lo. See above Sect 8. Councel of Trul­lo: Bodie and Blood of Christ, that is, Bread and Wine. Chry­sostome a Greeke Father, Chrysost. See a­bove, Sect. 6. Chal­lenge 2. The faithfull are called his Bodie. Theodor. See ibid. Theodoret, Hee gave the name of Bodie to Bread, as else­where hee gave the name of Bread to his Bodie.Tertull. See a­bove, Sect. 9. let. (p.) Tertullian, This is my Bodie, that is, A figure thereof. And againe, Tertull. advers. Marcion. l. 3. p. 180. [Venite, mittamus lignum in panem e­jus.] Ier. 11. Vtique in corpus, sic enim Deus in Evangelio panem corpus suum appellans. Vt. & hiac jam intelligas, cor­poris sui figuram pa­nem dedisse, cujus re­trò corpus in panem Propheta figuravit. Christ gave his Bodie in a figure, as his Body, in the Pro­phet, 20 figured Bread.Cyprian. See a­bove, Sect. 9 (q) Cvprian, Things signifying, and things signified, are called by the same names.August. See ibid. Augustine, When hee said, [This is my Bodie] hee gave a Signe of his Bodie. And, See afterwards B. 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 5. Bread his Bodie, as he called Baptisme, a Buriall. And yet againe, As the Priest's Immolation is called Christ's Passion. Facundus, Set above, Sect. 9. Facundus, Not that it is properly his Bodie and Blood, but that it containeth a mysterie of them; being called his Bodie and Blood, as the Sacrament of Adoption (meaning Baptisme) is called Adoption.Isidor. ibid. (x.) Isidore, Called Christ's Body, because tur­ned into a Sacrament of his Bodie. Chrysostome, See Book. 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 14. Bread hath the name of Christ's Bodie, albeit it remaine in nature 30 the same. And Ephraimius naming it Christ's Bodie, which is received of the faithfull, saith, See ibid. It loseth nothing of it's Sensible Substance. (Then Bread sure, as followeth by his parallel­ling it with Baptisme:) And Baptisme being One, representeth the propriety of its Sensible Substance of Water. These are as direct, as ever Bucer or Calvin could speake. Somewhat more, for Corroboration sake.

But yet by the way, if wee shall consult with Bertram de Corpore & sanguine Domini (after that he had cited Am­brose, Hierome, Au­stine, Origen, & Ful­gentius) saith. Ani­madvertat (clarissimè Princeps) sapientia vestra. quod positis sanctarum [...]rupturarum testimonijs, & sanctorum Patrum dictis, evidentissimè monstra­tum est, quod panis, qui corpus Christi, & Cal [...]s qui sanguis Christi appellatur, figura sit, qu [...]à mysterium: & quod non parva differe [...], [...] corpus, quod per mysterium existit, & corpus quod passum est. Quia hoc proptum Servatoris corpus [...]st, nec in eo aliqua figura est, sed ipsa rei manifestatio—At in isto quod per mysterium geritur, figura est non solum proprij Christi corporis, verumetiam credentis in Christum populi. Ber­tram, to know what he hath observed both out of Scrip­tures, and Testimonies of Ancient Fathers, (by name, 40 Ambrose, Augustine, Hierome, and Fulgentius) he doth tell his Prince, and Emperour, that They demonstrate, that the Bread which is called the Bodie of Christ, is a figure, because a [Page 130] Mysterie, and that there is no small difference betweene the same Body, which is the Mysterie, and the Bodie which was cru­cified; for that this is the proper Bodie of Christ, and no figure, but a manifestation. But in that which is done by a Mysterie, there is a figure both of the proper Bodie of Christ, and also of the people that believe in him.

The same Orthodoxe Fathers of Primitive times (thir­teene in number) have told us already that Christ called See above. B. 2. Cha [...]. 1 Sect. 6. Bread his Body, which hath beene the overthrow of your Romish Expositions of Christ's speech, as you have heard:10 Saint Cyprian, saying, that Christ created his owne Body, there­by (as your [...]yp ian. See Book 3. [...]. 4 Sect. 2. (in [...] second Edi [...]ion) Cardinall confessed) meaning Bread. The Fa­thers of the Councel of Carthage, forbidding any thing to be offered in this mysterie but Bread and Wine, mixed with Water, deliver their Canon thus;Conc. Car [...]ag. Tempare Bont [...], Can 37. Or [...] L [...]tta. apud Bin. Canon. 4. In Sacramento cor­poris & sanguinis Domini nihil ampli­us offeratur, quàm quod Dominus pro­didit, hoc est, Panis & V [...]num aquâ mix­tum. [Which is a most corrupt Transtation, and ought to bee thus: Nihil amplius quàm corpus & san­guis Domini, id est, Panis & Vinum.] Which is recor­ded, De Consecrat. Cap. In Sacramento. [It can be no Answer to say, that they meant the Lay [...]ffering be­fore Consecration, be­cau [...]e they call that Offering, now spoken of, The Body and Blood of Christ, which all know to bee spoken Sacerdotally, before it was conse­crated. That nothing in those sacred mysteries be offered more than the Body and Blood of Christ, as Christ himselfe hath ordained. That is (say they) than the Bread and Wine. Hereby plainly teaching, that as they are called Christ's Bodie and Blood, in their Sacramen­tall and Mysticall use and signification; so are they Bread and 20 Wine, in their proper essence. The foresaid Canon is regi­stred among the Papall Decrees. The Heretike Novatus binding some Receivers of the Eucharist to his part, by saying,Euseb. lib. 6. Cap. 35. Verba Nova­ti Eucharistiam sump­turo: Iura mihi per corpus & sanguinem Domini, te nunquàm me deserturum, &c. Whereupon Eusebius; Miser ille homo non priùs degustavit,—Graec. [...], &c. Here the Translator omitteth, in his Translation, the word, [...], Bread. Sweare to me, by the Bodie and Blood of Christ, not to depart from mee: Hereupon Eusebius; So the misera­ble man did not receive that Bread, before he had said, Amen; that is, given consent to the Motion of Novatus. Where we finde Eusebius calling it Bread, which had beene Consecrated by Novatus, and named The Bodie of Christ. This our Col­lection may be held so much the rather of some force, be­cause 30 the Romish Translator, which was Christoferson, Bi­shop of Chichester, (according to his guise els-where) did fairely leave out the word [Bread,] but is a foule fault in a Translator of an History.

Will you have any more? you may admit into the same Cuire these other Suffrages of Cyprian, Hierome, Euche­rius, and Primasius. See afterwards B. 6. C. 3. §. [...]. Melchizedech in his Oblation of Bread and Wine offered the Body and Blood of Christ, Calling that the Body and Blood of Christ, which then, before Christ his incarnation in the flesh, could bee essentially nothing but 40 Bread and Wine, because it was onely a Type of the Body and Blood of Christ to come. And what will you say to the otherSee afterwards B. 6. C. 5. §. 11. Fathers, who affirmed hereof in as full an Emphasis, that Christ is still Crucified, bleeding, and slaine in this Sa­crament? [Page 131] notwithstanding that our Christian Faith, gene­rally beleeved, denyeth that this can happen to his glori­fied Body, now after his Resurrection; and therefore such Phrases were to be understood of the breaking of the Bread, and powring out of Wine, Sacramentally and Analogically, (that is) Figuratively representing the Crucifying of his Body, and Shedding of his Blood. The Fathers, who used this accent of speech, were Alexander and Gregory, both Popes of 10 Rome, Chrysostome, Cyprian, Hierome, Cyrill of Hierusa­lem, Hesychius, Paschasius, Eusebius Emissenus, Enow, one would thinke, to silence all Oppositions of them, who are instant in nothing more than in pressing the Improprie­ties of the speeches of Antiquitie, in a literall sense, and hereby verifying that Proverbe of Salomon; Qui nimis e­mu [...]git, elicit sanguinem. Even so they, who by the same Reason, wherby they urge the sayings of Fathers literally, for the proofe of an unbloody Sacrifice, properly so called, must be constrained likewise [...]o admit, against the Catholike faith of all Christians, a Sacrifice properly slaine and bloodie therein.

20 The like will bee proved from their other Hyperboles and the Excessive termes of Antiquitie, viz. of Tearing Christs Bodie, and dying our teeth in his Blood, and the like, (in the Booke 5. tho­row-out. fifth Booke:) and from their checking their owne Phrase of offering the Sacrifice of his Bodie, by recalling and cor­recting themselves immediatly thus; Or rather a Memoriall thereof, (in theBooke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 6. sixth Booke.) All these Observations are as demonstrable, for the vindicating of the judgement of An­cient Fathers, as any Child of the Catholike Church could 30 have desired, if the same holy Fathers had beene intreated to expound their owne meanings.

Wee returne to our former Argument. Christ Instituting a Sacrament, and in Taking Bread and Blessing Bread, saying, [This is my Bodie] must necessarily bee understood to have spoken Sacramentally, that is, Figuratively, as hath beene prooved from Scripture; as in all other Sacraments, so likewise in the severall confessed Figurative words of Christ, concerning this Sacrament, by eight severall In­stances (in this second Booke.) This one Argument of it 40 selfe, hath beene termed by Master Calvin [Murus ahae­neus] that is, a wall of brasse, and so will it bee found more evidently to bee, when you shall perceive the sameBooke 3. thor­row-out. Fa­thers judging that, which they call a Change into Christs Flesh, to bee but a Change into the Sacrament of his Flesh; bread still remaining the same, (in the third Booke.) ⚜

And now wee are to withstand your paper-bullets, where­with you vainely attempt, in your Objections following, to bat­ter our defence withall.

CHAP. III.
The Romish Objections from Reasons, against the Figurative Sense, Answered.

The first Objection. SECT. I.10

NOthing useth to bee more properlie and simplie spoken, (say Primum Ar­gumentum sumitur à materiâ, est enim materia, de quâ hic agitur, Pactum, Sa­cramentum. Testa­mentum Novum fuisse à Domino institutum pater ex illis verbis [Hic est calix Novi Testamenti in sanguine meo]—Iam verò nihil solet magis propriè, simplicitèr, aut exquisitè explica [...] quàm Testamentum, nè viz. detur occasio litigandi Pacta seu toedera sunt etiam ex eodem genera, quae exquisitissimè & proprijs verbis explicantur, nè locus ullus relinquatur cavillis. Sacramentum hoc esse, de quo agitur, nemo negat,—Sacra­mentum autem solere à Deo institui proprijs verbis, ut in corum usu non cretur. Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch c. 9. §. Primùm, & §. Deindè. & §. Poriò [...]acramentum. A Testament must be alwayes taken, in a reall and sub­stantiall meaning. M. Maloun the Ies. in his Reply. you) than words of Testaments and Covenants. Ergò this being a Testamentary Phrase must be taken in the literall Sense.

CHALLENGE.20

VVHat is this? are Figurative speeches never used in Cove­nants, and Testamentarie Language? or is there not ther­fore sufficient perspicuity in Figures? This is your rash and lavish Assertion, for you your selves doe teach that In ipsâ Scrip­tura dicitur Testa­mentum, & Instru­mentum—Quia pa­cta Dei & soedera ini­ta nobiscum conti­nent, ut patet in pa­cto Circumcisionis cum Abrahamo.—Ante omnia praefa­mur S. Scripturam uti Metaphoris, non solum ob utilitatem nostram, sed etiam propter necessitatem, à pluribus Patribus traditur. Sacram scrip­turam de Deo, de Trinitate, de Patre, Filio, & Spiritu san­cto, propriè loqui non passe—Quandò sermo est de vità aeterâ, & p [...]aemio siliorum Dei, [...]la [...]is rebus comparatur, per Tropos est explicandus—ut August. ait, Nullo genere l [...]cutionis, quod in consuetudine humanâ reperitur, Scripturae non utuntur, quia utiqué hominibus [...]. Sal [...]er I [...]s. Pro [...]g. lib. 1. p. 3. & 4. & lib. 21. pag. 371. & 227. 229. 231. 234. The Old and New Testament are both full fraught with multitude of 30 Tropes and Figures, and yet are called Testaments. Secondly, That the Scripture, speaking of the Trinitie, and some divine things, cannot but speake Improperly and siguratively. Thirdly, That Sacramentall speeches, as, [The Rocke was Christ,] and the like words re See above, Chap. 2. Sect 3. let [c.] Tropicall and Figurative. Fourthly, That even in the Testamentary Speech of Christ, at his Institution of this Sacrament, saying, [This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood:] there is a Figure in the very word See above, Chap. 2 Sect. 4. (p. q.) Testament. So have you confessed, and so have you consequently con­futed your owne Objection. 40

Hereto might bee added the Testament of Iacob, prophe­sying of his sonnes, and saying,Gen. 49. Reuben is my strength: Iudah a Lions Whelpe: Issachar a strong Asse: Dan an Adder in the [Page 133] way. All figurative Allusions. Nay, no man, in making his Testament, can call it his Will, or say that hee hath set his hand and Seale unto it, without Figures. Namely, that hee hath gi­ven by writing a Signification of his Will; that the Subscrip­tion was made by his Hand; and that he added unto it the Print of his Seale. These Three, Will, Hand, Seale, every word Figu­rative, even in a Testament.

10 The second Romish Objection, against the Fi­gurative Sense. SECT. II.

LAwes and Precepts (say Verba Legum & Praeceptorum de­bent este propria. Bellar lib 1 de Eu­charist. cap 9. §. Se­quitur. you) should bee in plaine and proper words: But in the Speech of Christ, [Take; eate you, &c.] are words of Command; Ergò, They may not bee held Figu­rative.

20 CHALLENGE.

CAn you be Ignorant of these Figurative Precepts, viz. of Pulling out a mans owne eye, of cutting off his hand? Mat. 5. Or yee of a Penitents Renting of his heart? Ioel 2. Or of not hardening his heart? Psalme 95. and the like. Christ com­manded his Disciples to prepare for his keeping the Passe­over with his Disciples, and the Disciples prepared the Passe­over as Iesus commanded them, saith theLuc. 22. 8. Evangelist. In this Command is the word [Passeover.] We demand, The word, Passeover, (which is taken for the Sacrament and Signe of the 30 Passeover) is it taken Figuratively? You cannot deny it. And can you deny that a Commandement may bee delivered under a Figurative Phrase? You can both, that is, say and gaine-say any thing, like false Merchants, onely so farre as things may, or may not make for your owne advantage.

But (to catch you in your owne snare) your Doctrine of Con­comitancy is this, viz. Bread, being turned into Christs Body, is joyntly turned into whole Christ; and Wine, being changed in­to his Blood, is likewise turned into whole Christ, both Flesh and Blood. If then when Christ commanded his Disciples, saying, 40[Matth. 26. 27. Drinke you All of this, ] that which was Drunke was the whole substantiall Body of Christ, either must his Disciples be sayd to have Drunke Christs Body properly, or else was the Command of Christ figuratively spoken. To say the first, con­tradicteth the universall expression of mans speech in all Lan­guages; for no man is sayd to drinke Bread, or any solid thing. And [...]o grant the Second, that the speech is Figurative, con­tradicteth your owne Objection. Againe, Christ commanded [Page 134] to Eate his Body; yet notwithstanding have ThreeSe [...] above, Ch. 2. §. 4. (l.) Iesu­ites already confessed that Christs Body cannot bee sayd to have beene properly Eaten, but Figuratively onely. What fascination then hath perverted your Iudgements; that you cannot but still confound your selves, by your contrary and thwarting Lan­guages?

Your third Romish Objection. SECT. III.10

DOctrinall and Dogmaticall speeches (say Praecipua dog­mata, &c Bellar. quo supra. §. Denota. you) ought to be di­rect and literall: But these words, [This is my Body] are Doctrinall.

CHALLENGE.

A Man would marvaile to heare such seely and petty Rea­sons to bee propounded by those, who are accounted great Clerkes, and those who know full well that the speech 20 of Christ, concerning Castrating or gelding of a man's selfe, is Abulen. in eum lo [...]um. Christus non laudat cos, qui ca­st [...]ârunt se, sed qui se cast [...]am, concep [...] ­scentiam obsc [...]de [...] ­do— [...]ut Ch [...]yl Non membro [...] abscisione. sed ma larum cogitationum inc [...]epatione: male dictioni nempe ol­noxius, qui m [...]m brum sibi [...]bscond [...] Idem habet Hieron. Addit Chrysost. su­per Matth. Abscissis verilibus non tollitur concupiscentia, Con­cupiscentia inde sit molestior. Doctrinall, and teacheth Mortification; and yet is not li­terally to bee understood, as you all know by the literall errour ofIdem. Orige­nes scripsum castravit, ut poslet liberius prae­dic [...]re tempore Per­secution [...]s, & securrus este unter foeminas. Abul., uper Matth. 5. qu 250. pag. 316. Origen, who did really Castrate himselfe. And the same Origen, who thus wounded himselfe by that literall Ex­position, in his youth, Hee in his Age, expounding the words of Christ, concerning the Eating of his flesh, sayd of the lite­rall sense thereof, that,Origen. Litera haec occidit. in Levit. Hem 7. It killeth. Secondly, these words [This is the New Testament in my Bood,] they are words as Do­ctrinall as the other [This is my Body:] and yet figurative, by 30 your owneSee above cap. 2. §. 4. Confession. Thirdly, the words of Christ, Iohn 6. of Eating his flesh, are Doctrinall; and yet, by your owne Verus & hee ral [...]s Sensus horum verborum non est quòd caro Christi nihil prodest, sed quod carnalis intelligentia nihil pro­dest, ut exponunt-Chrys. Theophyl. Euthem. Origen. Cyprian. & alij vocatur enim eo in loc, nomine carnis, humana & carnalis cogitatio, ut distinguitur à spirituali cogitatione. Bella [...] lib. 1. de Euch. c. 14. §. Sed praeter. Construction, are not to bee properly understood, but as Christ afterwards expounds himselfe, Spiritually. Fourthly, where Christ thus sayd, The Bread, which I shall give, is my stesh, Ioh. 6. 51. he saith also of his Body, that it is True Bread, Ver. 32. and Bread of life, Verse 48. and living Bread, whereof who­soever eateth liveth eternally, Verse 5 [...]. All, Divine and Doctrinall Assertions, yet was his Body figuratively called Bread. Fiftly, that in those words of Christ to Peter, Matth. [...]6. Vpon 40 this Rocke will I build my Church; And, To thee will I give the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven; And Ioh. 21. Fede my sheepe; (In which texts of Scripture you place, although most falsly, your Doctrinall foundation of Popedome it selfe;) yet know you [Page 135] all these to be Tropicall Speeches. Yea, and what say you to the first Doctrinall Article, and foundation of Christian Do­ctrine, delivered by God unto man, in the beginning,Gen. 3. 15. The seed of the woman shall breake the Serpents head? Is not the later part of the Article altogether Figurative, yet signifying this Doctrinall point, even the vanquishing of the power of Satan, who hath neither head nor tayle, but is Metaphorically called a Serpent?

10 Your fourth Romish Objection. SECT. IV.

THe Apostles (saith yourBell. Apostoli rudes & simplices e­rant &c. Lib. 1. de Euch. c. 9. §. Argu­mentum secundum. Cardinall) were rude and simple: Therefore needed to be Instructed by Christ in plaine tearmes, Without Figures. So he.

20 CHALLENGE.

ANd yet Christ, you know, did often speake Figuratively unto them, talking of Bread, Leaven, Seed, &c. And sti­ling them the Salt of the earth; yea even in this Sacrament (us hath beene confessed) in the words Eate, Shed, Testament. A­nother Iesuite witnesseth, thatApostoli à Chri­sto edocti fuerunt, & illuminati, ut cum summâ reverē Sa­cramentum hoc sus­ciperent Suarez Ies. Tom. 3. Disp. 46 §. 3. The Apostles were illuminated and instructed by Christ; that they might receive thus Sacrament with all Reverence. So he. ⚜ And so also taught your Doctor Heskins before him:D. Heskins in his Parliament. B. 3. pag. 53. Christ (saith he) instructed his Apostles in the Faith of the blessed Sacrament, before he instituted it. ⚜ Therefore are they but rudely, by you, tearmed Rude; and the 30 rather, because They (who being commanded to prepare the Passeover, perceived that by Passeover was figuratively under­stood the Paschall Lambe, and thereupon prepared the Passeo­ver, according to the Lord's Command) could not be ignorant, that in this like Sacramentall speech [This is my Bodie] the Pro­noune [THIS] did literally point out Bread, and siguratively signifie Christ's Body. Doubtlesse, if the manner of Christ's speech in the Eucharist had not beene like the other in the Passe­over, they would have desired Christ to explaine his meaning, 40 as they did sollicitously in other doubts.

Their last Romish Objection. SECT. V.

VVEe are never to let passe the Literall Sense (saith your Nunquàm di­mittamus proprium verborum sensum, nisi cogamur ab ali­quâ aliâ Scriptura, &c. Bell. l. 1. de Euch. Cap. 9. §. Vltimo. Cardinall) except we be compelled thereunto by some [Page 136] Scripture, or by some Article of Faith, or by some common Interpre­taion of the whole Church. So he.

CHALLENGE.

SVrely nor wee, without some one of these; but that you may know the grounds of our perswasion to be more than one, or yet all These; And how bountifully wee shall deale with you, wee shall shew in the Proposition following.

Ten Reasons, for proofe of the Necessity of interpreting 10 the words of Christ Figuratively. SECT. VI.

FIrst, Wee have beene compellable to allow a Figurative Sense, by the confessed Analogie of Scripture, in all such Sa­cramentall Speeches of both Testaments, concerning Circum­cision, Rocke, Baptisme; as also that speech of Christ, Ioh. 6. Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, as you haveSee above c. 2. §. 3. heard. Secondly, Wee are Challengable hereunto by ourSee hereafter, B. [...]. Chap. [...]. § [...]. Arti­cle 20 of Faith, which teacheth but one naturall Body of Christ, and the same to Remaine now in Heaven. Thirdly, Wee are in­forced, for feare of suchSee hereafter, B. [...]. Chap. 4. Heresies, as have followed in o­ther Case, upon the literall sense; for it was not the Figura­tive, but the literall and proper sense of being borne againe, by Baptisme, (Ioh. 3.) that begat the errour of Nicodemus: and the like literall sense of God's Eyes, Hands, Feet, &c. brought forth the Anthropomorphites. And so was it the literall sense of those words in the Canticles [Tell mee where thou lyest at noone] which deluded the Donatists; and of Origen you have 30 heard, that hee by the literall sense of these wordes, [Some there be that castrate themselves, &c,] did fondly wrong him­selfe.

Fourthly, Wee are necessarily mooved, to reject your lite­rall sense, by a confessed Impossibility, taught by that Vniversall Maxime,See above Chap. 1. §. 4. Disparatum de disparato, &c. shewing that Bread, being of a different nature from flesh, can no more possibly be called the flesh or Body of Christ, literally, than Leade can be called Wood. Fiftly, Wee are perswaded hereunto by the for­mer 40 alleaged Interpretation of the Ancient Fathers, both of the Greeke and Latine Church, calling the Sacrament a Figure; and expounding This is] by [This Signifieth.] Sixtly, Wee are urged by the Rule set downe by Saint Augustine, for the dire­ction of the whole Catholike Church; that,S [...]praeceptiva locutio f [...]gitium aut facinus videtur iube­re, figurata est, ut [nisi manducaveritis car­nem meam] facinus videtur jubere: ergo figura est, praecipiens passioni Domini est communicandum, & suaviter, ac utiliter recolendum in me­moriâ, quià pro n [...]bis caro ejus crucifixa, & vulnerata sit. August. de Doctrina Christ. lib 3. cap. 16. Whensoever the precept (saith he) seemeth to command that which is hainous (as to eate the flesh of Christ) it is figurative. And of this Sacrament [Page 137] doth not Christ say, Take, Eate, This is my Body? Seventhly, A Motive it must needs be to any reasonable man, to defend the figurative sense, by observing the misery of your Dispu­ters, in contending for a Literall Exposition therof; because their Objections have beene confuted by your owne Doctors, and by Truth it selfe, even the holy Scriptures. Eightly, your owne Vnreasonablenesse may perswade somewhat, who have not beene able, hitherto, to confirme any one of your five for­mer Objections to the contrary, by any one Father of the 10 Church. Ninthly, For that the literall Interpretation of Christ's wordes was the foundation of the Heresie of the Capernaites, and hath affinitie with divers otherSee the last Booke Chap. 2. §. the last. Ancient Heresies condemned by Antiquitie. Tenthly, Our last perswasion is the consent of Antiquity, against the Literall conversion of Bread into Christ's Body (which you call Transubstantiation) against the Literall Corporall Presence, against Literall Corpo­rall Eating, and Vnion, and against a proper Sacrifice of Christ's Body Subjectively. All which are fully perswasive Inducements to inforce a figurative sense, as the sundry Bookes following will 20 clearely demonstrate from point to point.

CHALLENGE.

YOu may not passe over the consideration of these points, by calling them Schoole-subtilties, and Logicall Differences, as Master Fisher lately hath done; thinking by this his flie Sophistrie, craftily to draw the mindes of Romish Professors from the due discovery of your Romish false Literall Expositi­on 30 of Christ's words, [THIS IS MY BODY:] the very foun­dation of your manifold monstrously-Erroneous, Superstitious, Hereticall, and Idolatrous Consequences issuing from thence, whereunto wee now orderly proceed, after that wee have un­foulded 40 your last Mysterie.

CHAP. IIII.

⚜A Confirmation of a Figurative Sense of Christs words, [THIS IS MY BODY] opened unto us by a Third Key, in the Pronoune [MEVM] as it is pro­nounced by the Romish Priest, in his Con­secration; 10 a Point as observable as any other. SECT. I.

AN Objection there is, which so much per­plexeth your Doctors, that both Repug­nancie among themselves in Answering, and Insufficiencie of Answers, may justly 20 seeme as good as their Prevaricating in the Cause. It is objected that the Minister can­not pronounce these words of Christ [This is my Body] in the same proprietie of Speech, wherein Christ himselfe spake them; and therefore they cannot bee Consecrative words, according to your Romane Faith, as they are ut­tered by the Minister. For hee must deliver them either, Narratively, by way of Repetition, as they are read, both in the Gospell, and in your Romane Missall saying, [And Iesus tooke Bread, and when hee had given thankes, he brake 30 it, and gave it to his Disciples, saying, This is my Body.] And if so, then the Minister in rehearsing of Christs word [THIS] should consecrate the Bread, wherof Christ spake in his say­ing, [THIS] at his Institution of this Sacrament, and not this Bread, which is now in the Ministers hand, made visible to the People. Or else he should pronounce the same words (according to your owne terme) Significatively, that is, so speaking them in the person of Christ, as if Christ himselfe should now pronounce them. And if so, then in the Priests saying [This is my Body,] the word [MY] should signifie 40 the Body of the Priest, and not the Body of Christ. This is a shrewd Objection, which so puzleth your Doctors, (See the Bellarm. lib. 4. de Eucharist. cap. 14. §. Objicitur.—Possunt verba duo­bus modis dici, aut Narrativè ac Recita­tivè, vel Significativè: ut exempli gratia, cùm ex Evangelio recitamus dixisse Iu­daeos de Christo [Hic blasphemat] illa verba [Hic blas­phemat] à rudaeis di­cebantur significati­vè, id enim volebant, Christum esse Blasphemum; à nobis autem non dicuntur Significativè, sed tantum Nar­rativè, non enim significare volumus Christum essè Blasphemum, sed Iudaeos hoc dixis [...]e. Hac distinctione positâ, est hoc Argu nentum: Verba illa [Hoc est Corpus mean] vel dicuntur à Sacerdotibus Recitativè, vel Significativè, sed neutro modo possunt esse forma Sacramenti, igitur non sunt [...]sta verba forma Sacramenti, Probatur Assumptio, Nam si ista verba dicerentur Recitativè, primò sequeretur per illùd [Hoc] demonstrari Panem, qui suit in manibus Christi, non istum, qui est in man [...]bus Sacerdotis: ac proinde non consecraretur Panis, qui consecrandus proponitur in Altari. Secundò, sequeretur non posse consecrari quidquam his verbis; Nam verba consecrant dum faciunt quod significant, ista autem nihil significant, dum dicuntur materi. liter tantùm, & non Significativè. Si autem dicerentu [...] Significativè, Primò, illud [Hoc est Corpus meum] demon­straret corpus Sacerdotis, non Christi, ac dicere oportet, Hoc est corpus Christi—Respondeo, verba illa dici utroque modo, & Recitativè, & Significativè, in cujus rei gratia, notanda sunt tria. Primum, Sacerdos, quan­do confitetur peccata sua, quando orat, quando laudat Christum, agit sine dubio personam suam, non Christi: quando dicit [Hoc est Corpus meum] agit personam Christi.—Secundum, In hac actione longè aliter Sacerdotem agere personam Christi, quàm in alijs Sacramentes: nam in alijs agit ut Christi minister, tamen loquitur in personâ suâ, ut cùm dicit, Ego te baptizo: Ego te absolvo.—at in Consecratione Eucha­ristiae, Sacerdos non solùm agit ut Christi minister, sed induit omnino Christi personam, ac loquitur ac si ipse esset Christus: quomodò Exod. 3. Angelus dicit. [Ego sum Deus patris tui.] Tertium—Sacerdotem in actione Liturgiae, usque ad illa verba, Qui pridiè quàm pateretur, agere personam suam, non Christi: ut pa­ret, quia cousque orat, vel laudat; ab illis autem verbis, usque ad finem Consecrationis, agere personam su­am & Christi; & ideò Recitativè simul & Significativè verba pronunc [...]are: intendit enim recitare qu [...]d Chri­stus egerit, & dixerit, & simul omnia imitari in persona Christi, ac si Christus per ipsius mysterium iterum omnia faceret & diceret. Vasquez. in 3. Thom. Quaest. 78. Artic. 4. Disput. 200. cap. 1. Nonnulli existi­mant [...]a verba Recitativè sumi, Innocent 3. Durand. Major. Catharinus, Ledesma, Gabriel: Ratio, quia si Significativè tantùm, essent falsa, nihil significantia aliud in ore Sacerdotis, quàm in ore Christi, viz. Chri­stum solu [...] dixisse Apostolis, [Sumite, Bibite, &c.] Ad haec, quod si Significativè, tum minister non osten­deret corpus Christi, sed suum, diceus [Meum,] quod esset falsum—Alij verò consent verba formae Con­secrationis proferri à Sacerdote non solùm Significativè, & in persona Christi, sicut is qui in Comoedia induit personam Regis, aut alterius, assumens ejus verba, ea profert Significativè, & in persona illius, sed etiam Re­citativè, quamvis non materialiter. Cap. 2. At mihi sanè prima opinio summopere displicuit, eo quod semper judicaverim nullâ ratione negari posse verba Consecrationis Significativè à Sacerdote usurpari; cùmque duo illi modi, nempe Recitativè, & Significativè, inter se pugnent, ut in eandem vocem, aut orationem convenire nequeant—Est igitur sententia (me quidem judice) probabilior, verba Consecrationis, quae sunt proforma, Significativè solùm à Sacerdote proferri, non autem Recitativè, hoc est, Narrativè, tamedi in persona Christi ab eo efferantur—Atque huc spectat, quod Concilium Trident. câdem Sess. 13. cap 3. inquit, sub speciebùs panis solum esse corpus, ex vi verborum, na [...] per vim verborum significationem eorum denotat. Et ita solum significent corpus, solum illud sub specie panis vi suâ const [...]unt. Adde, haec duo inter se pugnant, nam Recitativè idem est quod referre alium illud dixisse, & eo aliquid significâsse: at qui refert verba alte­rius, mendacium recitando dicta ejus mentiretur, sed is falsum dixit, non mend [...]c [...]um; & deinde si Recitativè, tum verba non pertinerent ad materiam praesentem. Et Cap. 3—Verba praecedentia solùm dicuntur Recitativè, ut attentum faciant Sacerdotem ipsum, & verba Consecranonis non ex proprio sensu, sed in perso­na, & sensi Christi, ac si ille praesens esser, cùm reverà illius vicem serat, proximè pronuntiet: veluti si quis volens repraesentare personam Regis, historicè referat aliqua facta ipsius, ut statim nomine ejus Significat. vè incipiat loqui. Participium autem [Dicens] quod refertur etiam ad verba Consecrationis, non essicit ut illa Recitativè dicantur, sed & nomine illius, qui ea tunc dixit, pronuntientur; atque de hoc tantum per illud Par­ticipium [Dicens] admonemur. Marginalls) that they bestirre themselves like as Soul­diers would doe, in withstanding a Batterie, or defending a Breach. One company of them say, that the Priest utte­reth Christs words onely Narratively by rehearsing them; A second ranke answers no, but both Recitingly, and Signi­ficatively. [Page 139] Not so, saith the Third Troope, because this is Impossible. Thus much of the irresolute Iudgements of your 10 20 30 Disputers.

That the Answeres given are each of 40 them Insufficient. The first is, that the Priest pronounceth Christs words both Narratively, and Significatively. SECT. II.

BEllarmine and Vasquez perceiving that if the Minister should deliver these words of Christ [This is my Body] [Page 140] onely as Narratively, rehearsing them, then hee could not therby consecrate the Bread, which is in his owne hands, be­cause it is not that Bread, which was then in Christs hands, when he sayd [This is my Bodie.] And againe, if they should be uttered of the Priest, as in the person of Christ, which you call Significatively, as if Christ himselfe should now speake them, by the mouth of the Priest; yet being Pro­nounced by the Priest, and not by Christ, the Priest in say­ing, [My Bodie,] should consecrate his owne Bodie, and not the Bodie of Christ. They doe therefore assume and 10 conclude, that the Priest uttereth these words both Mate­rially and Formally, that is, both Narratively, repeating them as the Minister of Christ; and Significatively, pro­nouncing them in the person of Christ.

If they could illustrate this to be possible by any Similitudes, wee should more easily beleeve them, but they cannot. Let us try this. Bellarmine. See above in the former Section. It is (saith hee in the Margin) as when the Angell of God, taking upon him the person of God, said, [I am the God of your Fathers.] So hee. Wee (not to dispute now the truth of his Assertion, in saying it was Gods 20 Angell that sayd, I am the God of your Fathers, but to sup­pose it true) doe reply, that the Similitude is not appliable: Because, if as the Priest repeating Christs words thus, [Iesus gave it to his Disciples, saying, [This is my Bodie;] So the Angell of God should have said, God speaketh unto you, say­ing, [I am the God of your Fathers;] Every one at the first hearing would easily discerne that the Angell spake so, only as a Minister, or (as the word, Angell, signifieth) a Messen­ger of God, and not as the person of God.

Your Iesuite Suarez will mend this, who, to shew that a 30 man may, in the same words, speake, both in his owne per­son, and in the person of another,Suarez in 3. Thom. Disp. 58. §. 4 Non tantùm Recita­tivè, sed etiam for­maliter & Significa­tivè proferuntur sig­nificando.—quià ut verba efficiant consecrationem prae­sentis materiae, opor­tet ut illa verba sig­nificent, alioqui non efficiunt, ut ait Tho­mas: ulterius dici possit, si solùm materialiter proferentur, ex veritate illorum non posset colligi, Hoc, quod nunc est in manibus Sacerdotis, esse verum corpus Christi, quià illa hoc non significant—non potest colligi ex hoc, quòd Christus ea form. litèr protulit, nec ex facto Christi—Cum dicit Conc. Tridentinum ex veritate verborum Christi colligi ejus praesentiam: non loquitur tantùm de verbis, ut à Christo prolata sunt, sed ut à Sacerdote proferuntur. Christus (ait Chrysost.) per os Sacerdotis loquitur: et Ambrosius, non [...] utitur Sacerdos verbis suis, sed Christi—Et (aliquanto post) praecedentia & subsequentia tantùm ma­terialiter proferuntur, at illa verba etiam Significativè propter mysterium, possit enim quis loqui vel in persona sua, vel aliena—ut si Regium Concilium Sententiam proferat his vel similibus verbis; Nobis injunctum est, ut Sententiam proferamus, dicentes: [Ego Rex in hac causa dico.] It is (saith hee) as if a Councell of some King should say, It is given us in charge to pronounce Sentence, saying, [I the King doe say in this Cause, &c.] So farre your Iesuite, and no farther. We Reply: That the point, which is to be proved, is, that the same words may bee spoken of the same man, both in his owne person and in the person of another. But when the Councell sayd, [It is gi­ven us in charge that I doe say in this cause] they saying, It is 40 [Page 141] given us in charge, spake it in their owne person, and not in the person of the King; for the Charge was not given to the King, but by the King to themselves. And when they said, [I the King doe say in the Cause] they spake not in their owne person, but in the person of the King. What need many words? To speake the same words in a mans owne person, and [...]n the person of another (saith your Iesuit Vasquez i [...] the Murgi [...], and that most trulie) is Impossible; and hee therefore stan­deth onely to that one Ter [...]e, Significatively, which all your other Disputers held to bee necessarie for the Answe­ring 10 of the maine Objection. But what need wee any Iesuit to plead our Cause, seeing that the Text it selfe will cleare­lie evince the same?

That the words of Christ, as they are pronounced by the Priest, are meerely Narrative, and not Significa­tive, is proved by the Text it selfe. 20 SECT. III.

IT was alwayes held, by all Divines, to bee a most ne­cessary, exact, and securo Rule of interpreting of Scrip­ture, to expound a Text by the Context of the words pre­ceding, and the words following, Ianus wise, looking [...]. The words of the first Text are these, This is my Body:] of the Second these, [ [...] For this is the New Testament in my Blood] as Saint Matthew hath it. Now 30 the words which goe immediately before the former Text, concerning the Acts of Christ, viz. [He (having taken Bread) when hee had given thankes, brake it, saying, This is, &c.] are delivered by the Minister onely Narratively, namely, rehearsing what Christ had done long since; and not any Act now in doing by the Priest, in the person of Christ. The words likewise preceding, in the Second Text, concer­ning the Cup, stand thus: [After Hee (Christ) had supped, hee tooke the Cup, and when hee had given thankes, hee sayd, Drinke you all of this, &c.] which all are Narratives, re­pearing 40 what Christ had done. For the words are, HEE (Christ) TOOKE; and not, I, the Minister: And HEE, what? [Saying,] a word Narrative, in it's owne proper Sig­nification.

Next marke the succeeding words of both your supposed Consecratory Sayings of Christ, concerning the Bread [This is my Bodie:] it followeth, HEE (Christ) taking the Cup: as likewise secondly concerning the Cup, the words [Page 142] succeeding, which are [SHED, for Remission of sins] are a Narration of the virtue of Christs Blood Shed, expressed then by Christ.

We now demand, seeing the whole Contexture, whether going before, or following after the Text in Controver­sie, are all words, onely rehearsing what Christ had done; why should you conceive the Intervenient words [This is my Bodie] to be uttered in a different tenure of speech, as in the person of Christ? When wee should expect some warrant hereof from some one Father, you are unanimously 10 mute. When wee further inquire into your Reason, wee finde none more semblable than this, That (according to your familiar, and frequent Similitude of a Stage-Play) your Priest is here (as it were) Acting in a Play, and exchanging his Parts, now and then taking upon him the person of a Re­lator, and Rehearser onely; and againe, in a middle Scene, of a Significator.

That the Suggested Romish Significative Sense of 20 Christ's words was never Patronized by any Ancient Father. SECT. IV.

VVEe willingly grant, that the Apostle, speaking of Absolution, 2 Cor. 2. saith, If I have pardoned any thing, I have pardoned in the person of Christ; And againe, 2 Cor. 5. Wee are Embassadors for Christ, exhorting you in Christ's stead. But these, and the like words of the Apostle,30 have no other meaning than that which your owneEstius Pro­fessor Theol. Duacen. in 2. Cor. 2. v. 10. [Cui quid donav [...] in persona Christi do­navi] posset ae (que) ver­ti [In facie Christi] quasi coram Christo, & in ejus praesentia—et infia in hac eâdem Epistolà ca 4. leg [...]ur in [persona] ubi nos habemus [In facie Christi] & iur­sus cap. 5. [...], ubi latinè [Qui in facie] gloriantur, id est, in his qui ex­terius apparent—Hoc autem in [per­sona Christi] nihil est aliud quam in vice, & nomine, & authoritate Christi.—Theodoret. tanquam [intuente Christo] Theoph. [coram Christo] hoc est Christo jubente, & veluti ejus loco existens, & veluti ejus personam referens. Chrysost. Id est, tanquam Christo hoc jubente. Nos sensum reddamus verborum Apo­stoli, facio tanquam Christi minister & Delegatus, cujus in [...]ea [...]re personam refero. Salmoron in eum locum. Vice Christi, & ad gloriam Christi. Idem in 2 Cor. 5. Pro Christo legatione fungimur, tanquàm Deo exhor­tante per nos: Id est, L [...]gatione fungunur vice Christi—Sensus est, cum nos legatione fungimur, exhor­tando, obsecrando vos, ut per poenitentiam reconciliemini Deo, sic accip [...]re debetis, ac si Deus exhortetur pernos. Ie­suite Estius rendreth out of the Fathers. [In the person of Christ] is no more (saith he) but in the name of Christ, and by the authoritie of Christ, and as Christ himselfe commanding me, and beholding me, I being the Minister of Christ. But the Priest, in pronouncing the words of Christ, in the Romish Significative sense, is said to do it in a farre higher straine; which your Cardinall Bellarmine will have you to consider, See above Sect. 1. The Priest (saith he) in this Action (of Consecration) dea­leth farre otherwise, than he doth in other Sacraments, where 40 he speaketh as the Minister of God, in his owne person, saying, [I Absolve thee: I Baptize thee.] Do you marke? [Farre [Page 143] otherwise.] And yet the Apostle, when hee spake of the Absolution, which hee gave, saying to the Corinthians, If I have pardoned any, hee added, [I have pardoned them in the person of Christ.] So that the word [Person,] spoken of by the Apostle, and Ancient Fathers, is to be understood [Farre otherwise] than that which the Significative Romish sense doth exact; which is, that the Priest so uttereth Christ's words, in the person of Christ, that he delivereth them Significatively, that is, as to signifie the same Intenti­on 10 in himselfe, in repeating those words, which Christ him­selfe had in the first uttering of them.

As for example, (it is your Cardinal's owne) Any one repeating these words spoken of the wicked Iewes, Saying con­cerning Christ [This man Blasphemeth] if he should utter them Significatively, that is, with the same Intention of noting Christ to be a blasphemer, he himselfe should Blaspheme: [...]ut delivering them onely Narratively, by way of Repetition, hee doth not Blaspheme, because he meaneth not to say that Christ did Blaspheme, but that the Iewes said so. So he. And so say 20 wee, That the Priest, in repeating of Christ's words [This is my Body] pronounceth them Narratively onely, and not Significatively. For the Romish Priest, if he should speake the words of Christ Significatively, in the person of Christ, that is, with the same Intention as Christ, when hee said [This] of the Bread, then in his hands: the Priest saying, [This] should intead and meane that [This Bread] whereof Christ spake, and not that which is in his owne hands, which now he intendeth to Consecrate; and Consequent­ly should he make no Consecration at all. And what here­upon 30 must become of your Romish Masse, in your Transub­stantiation, Sacrifice, and Adoration, you may understand in the next Section.

The full Overthrow of the whole Doctrine of Transubstantiation, Corporall Presence, Personall Sacrifice, and Adoration, Consequently, upon the former Confutation of your Romish Significative Pronunciation of Christ's words by the Priest. 40 SECT. V.

TRuly hath your IesuiteSee above in the Second Section. Suarez expressed the Doctrine of your Church, as followeth; Except these words This is my Body] be taken Significatively, and formally, they worke no Consecration, nor can it be collected, that that which is now in the hands of the Priest, is the true Body of Christ. So he; alleging the Cou [...]acel of Trent for his warrant. But the [Page 144] words, as they are pronounced by the Priest, cannot pos­sibly be taken Significatively, but onely in the way of Re­hearsing and Repeating them; No one Iota in the Text, or Context; No one Testimonie of Antiquitie; No one Rea­son, or yet competent Example hath beene alleged by any of your Doctors for proofe of the Contrary.

This point needeth no more discussion, onely, for further Illustration-sake, wee shall commend unto you a more pro­portionable Example, than was any that hitherto your So­phisters have invented; which, because your Iesuites have affected theSee above in the first and second Secti­ons. Similitudes of Historicall and Comicall Represen­tations, wee shall likewise borrow from that Stage. If there­fore 10 any Romish Priest should Act the part of Aäron, in imi­tating an operative Speech of turning and Transubstantia­ting a Rod into a Serpent, in saying (to suppose Aäron to have said so) [This is my Serpent] yet could not your Priest possi­bly deliver the same words Significatively, as in the person of Aäron; either in saying [This] because, This Rod, spoken of by the Priest, is not the same Rod, whereof Aäron said [This:] nor yet in the word [My] because that, wherof Aä­ron said, [My Serpent] cannot possibly bee said accordingly [My Serpent] by the Priest, as your selves well know.20 And therefore doth this discover your Romish Intoxication, in your Significative Ex­position of these words [This] and [My] in the Speech of Christ.30 40

THE THIRD BOOKE, Treating of the First Romish Doctrinall Consequence, 10 pretended to arise from your former depraved Exposi­tion of Christ's wordes. [This is my Body.] called TRANSVBSTAN­TIATION.

  • Your Doctrinall Romish Con­sequences are Five, viz. the Corporall
    • 1. Conversion of the Bread into the Body of Christ, called Transubstantiation; in this Third Booke.
    • 20 2. Existence of the same Body of Christ in the Sacrament, called Corporall Presence; in the Fourth Booke.
    • 3. Receiving of the Body of Christ into the Bodies of the Communicants, called Reall, or Materiall Conjunction; in the Fifth Booke.
    • 4. Sacrificing of Christ's Body, by the hands of the Priest, called a Propitiatory Sacrifice; in the Sixth Booke.
    • 30 5. Worshipping with Divine Worship, cal­led Latria, or Divine Adoration of the same Sacrament; in the Seventh Booke.

After follow the Additionals, in a Summary Disco­verie of the Abominations of the Romish Masse, and the Iniquities of the Defenders thereof; in the Eighth Booke.

THese are the five Doctrinall Consequences, which you teach, and professe, and 40 which wee shall (by God's assistance) pursue, according to our former Me­thod of Brevity, and Perspicuity; and that by as good, and undenyable Evi­dences, and Confessions of your owne Authours, in most points, as either you can expect, or the Cause it selfe require. And because a Thing must have a Begetting, before it have a manner of Being, there­fore [Page 146] before wee treate of the Corporall Presence, wee must in the first place handle your Transubstantiation, which is the man­ner (as wee may so say) of the Procreation thereof.

CHAP. I.
The State of the Controversie, concerning the Change and Conversion professed by Protestants, which is Sa­cramentall; 10 And by the Papists defined to be Trans-substantiall.

First of the Sacramentall. SECT. I.

THere lyeth a charge upon every Soule, that shall communicate and participate of this Sacrament, that herein hee Discerne the Lords Body: 20 which Office of Discerning (according to the judgement of Protestants) is not onely in the use, but also in the Nature to distinguish the Object of Faith, from the Object of Sense. The First Object of Christian Faith, is the Divine Alteration, and Change of naturall Bread, into a Sacrament of Christs Bodie. This wee call a Divine Change, because none but the sameSee hereafter, Chap. 4. §. 1. & 2. Omnipotent power, that made the Creature and Element of Bread, can Change it into a Sacrament. 30

The Second Object of Faith, is the Body of Christ it selfe, Sa­cramentally represented, and verily exhibited to the Faithfull Communicants. There are then three Objects, in all, to be di­stinguished. The First is before Consecration, the Bread meerely Naturall. Secondly, After Consecration, Bread Sacramentall. Thirdly, Christs owne Body, which is the Spirituall, and Super­substantiall Bread, truly exhibited by this Sacramentall, to the nourishment of the soules of the Faithfull.

Secondly of the Romish Change, which you call Transubstantiation.40 SECT. II.

BVt your Change in the Councell of Est conversio totius substantiae Pa­nis in Corpus Chri­sti, & totius substantiae Vini in sanguinem, manentibus duntaxat speciebus Panis, & Vini, quam quidem Con­versionem Catholica Ecclesia aptissimè Transubstantiationem appellat. Conc. Trid. Sess. 13. Can. 2. Trent is thus defi­ned: Transubstantiation is a Change of the whole Substance [Page 147] of Bread into the Body of Christ, and of Wine into his Blood. Which by the Bull ofEgo N. N jurò hinc Conversio­nem fieri, quam Ca­tholica Ecclesia ap­pellat Transubstan­tiationem—Extrà quam fidem nemo salvus esse potest. Bulla Pij 4. super formâ luram nit pro­fessionu Fidei. Pius the Fourth, then Pope, is made an Article of Faith, without which a man cannot bee saved. Which Article of your Faith Protestants beleeve to bee a new and impious Fig­ment, andTransubstan­tiationem Protestan­tes esse sceleratam Haeresin dicunt. Bell. l. 3. de Euch. cap. 11. Heresie. The Case thus standing, it will concerne every Christian to build his Resolution upon a sound Founda­tion. As for the Church of England, shee professeth in her 28. Article, saying of this Transubstantiation, that It cannot bee proved by holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plaine words of 10 Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion unto MANY SVPERSTITIONS.

CHAP. II.
The Question is to be examined by these grounds; viz. • I Scripture. , • 20 II. Antiquity. , and • III. Divine Reason. 

IN all which wee shall make bold to borrow your owne Assertions, and Confessions, for the Confirmation of Truth.

The Romish Depravation of the Sense of Christ his words, 30[This is my Body,] for proofe of Tran­substantiation. SECT. I.

YOu pretend (and that with no small Confidence) as a Truth avouched by the Councell of Vt definitur in Conc. Trid. Sess. 13 Can. 4. Ex sola veritate verborum [Hoc est Corpus me­um] vera, ac propria Transubstantiatio colligitur. Vasquez. les. Disp 176. c. 6 Verba tàm per se clara cogere possint hominem non proter [...] Transubstantitionem admittere. Bell. lib. 3. de Euch. c. 23. §. Secundò. Trent. that Transubstantia­tion is collected from the sole, true, and proper Signification of these words [This is my Body.] So you.

40 CHALLENGE.

WHerein you shew your selves to bee men of great Faith, or rather Credulity, but of little Conscience; teaching that to bee undoubtedly True, whereof notwithstanding you [Page 148] your selves render many Causes of Doubting. For first you Scotus, quem Cameracensis sequ­tur,—Dicunt non extare locū in Scrip­turis tàm expressum, ut fine declaratione Ecclesiae evidentes cogat Transubstan­tiationem admittere. Atque hoc non est omninò improbabi­le, quià an ità sit du­bitari potest, cum ho­mines acutissimi, & doctissimi, qualis in­primis Scotus fuit, contrarium sentiant. Bellar. quo supra. Ca­jetanus, & aliqui vetustiores audiendi non sunt, qui dicunt, panem definere esse, non tàm ex Evange­lio, quàm ex Eccle­siae authoritate con­stare. Alan. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 34 pag. 419. grant that (besides Cardinall Caejetane, and some other An­cient Schoolemen) Scotus and Cameracensis, men most Learned and Acute, held that There is no one place of Scripture so expresse, which (without the Declaration of the Church) can evidently compell any man to admit of Transubstantiation. So they. Which your Cardinall, and our greatest Adversary, faithSee in the former Allegation at (b) Is not al­together improbable; and whereunto your BishopCorpus Chri­sti fieri per consecra­tionem, non proba­tur nudis Evangelij verbis, sine pia inter­pretatione Ecclesiae. Roffens. Episc. con. Capt. Bab. cap. 9. pag. 99. Roffensis giveth his consent.

Secondly, (which is also confessed) some other Doctors of 10 your Church, because they could not find so full Evidence, for proofe of your Transubstantiation, out of the words of Christ, were driven to so hard shifts, as to[Hoc est] pro Transit, Bonaventu­ra decet. Idem ferè habet Oceam, & Hol cott, insinuat etiam Waldensis—Volunt Propositionem illam non esse, substantivè, sed Transitive inter­pretandam, sc. ut sit sensus. [Hoc est Cor­pus] id est, Transit in Corpus.—Sed hoc corrumpit signi­ficationē verbi [Est] quod, si permittitur, nulla est vis in hu­jus modi verbis ad probandam realem praesentiam, nec substantiam Panis hic non manere. Et ità potuit Haereticus exponere [Hoc est] id est, Repraesentat Corpus. Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. qu 78. Disp 58. Sect. 7. Art. 1. pag. 754. Change the Verbe Sub­stantive [Est] into a Verbe Passive, or Transitive, Fit, or Tran­sit; that is, in stead of [Is] to say, It's Made, or It passeth into the Body of Christ. A Sense, which your Iesuite Suarez can­not allow, because (as hee truly saith) It is a Corrupting of the Text. Albeit indeed this word, Transubstantiation, importeth no more than the Fieri, seu Transire, of Making, or Passing of one Substance into another. So that still you see Transubstantiation 20 cannot bee extracted out of the Text, without violence to the words of Christ.

⚜The like violence is used by your Iesuit Iac. Gordon Scotus Ies. lib. Controv. 4. cap 3. n. 15. Propositiones practicae proferuntur per verba praesentis tem­poris, non futuri, ut certi [...] de effectuve borum. Haec verba [Hoc est corpus meum] practica sunt, efficiunt quod significant: [Mandu [...] ex hoc, Bibite ex hoc] ubique demonstrat corpus Christi futurum, vel sanguinem ejus futorum. Similis statuitur verbis Consecrationis, alioqui ista communio esset merè specu­lativa, non practica. Gordon, who, to make Christs Speech to be Practicall, for working a Transub­stātiation, doth inforce the words [This is my Body] and, [Eat yee this] and, [Drinke yee this] being all spoken in the Pre­sent tense, to signifie the future. Which, although it were true, all Grammarians know to be the figure Enallage. From these Premisses it is most apparent, that the Romish Doctors cast themselves necessarily upon the hornes of this Dilēma, thus:30 Either have these words of Christ [This is my Body] a Sense Practicall, to signifie that which they worke, and then is the Sense Tropicall, (as you have now heard them, against your Romish Literall Sense, to betoken an operative power and effect of working Bread into the Body of Christ:) or else they are not Practicall; and then they cannot implie your Tran­substantiation at all.

Wee might, in the third place, adde hereunto that the true Sense of the words of Christ is Figurative, as by Scriptures, Fathers, and by your owne confessed Grounds hath beene al­ready 40 plentifullySee the former Booke throughout. proved, as an insallible Truth. So ground­lesse [Page 149] is this chiefe Article of your Romish Faith, whereof more will be said in the sixt Section following. But yet, by the way, wee take leave to prevent your Objection. You have told us thatSee the former Booke throughout. the words of Christ are Operative, and worke that which they signifie; so that upon the pronunciation of the words [This is my Body,] it must infallibly follow, that Bread is changed into Christs Body; which wee shall beleeve, assoone as you shall bee able to prove, that upon the pronuntiation of the other words of Christ [This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood,] Luke 10 22. 20. the Cup is changed into the Testament of Christs Blood, or else into his Blood it selfe.

The Noveltie of Transubstantiation examined, as well for the Name, as for the Nature thereof. SECT. II. 20 The Title, and Name of Transubstantiation proved to be of a latter date.

YOu have imposed the very Title of Transubstantiation upon the Faith of Christians; albeit the word, Transub­stantiation (as you grant)Fateor, neque Antiquos Patres u­sos esse hoc nomi­ne Transubstantiati­onis. Christoph. de Capite fontium, Ar­chicpis. Caesar. lib. de reali praesen. cap. 5. 9. Artic. 4. was not used of any Ancient Fathers; and that your Romish Change had not it's Christendome, or name among Christians to be called Transubstantiation (as your CardinallConcilium La­teranense sub Inno­centio Tertio coa­ctum, ut Haereticis os obthurarer, Con­versionem hanc novo & valdè significance verbo dixit Transub­stantiationem. Alan. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 34. pag. 422. As for that objected place out of Cyrill of Alexandria Epist ad Caelosyrium [Convertens ea in veritatem Carnis:] It is answered by Vasquez the Iesuite; non habetur illa E­pistola inter opera Cyrilli. Vasquez. in 3. Thom. Tom. 3. num. 24. Alan witnesseth) before the Councell of Laterane, which was 1 [...] 15. yeares after Christ; nor can you produce One Father Greeke or Latine, for a Thousand yeares, attributing 30 any word equivalent, in strict Sense, unto the same word Tran­substantiation, untill the yeare 900 (which is beyond the Com­passe of due Antiquitie.) At what time you finde, note, and urge Theophylact, who saith of the Bread, that It is Trans-elementated into the Body of Christ. Which Phrase, in what Sense hee used it, you might best have learned from himselfe, who in the ve­ry same place saith that Christ in a manner isTheoph. in Ioh. 6. De Christo per sidem manducato: [ [...]] Trans-elemen­tated into the Communicant: which how unchristian a Paradox it were, being taken in strict and proper Sense, we permit to your owne judgements to determine.

40 Neither yet may you, for the countenancing of the Noveltie of this word, object the like use of this word [ [...]] as though it had beene in use before the Arian Controversie began: because the Fathers of the Councell of Nice judged the Objection of the Noveltie of that word Calumnious; for that [Page 150] the use of it had beene Ancient before their times, as your Car­dinall Calumniam hanc Patres Antique aptissimè cōtutârunt, at (que) ostenderunt non inventum fuisse hoc nomen [ [...]] in Concilio Nicaeno, sed fuisse antè in usu Patrum; at illud jam vocabulum usurpari, quo sui Majores usi fuissent. Bellarm. quo supra. c. 3. Bellarmine himselfe witnesseth.

You furthermore, to prevent our Objection (demanding why the Ancient Fathers never called your fancied Romish Change, Transubstantiation, if they had beene of your Romish Faith, concerning the Substantiall Change of Bread into the Body of Christ) have shaped us this Answer, namely, thatEts: veteres Ec­clasiae Doctores non sint usi voce Tran substantrationis, ta­men usi sunt vocibus icē significantibus, ut Conversionis, Trās­mutationis, Transi tionis, Transforma­tionis, Transelemen­tationis, & si [...]libus [...] Fort [...]it. j [...]d Tract. de Euchari, §. Nota pro solouo­ne A [...]gumentorum. sol. 117. Although they used not the very word, Transubstantiation, yet have they words of the same signification, to wit, Conversion, Transmutation, Transition, Transformation, Trans-elementation, and the like. 10 So your Lorichius Reader of Divinitie among you; who by his vast and rash boldnesse might as justly have inferred from the like Phrases of the Apostle, viz, [2. Cor. 3. 18. [...], we are transformed] that every Regenerate Christian is Transubstanti­ated into Christ: or, from the word [2. Cor. 1. 14. [...], He is trans­figured] say that the Divell is Transubstantiated into an Angel of light: or from the word [ [...], It is changed] (used by Quiaquid Spi­ritus Sanctus tetige­rit, & Sanctificat [...]. Cyril. Hieros. [...]. 5. Cyrill) urge that whosoever the Spirit of God doth Sanctifie, is Transubstantiated into another thing: or from the word [ [...]] in [...]. Na­zianz. Orat. 40 pag. 943. Edit. Paris. Nazianzene, conclude that Every per­son 20 Baptized is Transubstantiated into Christ. ⚜And one of your owne Doctors examining all the Phrases of the Greeke Fathers, and comming to the word, [...] (which doth properly expresse the sense of the Latine word, Transubstan­tiatio) hee confesseth thatQuanvis Grae­ci Petres eo nomine [...] non utun­tur, sunt tamen Au­thores aborum no [...], quibus eam, quoac hert possit, ap [...] & exprimunt, ut [...] &c. Petrus Aread de concord O­rient. & Occident. Eccl. lib. 3 c. 2 Tract. de Euch. They used it not. And what the Greek Church thinketh thereof, at this day, you may learne from two Patriarchs of Constantinople; the One not admit­ting, the Other rejecting it; as will bee showne in the second Chapter.

Will you have the World imagine that so many, so excel­lent,30 and so Ancient Fathers, with all that Divine and Humane Learning wherewith they were so admirably accomplished, could not, in a Thousand yeares space, finde out either the Greeke word, [...], or the Latine Transubstantiatio, and apply them to this Change, if they had once dreamed of this your Article of Faith? Will you permit us to learne a point of wisedome from your Cardinall?Periculosa est vocum novarum Li­bertas in Ecclesia, cum paulatim ex vo­cibus novis novae etiam res oriantor, cùm cui (que) licet in tel us [...] nomina singere. Bell. lib. de Sacram. in Genere. cap 7. §. Ex quibus. Liberty of devi­sing new wordes (saith he) is a thing most dangerous; because new words, by little and little, beget new things. So he. Therefore may we justly place this your new word among those [...], 40 which Saint1. Tim. c. 20. Paul will have Christians by all meanes to avoid; else so new and barbarous a Name must needs ingender a novel, and brutish opinion, such as this Article it selfe will appeare to be; As followeth.

The Noveltie of the Article of Transubstantiation is examined, and showne not to have beene before the Councel of Laterane (namely) not untill 1215. yeares after Christ. SECT. III.

THis Article hath beene decreed (as you haveSee above Ch. 1. §. 2. heard) by 10 your Church, as a necessary Doctrine of Faith; and there­fore presumed to be Ancient.

CHALLENGE.

THe first Imposition of this Article, as of Faith, your Car­dinall Bellar. lib. 3. de Eucharist. cap. 23. §. Vnum tamen. Bellarmine noteth to have beene in the dayes of Pope Gregory the Seventh. viz. 1073. yeares after Christ. But surely at that time this could be but a private opinion of some few, for Peter Lombard (living 67. yeares after this Pope, and 20 esteemed the Master of the Romish Schoole) when he had labou­red to give Resolution to all doubts, especially in this very Que­stion (whether the Conversion were substantiall, or not) confesseth plainely, saying;Si quaeratur, qua­lis sit Conversio (viz. Pants in Encharistia) an formalis, an sub­stantialis, an alteri­us generis; definite non sufficio. Quibus­dum videtur esse sub­stantialis, dicentibus substantiam converti in substantiam. Lom­bard. Sent. lib. 4 Di­stinct 11 lit. (a.) Definire non sufficio: I am not able to De­termine. So he. Anno. 1140.

Hitherto therefore this Article was but in Conception onely, which caused your learned and Subtile School-man Scotus to de­scend lower, to finde out the Birth thereof,Scotus dicit an­te Concilium Late­ranense non fuisse dogma fidei Tran­substantiationem. Id ille dixit, quia non legerat Conc. Rom. sub Gregorib. 7. nec consensum Patrum, quem nos produxi­mus. Bellarm. lib 3. de Eucharist. cap. 23. §. Vnum tamen. Affirming that the Article of Transubstantiation was no Doctrine of Faith before the Councel of Laterane, under Pope Innocent the Third, viz. An­no 30 1215 whom therefore your Cardinall doth taxe for want of reading. But either were your Iesuite Coster, and Cardinall Perron as ignorant of Ancient Learning, as Scotus, or else they gave small Credit to that Councel cited by Bellarmine under Gre­gory the Seventh. For your Iesuite saith, in direct tearmes, that Ante trecentos Annos in Concilio Lateranensi, ad ifri­us rei tam admirabi­lis clariorem expli­carionem, usurpatem fuit nomen Transub­stantiationis: ut in­telligant Christiani substantiam Panis in substantiam corporis Christi converti. Coster. Ies. Enchir. cap 8. §. De Transubstanti­tione. The name of Transubstantiation was used in the Councel of Laterane, for a clearer explication, that Christians might under­stand the Change of Bread into the Body of Christ. Can you say then that it was universally so understood before? But your Cardinall Perron more peremptorily concludeth, thatSi nihil planè ad Doctrinam Ecclesiasticam spectans in Concilio Lateranensi ex communi Pa­trum assensu decretum esset, sequeretur posse ut falsum impugnari Articulum de Transubstantiatione. Cardie. Per. en sa Harangue an tiers Estat pag. 33. [As witnesseth our P. Presloa, alias Widdington Discuss, Concib. Latcran. part. 1. §. 1. pag. 12.] If it 40 had not beene for the Councel of Laterane, it might be now lawfull to impugne it. So he. A plaine acknowledgement, that it was no Doctrine of Faith before that Councel, even as Scotus affir­med before. But we pursue this Chase yet further, to shew,

That the Article of Transubstantiation was not defined in the Councel of Laterane, under Pope inno­centius the Third. SECT. IV.

YOur owne learned RomishVenêre multa in Consultationem, nec decerni quicquam ta­men aptè potuit, eò quòd Pontifex (quo profectus est tollen­dae Discordiae gratiâ) mortuus est Petusij. Platina in vita inno­centij. Decerni nihil apertè potuit: edita sunt quaedam, &c. Nauclerus An. 1215. [meaning after the Councell.] Ad festum Sanctae Andreae pro­tractum, nihil dig­num memoriâ actū, nisi quod Orienta­lis Ecclesia, &c. God. fridus Monumeter sis, & Math. paris. Hi­stor minor. Conci­lium illud Generale, quod primâ fronte grandia prae se tulit, in risum, & scomma desijt, in quo Papa omnes accedentes lu­disicatus est: illi e­nim, cum nihil in eo Concilio geri cerne­rent, redeundi veni­am petierunt. Thus farre out of Widdrington alias Preston, in his Booke above cited. Priest, a long time Prisoner, did (under the name of Widdrington) produce many Hi­storians,10 viz. Platina, Nauclerus, Godfridus Monumetensis, Mat­thew Paris, and others, to testifie as followeth: That many things fell under Consultation in that Councel, but nothing was openly defined, the Pope dying at Perusium. Insomuch that some of these Authours sticke not to say, that This Generall Councel, which see­med to promise bigge and mighty matters, did end in scorne and mockery, performing nothing at all. Wee might adde, that the supposed Acts of this Councel were not published untill more than two hundred yeares after. No marvell then if some Scholastici quidam hanc Doctrinam de Transubstantiatione non valdè Antiquam esse dixerunt: inter quos Scorus, & Gabriel Biel. Suarez Ies. Tom. 3. Disp. 30. §. 1. Schoole-men, among whom were Scotus and Biel, held 20 Transubstantiation not to have beene very ancient. And another, thatIn Synaxi serò definivit Ecclesia Transubstantiationem: diù satis erat Credere sivè sub pane, sive sub quocunque modo adesse verum Corpus Christi. Eras. in 1. Cor. 7. pag. 373. It was but lately determined in the Church. Nay, Ma­ster Brerely (if his opinion be of any Credit among you) stick­eth not to say thatMr. Brerely in his Liturgie Tract. 2. §. 11. pag. 158. Transubstantiation compleat (that is, both for forme, and matter) was not determined untill the last Coun­cel of Trent; that is to say, not untill the yeare of our Lord, 1560. Do you not see how much licking this ougly Beare had, before it came to be formed? and yet it will appeare to be but a Monstrum horrendum, take it at the best; as it is now to be proved, by the full discovering of the paipable Falshood 30 thereof.40

CHAP. III.

The Definition of Transubstantiation in the Church of Rome; and of the Falshood thereof. SECT. I.

10 THe Councel of Trent (saith your Concil. Tri­dentinum dicit, fieri Conversionem toti­us substantiae Panis, id est, tam formae quàm materiae in Substantiam Corporis Christi. Bellarmia. lib. 3. de Eucharist. Cap. 18. §. Si objicias. Concil. Trident. Sess. 13. Cap. 4. Cardinall) hath de­fined that this Conversion is of the whole Substance of Bread, that is, aswell forme, as matter, into the Sub­stance of Christ's Body.

Our First proofe of the Falshood of the Doctrine of Tran­substantiation, by the Contradictions of the Defen­ders thereof; whereby they bewray their No-Beleefe 20 of the Article.

THe Opinions of the Doctours of your Church, concer­ning the nature of this Conversion, are by you reduced in­to these two maners, (namely) that it is either by Production out of the substance of Bread: or else by Adduction of the Body of Christ unto the forme of Bread.

CHALLENGE.

30 VVHatsoever it is, which you will seeme to professe, ne­ver shall you perswade us that you do indeed believe either of the pretended Formes of Transubstant ation. First, not by Production, because (as the sameProductio est, quando terminus ad quem non existat, & ideò vi Conversionis necessariò produci­tur, ut aqua in vi­num. Adductiva au­tem, &c. Bellar. lib. 3. de Eucharist. cap. 18. §. Secundò notan­dum.—Producti­va non est, quia Cor­pas Domini praeexistit. Idem. ibid. §. Ex his. Cardinall truly argu­eth) Conversion by Production is, when the thing that is produced is not yet extant: as when Christ converted water into wine, wine was not Extant, before it was Produced out of the substance of wa­ter. But the Body of Christ is alwaies Extant; therefore can it not be said to be Produced out of the substance of Bread. So he. Which Productive maner of Transubstantiation could not be 40 believed by your Iesuites,De ratione Transubstantiationis non est, ut Substan­tia, in quam dicitur fieri Transubstantirio, producatur, aut conservetur per illam: imo qui hoc modo defen­dunt Transubstantiationem in Sacramento, ad quoddam genus Philosophiae excogitatum, potius quàm ad verum & necessarium, rem reducere videntur. Vasq. Ies. Tom. 2. Disp. 214. cap. 4. Vasquez, andPraeter Adductivam Conversionem evidenter refutavimus omnes modos Conversionis, qui vel dici, vel singi possunt. Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. Qu est. 75. Disp. 50. §. 5. §. Tertiò Principaliter. [Mr Fisher in his Rejòynder talketh fondly of a Re­production, as of Carcasses converted into men, in which Change any One may see, that as much as is Pro­duced is not Extant, for Dust is not Flesh. But since hee cannot apply this Reproduction to Transubstantiation of Bread into the Body of Christ, his Answe [...] impertinent, and hee may be produced for an idle Disputer.] Suarez, by [Page 154] both whom it hath beene confuted. And if the Change be not by Production, then it must follow that it is not by Transubstan­tiation; which is demonstrable in it selfe, because the next maner, which they insist upon, cannot possibly serve your turne.

This Sècond maner they name to bee by Adduction, which yourSi terminus ad quem Corpus Chri­sti existat, sed non in eo loco ubi Ter­minus à quo (id est, Panis) tum vi Con versionis adducetur ad eum locum. Inde vocatur Conversio adductiva: nam cor­pus Christi praeexi­stit [...] Conversio­nem; sed non sub spe­ciebus Panis. Con versio igitur non fe­cit ut corpus Chri­sti simpliciter esse in­cipiat, sed ut incipiat esse sub speciebus: non quod per motum localem è Coelo Ad­ducatur, sed solùm quia per hanc con­versionem fit, ut quod ante erat solùm in Coelo, jam sit sub speciabus Panis. Nec haec accidentalis con­versio, sed substanti­alis dicta est, quia substantia Panis de­sinit esse, & substan­tia corporis Christi succedit Pani. Proin­dè Substantia in Sub­stantiam transit. Ta­lis est Conversio Ci­bi in hominem, per nutritionem; nam anima non produci­tur, sed tantùm per nutritionem sit, ut in­cipiat esse in ea ma­teria, ubi antea erat forma Cibi. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 18. Cardinall defineth to be a Bringing of the Substance of that Body of Christ, continuing still in heaven, to be notwithstan­ding at the same time under the shapes of Bread on the Altar: and therefore called Substastiall, because the Substance of Bread ceaseth 10 to have any Being, [...]en the Body of Christ succeedeth to be under the outward shapes of Bread. So he. And this is of late crept in­to the opinion of some few, whereby you have created a new faith, flat contrary to the faith of the Councel of Trent, which defined a Change of the whole substance of Bread into the Body of Christ. So that Councel, as you have heard. Now by the Change of Substance into Substance, as when Common Bread, ea­ten, is turned into the Substance of Man's flesh, the matter of Bread, is made the matter of flesh. But this your Adduction, is so farre from bringing in the Substance of Bread, Into the Sub­stance 20 of Christ's Body, that it professeth to bring the Body of Christ, not so much as unto the Bread, but to be under onely the Outward Accidents, and formes of Bread. Yet had this Fig­ment some Favourers in yourFuerunt hujus sententiae Alens. Bonavent. Marsil.—Dicunt per hanc Conversionem Corpus non accipere esse, sed accipere esse hîc; nec multum discordat Thomas. Denique moderni subscribentes contra Haereticos libenter hanc sententiam amplectuntur, quia facilitatem quandam prae se fert, ut videre licet apud Iob. Hessels. Claud. Gud. Paris. & Bellar. As witnesseth Suarez: quo suppra. Disp. 50 §. 44. pag. 635. Cum Panis substantialiter mutetur, ita ut desinat esse, haec Conversio est Substantialis, non Accidentalis. 2. Corpus Christi est substantia, quae succedit Pani, proinde Substantia transit in Substantiam.—& dicunt conver­sionem Adductivam esse, quando quod adducitur acquirit esse sub speciebus Panis—Bellar. quo supr. §. Re­spondeo 1.—Cedere Corpori, in ratione existendi, est propriè converti in ipsum: & per Conscquens fit vera in Carnem Transmutatio. Alan. lib. 1. de Eucharist. cap. 34. Schooles.

No Marvell therefore if there arose some out of your owne Church, who did impugne this delusion, calling it (as your Dixi Conversionem Panis in cor­pas Christi esse Adductivam, quod dictum video à nonnullis esse perperàm acceptum, qui inde non Transubstan­tiarionem, sed Translocationem colligunt. Sed dixi corpus Christi non deseruisse locum suum in Coelo, neque incipere esse sub speciebus, ut in loco, sed ut Substantia sub Accidentibus, remotâ tamen inhurentia. Bellarmia. Recog. in lib. 3. de Eucharist. pag. 81. Cardinall himselfe witnesseth of them) a Translocation one­ly, and not a Transubstantiation; and that truly, if they should not have called it a Trans-accession, or Trans-succession rather. For who will say, if he put on his hand a Glove, made of a 30 Lamb-skin, which Lambe was long since dead (and consequent­ly ceasing to be) that therefore his hand is Transubstantiated into the Body of the Lambe? yet is there in this example a more substantiall Change, by much, than can be imagined to be by your Adduction of a Body under onely the Formes and Acci­dents of the matter of Bread; because (to speake from your selves) there is in that a Materiall Touch betweene the Sub­stance 40 [Page 155] of the hand, and the Lamb-skin: but in this other there is onely a Conjunction of the Substance of one Body with the Accidents of another. Which kinde of meere Succession of a Substance, your Iesuite Suarez will allow to bee no more than a Per solum Ad­ductiram actionem reverà non explicatur vera conversio Sub­stantialis, & Tran­substantiatio, sed tantùm Transloca­tio quaedam: quan­do una Substantia succedit loco alteri­us, non potest pro­priè di [...] unam con­verti in aliam. Sua­rez. Ies. loco citato. pag. 639. Translocation.

And that justly, as Any may easily perceive, because in every true Transubstantiation there is a Change of a Sub­stance into a Substance, as into that, which is the Terming of the Change: but in this your Adduction, there is said to be 10 onely Terminus praesentiae, of the Praesence of Christ's Body, instead of the Presence of Bread. Therefore it is flatly Trans­location onely. A word more; Transubstantiation (saith your Councel of Trent) is collected out of these words of Christ, [This is my Body:] But by sole Adduction (saith your AEgidius Co­niax, Ies. de Sacram. Quaest. 75. Art. 4. Dubit. 4. num. 142. Ex quo pater, refutar, sententiam eam, quae docet corpus Christi adesse posse per so­lam Adductionem, quia hoc non potest colligi conversio Pa­nis in corpus, ex ver­bis Christi. Iesuite Coninx) cannot be collected a Conversion of Bread into Christ's Body out of the words of Christ.

Wee Conclude that seeing Conversion, whether by Produ­ction, or by Adduction, are so plainly proved by your selves to be contrary to Truth: therefore it is not possible for you to 20 believe a Doctrine so absolutely repugnant to your owne know­ledge. ⚜This last figment being discarded, ponder (wee pray you) the Weight of this Argument.

Every true and proper Transubstantiation is a Change into a substance that was not extant before.

But the Body of Christ was, and is alwaies extant before the words of Consecration be used.

Therefore is there no true and proper Change by Transub­stantiation into the Body of Christ.

Observe by the way that they, who gain-say the Productive, 30 and teach the Adductive, yet do all deny Locall mutation à Ter­mino ad Terminum. A Paradoxe which wee leave to your wise­domes to contemplate upon.

⚜The next Contradiction is to be seene between your Ro­mish Popes & their Councels, one against another: for your Pope Innocent 3. (whom your Doctors have so earnestly objected, as an high Patron of Transubstantiation) in the Councel of La­terane, Anno 1560. definedInnocent. 3. Papa, lib. 3. de Offic. Missae, cap. 29. Sub­stantia convertitur in id quod fit, & non erat, ut virga in colu­brum; & tunc for­ma convertitur cum substantia: quando­que convertitur in id quod erat, & non sit, ut Panis in Eucharistia, & tunc substantia convertitur sine forma. Transubstantiation in the Eu­charist to be in matter, and not in the substantiall forme. And your Pope Iulius the Second, in the Councel of Trent (as you 40 haveSee above at the Letter (a) heard even now) defined Transubstantiation in the Eu­charist to be both in Matter and Forme. This Contradiction is somewhat to the matter in hand (Wee thinke) to prove a spirit of Contradiction to be in your Romane Church.

CHALLENGE. II.
⚜In confutation of both the pretended Romish manners of Transubstantiation joyntly.

VVHether you defend Transubstantiation by Producti­on, or by Adduction, you are equally confutable in both, even by your owne Principles; who hold, that if the Bread, which is to bee Transubstantiated and changed into 10 Christ's Body, bee annihilated, and brought to meere nothing, it cannot bee said to bee Transubstantiated at all. Now whe­ther you thinke the Bread, after consecration, to be Annihila­ted, we desire to know from your selves. Say then (but speak out, without lisping or stammering, we pray you, that we may heare and understand you.)Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. Cap. 24. Ne­go Panem annihilari—nam etsi Panis nihil sit, tamen id in quod ipse conversus ēst, non est nihil, nec nullū, nec nusquam. Although Bread after Conse­cration bee nothing (saith Bellarmine) yet it is not annihilated, that is, brought to nothing. Lessius Ies. Opusc. lib. 12. cap. 16. Circa substantiam Panis & Vini, primū miraculum est, quòd hae substantiae vi Cō secrationis funditus pereant, & veluti an­nihilentur, quamvis non solemus dicere eas annthilari, eò quod haec desitio ex intentione divinâ, non sistat in nihilo, sed dirigatur ad po­sitionem Corporis Christi: verum hoc ad modum loquendi spectat, nam quod ad rem attinet, nihil omninò substantiae panis manet, non for­ma, non materia, non existentia, non gra­dus aliquis, sed to­tum ità funditùs pe­rit, acsi prorsus in nihilum redactum esset, nullo positivo succedēte; nam quod aliud succedat, non est ex vi illius desitio nis—substantifico influxu subtracto, necesse est Rem in nihilum relabi. And the substance of Bread and Wine (saith your Iesuit Lessius) doe utterly perish, and are as it were Annihilated. So they; calling this a being Nothing, and 20 yet not Annihilated; this not annihilated, and yet utterly pe­rishing: naming also this maner to bee Miraculous, which we hold worthy rather to be esteemed Monstrous; the speech is altogether so contradictory in it selfe.

Wherefore wee desire the foresaid Iesuite to play the Oe­dipus in unfolding this Riddle: Our saying (saith hee) that Bread and Wine are not annihilated, belongeth to the formalitie of speech; for as concerning the thing it selfe, there is nothing of the Bread remaining either in forme or matter. So he. But that, say we, which is nothing, either in forme or matter, is sure­ly 30 annihilated: and therfore Bread becomming to be nothing, before Christ's Body be present, cannot possibly bee said to bee Changed into Christ's Body absent. And that the rather, because (as one of your Ioh. Pallanterius de Castro sacrae Theologiae Doctor, Lectiones Aureae. Nec materia, nec forma panis manent in se, vel in Corpore, Christi post conversionem, quià vere annihilantur. Doctors more ingenuously con­fesseth) Bread not remaining, either in matter or forme, is truly Annihilated.

To this Argument (in our Apprehension Insoluble) wee can receive from your great Dictator no better Answer than that, Bellar. quo suprà. Pani sucredit Corpus Christi, corrumpitur, & interit quicquid definit esse: at non annihilatur, nisi ità desinat esse, ut nihil ea succedit, ità ut ejus desitio terminetur in nihil. Because the substance of Bread ceaseth to bee, and the substance of Christ's Body succeedeth: Therefore the substance 40 of Bread is said to be changed into Christ's Body. So he. Which his crotchet of Change, by Succeeding, hath been already ex­ploded, as being but a Translocation, by his owne See above at (g) Societie. [Page 157] And yet againe, if it may bee, more plainly your Iesuit Vas­quez; Vasquez in 3. Thom. qu 75. Art. 8. Disp. 181. Cap. 2. Panis in conveersione desinit esse, & cùm dicitur panem desinere in corpus Christi, non probat ipsam desitionem terminari formaliter ad positivum in quod fit conversio.—Quocirca modus ille loquendi non formaliter sed caus liter debet intelligi, quis enim dicat defitionem alicujus rei formaliter in aliquid termanari?—Ità ut ipsa Productio, seu Adductio non sit formaliter Conversio, sed causa illius.—Est igitur Conversio formaliter Denominatio quaedam ordinis per modum Actus, in eo quod definit, relata ad id, quod fuit causa desition [...]. Aliquam [...]. Haea duo, quae diximus, sunt necessaria & sufficiunt, ut Panis, Vinum, hoc ipso quod desinant, dicantur converti in corpus est sanguinem Christi. Neither Production, nor Adduction are formally this Conversion.

10 Our Second Proofe of the Falshood of the Article of Transubstan­tiation, is from the Article of our Christian Creed, [BORNE OF THE VIRGIN MARY.] SECT. II.

TRansubstantiation (as hath beene defined by your Councell of Trent) is a Conversion of the substance of Bread into the 20 Substance of Christ's Body. Now, in every such Substantiall Change, there are Two Termes, one is the Substance from which; the other is the Substance whereinto the Substantiall Change is made: as it was in Christ his miraculous Change of Water into Wine. But this was by producing the Substance of Wine out of the Substance of Water, as the matter, from which the Conversion was made. Therefore must it be by Production of the Substance of Christ's Body, out of the Substance of Bread. Your Cardinall hath no Evasion, but by denying the Conversion to be by Production, which notwithstanding was formerly the 30 Generall Tenet of the Romish Schoole, ever since the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was hatched; and which is contrary to his owne device of Conversion by Adduction. wherein first he Dicta Corpus Christi ex pane fieri, non tanquàm ex ma­teria, sed tanquàm à Termino à quo, ut mundus ex nihilo: [then confuting him­selfe] etiam sit ex a­qua vinum (that was not, ex nihilo.) In praesenti negotio, Conversio non est Productiva, Panis e­nim convertitur in Corpus Christi prae­existens: ergò Corpus Christi factum ex Pane, & ex Carne est idem. Bell. l. 3. de Euc. c. 24. § Ad Tertium confoundeth himselfe, and secondly, his opinion hath beene scornfully rejected by your owne learned Doctors, as being nothing lesse than Transubstantiation, as you have heard. There­fore may you make much of your Breaden Christ. As for us, Wee, according to our Apostollicall Creec, believe no Body of Christ, but that which was Produced out of the Sanctified flesh of the Bl: Virgin Mary, for feare ofAlphonsus de Castro lib. 4 Tit. Christꝰ. Haer. 2. Ma­nichaei dixerūt Chri­stum non ex utero Virginis prodijsse; Et Apollinaris dixit Christum non as­sumpsisse carnem ex Virgine. Item. Chili­astae, Democritae, Melcluoritae, ut Pro­cli mitae. pratcolus in Elench. Haeret. in suic quique titulis. Heresie.

40 This same Objection being made of late to a Iesuite of prime note, received from him this Answer: viz. God that was able to raise Children to Abraham out of stones, can of Bread transub­stantiate the same into that Body of Christ, which was of the Vir­gin. And hee againe received this Reply; That the Children, which should bee so raised out of stones, howsoever they might bee Abraham's Children, according to Faith, yet could they not bee Children of Abraham according to the Flesh. There­fore [Page 158] is there as great a Difference betweene that Body: from Bread, and the other from the Blessed Virgin, as there must have beene betweene Children out of Stones, and Children out of Flesh.

And this our Reason accordeth right well to the Ancient Faith professed within this Land, in the dayes of Edgar a Saxon King, as it is set out in an Homily en. Ea­ster day, pag. 35. Homily of that time, which standeth thus. Much is betweene the body that Christ suffered in, and betweene the bodie of the hallowed Howsell. The Body truly, that Christ suffe­red in, was borne of the flesh of the Virgin Mary, with blood, and with bone, with skin, and with sinewes, in humane limbes: and his Ghostly body, which we call his Howsell, is gathered of many Cornes,10 without blood, and bone, without l [...]mbe, and therefore nothing is to be understood heerein bodily, but all is Ghostly to bee understood. This was our then Saxons Faith; wherein is plainly distingui­shed the Body of Christ, borne of the blessed Virgin, from the Sa­cramentall (which is called Ghostly) as is the Body of Flesh from the consecrated substance of Bread. A Doctrine directly con­firmed by See Booke 4. cap. 4. §. 1. in the Challenge. Saint Augustine. Wherefore wee may as truly say, concerning this your Conversion, that if it be by Transubstantia­tion from Bread, then it is not the Body, which was borne of the Blessed Virgin; as your owne Romish Glosse could say of the 20 Predication: See above, E. 2. Chap. 1. §. 4. If Bread bee Christ's Body, then Something was Christs Body, which was not borne of the Virgin Mary.

CHALLENGE I
⚜In vindication of the same Truth, against the late Calumniation of a Iesuite.

THis Sentence I have seene lately canvassed by a Iesuite, 30 against a judicious and religious Knight,Sr. H. L. falsly imputing unto him divers Falsities; pretending especially that the English Translation, used by the Knight, is differing from the Latine. Which Exception of your Iesuite must needes have proceded either from ignorance, if hee knew not that the Translation, used by the Knight, was taken out of the Originall Saxon-language, and not out of the Latine; or, if he knew so much, from downe-right boldnesse, in charging him with a false Translation. I omit his frivolous Cavilla­tions 40 upon words.

The maine question, for the sense, is whether in this sen­tence, of the Saxons Faith, the Body, wherein Christ suf­fered, and his Body celebrated in this Sacrament, betoken not two kinde of Bodies, essentially differing one from the other; or but onely the two different manners of the Being of one Body. Your Iesuite affirmeth them to signifie the same Bo­dy, [Page 159] and he calleth the contrary opinion false. His Reason. For whereas it is said, (saith he) that the spirituall flesh (which is as much as to say, our Saviour his flesh in the Sacrament) ac­cording to the outward shew, consisting of Granes of Corne, hath no Bones, nor Sinewes, nor distinction of Parts, Life or Motion. Here the Iesuite cryeth out against falshood, but why? Be­cause the Knight (forsooth) hath pretermitted (saith he) these words [According to the outward shew, consisting of granes.] Whereby he would have us believe the new [...]mish Faith 10 of a Subsistence of meere Accidents. Who if he had meant to have dealt ingenuously, he should have manifested that his Latine Translation to have accorded with the Originall Sa­xon Copie. But to take him as wee finde him. If his words [According to the outward shew] imply (as it needs must, if he will speake to any purpose) that the Body of Christ, in this Sacrament, although in outward shew it be without Bones, Sinewes, Life and Motion, yet it hath all these inwardly in it selfe, as it is in this Sacrament; then whilest he laboureth to confute one Protestant, he contradicteth all his fellow Ie­suites 20 of the same Society,See Booke 4. Chap. [...]. Sect. 2. who deny all possibility of Mo­tion of Christ's Body in this Sacrament by any naturall and voluntary Act, without a miracle. But to speake to the point; This Body, and That Body (say wee) do diversifie two Bodies, the one Sacramentall (of Bread) called Spirituall (because of the spirituall and mysticall Signification) this Bread consisting of Granes: And the other the Naturall Body of Christ, consisting of Bones, Sinewes, &c. In a word, This, and That, in this Saxon narration, accordeth with the Doctrine ofSee Booke 4. Chap. 4. in the Chal­lenge. Bertram, taken out of Saint Augustine, 30(namely) That in heaven to differ as much from This on the Altar, as did the Body borne of the Virgin Mary, from the o­ther which was not so borne.

But if this Homily will not advantage your Iesuite, hee will wrest his prejudicate Conceite out of another Homily of AElfrick, if it be possible, where we reade thus; As Christ before his Passion could convert the substance of Bread, and Crea­ture of Wine into his owne Body that suffered, and into his Blood which afterwards was extant to be shed: So also was he able in the Desert to Convert Manna, and Water out of the Rock into his 40 Blood. So he, citing a Testimonie as fully Opposite unto your Transubstantiation; in sense, as it seemeth to be absolutely for it in sound: it being just the same Doctrine, which Augustine, Anselme, and Bede See hereafter Booke 5. Chap. 3. §. 1. & 2. taught, when they said, that the faithfull among the Iewes Ate the same spirituall meate, [Christs Flesh] in eating Manna, and dranke the same spirituall drink, that is, the blood of Christ, in drinking the water that issued out of the Rocke, which Christians now doe. And there­fore [Page 160] meant not a Corporall eating of Christ, but a Sacra­mentall. So say wee, Christ could aswell then turne Manna, and Water of the Rocke, into a Sacrament of his Body and Blood, for the nourishing of the soules of God's people of those times; as he doth now Convert Bread and Wine into the Sacraments of his Body and Blood, for the comfort of us Christians.

This Answer preventeth the Iesuites Objection:In his Booke of Spectacles, p. 142. The Time (saith he) when the people received Manna in the De­sert, Christ was not in his humane nature; therefore could not Manna be changed into his Body, nor Water into his Blood. So 10 he, very truly indeed. And therfore must AElfrick his speech be understood Sacramentally, as hath beene said: which be­cause the Iesuite refuseth to do, therefore is he at difference with AElfrick, denying that Christ was able to convert Man­na into his Body; which AElfrick said, in expresse termes, hee was able to do (namely) thorow his divine power, by a Sacra­mentall Conversion; because Omnipotencie is as properly necessary for the making of a divine Sacrament, as it was for the creating of the World.

But was it not then kindly done (thinke you) of your Iesuit 20 to lend his Spectacles to another, when he had the most need of them himselfe? by the which he might have discerned, that as Christ Sacramentally (and therefore figuratively) cal­led Bread his Body, and Wine his Blood; so did evermore all the faithfull of Christ. This LessonSee Booke 2. C. 2. Sect. 10. hath beene manifested by many pregnant Examples, in a full Section; which be­ing once got by heart, would expedite all the like Difficul­ties.

To conclude, the former Saxon doctrine is againe confir­med by SaintSee Booke 4. Chap. 4. §. 1. in the Challenge. Augustine. Wherefore wee may as truly say,30 concerning this your Conversion, that if it be by Transubstan­tiation, from Bread, then it is not the Body, which was Borne of the Blessed Virgin, as your owne Romish Glosse could say of the Predication;See above B. 2. Chap. 1. §. 4. If Bread be Christ's Body, then some­thing was Christ's Body, which was not borne of the Virgin Ma­ry. And this wee are now furthermore to evince out of your Pope Innocent the Third, against your Councel of Trent. He (See the Margent of the former Section) taught that when the Conversion is of the forme with the substance, then is the Change Into that which is now made, and was not before, as 40 when the Rod was turned into a Serpent. So he, shewing that the Serpent by that Change was therefore Made of that Rod. But your Tridentine Fathers (you know) have defined the Conversion of Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body to be aswell in Forme, as in Matter; whereupon by the Iudgement of your Pope Innocent it must follow, that the Body of Christ in your Eucharist is made of Bread; and if made of Bread, [Page 161] then could it not possibly be of the flesh of the Virgin: Be­cause there cannot be a Substantiall Change of a Substance into Substance, except that the Substance of that, whereinto the Conversion is wrought, have it's Originall and Making from the Substance of that, which was converted and chan­ged. Nor could the Contrary be hitherto proved by any Romish Doctor, from any Example out of any conversion ei­ther naturall, or miraculous, which hath beene road of from 10 the beginning of Times.

Our third Reason is taken from the Existence of Bread, in this Sacrament, after Consecration; but First of the State of this Question. SECT. III.

VVEe wonder not why your Fathers of the Councell of Trent were so fierce in casting their great Thunderbolt 20 ofSi quis dixe­rit remane [...] subst [...]n­tiam Pan [...]s, Anathe­ma sit. Conc. Trident. Sess. 13. Can. 2. Anathema, and Curse upon every man that should affirme; Bread and Wine to remaine in this Sacrament after Consecration: which they did, to terrifie men from the doctrine of Protestants, who do all affirme the Continuance of the substance of Bread in the Eucharist. For right well did these Tridentines know, that if the Substance of Bread or Wine doe remaine, then is all Faith, yea, and Conceit of Transubstantiation but a feigned Chimaera, and meere Fancie; as your Cardinall doth confesse, in granting, thatPanis e [...]si non annihil [...]tur, tamen manet ni [...]l in se; ut Aqua post Conver­sionem in Vinum. Neq (que) obstat, quòd fouè materia man­serit, nam materia [...] est Aqua. Prima [...] ̄o­ditio in vera Conver­sione est, [...] quod convertitur [...] esse. Bessur. lio 3 de Euch. c 18 [...] & cap. 24. §. Ad Alterum. It is a necessary condition in every Transubstantiation, that the thing which is converted cease any more to bee: as it was in 30 the Conversion of Water into Wine; Water ceased to bee Water. And so must Bread cease to bee Bread. This being the State of the Question, wee undertake to give

Good Proofes of the Existence, and Continuance of Bread in the Eucharist, the same in Substance, after Consecration. Our first Proofe is from Scripture, 1. Cor. 10. & 11. 40 Saint Paul calling it [Bread.] SECT. IV.

IN the Apostle his Comment (that I may so call his two 1. Cor. 11. 26, 27. & 10. 16. Chapters to the Corinthians) upon the Institution of Christ, we reade of Eating the Bread, and Drinking the Cup, thrice: all which, by the consent of all sides, are spoken of Eating and Drinking after Consecration; and yet hath hee called the our­ward [Page 162] Element Bread. You will say (with Some) It was so called onely because it was made of Bread; as Aärons Rod, tur­ned into a Serpent, was notwithstanding called a Rod. But this Answer is not Answerable unto the Similitude. For first, of the Bread, the Apostle saith demonstratively, This bread; and of the other, This Cup: But of Aärons Rod, turned into a Serpent, none could say, This Rod. And secondly, it is contrary to Christian Faith, which will abhorre to say, in a proper sense, that Christs Body was ever Bread. Or else you will answer, with Others, It is yet called Bread, because it hath the Similitude of Bread, as the Brazen Serpent was called a Serpent. 10

But neither this, nor any other of your Imaginations can sa­tisfie; for we shall proove, that the Apostle would never have called it Bread after Consecration, but because it was Substanti­ally, still, Bread. Our Reason is; He had now to deale against the Prophaners of this Sacrament, in reproving such as used it as Common Bread,1. Cor. 11. 22. Not discerning therein (Sacramentally ex­hibited) the Lords Body. It had therefore concerned him to have honored the Sacrament with Divine Titles, agreeable to the Bo­dy of Christ, hypostatically united to his Godhead, and to have denied it absolutely to have beene Bread, considering that by 20 the name of Bread the glory of the same Body might seeme to be abased, and Eclipsed; if in Truth, and Verity he had not be­leeved it to have beene (then) properly Bread.

This Reason, we guesse, you are bound to approve off, who, in your opinion of the Corporall Presence of Christ his Body, and Absence of Bread, would never suffer any of your Professors to call it, after Consecration, by the name of Bread. Whereupon it was that the GreekeArchi [...]pisc. Ca­basila. Latini nostros reprehendunt, quòd post illa verba [Hoc est Corpus meum] Panem & Vinum nominant, &c. Ex­posit. Liturg. cap. 29. Archbishop of Cabasila complained of the Romish Professors, for reprehending the Greeke Liturgies: why? Because (saith he) after the words of Christ, [This is my Bo­dy]30 wee call the Symbols and Signes Bread, and Wine. So he. Which bewrayeth, that the very naming of the Sacrament Bread, and Wine, is, in the judgement of the Church of Rome, prejudiciall to their Transubstantiation; and that if Saint Paul himselfe should deliver the same words he did, at this day, hee should by your Romish Inquisitors be taught to use his Termes in another stile. What need many words? except in the words of Christ the word [Body] be properly predicated, and affir­med of Bread, farewell Transubstantiation of Bread into Christs 40 Body. But that it is impossible the Body of Christ should bee properly predicated upon Bread, hath beene the Generall Con­fession of your owne Doctors, and the Conclusion of our se­cond Booke.

⚜Wee returne againe to the Text, where the Apostle having named it Bread, after Consecration, expoundeth himselfe what Bread he meant, saying, Bread which we breake. [Page 163] But never durst any of your Romanists say, that the Body of Christ is truly Broken in this Sacrament: and never any Father of Primitive times (we are sure) taught the Breaking of the Accidents of Bread. And therefore it must follow, that it was still substantially Bread.

The Apostle hath not yet done, but 1 Cor. 17. sayth, Be­cause it is one Bread, wee being many are one Body for wee all communicate of one Bread. Which Chrysostome, is well as other Fathers, doth analogize thus:See above B. 2. [...]ap. 2. Sect. 6. Chal­leng 1. See also Cy­pri [...], and S. August. B [...]k. 3. Chapt. 3. Sect. 9. That as o [...] loafe consisteth of 10 many granes united together, so are the faithfull Communicants joyned together. So hee, hereby teaching you the substantiall Materialls of the same Bread, Many granes of Corne. And, as though the Apostle had meant to muzzle the Adversaries of this truth with variety of proofes, hee (1 Cor 10. 17.) hath these words, Wee participate [...]] that is, De pane hoc, Of this Bread; thus called after Consecration. And againe, 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let him eate [ [...] Of this Bread, which manifesteth the Eating of a part of an whole loafe of Bread; and not of the Body of Christ, which, even by 20 the Romish faith, is not, nor cannot bee divided into parts. Thus hath Saint Paul, the Scholler of Christ, concluded of Substantiall Bread, agreeable to that which our Master Christ himselfe taught of the other sacred Substantiall part of Drinke, after the Co [...]secration of this Sacrament, as is pro­ved in the next Section.

Our Second Proofe of the Continuance of the Substance of Bread, is from the speech of Christ, touching the Continuance 30 of Wine, after Consecration, Matth. [...]. 29. by the Interpretation of Antiquity. SECT. V.

THe same is as fully verified by our Lord and Master Christ himselfe, in the second Element of Wine, calling itMatth. 26. 29. This fruit of the Vine, that is, Wine, after Consecration: where the Pronoune This hath relation to the matter in the Cup of the Eucharist. For the proofe of this our Exposition of the words of 40 Christ, wee have the Consent of these and thus many holy Fa­thers; Origen, Cyprian, Chrysostome, Augustine, Hierome, E­piphanius, Euthymius, Theophylact, and Bede, as witnesseth your IesuiteOrigenes, Cy­prianus, Chrysost. August. Hieron. Epi­phan. Beda, Euthy­mius, Theophylact. [Genimen Vi [...]s] ad Sanguinem Christi referunt.—Maldon. I [...]s Com. in cum locum; where he addeth: Persuadere m [...]h [...]non possum haec verba ad Sanguinem esse referenda.—Hoc Patres, sed also sensu à Calvinistis, qui dicunt Christum Vinum appellâsse, quia Vinum erat: sed Patres vocâ unt Sanguinem Vanum, sicut Christus Car­nem, Iohan. 6. vocabat Panem. Maldon. in eundem locum. Haec, nè illi Calvinistatum errori affinis esse vide­atur. Maldon. ibid. Maldonate (no one Father produced by him to the [Page 164] contrary,) Then answering; But I (saith hee) cannot be thus per­swaded. So hee. Marke this (you great Boasters of Accordance with Antiquity!) and yet this maner of Answering the Fathers is most familiar with this Iesuite. But hee proceedeth, telling you that The Fathers notwithstanding did not call it Wine, as thin­king it to bee Wine, but even as Christ did, when he called his flesh Bread, Iohn 6. Then hee addeth; They that will follow the Ex­position of These Fathers, are thus to interpret them. And gives his Reason of this his Advertisement; Lest the other Exposition (saith hee) may seeme to agree with the erroneous opinion of the 10 Calvinists. So hee.

For which his Answer Calvinists are as much beholding to him, as are the Ancient Fathers, with whom he hath made bold not only to reject their Authority, but also to pervert the plaine and evident meaning of their Testimonies; who declare that they understood Naturall and Substantiall Wine (as theNovum pro­misit, id est, Novum quendam modum sumptionis in regno, id est, post resurrecti­onem, quando Ci­bum sumpsit corpo­ralem. Theophyl. in Matth. 26. [Bibite ex hoc omnes:] &, [Non bibam amo­dò, &c.] quâ in par­te invenimus Vinum fuisse, quod Sangui­nem suum dixit: un­dè apparet Sangui­nem Christi non of­ferti, [...] desit Vinum Calici. Cyprian. ad Cecil.