PAR. 1.

NO men Omen. The style wher­with the Pope graceth you, seemes to me ominous and to bode you a meere titulary [...]gnity and a blinde Diocesse. For I read [Page 2] in Strabo geograph l. 7. p 221. [...], &c. Strabo and Plin. nat. l. 6. cap. 32. Chalcedon Procerastis antea dicta dein Com­p [...]sa postea [...]corum op­p [...]dum quod locum elige­re nescissent. Plinie that the inhab [...] tants of Chalcedon were by the Orac [...] of Apollo antiently tearmed blinde me [...] because they could not see to build the [...] City upon the more commodious si [...] of the shore. And I Concil. Chalced. act. 7 & Binius nota in con­cil. Tom. 2. [...]. 409. Cum Impe­rator instaret [...] Chal­cedon nomi­ne [...]enus Metropolis [...] consequ [...]re­tur citra pr [...]iudicium N comed [...]e [...] c [...]ilij act. 7 communi consensu admiserunt. finde that at th [...] instance of the Emperour Marcian [...] the Fathers in the fourth generall cou [...] cell advanced this City to the title of Metropolitan See: yet without th [...] priviledges belonging thereunto, ju [...] as his Holinesse sent to you from Ro [...] the shadow of a Mitre without the su [...] stance, and conferred on you the title [...] Ordinary of all England and Scotla [...] without any revenue to mantaine and support your Port and State. Whe [...] at notwithstanding the Pr [...]es: gener [...] & [...] regiminis congregat. [...], Benedictinorum. Benedictine [...] H [...] ma [...] [...] spongia Nicolao Richardij ordinis Sancti dominici d [...] [...]. [...]aropoli 1631. Eccles. angli [...]an: querimon: apologet: [...] [...] [...]. Jacobines and A modest discussion by Nicolas Smith, approved Iohn Floyd Iesui [...], printed at Roven, Anno. 1630. apolog. Danielis a Ie [...] Jesuits so barke a [...] bawle in print, that not onely Engla [...] and Ireland, but also France and Ro [...] her selfe rings of them. And althoug [...] the most celebri [...]us University of Pa [...] [Page 3] hath let flie two fierce [...] [...] de [...]. [...] [...]. [...] Paris 1 [...]. P [...]us A [...] ­relius [...] [...]. Sorb. [...]. Paris [...]. [...] to [...]ake these curres, and the Epist. [...] [...] [...]. Paris 1631. Arch-Bi­ [...]ops and Bishops of France have laid [...] them amaine with their crozure [...]ves, and the faculty of [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] the [...]log. Paris [...]. 1631. Sorbon with [...]r battone, yet they will not be quiet. [...] strange thing to heare those who [...]ast so much of Catholike unity to [...]ndie the tearmes of Schismatike and [...]eretike so familiarly one to the other, [...] Sorbonists to the Jesuites, and the [...]suites by back-racket againe to the [...]orbonists: and yet a stranger to see [...]erius revived in Ignatius Loyolae, and puritane buds to sprout out of a Iesuites stocke. Geneva was wont to be bran­ded for denying the necessity of con­firmation by a Bishop, or of a Bishop at all in the Church, but now S. Censur [...]. Sorb de [...]: [...]. p. 42. & de Hierar. & [...]p, p 48 49 [...] chris [...]te [...] in [...] [...] ab Epis­copo [...] [...] per­ [...] s [...]t christiani & legi divinae satisfit licet nulli sint Episcopi in [...] [...] [...] Anglia. Omers hath justified Geneva. Thus Schisme [...] card [...] [...] [...] [...]mentis ingenij postquam in unum extremum [...] [...] [...] ner [...] [...] rationem sese a praeterito cri [...]e [...] op [...] [...] putarunt si se aed [...] extremum conferrent & [...] papa [...] [...]. errours run in a ring, and though diametral­ly opposite at first, yet meet at the last in the Center. In the meane while, what doth Monsieur Le-Pape? eitherlike [Page 4] Sw [...]t. in vita Neron. Nero he singeth a Poem of his o [...] making to his Thearbo, when he see [...] dangerous fire kindled within the wa [...] of Rome, or like Gallio Deputie in [...] Acts, Chap. 18. Ver. 15. he account [...] these controversies (which yet to [...] not onely all Bishops Miters, but [...] Triple-crowne also) to be questions words and names and will be no judge such matters, and letteth the Monk take The Arch-Bishop of Paris. See qu [...]rimonia Eccles. angl. v. 17. Sosthenes and other chiefe R [...] lers of the Romish Synagogues and be [...] them before his judgement seate and [...] reth for none of these things. N [...] certes his Holinesse is doubly to bla [...] First, to reward your eminent pa [...] both naturall and morrall, improved [...] learning and travell, and emplo [...] wholy to the advancement of the Pa [...] cie, with no better a guerdon then [...] emptie title of a hungry Praeses Be­nedictin: F. Clemens p. 175. Ep sco­pu [...] titularis [...] Gr [...]a non nisi impro­priè & valdè pr [...]ter na [...] ­ram potest [...] caput corpo­ris nostri in Anglia. Ho­rat. Graeculus [...]suriens in coelum [...], ibit. Greeke [...] shoprick. Next when he saw his Exemplar [...] Vrbani octavi per quod Episco­p [...]lis authori­ [...], Richardo Chal [...]edonēsi demandatur. D [...] Rom [...] sub annulo [...], 4 Februarij [...]25. Br [...] come short of his intendment, and yo [...] hopes: not to inlarge it out of the p [...] nitude of his papall power, and tak [...] short course with your mutinous Mo [...] who not onely resist but openly i [...] pugneit, and your jurisdiction found [...] thereon.

[Page 5] First upon the matter he grants you [...]othing and afterwards he maketh not [...]ood that his nothing.

Not to question his Holinesse interest [...]n the Bishoprick of Chalcedon subor­ [...]inate to the Greeke Patriarke, and at [...]is day in captivitie with her native [...]ishop under the grand Signior: I would faine know what this title of Bishop of Chalcedon importeth you? What are the revenewes of this new [...]rected See, transported out of Bithynia into England by miracle, as our Ladies picture and Chappell were out of Pa­lestine Hi [...]re. de [...] [...] d [...] L [...]tto to Lauretto? what is the circuit of your Dioces? what commendams hold you with it? what benifices have you in your gift to preferre your Chap­laine and Champion S. E. unto? where is your Episcopall Pallace situated? where stands the Mother-Church? on which side of it is your Consistorie built? where keepe you your Cou [...]t? surely no where, except in Nido See [...] [...] [...] of S E. his pamphlet [...] [...] the sig [...]e [...] the [...]. And [...]ill n [...] [...] [...]ou. [...] [...] ­phlet [...]e [...], [...] th [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] her bones. [...], the nest of the Phaenix at the signe whereof your booke was prin­ted. I received it from a good band, [...]hat all your receits from Chalcedon [Page 6] will not buy you a true Chalcedo [...] A pretious stone men­tioned in the Apoc. 2 [...] 19 the third a Cal­ [...]edonie, the f [...]rth an Emerald. Wherefore as the Cardinall of Sa [...] Susanne when divers Romish Prie [...] repayred unto him the 19. of Octob [...] 1624. desiring his Grace in the na [...] of their Chapter to further what [...] could a motion they then made to hi [...] admonished them to mend their peti [...] on, and instead of nomine capituli s [...] in the name of their Chapter to wri [...] nomine cleri Anglicani, in the name [...] the English Clergie: for your Chap [...] saith he is a [...]ra. Cle­mens de mā ­d [...]to re [...]m: [...]. p [...]es, gen [...] muit [...] nomi­ne c [...]ert An­glicani: nam c [...]pitulum inquit ve­strum chi­maericum [...]st. Chimaera: so I wou [...] advise you to sticke to your title Arch-Priest over the seculars in E [...] land, nam Episcopatus vester Chalce [...] nensi [...] chimaericus est, for your [...] shoprick of Chalcedon is a chimaera [...] [...]re [...]ion. As for your other t [...] of Ordinarie of England and Scotlan [...] I cannot skill of it: the Engl [...] Pr [...]pos. Benedicit. Chalced [...] ē ­s [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...]abet [...] [...]m n [...]c [...] nec de­ [...] [...] Angli [...] & [...] regna, &c p. 31. & p 83. iam [...] Sco­ [...]s cum risu [...]anc Ordina­rij praetensam authoritat [...]m reiecisse. Monkes seriously dispute you out [...] it, and the Scottish Priests saw [...] jeare at you for it. As for us, who y [...] know have abjured the Popes pow [...] both Ecclesiasticall and Temporal whether Urbane the eight intend to r [...] duce the Kingdomes of England a [...] Scotland into one Diocesse, & make y [...] [Page 7] Bishop of it, or into one Parish, and make you Pastour of it, we account his Vid. Poem V [...]b 8. [...]. designe therein none other then the worke of his poeticall fancie, and have no more faith in his Briefe then in Ovids Metamorphosis:

Our Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Ordina­ries, and Pastours in both these King­domes possessing all the Sees, and en­joying peaceably under our most Gra­tious Soveraigne, the entire rights thereof, will ease your seven [...] Loemelij [...] [...] [...] apostolic [...]. Vicars and Bithynian Collectour of his paines. As for the Recusants charity, it goeth another way, they are no lesse Recusants to your authority, then to our lawes: for albeit your great Pan at Rome hath committed the grea­test [...] [...] [...] [...]. part, if not all his spotted sheepe to your Pastorall charge: yet they yeeld you little or no profit, because they are sheared to your hands: especially by the Iesuits whom Reverardentius ap [...]ly [...] [...] [...]. [...]. tearmeth in this respect equi [...]es aurei velleris, Knights of the golden fl [...]ece.

PAR. 2.

WHen Hanniball saw the hea [...] of his brother Asdrubal hel [...] upon a speare at the command of Cla [...] dius Nero, he said, video fatum Carth [...] ginis, I see the destinie of Carthage, [...] me thinkes I see in you fatum Angloru [...] & Hibernorum, the fate of our Engli [...] and Irish Papists, which is at this pre sent, and hath ever beene to yeeld mo [...] to the Romane See, and to receive lea [...] from her. Pope Urbane the third, fo [...] Ca [...]bden hist. ef [...]. Elizab. ad annum 40. all the gold which by one trick or othe [...] he got out of Ireland, sent in old time [...] Coronet of Peacocks feathers to Ioh [...] the sonne of Henry the second, wh [...] was designed Lord of Ireland: an [...] in our memorie, Clement the eight mo [...] bountifully rewarded the Earle of Ty­rone, for exhausting his patrimonie up­on the Irish rebels, with store of indul­gences and a Phenix plume. Wh [...] ever deserved better of the Romis [...] [Page 9] faith and See, then Iohannes Roffensis, Allin, Stapleton, Sanders, W. Reynolds, Harding, and your selfe? yet what hath beene done to any of you for all that you have done and suffered in the Popes quarrell? To one of you a Car­dinals hat was sent indeed, but never came on the party his head, which was cut off by Henry the eight, to an other a Cardinals hat was given, but with so thinne lining, (I meane, meanes to sup­port his estate) that he was commonly called the starveling Cardinal. The third was made professour of a pettie University, scarce so good as one of our free Schooles in England. The fourth, whose tongue was so full of adders poyson against his Soveraigne and Countrey, before he died felt his tongue cleaving to the roofe of his mouth, being starved to death in Ireland. The fifth was nominated to a poore Vicaridge under vallew: on a sixt his Holinesse bestowed a prebend of Gaunt, or to speake more properly a gaunt pre­bend. And you for weighing so stedily both religions (the Reformed and the Romish) in a A [...] printed by D. Smith, [...] th [...] prudentia [...]l ballance. prudentiall ballance, he hath placed in a pendulous Bisho­pricke [Page 10] adjoyning to Martial epig. l. 1. aere pendē ­tia Mauso­lea. Mausolus his Sepulcher in the ayre. For your so ac­curatly and learnedly maintaining all the Romish tenets, hee hath at last made you So the Italians call in de [...]ision a titular Bi­shop. nullatenensem a hold. nought. When Saint Mat. 17. 4. Peter spake of making Tabernacles in the aire, the Luke 9. 33 Evangelist saith, hee knew not what hee said: and now when his pre­tended successour, Pope Urbane the eight foundeth Episcopall Sees, and Cathedrall Churches, and Ecclesiasti­call Courts in the aire, may we not bee bold to say that hee doth hee knowes not what, and deserveth the title of sapientum octanus.

It is not for nothing that hee assumeth to himselfe the name of Urbane, or the facetious who re­quiteth his best servants and chiefest favourites with jests and riddles- For read my riddle what's this? the Su­pervisour of a See unseene a Bishoprick of Chalcedon in Brittanie, an extraor­dinary Ordinary, a Diocesan of parti­culars universals, Romish Catholikes, English Romanists, and Superiour t [...] all the irregular regulars in Engla [...] and Scotland.

PAR 3.

HOw be it were the cause you maintayne good, the fortune you sustaine could in no sort prejudice you, either in your conscience, or your credit. For to follow Christ naked is an honour and an ornament to a Christian: and Solomon hath left this for one of his divine essayes, that the [...] 9▪ [...]. race is not to the swiftest, nor the battaile to the strongest, nor yet bread to the wise, nor riches to men of understanding, nor favour to men of skill, nor the greatest preferment to the [...]. [...]. [...]. worthiest. The golden bishopricke of Carthage fell to the lot of leaden Concil a [...]. rica [...] in sub­script sub Bo [...]ace [...] Celesti [...] [...] [...] p [...] [...]55. Aure­lius, and little Hippo to great St. Austine, of whom we may truly say concerning Hippo, as it was said of [...]. m [...] [...] [...]x Euripid [...]s q [...]am E [...] ­pides ex. [...] [...] [...]. Euripides con­cerning his familiarity with Archelaus, that Hippo was better knowne by S. Au­stine then St. Austine by Hippo. Let it not seeme strange that men of meaner worth set the best leg forward, and outstrip their betters now adayes: when in the ancient and better times of the Church Damasus the schollar was ad­vanced [Page 12] to the first See, and Hieren ad Damasum papam epist. 143, 144, 145 146, &c. Ieromie his Master (to whom even after he was Pope he expounded many difficult pla­ces of Scripture) ended his dayes in his Cell at Bethlem. And Gregorie Na­zianzen the learnedest of all the Greeke fathers and surnamed the divine in the sharing of preferments in Capadocia could get but the poorest and most in­commodious Bishopricke in all that province: about which he expostulates with Saint Basil. A rich stone is of no lesse worth when it is locked up in a Epist. 31. wicker kasket, then when 'tis set in a Bishops mytre. The wise Historian ob­served that the statues of Tacit: annal: eo praefulge­bant quod non viseban­tur. Brutus and Cassius were the more glorious and illustrious, because they were not brought out with other Images in a solemne procession at the funerall of Germanicus. And in like manner men of excellent endowments when they are neglected in states, are by so much the more inwardly reverenced by how much they receive the lesse outward ho­nour, and advancement. Cato was in the right who said he had rather men should question why he had no statue or mo­nument erected unto him, then why he [Page 13] had. For certainely men honour them more who aske why such and such men are not preferred, then they who en­quire why such men are preferred, or what worth is in them correspondent to the titles they beare. But whats this to your either advancement or dise­steeme in the See of Rome; Saint Cy­prian teacheth us that if a man suffer death in an erroneous beliefe, being fal­len away from the truth, his suffering is not corona fidei but paenaperfidiae, not a crowne of faith, but a punishment of his perfidiousnesse. It is just that they who wrong their native soyle should be disrespected in forraigne countries. Had you continued in the universitie of Oxford, you might have beene not only according to your name, faber a Smith, but even Aurifaber a gold-smith to forme many pretious vessels for Gods Sanctuarie, whereas now since your re­volt from your Religion, and departure out of this kingdome you have turned silver-smith, like those in the Acts that Acts. 19. 14. made shrines for Diana, they for Diana of Ephesus, you of Rome, or rather, like Alexander, [...] a Copper-smith. Aeneas when he left Troy, carried his [Page 14] Father, and his gods out with him: [...] you when you forsooke your countr [...] left your mother and your religion a [...] behind you, and you have ever sin [...] spent all your time in maintaining a [...] propagating by your tongue and pen [...] a Religion, which is where it diff [...] from us, nothing else but a cento [...] See the booke of the 3. con­firmities Whitaker. Cont 2. de not. eccle. q. 5. C. 7. Rivet summa. cont. q. 1. hotch-potch of diverse heresies and su­perstitions. A religion which loosene [...] and dissolveth all bonds of vowes, a [...] religious obligations by papall dispe [...] sation, or Iesuiticall aequivocation: [...] religion which sacrilegiously robbe [...] God of his honour, Christ of his praero­gatives, and Princes of their soveraign­ty. A religion which blasphemous [...] derogateth from the sufficiency o [...] Scripture, impiously mutilateth both the ten Commandements, (cutting ou [...] the second) and the Sacrament (taking the cup from the laitie:) praesumptu­ously addeth to the Apostles creed as many more new Articles, Idolatrously worshipeth Images, pictures, shrines, reliques, the Crosse, and the consecra­ted wafer, superstitiously halloweth creame, spittle, medals, and beades, &c. A religion whose last resolution of [Page 15] faith is into the Pope, who hath beene oftentimes an heretike and sometimes a necromancer. A religion which war­ranteth subjects to take armes against their Bellar. l. [...] de Rom po [...]. c. 7. Sipri [...] cipos conen­tur [...]vertere pop [...]lum a sule possunt [...] [...] pri­vari suo da­minio, et non licet christi­anis solerare regem infi­delem [...] hereticum. vid. Bulla [...] Pauli cons. Hon. 8. [...] Pij. 5. cont. Eliza, et l Card. Alani cuitit An admoni­tion to the nobilitie of England & Ieland con­cerning the presēt warr [...] made for the execution of his holinesse sentence a­gainst & Elizabeth. Clement. 8. his Bull and letters to Tyron Set downe at large in my L. Carew his booke tit. pacata: Hiber. l 3. c. 18. Soveraigne, canonizeth [...] the Iesuites chatechisme Apolog. Garneti Amphitheatrum honoris et lit. Card. Commensis ad Parreum perduellionis reum et ca [...]al. mar [...]y. Jesuit. c [...]messig. et nom. excus. lutes. parri­ [...]des, and crowneth traytours with the garlands of martyrs. A religion which dispenseth with incestuous marriages and sins against nature, sets a rate upon all Taxa Camere Apostol wess. cont indulg. crimes and draweth a revenew from the sinkes of all impuritie (stewes and brothels) a tribute farre worse then that of Vespasian ex lotio. Had I con­tested with you in our meeting at Paris about any of these no lesse unexcusable then unsufferable impieties of your Romish pseudocatholike faith, into what an agonie should I have put you; when conferring rather then disputing with you according to the lawes prae­scribed by the company calmely and peaceably about one of the most plau­sible tenets of your Trent Creed, in which you make most show of Fathers and brag of Scriptures, you were foiled [Page 16] in every argument: and driven t [...] much perplexitie and miserable esc [...] patories, as I will presently make it ap­peare after I have acquainted the rea­der with the issue of other former con­ferences in France, which occasioned this with you.

PAR. 4.

VPon the sad newes of the death of Henry the fourth, whom Ra­valiach ran into the side with a stiletto in Paris, neere the Church of Saint Innocents, right over against the house, whose signe was the flever de lies his owne armes: Sir Thomas Edmonds be­ing sent with all speede into France to be liedger Embassadour for his Majesty of Great Brittaine, left order with D. King then Vicechancellor of Ox­ford (afterwards Lord Bishop of Lon­don) to provide him a Chaplaine; [Page 17] who with much importunity drew me greene from the Universiry, after my first solemne The re­hearsall Ser­mon, Anno 16 [...]0. exercise in Saint Ma­ries, to this employment in France. Where I was no sooner arrived, but I heard of divers English Priests resi­dent there, who not onely set upon our English Gentlemen that travelled into those parts, and fixed some of them in the wrong, who before were unset­led in the right: but put the Embassa­dours Chaplaines also oftentimes to some trouble. These were D. Stanhurst, D. Wright, D. Bagshau, D. Stevens, D. Smith the elder, D. Champney, M. Reyner, M. Meridith, and others, with whom I declined all manner of contestation in point of Religion for a great while, not upon any distrust of the cause, neither any feare lest they should gaine upon the truth, or unset­tle me or any other in any ground of our most Orthodoxe beliefe. For blessed be God, as in former times, so in our age we see the promise of our Saviour daily fulfilled in divers of the reformed Religion, who have beene See Acts and Monu­ments of the Church. Cri [...]pin in Mar [...]rolog. Histoire Des Vaud. convented before your Inquisitours, Luke [...] 15. I will give you a mouth and wisedome [Page] which all your adversaries shall not be able to gaine-say nor resist. And as o [...] of the mouth of women and Mat. 21. 16. Psal. 8. 2. childre [...] hee hath perfected praise, so in publi [...] disputations betweene the learned Do­ctors on both sides, hee hath ev [...] Mat. 12. 20. brought forth judgement on our si [...] unto victory. Witnesse the solem [...] disputation in the Synod of Basil be­tweene the Orthwinus Gratius in fascic rer. expetend. & sug. Huzzites and your Pre­lats and Doctors, in the yeare of o [...] Lord, 1438. Wherein Iohannes Rok [...] zanus the Taborite, and Petrus P [...] mus our Countrey man, so worth [...] acquitted themselves in the defer [...] of the Bohemian Articles, that they r [...] gained from that Synod the free use [...] the holy cup in the Sacrament for t [...] Laity. Witnesse the disputation be­tweene Martin Luther, and Eckius [...] at Lipsia by the Appointment of Du [...] George of Saxonie, Anno 15 [...]9. [...] which I may say as the Oratour spea­keth of Cic: orat [...]r Marcelli pugna ad Nolam po­pulus Roma­nus primò se erexit postea multae res prosperae co­secutae sunt. Marcellus his battell wit [...] Hanniball at Nola, it gave the first li [...] to the reformed partie in Germany, an [...] after it the affaires of religion went [...] most prosperously. Witnesse the dispu­tation at Zurick, appointed by the Bi­shop [Page 19] of Constance, betweene Faber S [...]apulensis, and Zuinglius, Anno 1523. at which the Champion for the Ro­mish partie was so daunted, that after a flourish, he said in that great assem­blie, that the cognition and determinati­on of differences in religion pertained to a generall councell which was neare at hand, and that he would confute the do­ctrine of his adversary by writing, dis­pute he would no longer: the issue was the Senate of Zuricke presently pro­claimed reformation. Witnesse the disputation a [...] Baden, Anno 1525. be­tweene Oecolampadius and Eckius, where Eckius sate downe by the losse, and the Church gained all the refor­med Pagi of Helvetia. Witnesse the disputation at Berne in Anno 1527. be­tweene Conradus Treyerus an Augustin Frier, and Martin Bucer. This dispu­tation held 19. daies, the issue whereof was a pillar erected by the Senate at Berne: in which they wrote in gol­den letters the day and yeare of their reformation. To come neerer home; Witnesse the disputation begun a [...] Westminster by the commandement of Queene Humfred in vit [...] Iewel. [...]ox Acts & Monumēts. Tom. 3. p. [...] Elizabeth, Anno 1559. be­tweene [Page] D. Story Bishop of Chichester, D. Cocks, M. Whitehead, M. Grindol, M. Horne, D. Sands, M. Gest, M. Elmer, M. Iewel on the one side for the Prote­stants, and the Bishops of Winchester, Litchfield, Chester, Carlile, Lincolne, D. Cole, D. Harpsfield, D. Langdale, D. Chedsey on the other side, in which af­ter the Protestants had given the charge, the Popish party presently soun­ded a retreat, and upon frivolous pre­tences brake up the conference, wit­nesse the Epistle of Gerson Archiepisc. Prag: ne (que) rursus in dis­putādo apud tales, &c. ullus unquā [...] fini [...]; scā ­dalizabitur populus de­nique talis protervitas incidit in il­lud poetae aegrescit (que) medendo l. de punit: haere [...]. non est pub­licè disputan­dum cum [...]aeretico prae­se [...]tim perti­naci. Sunt enim haereti­ci in dispu­tando disertissimi & sciunt optimè disput ationum retia tendere. Huiu [...] rei exemplum nobis praeluit publica disputati [...] cum Luthero Litsia ha­bita. Gerson to the Arch-Bishop of Prague, in which hee disswadeth him from putting the mat­ter of Religion to a Triall in disputa­tion, because by such a course taken with the Huzzites, the noble forerun­ners of our protestant faith, the people would be scandalized, and the wound gi­ven already to the Church, would be made worse by the cure. And lastly, witnesse the determination of ^k Al­fonsus a Castro, we ought not saith he publikely to dispute with an hereticke, especially if he be pertinacious, for here­tikes [Page 21] are most nimble in disputation, and very skilfull to spread nets of arguments, as we have an example in the publike dis­putation with Luther at Lipsia.

I had no reason therefore to doubt our arguments or cause which like P [...]rtas Caesa­re [...] & for­tunam [...]. Eras. Apoth. Caesar hath ever beene victorious. Yet partly because I had not as then spent so much time in the studie of con­troversies, as I thought requisite for him who was to encounter with veterani milites, old souldiers of the Popes traine band: partly because I knew whatsoever my performance might be, the major part of the specta­tors addicted to the Romish partie, would doe me no right in the relation; I carefully avoided all conflicts with them, till by a wile I was drawne into the lists with Christopher Bagshan D. D. sometimes fellow of Baily Col­ledge in Oxford, and afterwards Prin­cipall of Gloster-Hall. This D. I met at M. Alexanders a Scottish Papist his house at a dinner, to which my Lord Embassadours Secretary, M. Woodford and my selfe were invited. At the last service, M. Alexander blew the coale, and D. Bagshan presently tooke fire: [Page 22] and immediately after dinner we fell [...] it with great vehemency for man [...] houres. What this conference wroug [...] with others there present, I cannot say but sure I am, it left many scruples [...] M. Alexanders minde. From that ho [...] he began to question the Romish Reli­gion in which hee was borne and bre [...] and divers times after he repaired to m [...] to instruct him more fully in the do­ctrine of the reformed Churches, a [...] when he lay upon his death bed, he ea [...] nestly desired those about him to se [...] for me with all speed: but they bei [...] zealous in the Romish Religion, a [...] conceiving that my conference wi [...] him would set him further of from t [...] same, fulfilled not his last desire, but in stead of me, brought to him a Popis [...] Priest, who finding him drawing on [...] his end, offered to administer to hi [...] their Sacrament of extreame unction which he refused to receive from him This a servant of his with weeping eyes after his buriall related at my Lord Embassadours house. My nex [...] conflict was with D. Stevens, occasio­ned by an English Gentlewoman, wh [...] falling into want, and being relieve [...] [Page 23] [...] his meanes, was easily drawne by [...]m to heare their Lent Sermons; and at Easter, the Papists who had contribu­ted to her necessities, made full account that then she would communicate with them, and renounce our Church. But that she might not be thought to be drawne to them for temporall respects, and that D. Stevens might have the ho­nour to win her from us by disputati­on, he and she both by themselves and their friends, importuned me to give them a meeting at M. Porie his Cham­ber in the Fauxburg of Saint Germaines. I fought at the first what I could to put it off, because I had an inckling that this conference was sought for, onely to give some colour to her intended re­volt from us: yet being deepely adju­red by her, as I tendered the good of a soule bought with Christs blood, and being directly challenged in the end by D. Stevens, I met at the time and place appointed. Where the Doctor made an eloquent speech, imbroidered with all variety of learning, wherewith ma­ny there present were much taken, but when he came to dispute, and was tied to propound his arguments in a syllogi­sticall [Page 24] forme, and so propounding the [...] received some unexpected answers, [...] quite lost himselfe, being derided [...] some, and pittied by others in reg [...] of his great age. At the next meeti [...] which was farre more solemne, [...] Lord Clifford and divers other perso [...] of great quality being present, D. S [...] ­vens gave way to D. Bagshau to disp [...] for him; who first answered, and af [...] opposed in the question by the audit [...] proposed, and by us stated; the sum [...] of which disputation was taken [...] M. Arscot and M. Ashley there prese [...] and by M. M. P. sent over to his Gr [...] See the re­lation there­of in the end of this Treatise. of Canterbury. The Gentlewo [...] after these conferences gave lesse ho [...] to the Papists then before, whereup [...] their charity waxing cold towards h [...] the next newes I heard of her was t [...] she was cast in prison for debt, wh [...] I visiting her, found her constant in [...] truth, and firmely resolved by Go [...] grace never to enthrall her soule to R [...] ­mish Idolatry and superstition, to [...] deeme her body from that miserab [...] captivity, being committed to a clo [...] and nastie prison in a strange Count [...] among those that hated her with a pe [...] [Page 25] f [...]ct hatred for the constant love she [...] [...]re to the truth.

PAR. 5.

ABout this time you came to Paris and understanding what had past betweene me and your pue-fellowes for reasons best knowne to your selfe, you dealt with M. Iohn Fourd by M. Knevet his halfe brother to draw us together to a friendly conference, which soone after your arivall he also effected as your Chaplaine S. E. relateth, in his introduction to your conference, to which he hath prefixed an absurd title viz The conference mentioned by D. F. in the end of his Sacriledge, fron­tispicium sine fronte. Is the sacriledge which I detect and convict your church of by the joynt testimonie of all ages, [Page 26] my sacriledge? can he make this goo [...] by his Doway logicke? suum cui (que), giv [...] every man his owne, the booke is min [...] the sacriledge is yours. He that de [...] fendeth or excuseth any heresie [...] crime in an other, I grant makes it [...] own, and what the great Lawyer Ulpi [...] spake of parricide, may be said as tru [...] of sacriledge, the iustificatiō of so fow [...] an act, intitleth the patron thereof [...] the crime it selfe, and taints him [...] deepe or deeper then if he had co [...] ­mitted the very act. In which consid [...] ­ration if M. Everard or your Chaplai [...] S. E. or any other drunke with [...] Whores Apoc. 17. 4 cup shall be so hardie as i [...] replie to that booke of mine to mai [...] taine or excuse your sacriledge in tak [...] away the cup from the laity, his rep [...] may be justly tearmed his sacriledg [...] But contrarywise to tearme a boo [...] written ex professo against sacriledg [...] the authours sacriledge, hath neith [...] colour of truth nor rellish of wit, [...] what can be more absurd then to tear [...] Mithridates his confection against po [...] son, Methridates his poyson? or Por [...] Latro his invective against conspira [...] Portius his conspiracie? or [...] [Page 27] Emperours Law against adulterie, the Lex Iu [...] de Adulter [...] vid. Bullari­um Ro. Pon­tif. L [...]th. 10. 1. contra Exe­crabil [...] bul­lam. Anti christi. Emperours adulterie? or the Popes bull [...]gainst simony, the Popes simony? or Luther his declamation against Pope Leo his execrable bull, Luther his bull? [...]piphanius hath written a speciall booke [...]gainst all heresies, Acontius against [...]athans stratagems, The Bishop of [...]uresme against the grand imposture of [...]e Romane church, Reynold against the [...]dolatrie thereof, Stapleton against the 7. deadly sinnes, will he call the first, [...]piphanius his heresies, the 2. Acontius [...]is stratagems, the 3. The Bishop of Du­ [...]sme his grand imposture, the 4. Doctor Reynolds his Idolatrie, the last Stapleton [...]is 7. deadly sinnes. Let his frontispice [...]hen blush for shame, and by his owne [...]eason take sacriledge to himselfe, and [...]all it his sacriledge, because it is his [...]tle: and let him cite the title of my booke true as it is, The grand sacriledge [...]f the Church of Rome, that he may have at least one true quotation in all his booke.

In my booke (which he so nickna­meth) a great beame is discovered in the eye of the Romane church: in the [...]elation of the conference appendant [Page 28] thereunto a mote in your eye. Why doth he so earnestly endeavour to take out the mote out of your eye, and leave the beame in his mothers eye the church of Rome, is your credit dearer to him then his catholike beliefe? or thought he [...] himselfe sufficiently provided to en­counter the small skiffe attending on the great vessel, not the great vessel it selfe? If he and the rest of you so much slighten my endeavours against your Trent Faith, that you thinke them not worthie the taking notice off, why doe you put forth answers to part of them? if you esteeme them fit to bee looked after, and put to the test of examination, why doe you not answer them entirely? but to halfes, or not so much as to halfes, scarce to the tenth part, some of you like birds pecke at the blossomes of my words, other at the barke of my praefaces, or praeambles, none of you yet hath pierced into the heart or pith of any polemical treatise written by me. Your stout champion In a pam­phlet intitu­led the re­paire of ho­nour. Im­printed at [...]uges, An: 1 [...]4. D. Weston bravely chargeth my Epistle to the A replie to D Featlies answere to M. [...]rs [...]. [...] An. [...] reader and presently repaires to his fort for feare of gunshot. M. Iohn Fisher the Jesuite advanceth a little [Page 29] further, hee shapeth some kinde of answer to a piece of my preamble to the Romish Fisher caught and held in his [...]owne net, and there sitteth downe pan­ting for breath, now this 9 yeares: and your Chaplaine after two yeares, since the booke of the grand sacriledge was printed, falleth most valiantly upon the appendix consisting of a few leaves, leaving the maine treatise untouched; wherein a Iurie is impanaled of all ages, condemning your Romish Synagoguo of a crime of a high nature, a crimson sinne the robbing Gods people of their Redeemers bloud conteyned as we say mystically, as you believe litterally and properly in the chalice. Every argument in it against you is confirmed by the prime writers of your owne [...]de: every objection of yours against [...]s is solved out of your owne C [...]assick di­vines, who are brought upon the the­ater like Romane fencers playing their p. [...] & seq. prizes, and dangerously wounding one the other. Out of compassion to whom, if not for the love of the cause, he should have drawne his weapon if he durst. I have heard from the mouthes of two Romane Priests that that treatise [Page 30] is as a thorne in your eyes: yet your Chaplaine dares not pluck at it for feare of pricking his fingers: but under your relation, tanquam sub Ajacis cly­pio, under Ajax buckler hides himselfe presently after he hath flung a dart of Calumny at a Conference of mine sig­ned and subscribed by two witnesses, both named by him, and acknowledged to be present at that disputation in Pa­ris, Anno 1612.

PAR. 6.

AFter I have repelled his darts, I will encounter your relation, in both which the Greeke proverbe is verified, [...], never a barrell better herring. In his Eras. Adag. introduction, from p. 3. to the 11. hee relates the occasion of this conference, partly defectively, partly injuriously and falsly.

1. His narration is defective, in that [Page 31] he relates, pa 8. That M. Knevet was put in minde that he was mistaken in the matter of Religion, and that be­fore Luther, all knowne Churches did beleeve that which he saw there in France openly professed, but he omit­teth what was replied thereunto, that this was a stale allegation confuted a 1000. times by Protestants, he omit­teth also what was retorted (viz.) that no knowne Church in the world before the late Councell at Trent, which began in the yeare of our Lord, 1545. and ended in the yeare 1563. beleeved those 12. now articles added to the Apostles Creed, [...]lla Pij 4 Pontif. anno, 5. A. D. 1564. Haee est catholica fi­des extra quā nemo saluua essa potest quam in pra­senti pr [...] ­or, &c p. 441. by Pius 4. to be de fide and to be assented unto by all men under paine of damnation. That the Primitive Church worshipped no Images, knew no private masses, or halfe communions, or prayers in an unknowne tongue nor Church treasurie of superabundant satis­factions, nor Popes indulgences for the release of soules out of Purgatory, nor any of that drosse which he saw in your Church mingled with the gold of the Sanctuary: that a man would have beene laughed out of his skin, who would in those daies have given any credit to [Page 32] that which he & I both saw in Paris open­ly professed, and painted too, viz. Saint Denys holding his head in his hand, and our Ladie saying over the Rosarie with a great paire of beades about her necke, Saint Genoviefue Patronesse of Paris, carried in solemne procession about the streets, and publicke supplications made to her for raine, or the host carried in state in the streete under a Canopie, and the people kneeling before it in the dirt, or Christ eating the Paschall Lambe larded after the French fashion, or an Asse kneeling downe to the Sacrament, or Bees building a Chappell and the like legen­darie fopperies.

2. It is false and injurious in that he saith, p. 8. that I thought my selfe alone hard enough for the whole Church of Rome, and p. 10. that I presuming of victory made the matter knowne both to the English and to the French. Me thinkes you should have taught your Chaplaine better then to put his dreames in print for my thoughts, and to presume what were my presumptions, neither had I any such thought, [...]either presumed upon any such thing; for although I know my selfe to be igno­rant [Page 33] of many things which I ought to know: yet I dare boldly professe with Origen, Ignorantiam meam non ignoro, I am not ignorant of my ignorance, nei­ther have I beene shie to make so much knowne to all men, in most of my dis­putations, using this premonition, that if the auditory should not be satisfied in my arguments or answers, that they ought to impute it to the weakenesse of the advo­cate, not of the cause, and this or the like conclusion, that if they heard any thing that gave them contentment, they were to ascribe it to the goodnesse of the cause which I maintained, which will bee able to defend it selfe not onely a­gainst the Popes chaire but also against hell gates.

But I need not wipe off the aspersi­on of selfe confidence cast upon me, p. 10. he himselfe doth it, p. 12. saying that I called M. Moulines a famous French Preacher to the Conference, whereas it was appointed, that the Conference should bee betwixt us two onely. If I thought my selfe hard enough for the whole Church of Rome, what need I call in Peter Moulines to assist me, a­gainst one Doctor onely of the Church [Page 34] of Rome? Here certainely your Lord­ships Chaplaine was forgetfull of speciall precept in his art, oportet men­dacem esse memorem, he that will v [...] lies, and desireth not to be taken in them ought to have a good memory, least [...] contradict himselfe, for lies are contra­rie, not onely to the truth, but often­times to themselves also.

PAR. 7.

HAving done with your servant for the present, and given him his arrant, I come now to conferre with your selfe, or rather to heare your re­ference and rehearsall of our Confe­rence, two and twenty yeares agoe, September 4. Whereof I may truly say, as Scaliger doth of Baronius his Annals, (facit annales non scribit) he makes Annals or Chronicles, he writes them not: so verily you rather make a new Conference betwixt me and you, then relate the old. For you devise con­ditions, [Page 35] cast my arguments into a new mould, piece out your owne answers, invert the order, and fairely dissemble those replies that touched you to the quicke, wherefore I intreat the Reader to take notice that the Protestant rela­tion of the Conference printed 1630. was taken out of the authenticall notes of both parties, and confirmed and sub­scribed by two that were present at the disputation, and confessed to have beene so by your selfe, p. 9. but this narration of yours is penned by your selfe, and published 2 [...]. yeares after, and hath no attestation at all unto it. Yet because you shall know that I am ready to answer, not onely to all that you did then say, but to all that you can say in the propounded question, I will trace you, [...] and where you stumble helpe you up.

First, you charge me with the breach of I know not what condition, by making the Conference more publike then it should have beene. The two noters make mention but of three con­ditions or lawes made by the company, and assented unto by us before wee exchanged any word, which were [Page 36] these. 1. That wee should dispute calmely and peaceably. 2. That all impertinent discourses should bee avoided. 3. That M. Featly at this time should onely oppose, and D. Smith onely answer. The fourth law which you mention concerning the private carriage of this Conference was so privately enacted, that I never heard of it till now, the other three I kept punctually through the whole Con­ference, but you violated, at the first entrance you had scarce spoken three words before you transgressed the third law, whereat I tooke exception and offence, not because I was affrighted at the very sight of your tenets, as your Chaplaine S. E. would scare his sim­ple Reader, though your Transubstan­tiation be an ougly Monster, nor for that I was netled at the proposall of your objections against our tenet: for they were but blind nettles, as wee terme them, that sting not at all; but partly because I could little hope for any faire proceedings from him, who stumbled at the threshold, and brake his owne promise before he infringed any argument of mine, partly and es­pecially, [Page 37] because you brandished your sword furiously against me, when you knew I was engaged by promise, and bound by the law at that time not to use my Buckler. I saw my condition like his in Floresta Hispan: l. fac [...]. Floresta, who seeing a dog run at him, and stooping downe to take up a stone to fling at him, and fin­ding it so fast in the ground that hee could not moove it, cryed out, A ven­geance on this countrie where dogges are let loose and stones are tied. Your tiphenie wherewith you cover this skarre in your reputation from the cu­stome of Oxford (for the respondent to confirme his Thesis) is too transpa­rent and netlike. For what was the custome of Oxford in this kinde to us in Paris, who had by joynt consent set downe an other order to be held in this disputation? Neither did you (si me­minisse jnvat) at that time insist upon any such Oxford custome, nor intima­ted so much, that you tooke any de­grees of Schooles there: for then I should in the first place have charged you with the Articles of Religion you subscribed unto, and the oathes you tooke at your presentation: to all [Page 38] which you bid adew when you w [...] first bound for Rome.

As for the short warning (where you complaine) to prepare for th [...] meeting, you alleadge it but for fashion For who knoweth not that you were professour many yeares in Spaine, a [...] in your written Workes had befo [...] this elabourately handled this question Besides, for ought I know you we [...] acquainted with the day of our disputa tion as soone as it was set: this I am sure of, that excepting onely the good­nesse of the cause, you had all advanta­ges of me. First of yeares, for I was but Tyro, you veteranus miles, I the [...] but a pusney in these studies, you a Doctor in your facultie, of so loud [...] fame that your name rung before this in England, France and Spaine, inso­much, that as you your selfe reported M. Knevet said of me that I was to young to deale with you. Secondly of bookes, for I brought but a few with me to Paris, nor had accesse (being knowne an opposite to your Religion) to any of your Libraries. Whereas [Page 39] you besides your owne, had the com­mand of the Librarie of Sorbone, and others in the City and University. Thirdly of assistance, for I was alone and had none to advise withall: you conversed daily with the Sorbone Doctors of your society, the acutest disputants of this age. Yet whatsoe­ver garland now your Chaplaine platteth for you, at that time you were farre from triumphing. For you doub­ted your owne answers, and like beares whelpes often licked them to bring them to some forme, and when at the end of the Conference I had read them all unto you written from your owne mouth; a friend of yours snatched the paper away, and never would [...] ver it, but in liew thereof you tendered me a paper of answers written with your owne hand, with such additions and limitations, as your after thoughts suggested: in which notwithstanding fairely you yeelded the cause, saying, ego agnosco quod in his verbis, hoc est corpus meum, est figura: that is, I ac­knowledge that there is a figure in these words, or that these words are to be ta­ken figuratively. If so, then they make [Page 40] no more for the Transubstantiation of Bread into Christs Body, then the like figurative words, I am the doore, I am the vine, I am the way, make for the Transubstantiation of Christs Body or person into a vine doore or way. Wherefore I cannot but commend your ingenuity in choosing that sen­tence of Saint Austine for your posie in the frontispice of your relation, facile est ut quis (que) Augustinum vincat, quanto magis ut vicisse videatur, aut si non videatur, vicisse dicatur, it is an easie thing to get the better of Austin, how much more to seeme to get the better, or if not to seeme yet to be so reported, if you neither had the worse, nor seemed to have, nor were reported to have the worst in this Conference, how doth this posie fit your relation, but if either, indeed you were foyled, or in appa­rance, or at least in report, discordant ultima primis, the first words agree not with the last, that you got the field, and bare away the prize.

PAR. 8.

THe praeludium is past concerning the occasion and conditions: I come now to the encounter it selfe con­cerning your Reall presence by Transub­stantiation. For which those of your Church contend, tanquam pro aris & focis, and well may you so doe, for it furnisheth your ara and your focus too. Iustitut. l. 4. c. 17. quia Satan haue exposit [...] veritatem per turbulentos spiratus hodi [...] quo (que) moli­lius quibus­cun (que) potest calumnijs & probris foeda­re nec in ullam al [...]am rem maiori conatu incumbit accuratius eam tueri & asserere opere pretium est. Calvin truely observeth that Satan by his instruments laboureth no­thing more then to suppresse the truth in this point of controversie: and in regard of the infinite Volumes written on both sides. Cha­mierus de Euch. l 10. c. 1. quaestio de reali praesentia est animosissima, pro­lixissima, intricatissima sed & nobilissima. Chamerus rightly tearmeth it the most intricate and per­plexed, as also the most noble question of all other betweene the Romane and [Page 42] the reformed Churches. It much im­porteth therefore both parties, that [...] bee rightly stated and solidly handled that which you say in the explicatio [...] of the state of the question is ve­ry briefe, much like lightning in t [...] night, that rather skareth a man the [...] sheweth him the way in the dark [...] That which your Chaplaine added is large and cleare enough, but like false fire held out by Pyrats in t [...] night to draw Marriners into dange [...] You say p. 17. that the Conference [...] to be not of Transubstantiation, but of [...] Reall presence onely, which by order [...] disputation ought to be first. Yet b [...] your favour these questions are not [...] distinct and severed as you imply, [...] rather like the wheeles in Ezek 1. 16 And their worke was as it were a wheele in the middest of a wheele. Ezekie [...] vision, rota in rota implicite, one in th [...] other. You beleeve no Reall prese [...] otherwaies then by Transubstantiatio [...] your Concil. Trid. Sess. 13. c. 1. Doce [...] Sancta Sy­nodus in almo Sanctae Eu­charistiae Sa­cramento post panis & vini conse­crationem Christum ve­rum Deum atque homi­nem verè realiter & substantiali­ter subspecie illarum re [...] sensibilium contineri. Councell of Trent in that Ca non wherein it defines your Reall pre­sence involveth Transubstantiation, th [...] Synod teacheth that in the Sacrament [...] the holy Eucharist, Christ God and M [...] is truly really and substantially co [...] ­teined under the forme or accidents [...] [Page 43] the sensible creatures of Bread and [...]ine. If the substance of Christs flesh [...]e there under the resemblances or [...]cidents of Bread and Wine, the sub­stance then of Bread and Wine must be gone, and Christ his Body and Blood [...]cceed in the roome of them, and [...]hat's this but a paraphrase of Tran­substantiation? take that away, and we shall soone joyne Andre [...] Episcopu [...] VVint. Resp. ad apolog. Bellar. c. 1. p. 11. Nobis autem vo­biscum do obiecto con­venit, de modo l [...] om­nis est, pr [...] ­sentiam cre­dim [...] nec minus quam vos ver [...]m, de modo prae­sentiae nil te­merè de [...]i­mus, addo nec anxie inqui­rimu [...]. issue with you, for [...] agree with you in the object, we differ [...]out the manner, we beleeve as true a [...]esence as you, touching the manner of [...]is presence we define nothing rashly, nor [...]quire curiously no more then in Bap­ [...]sme after what manner Christ his blood [...]asheth us, no more then in the mysterie [...]f the Incarnation how and after what [...]anner the humane nature is united to the divine in one person.

Your Chaplaine S. E. (that I may repay him backe some of his owne coyne) p. 23. being conscious of the weakenesse of his cause thought the very sight of our tenet as it appeares in the Protestants relation, p. 288, 289. would overthrow his utterly, and ther­fore conceales my distinctions of pre­sence and reall, which are the keyes [Page 44] with severall wards, without whi [...] this question cannot be opened: [...] as ^f Weston writes that his head ak [...] in reading D: Reynolds his bookes o [...] the Idolatry of the Church of Rom [...]. So your crazie Chaplaine, Conferēce by S. E be­ing to tell the state of the question hee puts downe a discourse to make the simple Reader giddie, p. 2 [...] complaineth that my discourse upo [...] the state of the question made his he [...] giddie. For a while hee stands amaze like the Goate, after he hath tasted t [...] hearbe Eringium, and after when he comes to himselfe, either ignorantly o [...] wilfully mistaketh his way. The S [...] cramentarians, saith he, for whom D. Featly disputed against our tenet, [...] that the Body and Blood of our Savior be not in the Eucharist truly accordi [...] to the verity and substance of the thing signified by those names, but that the Eu­charist is a signe and figure of them [...] For proofe whereof he [...] [...] [...] shreds and snips of [...] [...] [...], Peter Martyr, [...] [...] [...]ght, Perkins, Zuinglius, [...] [...] Calvin, taken from your Conferēce of Catho­like & Pro­testant do­ctrine, c. 10. shop-boord. If it bee no disparagement for him, yet cer­tainely it cannot but be a great blemish in you to understand no better the Do­ctrine of the Protestants, we impug [...]e [Page 45] the Sacramentarians as well as you. [...]our Chaplaine might have learned as [...]uch out of the Ancilla Piet [...]. p. 83. Hand-Maid to De­votion. Let no hereticall Harpie pluck from thee thy heavenly dish or meate, as Celeno did Aeneas's. Beware of two sorts of heretickes especially, which seeke to [...]guile thee in the Sacrament, or rather of it, viz.

• Sacramentaries.
• Papists.

The one denying the signe, the other the thing signified. The one offereth thee a shadow without the body, the other the [...]ody without the shadow, and consequent­ly neither of them giveth thee the true Sa­crament, to whose nature and essence both [...]re requisite. The Sacramentaries [...] rob thee of the jewell, the Papists of the casket. As Christ at his Passion was crucified betweene two theeves: so the Sacrament of his Passion is fallen among two theeves likewise, the Sa­cramentaries who take away the sub­stance of Christ bodie, and you Tran­substantiators, who take away the sub­stance of the elements. We take part with neither of you, but endite you both of felonious Sacriledge. But be­cause you are a Bishop in title at least, I [Page 46] referre you to bee instructed in th [...] point by a Reverend Lancelot Winton: answer to the 18. C. of the first booke of Cardinal Peron. Bishop of o [...] Church. It is well knowne saith h [...] whither he (naming there the pri [...] patron of the Sacramentarians) leane [...] that to make this point streight he bo [...] it too farre the other way, to avoid est i [...] the Church of Romes sence, he fell to b [...] all for significat and nothing for est [...] all, and whatsoever went further th [...] significat he tooke to savour of the ca [...] nall presence, for which if the Cardin [...] mistike him, so doe we. And so, he d [...] not well [...] against his owne knowledge [...] charge his opinion upon us. Neither do you, who if you have read your sel [...] the Conferēce of Catho­like & Pro­testant do­ctrine. C. 10. passages which you cote out o [...] Iewell, Cartwright, Martyr, Muscul [...] Perkins, Beza, Calvin, &c. and took [...] them not up upon trust; cannot be know that they are meant of the out­ward element, which is not ind [...] Christs Body as Iewel, not properly [...] Body as Martyr, not the very Body, a [...] Musculus, but onely a signe, as Cart­wright, a figure as Beza, or at the most a seale as Perkins is alledged b [...] you to call it. None of them affirme that in the Eucharist or holy Sacrame [...] [Page 47] [...]selfe an emptie figure or a bare signe [...]exhibited. Let Iewel▪ apolog. c. 138 d x. Pa [...] & vinum dicimus esse sacra & [...] myste­ria corporis & sanguinis Christi & il­lis Christum ipsum verum panem eter­nae vitae sic nobis praesen­tem exhiberi ut eius corpus sanguinem (que) per sidem verè suma­mus &c. 4. d. x. Iewel, Calvin I [...] stitut. l 4. c. 17. Sect. 19. His absurdi­tatibus sub­latis quic­quid ad ex­primendam veram sub­ [...]antialem (que) corporis & sanguinis Domini communicationem quae sub sa­cr [...] c [...]ne symbolis sidelibus exhibetur, libenter recipio atque ita ut no [...] ima­ginatione du [...]xat ac mentis intelligentiâ percipere, sed ut re ipsá fr [...] in alimentum vitae eternae i [...]telligatur. Sec. 11. dico duabus rebus constare s [...] ­crum caenae mysterium corporeis signis & spirituali veritate quae per symbol [...] ipsa figuratur, simul & exhibetur, & Sec. 10. Spiritus verè unit qu [...] loci [...] dis [...]cta sunt, a symboli exhibitione rem ipsam exhibere rite colligim [...]s & [...]ccepto corporis symbolo non minus corpus etiam ipsum nobis dari certò con­ [...]imus. Calvin [...]d Perkins speake for the rest. We [...]firme that the Bread and Wine are the holy and heavenly mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ, and that by them Christ himselfe being the true Bread of [...]ternall life, is so presently given un­to us as that by faith we verily receive his Body and Blood. And a little after we abase not the Lords Supper, or teach that it is but a cold ceremony onely, as [...]any falsly slander us, (you and S. E. for [...]ample) For we affirme that Christ [...]oth truly and presently give himselfe wholy in his Sacraments, in Baptisme, that we may put him on, and in his Sup­per, that we may eate him by faith, and spirit, and may have everlasting life by his Crosse and Blood: and we say not that this is done sleightly or coldly, but effe­ctually and truly. Calvin, Taking away [Page 48] these absurdities (he speaketh of Con­substantiation and Transubstantiation▪ whatsoever may be said to expresse t [...] communication of the true and substan­tiall Body and Blood of the Lord whi [...] are exhibited to the faithfull under t [...] holy Symbols of the Supper, I willingly admit, and that in such sort, that the participation may be understood not [...] imagination onely, and apprehension [...] the minde, but a reall fruition to neur [...] the body and soule to eternall life, and a­gaine, I say that the holy mystery of the Supper consists of two things, bodily signes and the spirituall truth, which is both figured and exhibited by the signes. For the Spirit truly uniteth those things which are severed in place. From the ex­hibition of the signe we rightly, inferre the thing signified by it to be exhibited to us, and when we receive the signe we are con­fident that we receive the Body it selfe, Refor­med Catho­like 10. point. p. 590. Perkins is as full: we hold and beleeve a presence of Christs Body and Blood in the Sacrament and that no feigned but a true and reall presence.

• [Page 49]1. In respect of the signe by Sacra­mentall relation.
• 2. In respect of the Communicants to whose beleeving heart he is also really present.

Thus you heare we stand all for a re­all presence, and that so universally, that Riv [...] summa co [...]. q. [...]8. p. 34. Nemo no­strum cred [...] eum intelle [...] ­isse tantum sig [...] vel solam grati­am, eum (que) nihil nobis voluisse largi [...] aliud, qu [...] qua [...] verè hic p [...] ­nis qu [...]t s [...]um cor­poris Christ [...] dona [...] cor­poribus no­stris, tam ver [...] etiam d [...]tur animabus nosiris corpus Christi Andrew Rivet saith peremptorily, none of us beleeveth that Christ giveth unto us onely a signe of his Body, or onely grace, because as truly as the Bread which is the signe of Christs body is given to our bodies so truly is the Body of Christ given unto our soules.

The difference betweene us is about

• 1. The meanes.
• 2. The meaning of eating Christ.

• The meanes
  • We say is by faith
    Artic. 28. Onely after a heavenly and spiritu­all manner the body of Christ is re­ceived, and the meanes whereby it is taken in the Supper, is faith.
    mysti­cally,
  • You by the mouth and pro­perly.
• The meaning
  • You say is a carnall.
  • We say is a spirituall man­ducation.

Desire you a greater light, because it seemes your eyes are dim: thus then conceive of the doctrine of the refor­med [Page 50] Churches

1. Christ is said to be present in ho­ly Scriptures foure manner of waies.

• 1. Divinely.
• 2. Spiritually.
• 3. Sacramentally.
• 4. Carnally or corporally.

According to the first kind or man­ner, he is present in all Ier. 23. 24. Psal. 139. 7. Whether shall I slie from thy pre­sence? & Amos 9. 2, 3. places, Can any man hide himselfe in secret places that I shall not see him, saith the Lord, doe not I fill heaven and earth.

According to the second, he is pre­sent in the hearts of true Ephes 3. 17. beleevers, I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ, that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith.

According to the third, he is present in the Sacrament both mystically or re­latively, and 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17. effectually also. The cup of blessing which we blesse, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? the bread that we breake, is it not the com­munion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread and one body: for wee are all partakers of that one bread.

According to the fourth, he was pre­sent Iohn 1 [...] in Iudea and the confines, in the [Page 51] daies of his flesh, And the Word was [...]ade flesh and dwelt amongst us, but is Acts [...]. [...]. now in heaven.

2. As the word presence, so also the word really is diversly taken, some­times

• 1. As it is opposed to that which is feigned and imaginarie, and importeth as much as truly.
• 2. As it is opposed to that which is meerely figurative and bare­ly representative, and impor­teth as much as effectually.
• 3. As it is opposed to that which is spirituall, and importeth as much as corporally or mate­rially.

Conclusion the first.

1. We beleeve Christ to be present divinely, and that after a speciall man­ner at his table, spiritually in the hearts of the Communicants, Sacramentally in the elements: but not corporally, either with them by Consubstantiation, or in the Ame [...]as Bell. Ener­vat. Tom. 3. l. 4. c. x p. 95. Corpus Chri­sti substan­tialiter non continetur in eodem spati [...] quo panis & vinum con­ti [...]bantur. place of them by Tran­substantiation.

Conclusion the second.

The presence of Christ in the Sacra­ment is reall in the two former accep­tions [Page 52] of reall but not in the last, [...] he is Calvin l. 4. Institut. c. 17. Sec. 11. Per symbola panis & vini Christus verè nobis exhibe­tur adeo (que) corpus & sang [...]s eius. truly there present, and Iewel Apolog p. 2. c. 14. d. 1. We say not that this is done sleight­ly or coldly, but effectu­ally and tru­ly. For though we doe not touch the Body of Christ with teeth and mouth, yet wee hold him fast and eate him by faith, by un­derstanding, and by spirit eff [...] ­ctually though not carnally or loc [...] And that this is the generall doctrin [...] the reformed Churches, and co se­quently that all your discourse p. 25 26, 28, 47, 51. and through your who [...] booke generally against empty types bare signes, void figures, excluding the verity, is u [...]terly void and of none effect and a meere [...] and fighti [...] with your owne shadow: I proo [...] by undeniable and impeachable eviden­ces extant in the booke inti [...]uled, Har­mony of confessions: and I will com­passe you in both with such a cloud [...] witnesses that you shall see no way to get out.

The Articles of Religion reprinted by [...]s Maje­stie, speciall command, [...]. Artic. 2 [...]. English as it well deserveth shall have the first place. The Supper of the Lord is not onely a signe of the lov [...] that Christians ought to have among themselves one to the other, but rather [...] is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christs death, in so much that to such a rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the Bread which we breake is a partaking of the Body of Christ, and like­wise the Cup of blessing is a partaking of [Page 53] the Blood of Christ.

The rest shall follow as they are martialled by the compiler of that worke.

The Harmoni [...] confess ad Sect. [...]4. p. 190. Intùs fid [...]les oper [...] Christs per Spirit [...] Sanctura percipiune etiam car [...] & san [...] ­nem Domini & pas [...]untur his in [...] aternam, [...] p. 110, qui [...]oris [...] side Sacra mentum per­cipit, idem ille non sig­num dun taxat per­cip [...] sed [...] ipsâ qu [...]s s [...]itur. Helvetian. The faithfull re­ceive that which is given them by the Minister of the Lord, and they eate of the Lords Bread, and drinke of the Lords Cup, and at the same time inwardly through the helpe of Christ by the Spirit, they receive the flesh and blood of the Lord; he that outwardly (being a true beleever) receives the Sacrament, he re­ceives not the signe onely, but enjoyeth al­so the thing signified.

The confession of Confess. Basilart [...]. [...]. In [...]nd Domini cum pane & [...] Domini verum corpus & verus sanguis Christi per [...]inistrum [...] pr [...]figuratur & offertur. Basil. Bread and Wine remaine in the Lords Supper, in which together with the Bread and the Wine, the true Body and Blood of Christ is prefigured and exhibited.

The Art. 37 qui ad Sacram mensam [...] puram fidem tanquam vas quoddam afferunt, credimus verè recipere [...] ibi signa tes [...]ficantur, nempe corpus & sanguinem Iesu Christi no­minus esse cibum & potum animae quam panis & vinum sunt co [...] ­ris cibus. French. We beleeve that those who bring to the Lords Table pure faith as it were a vessell, doe truly receive that which there the signes testifie, for the Bo­and [Page 54] Blood of Iesus Christ are no lesse [...] meate and drinke of the soule, then br [...] and wine are the foode of the body.

The Art. 35. Quam verè accipimus & tenemus ma­nibus nostris hoc sacramē ­tum illud­que ore co­medimus, tam verè etiam nos fide reci­pere verum corpus & ve­rum sangui­nem Christi. Belgicke confession. Chr [...] instituted Bread and Wine, earthly a [...] visible creatures, for a Sacrament of [...] Body and Blood: whereby he testifet [...] that as truly as we receive and hold [...] our hands this Sacrament, and eat [...] with our mouthes, whereby this our life [...] maintained; so truly by faith, which [...] as the hand and mouth of the soule, we re­ceive the true Body and Blood of Christ our onely Saviour, in our soules, to holi and nourish spirituall life in them.

The Confess. Aug. Art. 10 In caena Domini cor­pus & san­guis Christi verè adsunt & distribu­ [...]tur [...] s [...] cum [...] & vino v [...] exhi­ben [...]r. Augustan. In the Lords Sup­per the Body and Blood of Christ are tru­ly present and distributed to the Commu­nicants, or as we read in a later edition they are truly exhibited with the brea [...] and wine.

The S [...]. Con­fess c. 18. Art. 14. Fal­so ab adver­sarijs iacta­tur non nisi merum panè merum (que) vi­num in no­siris caenis administrari. Suevick. The most holy Sup­per of our Lord is by us most devoutly, and with singular reverence ministred and taken, whereby your sacred Majesty may understand, how falsly our adversaries charge us, that we change Christs words and corrupt them with mans glosses, and that nothing is ministred in our Supper [...] [Page 55] but bare bread and meere wine.

By all which it appeares, as how falsly your Lordship and S. E. relate our tenet: so how no lesse blasphemously then slanderously [...] cont. [...]. Noris compareth the Protestants Supper to Heliogabalus his feasts: he should rather have com­pared your private Masses to them. For as that Emperour invited his servants to a banquet, where he ate all himselfe, and they onely looked on: so you invite the people to your Masse and bid them eate and drinke, rehearsing the words of our Saviour (Take eate, this is my body, and drinke you all of this, &c.) yet you eate all and drinke all your selves. As the Priests under the Law among the Jewes had their panes propositionis, their show-bread, which the people [...]e­ver touched: so you, though under the Gospell, have panem propositionis, shew-bread, and alwaies vinum propositionis, shew-wine, for the people very seldome eate of the bread, but never drink drop of the consecrated cup.

Me thinkes I heare you say, if wee both acknowledge Christs Body and Blood to be thus really present in the Sacrament, as hath beene shewed, how [Page 56] fell we out? why may we not be good friends? wherein stand we yet at od [...] about this Sacrament and Christs pre­sence there?

In five points:

First, You teach there remaines n [...] the substance of Bread and Wine af­ter consecration: we teach that they remaine.

Secondly, You beleeve that Christs body is contained under the super­ficies or accidents of bread: and ta­keth up the roome of the substance of the element, this is no part of our beliefe.

Thirdly, You hold that the host or Sacrament is to be adored cultu latri [...], the worship proper unto God: wee beleeve that though honour and reve­rence (which Saint Cyrill and Saint Chrysostome call for) is due to the Sa­crament, and that with all due Lancelot Winton: answer to Cardinal Peron. Sect. 4. The Sacra­ment is with all due respect to be handled and recei­ved, but no divine ado­ration may be used to the symbols. re­spect and a most humble gesture it ought to be handled and received, yet no divine adoration may be used to it. To yeeld that to any creature is Idola­trie.

Fourthly, You averre that Christs very body is eaten with the mouth: we [Page 57] cannot brooke such a grosse and caper­ [...]aiticall conceit.

Fiftly, You professe (and I know not whether you beleeve it) that infi­dels, yea some of you also, that rats and mice may eate Christs very body: we abhorre that blasphemy. For though it might fall out through some neg­ligence that a rat or a mouse, or who is worse then either, an Insidell may som­times seize on the Sacramentall bread: yet we say Christs Body and Blood are out of their reach, their unhallowed hands or mouthes cannot come neare it.

PAR. 9.

THis was or should have beene the S E [...] [...] Rodus, our stand, now let us measure the leape, of which you have made seven jumpes. ‘Thus I took [Page 58] my rise. That doctrine which h [...] no foundation in the Word of God is repugnant to the doctrine of the true ancient Church, and overthro [...] eth the principles of right reason, i [...] plying palpable absurdities and appa­rant contradictions is to be rejected a erroneous and hereticall: but the do­ctrine of the Church of Rome concer­ning Christs bodily presence in the Sacrament is such, Ergo it is to bee disclaimed as erroneous and hereti­call.’

The Major or first proposition had his passe from you, nor can it be impeache [...] by any who rightly understandeth the termes, and seriously weigheth the consequence. For divine faith must bee built upon a divine and unmoove­able foundation, which can bee no other then Gods Word. And sith we on both sides acknowledge that the Church in which the Primitive Fathers lived and died, was the true Church, they who gaine-say the faith thereof, are to be ranged with hereticks. Last­ly, that metaphysicall principle is of un­doubted verity, verum vero non opponi­tur, truth never opposeth truth. That [Page 59] doctrine therefore which destroyeth the principles of reason, and quencheth the sparkles of divine light kindled in our soules by God, cannot but bee from the Prince of darknesse.

The Minor or assumption hath three branches as you see on the first: whereof I insisted in that conference. My pro­syllogismes which you and S. E. both omit were these. ‘First, if there bee any ground in Scripture for your carnal presence in the Sacrament, it is either in the words of Mat. [...]. 26. This is my Body. institution, or on those Iohn the 6. 53. Except ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood, ye have no life in you. For upon these both the Bishops in that Lateran, and Trent Councell, and all the learned on your side build their faith especially in this point. But neither the one nor the other Text are any sure ground for it, Ergo you have none.’The Major in this pro­syllogisme being assented unto by you, I proceeded to the confirmation of the Minor in this wise.‘If the words of institution, Mat. 26. and the other alledged out of Iohn the 6. are to be taken figuratively, and not in the [Page 60] proper sense nothing can be conclu­ded from them for the bodily pre­sence or carnall eating Christ with the mouth. But the words above al­leadged in both places are to be con­strued figuratively, and not in the pro­per sense, Ergo nothing can bee concluded from them for the bodily p [...]esence of Christ in the Sacrament, or carnall eating of him with the mouth.’ The Major in this second Syllogisme being likewise evident to all men of learning, who know that to argue from a figurative sense to the proper is a fallacy in Logick, and a dan­gerous errour in Divinity: against which Saint Aust. l. 31 de doct. christ c. 5. In prin­cipio caven­dum est ne figuratam lo­cutionem ad literam ac­cipias, cum enim figura­tè dictum sit accipitur tā quam pro­priè dictum sit, carnaliter sapitur. Austin giveth us a spe­ciall caution, I undertooke the proofe of the Minor both by unavoidable te­stimonies of antient Fathers, and preg­nant argumen [...]s drawne from the cir­cumstances of those Texts. And first because with the ancient is wisedome, Iob 12. 12. let the antient speak, Tertullian, Origen, Austin, Prosper, &c. Acceptum panem & distributum Discipulis, corpus suum illum fecit, bcc est cor­pus meum di­cendo, id est figura corpo­ [...]is mei, figu­ra autem non fuisset nisi verita­tu esset cor­pus. Ter­tullian in his fourth book against Mar­tion, the 40. Chapter, the bread taken and distributed to his Disciples hee made his body saying, this is my body, that is a [Page 61] figure of my body. Now a figure it had not or should not have beene, unlesse his body had beene a body of truth or a true body, for avoid or empty thing, such as a phan­tasme is, is not capable of a reall figure. Tertullian his argument in this 40. Chap. against Marcion, who taught that Christ had no true body but an imagi­narie or phantasticall standeth thus.

If Christ made not bread a figure of his Body, but turned it into his own Body, as you teach, how could Tertulli­an out of those words of our Saviour, prove against Marcion that bread was a figure of Christs Body? Againe, if the meaning of the words of institution (This is my Body) be, this bread is a fi­gure of my Body as Tertullians id est inforceth, then are the words of the [Page 62] institution metonymically or figurative­ly to be taken. A faire evidence for the truth is this testimony of Tertullian which so puzzels our adversaries, th [...] they turne them every way, yet cann [...] avoid or impeach it.

Fisher falls fowle upon this ancie [...] Rossens. cont. Oecolamp. and most learned Father, disabling h [...] testimonie in regard of his taint o [...] Montanisme.

But neither was Tertullian slipt in [...] that heresie when hee wrote these bookes, neither did the heresie of Mon­tanisme concerne the Sacrament, nei­ther was ever this passage Bellar. de Sacra bucha l. 2. c. 7. Quam [...] i [...] fuerit Mon tanista in extrema aetate suâ, tamen a nullo veterū Pa [...]rum reprehendi­tur hoc nomi­ne quod [...]r­raverit circa Sacramentū Dominici corporis. excepted against by any of the Antients, nor the Father himselfe branded for any errour about the Lords Supper.

Steven Gardiner giveth a more re­spective answer, that Tertullian spake these words, [...], not [...] in heate of opposition to his adversary, not deliberately and doctrinally.

But he that readeth these bookes against Marcion, which the author so esteemed that he translated them into verse; will finde in them strength of reason, not violence of passion. These words sparkle not with anger, but give [Page 63] a cleare light to the words of the insti­ [...]tion: and the like are found in him [...]ls where and in other of the Fathers, when they wrote in coolest temper in their Epistles, Commentaries on Scrip­tures, Homilies, and Treatises of piety, the places are quoted particularly by Desentia ad Gardine­rum de Euchar [...] par [...] 1. Ob. 161. Peter Martyr.

Well fare honest Rhenanus in tract. de Monogam. [...] hîc [...]ertulli­ani error verba sacra [...] caenae figura­tè exponentis in Berengarij personâ re [...] ­tatus est. Rhenanus who inge­niously confesseth, that Tertullian fa­voured our figurative interpretation, for which your Church condemned Berengarius.

But you like not so well of this plaine dealing, you have beene better instructed by the Belgick Index ex purg. Belgick anno 1571. Cum in ca­tholicis vate­ribus alijs plurimos se­ramus errores & extenue­mus excogi­tato commen­to per saepè ne­gemus & commod [...]s ijs sensi [...] affi [...]gamus cum opponuntur in disputationibus aut in conflictionibus cum adversari [...]. inquisitors to devise some shift and faine a commodi­ous sense to the testimonies of the Fathers, and blanch their words with ingenious glosses when they are obj [...]cted against you in disputation or conflicts with us. Ther­fore after i A [...]tat in Tertul l. cou [...]. Marcionem 4. c. 40. [...]otae 662. Pammelius, Bel [...] de sacrament Eucha l. 2. c. 7. Bellarmine, and Perone resp. ad Plesseum. p. 9 0. Perone conster, Tertullian thus: This, which was once an old figure of my [Page 64] body is now my body; for he doth not re­ferre those words, id est figura corporis mei to corpus meum: but to hoc.

For this your strange forced and in­congruous interpretation, you produce first a paralell place to this out of the booke adversus Prax. c. 29 Dicen­do Christus mortuus, id est unctus. Praxean, Christ is dead that is annointed, where the words id est are referred to the subject (Chri­stus) not to the attribute (Mortuus.) Secondly out of the words hee made bread his owne body, since say you Tertullian saith,‘that our Saviour ta­king bread made it his body, he was not so forgetfull as immediately to add that the Eucharist is a meere fi­gure of his body:’ this reason you backed with a third, that Tertullian presently after the foresaid words saith, figura autem non fuisset, it had not beene a figure, &c. by which words he shewes that he speaketh of the figure which was before our Saviour said, This is my Body. Lastly, you much in­sisted upon the words veterem figuram, an old figure, and those that follow in the same place, but why calleth hee bread his body? and not a Pepon or Melone rather? which Marcion had [Page 65] in place of a heart, not understanding Or inst [...]d of his heart, Cor Christi loco. that it was an old figure of the body of Christ.

Though the water bee never so cleare, it is an easie matter by stirring the bottome with a stick to trouble it, and make it all muddy, stay but a while till it settle, and you shall see the streame run clearely, and the silver w [...] seeke for in the bottome bearing the Image of Christs Body. Tertullian here prooves the reality of Christs Body by the reality of the figure thereof bread. Bread he prooves to be the figure of his body, both out of the Gospell of Saint Matthew in the first place, and after­wards out of the Prophecy of Ieremy, where the Jewes conspiring against the Prophet, said, Come let us cast wood on his bread, that is, the crosse on his body. The illightner therefore of antiquities de­clared sufficiently what hee would have bread then to signifie, calling his body bread. Marke I beseech you, Tertullian sets the Texts of Matthew and Ieremy like glasses, to cast a mutuall light one upon the other. In Ieremy Christs Body is called bread, in Saint Matthew, bread is called his Body, both by a like figure: [Page 66] but I subsume Christs body is not cal­led bread in Ieremy, because it was trans­substantiated into bread as you must needs confesse, therefore neither in Saint Matthew is bread called Christs body, because bread was transubstantia­ted into it. In Dialogo 1. [...]. Theodoret harpes upon the like strings tuned together, Our Sa­viour, saith he, changed names and attri­buted to his body the name of the symbole, or signe thereof, and to the symbole or signe the name of his body, he that called bread his body, calle [...] himselfe bread: in both which speeches there is according to both these Fathers, a [...] no [...], a trope or turning of speech, no Theod. 16. [...]. change of nature.

The sparkes flie up in the smoake be­fore the fire breakes into a flame, after­wards they vanish away: such your objections appeare to be after the bla­zing (if I may so speake) of Tertulli­ans meaning, by the precedent elucidati­ons of this place.

The first taken out of his booke Object. 1 against Praxeas, thus vanisheth to no­thing, [...], one swal­low makes not a summer, nor one he­teroclyt overthrowes a generall rule in [Page 67] grammar. You and your Chaplaine talke of [...]. 3 [...]. Nei­ther did he say any thing to the places wherein Tertullian had in like [...] sort inver­ted the or­der. places in the plurall number, as if such a Transposition were usuall in Tertullian, name you but one other pas­sage in all Tertullian where the like hy­perbaton or dislocation is used,

There is in this passage I grant a Meta­thesis or transposition of the words, id est unctus, which should have beene placed before mortuus not after: but yet that place of Tertullian is not like Sol 1. this as you interpret it: for there id est must of necessity be referred to the sub­ject Christus, and cannot be referred to the predicate mortuus: because the word mortuus doth not signifie annoin­ted, as Christus doth: but in this place id est may well be referred to the predi­catum corpus, as Art 13. Cited by S. [...]. Ruardus Tapperus, and Gardinerus, and Renanus, and all other Papists referred them, before this new crochet was found out by Pammelius, or Peron. Againe, in those words Christ Sol 2. is dead that is annointed, the sense is made good by a meere inversion thus, Christ that is the annointed is dead, wheras besides an inversion you add the words quod erat vetus: (non nunc est) which [Page 68] words if you should add to the other place, saying Christus mortuus est, id est is qui erat unctus est mortuus, you would make the speech blasphemous, insinua­ting that Christ was the Lords annoin­ted but is not, as you make Tertullian say bread which was a legall figure, but now is not, is Christs body.

But to put this passage of Tertullian Sol. 3. out of all peradventure, the words (id est) that is to say, must needs be refer­red to that tearme in the proposition which was obscure, and needed some explication. But that was not the sub­ject (hoc) for Christ by taking the bread in his hand and pointing to it sufficient­ly, shewed what he meant by (hoc) all the doubt that could be made was of the predicate body, what that tearme sig­nified, or in what sort it agreed to the subject (hoc) the id est therefore of necessity is to be applied to the obscure predicate (corpus) not to the subject (hoc) which was then when Christ ut­tered those words evident ad oculum.

Your second objection melteth of it selfe, since Tertullian (say you) affirmes Object. 2 that our Saviour made bread his body, hee was not so forgetfull as immediatly [Page 69] to add, that the Eucharist is a meere figure of his body: neither doe wee Sol. 1. say so, as I have proved at large in the former Paragraph. It was not forget­fullnesse in Tertullian to add this glosse, Sol. 2. id est figura corporis mei, but mindfull­nesse and cautelous wisdome maturely to remove a block, at which his Rea­der was like to stumble. When he had said before corpus suum ipsum fecit, he made bread his body, a man might have thought that he did it so by Consubstan­tiation, or by Transubstantiation: to prevent which mistakes, hee adds that Christ did it by Sacramentall consecra­tion, saying, This is my Body, that is, a figure of my body.

Your third objection is an idle cri­ticisme, Object. 3 as if there were great difference betweene esset and fuisset, for your Can­dor, looke but upon Lillie his grammar, Sol. 1. and you shall finde that eram and fue­ram, and ero and fuero, and essem and fuissem are indifferently used as Synoni­ma. Yet if you will have (fuisset) in Sol. 2. these words (figura autem non fuisset) not to be rationall, but temporall, nor to construed it should not be, but it had not beene, you must howsoever referre [Page 70] it to that which goeth before, accep­tum panem & distributum, not to that which followes sixe lines after, veterem figuram corporis Christi dicentis per Iere­miam, the apparent sence then is, Christ by saying This is my body, made the bread then a figure, or Sacrament of his body, which it had not beene if he had not then, when he spake so, a true body, but onely an imagnarie, as the phantasticall hereticke Marcion surmised.

Your fourth & fift reasons are answe­red Resp. ad 4. & 5. Object. already. Tertullian as it is evidently deduced from the passage you cote, and another paralell unto it, l. 3. cont. Mar­cion. c. 19. (So God hath revealed in the Gospell, calling bread his body, that hence now thou maist understand, that he hath given the figure of bread to his body, whose body the Prophet long before figured in bread) taught that bread had beene a legall figure, and was also an evangeli­call signe or Sacrament of Christs Bo­dy. But why Christ made choice ra­ther of bread then of a Melone, as Ter­tullian speaketh, or any other solid thing to be the Symbole or Sacrament of his body, as also why hee rather chose [Page 71] wine then any other licour to bee the embleme and memoriall of his blood, we can assigne certainely no other rea­son then his meere will. Tertullian his guesse is but probable, that Christ in the institution of the Sacrament in the formes of bread and wine had an eye to the Prophecy of Ieremy, or Iacob. But I [...]r. 11. 1 [...]. Gen. 49. [...]. be it probable or necessary, it matters not, seeing it is confessed on all hands, that bread is a figure of Christs body, though not now a Legall Type, yet an Evangelicall. Being both, it makes the stronger for this glosse of Tertullian, this bread is my body, that is, a figure of P. 44. Object. 6 my body.

But here S. E. helpes you at a dead lift, alleadging a testimony out of De resur­rect. carnis. c. 8. Caro ab­luitur ut anima ema­c [...]letur, caro [...]gitur ut anima con­secret [...]r, caro corpore & sanguine Christi ves [...]i­tur ut & anima do Deo sagine­tur. Eras. glori [...] tur Adag. ut Pelei [...]s in Machar [...]. Tertullians booke de resurrectione carnis, for the carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament. The words of Ter­tullian are these, The flesh is washed that the soule may be cleansed, the flesh feeds upon the body and blood of Christ, that the soule may be fatted by God. Of this place of Tertullian he is as proud as P [...]lius in the proverbe was of his sword, not observing that the point of it lyeth against himselfe: for if hee [Page 72] expound these words according to the rule of the Fathers, the signes have usu­ally the names of the thing signified, by them then hee confirmes our figurative interpretation, understanding by the body of Christ the Symbole or signe thereof, upon which our flesh seeds, when we receive the Sacrament: but if he understand the words of Tertulli­an properly as if our very flesh or sto­mach turned Christs Body into corporal nourishment, and so really fed upon it to fatten or cheare our soules, he makes Tertullian blaspheme, and hee gives the lie to his Lord your selfe who page 65. in expresse tearmes affirme, that in the Fucharist there is no violence offered to Christ his flesh in it selfe, nor is it eaten to the end our bodies may there­by be nourished. To affirme that the substance of our mortall body is nouri­shed, or increased by the flesh of Christ taken in the Sacrament, is to make the Eucharist cibum ventris non mentis, the foode of the belly, not of the soule, then which grosse conceit nothing can bee more absurd in the judgement of your owne Cardinall Bellar l. 2. de Sacra Eucharist. c. 4. Non intelligunt patres cum hoc dicunt Eucharistiâ nutriri vel augeri mor­talem sub­stantiam cor­poris nostri, sic enim fa­cerent Eu­charistiam cibum ven­tru non men­tis, quo nihil absurdius fin­gi potest. Bellarmine. Tertullian disclaimes this [Page 73] carnall fancy in the very words alled­ged by your Chaplaine, ut anima sagi­netur, the flesh saith the Father feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ, that the soule may bee fatted, the soule not the body. If hee demand how can the soule bee satisfied or fatted by the bread in the Sacrament, if it bee not turned into Christs Body? I answer out of the former words of Tertulli­an, even as the soule is cleansed in Baptisme by washing the body with water, though that water be not tur­ned into Christs blood.

You have heard that Ter. de re­surrett. car­nis. c. 37. ex materia di­cti dirigen­dus est sensu [...] nam quia durum & intolerabile existimave­rum sermo­nem eius, quasi verè carnem suam illis edendam determinasset, premisit spi­ritus est qui vivificat. Arg. 1 ex Tertul. pro Protest. doctr Ioh. 6. 53. Tertullian doth not so much as lispe in your lan­guage, heare now how lowd hee speakes in ours. The sense of the word (saith he) is to be taken from the mat­ter, for because they thought his speech hard and intolerable (unlesse ye cate the flesh of the Sonne of man, &c.) as if hee had appointed his flesh truly and in very deed to bee eaten of them, he premised it is the Spirit which quick­neth, and a little after, appointing his Word to be the quickner, because his Word is spirit and life, he called the same his flesh, for the Word was made flesh, [Page 74] therefore to be desired with an appetite, to give and maintaine life in us, to be ea­ten by Ter. ib. Devorandus auditu rumi­nandus intel­lectu, side di­gerendus. hearing, to be chewed by under­standing, to be digested by beleeving. These words are so plaine, that you cannot mistake the meaning of them, and if you should goe about to draw them to any carnall sense or eating Christ with the mouth, he will checke you in the words following, where he saith, that Christ used an Ter ib. Carnem su­am panem c [...]elestem pronunciarat arguens us (que) qua (que) per allegoriam necessariorū pabulorum. Arg. 2 ex Tertul. allegorie in this place: now an allegorie is a figure in which an other thing is to be under­stood, divers from that which the words import taken in the usuall and proper sense.

Doubtlesse he who held the bread at the Lords Table to be a representation of Christs body, and the wine a me­moriall of his blood, beleeved not that the bread was turned into his body, or the wine into his blood: for no picture is the life it selfe, no memoriall is of a thing present but absent.

But Ter. ad­vers Mar­cionem l. 1. c. 14. Nec reprobavit panem Crea­toris quo ip­s [...]m corpus suum repre­sentat. Tertullian called bread that whereby Christ represented his owne body, taking the word represent in the same sense which Saint Ber. Ser. 6. in vigiliâ nat. Dom. Vi­detur quo­tidie nascidū fideliter re­presentamus cius nativi­tatem. Bernar doth. As Christ after a sort is sacrificed every [Page 75] day when we shew forth his death, so he seemeth to be borne whilest we faithfully represent his birth. As the figure, signe, or that whereby any thing is represen­ted or set before the eye, is not the thing it selfe: so neither a monument or a memoriall of our friend is our friend: the wine therefore which Ter. l. de anima cap. 17. saporem vini quod [...] sanguinis sui memoriam consecravit. Tertullian saith Christ consecrated for a memoriall of his blood, cannot bee his very blood.

The same Father in his booke of the Arg. 3. ex Tertul. flesh of Christ smiled at the heretickes, who imagined Christ to have flesh hard without [...]b. de car­ne Christi. c. 5. Sine ossibu [...]duram, sine muscul [...]s solidam, sine sanguine cruemam. bones, solid without muscles, bloody without blood, &c. They saith he that fancy such a Christ as this, that de­ceiveth and deludeth all mens eyes, and senses, and touchings, should not bring him from heaven, but fetch him rather from some jugglers Ib [...] Ecce fallit & de­cipi [...] omm [...] oculos, omn [...] sensus, omni­um accessus & contactus, ergo iam Christum non de coelo deferre de bueras, sed [...] aliquo cir­cula [...]orio ca [...]. Arg. 4. ex Tertul. box. I trow hee meant not your Popish Pix, yet sure such a flesh it encloseth, hard (if it bee so) without bones, solid without mus­cles, and bloody without blood, for you say Christs blood is there, and sh [...]d too, and yet tear me your Masse an unbloody sacrifice. I take you to be so ingenu­ous that you would not belie your [Page 76] senses, I am sure you will confesse that you see nothing in the pyx but the whitenesse of bread, in the Chalice but the rednesse of wine, no flesh or blood colour in either. You tast nothing but bread in the one, and the sapour of wine in the other, you touch no soft flesh with your hand, nor quarrie blood with your lips, or tongue. But I in­ferre out of Ter. l de amma c. 17. Non licet nobis in dubi­um sensus istos revoca­re, ne & in Christo de fide eorum deliberetur, ne fort [...] di­catur quod falso Satanā prospectarit de coelo prae­cipitatum, &c. Tertullian, You must not question the truth of your senses, lest thereby you weaken the sinewes of our faith, lest peradventure the heretickes take advantage thereupon, to say that it was not true that Christ saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven, that it is not true that he heard a voice from hea­ven, but the sense was deceived. Were not the senses competent judges of their proper objects, even in the case we are now putting, viz. the discer­ning Christs true body; Christ would never have Luke 24. 39. appealed to them as hee doth. Behold my hands and my feet, that is, I my selfe, handle me and see, for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have.

I have given a touch hitherto, but Arg. [...] ex Tertul. upon sing [...]e testimonies as it were [Page 77] single strings: now in the close, listen to a chord. So Christ hath revealed un­to us, calling Ter. ad. Iud [...]s c. [...]. Sic Christus revelavit pa­nem corpus suum [...]p­pellans, cuius retro corpus in pane Pro­phetis sigu­ravit. bread his body, whose body the Prophet prefigured in bread. Christ is our bread, because Christ is our life, and life is our bread, I am, saith he, the bread of life: as also because his body is Tum quod corpus [...] in pane c [...]setur, hoc est corpus me [...]m, it a (que) petendo pa [...] quotidimum [...] [...] in Christ [...] [...] a corpo [...] eius. accounted for bread, taking the bread (he said) this is my body, when therefore we pray for our daily bread, we desire to continue in Christ and never to be seve­red from his body. And against Ter. l. 3. c. 19 Pa [...]m carpus suum appellans ut hinc eum in­telligas cor­por [...] sui si­guram pani dedisse. Et s [...]q. l. 4. c 4 [...]. cont. Mar­cionem. Cur autem panem corpus suum appellat & non magis peponem, qu [...]m Marcion cordis loco habuit, non intelligens veterem fuisse illam siguram corporis Christi. Mar­cion, So God revealed in your Gospell, calling bread his body. And againe, why doth hee call bread his body, &c. But I assume bread cannot be Christs body in the proper sense; because dispe­rate substances cannot properly bee predicated one of the other, therefore when Christ spake these words, This is my Body, which Tertullian constantly and perpetually silleth up thus, this bread is my body, he used a Metonymie, called signatum pro signo, or figuratum pro fi­gura, which quite overthroweth your carnall presence, and beateth you out [Page 78] of your strongest fort, the words of Christs holy institution which you would have to be taken according to the letter. Thus you see Tertullian is clearely against you, and you are foy­led in the first argument.

PAR. 10.

SO are you also in the second which you propound amisse. Saint Austin in his third booke, de doctrina Chri­stiana saith that speech of our Saviour, unlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, Iohn the 6. &c. is figurative, ther­fore the other, this is my body, is so too, Quem recitas meus est o Fidentine libellus Sed malè dum recitas incipit esse tuus. The argument was mine, but by your mis-reporting it and mis-applying the consequent to the antecedent, you make it yours. Thus I connected this [Page 79] argument to the former:‘there are two Texts in the Gospell, upon which you relie, either principally, or onely for your carnall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament under the formes of bread and wine. The former, Mat. 26. 26. I have proved out of Tertullian, yeelds your do­ctrine no support, and you are driven in effect to confesse as much, subscribing with your owne hand, Ego agnosco quod in his verbis (hoc est corpus meum) est figura, I ac­knowledge the words of Institution to be figurative. Now I will prove that in like manner the words of our Saviour, Iohn 6. 53. are to be taken in a figurative and improper sense, and consequently that the proper ea­ting Christs flesh with the mouth, can­not be inferred from them.’

For proofe of the antecedent, I pro­duced in the first place a passage out of Saint Si autem flagitium [...] [...] facinus videtur [...] bere, aut uti­litatem aut beneficentiam v [...]tare figurata est. Nisi manducaveritis carnem filij hominis, & sanguinem biberitis non habelitis vitam [...] vobu, facinus vel flaginum videtur i [...]bere; Figura est ergo pracipien [...] Passioni Domini esse communicandum, & suaviter at (que) utiliter recon­dendum in memoria quod pro nobis caro cius crucifixa, & vulnera­ta sit. Austins third booke, de doctri­nâ [Page 80] Christianâ, cap. 16. But if that Scripture seeme to command a sinne, or an horrible wickednesse, or to forbid any thing that is good and profitable, the speech is figurative: for example, (when he saith) unlesse ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood, ye have no life in you, he seemeth to command a sinne or horrible wickednesse; there is a figure therefore (in the words) com­manding us to communicate with the Lord his Passion, and sweetly & profitably to lay it up in our memory, That his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. Here said I three things are very remarke­able to the point now in question.

1. That Saint Austin maketh choice of these words of our Saviour, as of a most knowne instance of a figurative speech.

2. That he not onely affirmeth it to be a figurative speech, but confirmeth it also by a strong argument, figura est, Ergo it is therefore a figure.

3. That he sheweth what figure it is, end expoundeth the meaning of our Saviour in this figurative speech, con­formably to the doctrine of the Pro­testants, and contrarie to all Romish glosses upon it.

[Page 81] To this allegation you answered, partly by glancing at Saint Austins argument, partly by glossing upon his conlusion. First said you, it is not a horrible thing to eate mans flesh, unlesse it be eaten in the proper shape, for it ap­peares in Mumme that mans flesh may be eaten without horrour, when it is not eaten in the proper shape. Secondly, you distinguished of a figurative speech according to the thing eaten, and accor­ding to the manner of eating it, and said that the speech of Christ, Iohn 6. according to Saint Austin was figurative, according to the manner of eating, to wit in the proper forme, but that it was proper ac­cording to the matter (viz.) the sub­stance of Christs flesh.

1. Against your first answer to Saint Austins antecedent, I replie.

2. Against your second answer to Saint Austins conclusion, I replied

I conclude with Saint Austin l. 3 do doc. Christ. c. 5. In prin­cipio caven­dum est ne figuratam lo­cutionem ad literam acci­pias, ad hoc enim pertiue [...] quod ait Apostolus, li­tera occidit spiritus autē vivificat. Cum enim figuratè di­ctum sit ac­cipitur tan­quam propriè dictum sit, carnaliter sapitur, ne­que ulla mors animae congruemiùs appellatur. Austin his owne words. The first thing that you must beware is this, that you take not a figurative speech according to the letter, to that belongeth the Apostles admonition, the letter killeth, the spirit quickneth. For when we take that which is flguratively spoken as if it were pro­porly spoken, it is a carnall sense, nei­ther is any thing more rightly tearmed [Page 89] the death of the soule then it.

Here S. E. puts a great deale of var­nish upon a rotten post, he tells us of a mingled colour, and a garment of motley, and distinguisheth of a meere figure, and of a figure which hath the truth joyned with it; in fine he allead­geth what Tapper, and Allen, Suarez, Gordon, and Pittigarus have confessed upon the racke of our arguments con­cerning a figure in the words of the institution.

But one sad shower of raine will wash away all this his varnish.

1. To his demand, Why not a mixt figure, as well as a mixt colour. I an­swer, because the opposition betwixt colours is inter contrarios terminos, con­trarie tearmes which admit a medium, but the opposition betweene figurative and proper, is betweene contradictorie tearmes which admit of no medium. Wherefore although there may bee a mixt colour of white and blacke, and a mixt temper of hot and cold, and a mixt sawce of sweete and sower, and a twilight betweene day and night, because these are mediate con­traries: yet there cannot be a mixt [Page 90] element, or a mixt truth, or a mixt figure; because simple and compound, true and false, proper and figurative (that is improper) stand upon flat tearmes of contradiction.

2. His distinction of a figure which is a meere figure, and of a figure which is not a meere figure but hath the ve­rity joyned with it, wherewith hee goes about to soder the bracks and flawes in your leaden discourse, is al­together impertinent. For the que­stion betweene me and you, was of tropes, not of types, of verball figures, not reall: of rhetoricall, such as Meta­phors and Metonymies and the like are, not of physicall or naturall figures, if speech be of the latter kinde of fi­gures, I denie not but that such a difference among them may be obser­ved. Some of them are meere figures and representations, as Philips picture or image, some are more, as Alexan­der, Philip his sonne. Sacraments are according to this acception of figures, not meere figures, nor bare signes, as is shewed at large in the former Pa­ragraph, for they doe not onely signi­fie, but also really exhibit, and are [Page 91] effectuall meanes to conveigh unto us those spirituall blessings and graces whereof they are signes and symbols. But if the speech bee of figures in words or sentences, such as all gram­maticall and rhetoricall figures are, I say that all such figures are meere fi­gures, every Metaphor is a meere Me­taphor, every Metonomie a meere Me­tonomie, every Allegorie a meere Al­legorie, every Ironie a meere Ironie, every Solaecisme a meere Solaecisme, neither can any instance bee given to the contrary.

But because S. E. hath felt M. Waferer his feriler for his errour in Rhetoricke, I leave him to con bet­ter his Susenbrotus, and I returne to your Lordship, who perswade your selfe that Saint Austin favoureth your carnall presence, because hee saith, Wee receive with faithfull heart l. [...]. con. ad­v [...]rs. leg. c. 9. and mouth, the Mediator of God and Man, the Man Christ Iesus giving us In Psal 33. his body to be eaten and his blood to bee drunke; and againe, he bare himselfe in l. 9. conf. c. 13 his owne hands, when commending his body, he said, This is my Body; and a­gaine, she onely desired to be remembred [Page 92] at thine Altar, whence she knew the holy host was dispensed, whereby the hand writing against us is cancelled; and yet Tract. 59. in Iohan. againe, The Disciples and Iudas ate both: they bread the Lord, he the bread of the Lord against the Lord; and yet a­gaine, Christ suffered Iudas that divell Epsti. 162. and thiefe, to receive amongst the inno­cent Serm. ad Neophy. hic accipite in pane quod pependit in cruce, hic ac­cipite in ca­lice quod manavit de Christi la­ [...]re. Disciples the price of our redemp­tion; and lastly, here receive you that in the bread which hung upon the Crosse, here receive you that in the cup which flowed out of Christs side.

To all which allegations, though I might shape one answer out of Saint Epist. ad. Bonifacium. Si Sacramē ­ta quandam similitudinē earum rerum quarum Sa­cramenta sum non ha­berēt, omnino Sacramenta non essent, ex hac autem similitudino plerum (que) etiā ipsarum re­rum nomina accipium. Et quest. S [...]p. Levit. 57. Solet res quae signifi­cat cius rei nomine quam significat nuncupari, hinc quod dictum est, Pe­tra era; Christus, &c. I Austins owne words, That in re­gard of the similitude betweene the signe: and the things signified, it is usuall in Sacramentall speeches, to attribute the name of the thing signified to the signe: So the Lambe is called the Passeover, Circumcision the Covenant, the Rocke Christ, the Bread his Body, and the Wine his Blood and price of our Re­demption. With this one brush reached unto me by Saint Austin, I [Page 93] might whiten all the walls you point unto: yet partly out of respect to your selfe, but especially to S. Austin, I will take speciall notice of every place and passage above mentioned.

Your first allegation is like a lea­den Rep. ad 1. sword, it boweth either way; for as you bow it towards you by urging that Saint Austin must needs speake of corporall and proper eating, because he addeth the words with the mouth: so I may as easily bow it the contrarie way by arguing that he must needs speake of spirituall eating, be­cause he addeth with a faithfull heart. As the mouth cannot receive Christ spiritually, so neither can the heart re­ceive Christ corporally. Saint Austin therefore as hee speakes there of a double organ, the heart and the mouth'; so he speaketh also of a double eating, Spiritually and Sacramentally, and the meaning of the whole sentence is this, we receive with a faithfull heart spi­ritually, and with the mouth Sacramen­tally, the Body and Blood of the Me­diator betwixt God and Man, the Man Christ Jesus.

Your second allegation is like Sir Rep. ad [...] [Page 94] Philip Sidneys emblem which was the word hope, written in large golden characters, but dasht through with a pen. When Saint Austin uttered these words, a man may be carried in another mans hands, but no man is carried in his S. Aug. Ser. 33. de v [...]rb Dom. Panem quē Dominus ge­stavit in ma­nibus. It was not then his ve­ry body, but the Sacra­ment there­of which he carried in his hands. own hands: we finde not how it can be understood of David, but we finde how it may bee understood of Christ, for hee carried his Body in his owne hands, when he said, This is my body: hee gave you great hope that he was strong for your carnall presence, but when Convio. 2. in Psal. 33. Accepit in manus suas quod norunt fideles, & ip­se se porta­bat quodam­modo. cum diceret hoc est corpus meum. after­wards resuming his former words, he thus glosseth upon them, when hee commended his Body and Blood hee tooke into his hands that which the faithfull know, and hee carried himselfe after a sort when he said, This is my Body. He dasheth all your hope, for hee ex­poundeth quodammodo as Gratian tea­cheth you out of his 23. Ep. ad Boni­fac. non rei veritate, sed significante my­sterio, not in the truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery, de 3. consect. dist. 2.

Your third allegation hurteth us not Rep. ad 3. at all, for wee acknowledge both as Altar and an Host in the Fathers sense [...] [Page 95] to wit, mysticall or representative, in memory of that one most proper Host and sacrifice offered once for all upon the Crosse for the crossing of the hand writing against us, though we cannot allow of your Masse, Altar and Host, wherein Christ existing on earth, and covered with the formes of Bread and Wine, is said in his very substance by you, not Saint Austin to be offered up to God his Father.

Your fourth allegation out of the 59. tract upon Iohn, is like Dido her Rep. ad 4. sword, wherewith shee ran her selfe Rep. ad 4. through,

For if the other Apostles who brought Faith and Repentance with them, recei­ved bread, the Lord, but Judas who brought neither, received panem Domi­ni onely, not panem Dominum, not bread which was the Lord, two things here­upon necessarily ensue. First, that none can receive Christ the Lord, or panem Dominum without faith. Se­condly, that bread is not turned in­to Christs body, for then Iudas could not receive panem Domini, but hee must needs have riceived panem Do­minum.

[Page 96] Your fift allegation out of the 162. Epist. of Saint Austin is already an­swered, Rep, ad 5. that Saint Austin called the wine which Iudas received, Christs blood and the price of our redemption; because it was the Sacrament thereof, so he expoundeth himselfe in the words following, Sacramē ­tum corporis & sanguinis sui ipso non exclus [...] com­r [...]uniter om­nibus dedit. Rep. ad 6. Hee gave the Sacrament of his Body and Blood in common to all his Disciples, not excluding Judas.

Your sixt and last allegation is like a piece of coyne, full weight, but of counterfeit mettall: the Sermon ad Neophytos is not Saint Austins as your Parisians note, neither are there in it any such words as you quote.

By this time you perceive that your few allegations out of Saint Austin are partly forged, partly forced, and yet come not home to your carnall presence by Transubstantiation, whereas on the contrarie, the testimonies we produce out of Saint Austine are very many, and those most undoubted, free, cleare, and pregnant, for the doctrine of our Artic. of Religion. 28. Church concerning the body of Christ given taken and eaten in the Supper one­ly after an heavenly and spirituall man­ner, by faith, I reduce them all to sixe heads.

• [Page 97]1. The conveniencie betweene the Sacraments of the Old and New Testament.
• 2. The difference betweene the signe and the thing signi­fied.
• 3. The figurative sense of Christs words.
• 4. The true Communicants at Christs Table.
• 5. The necessary dependance of accidents on their subjects.
• 6. The limitation of Christs humane bodie to one place at once.

Touching the first.

Touching the second.

Touching the third.

Touching the fourth.

Touching the fist. (viz.) The necessary de­pendence of accidents in their subiects

Touching the sixt.

PAR. II.

THe next ancient Doctor I clai­med at the Conference for the doctrine of the reformed Churches, concerning the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, was Orig in Lev. Hom. [...]. p. 141. S [...] secundum literam se­quaris hee iy [...]m quod dictum est nisi mandu­caveritis carnem me­am & bibe­ [...]itis sangui­nem [...] occidit hee litera. Origen, who in his se­venth Homilie upon Leviticus, repea­ting those words of our Saviour, un­lesse ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood, ye have no life in you, saith of them, if ye follow the letter, that letter killeth. To this [Page 128] allegation you answer; That Origen speakes according to the capernaiticall letter, that is, according to the literall sense wherein the Capernaits did under­stand those words, who as Saint In Psal. 4. & 98. &c. 6. Iohn. Au­stin and De caena Dom. Cyprian say, thought our Sa­viour would have cut off some pieces from his body and given them to eate, or that they were to eate it boyled or ro­sted.

But 1. You should have observed that Origen saith not, if you follow the Rep. 1. conceits of the Capernaits, but if you follow the letter of Christ, that is the sense, which the letter of his words carrie. Now there is never a word, letter, or sillable in Christs speech, which signifieth, or importeth boyling or rosting, cutting or mangling. These are but accidents to the eating of flesh, flesh may bee eaten, and that in the most proper acception of the phrase, though it be neither boyled, or rosted, nor mangled. Whosoever takes flesh raw, or rosted, whole or cut, into his mouth, cheweth it with his teeth, and after conveigheth it into his stomacke: truely and properly eateth that flesh. Thus you doe in the Sacrament, if [Page 129] Pope Nicolas prescribe not a wrong forme of recantation to Berengarius, yet extant in your Canon Law: I Grat. de consecrat. dist. 3. Ego Berengarius credo corpus Domini son­sual [...]ter [...] in veritate manibus sa­cerdotis tra­ctars, frangi & fidelium dentibus atteri. Berengarius doe beleeve the body of our Lord Iesus Christ to bee sensually or sensibly and in truth handled by the hands of the Priest, broken and champt or torne in peeces by the teeth of the faithfull.

2. You should have cast backe your eye to the precedent words of Origen, which make it evidently appeare, that he listened not to your Iewes harpe, nor tooke the tune from the Cap [...] ­naits straine: but that his meaning was, that we ought to take the words of our Saviour in a spirituall and figurative sense, and not in the carnall and pro­per. For having related the words of those Jewes in Saint Iohn, how shall this man give us his flesh to eate? hee turneth to his Christian auditors, saying, But you if you are Children of the Church, if you are instructed in the my­steries of the Gospell, if the Word which was made flesh dwell among you, ac­knowledge these things to be true which we say, because they are the words of the Lord. Acknowledge that there are [Page 130] Ib. agno­scite, quia figurae sunt quae in divi­nis volumi­nibus scrip­tae sunt, & ideo tanquā spirituales & non tan­quam car­nales, ex­aminate & intelligito quae dicun­tur, si enim quasi carna­les ista sus­cipitis laedant vos & non alunt, est enim & in Evangelio littera quae occidit. figures in the Scriptures, and examine and understand those things that are spo­ken as spirituall men not as carnall, for if you take these things as carnall, they will hurt you and not nourish you: for there is a letter that killeth in the Gospell as well as in the Law, there is a letter in the Gospell which killeth him that un­derstandeth it not spiritually, and then follow the words above alleaged. For if thou follow the letter in these words, unlesse ye eate my flesh and drinke my blood, the letter killeth.

Thus having freed this passage, I might proceed to the examination of your next Section, yet [...], as before I have done in Tertullian and Saint Austin, so I will now cleare other places in this Fathers Workes, and proove him to be a thorough man for us every where. I will follow the order of his bookes in the edition at Basil, that you may speedily with a wet finger turne to every cota­tion.

First, cast I pray you a looke to his ninth Hom. 9. in Lev. Non haereas in sanguine carnis, sed disce potius sanguinem verbi, & au­di ipsum tibi dicentem, hic sanguis mens est qui pro vobu effun­ditur in re­missionem peccatorum. Homilie; Thou who art come to Christ the true Priest, who by his blood hath reconciled thee to his Fa­ther, [Page 131] sticke not in the blood of the flesh, but learne rather the blood of the Word, and heare him saying to thee, This is my blood which is shed for you for the remissi­on of sinnes. He who is instructed in the mystery of the Sacraments, know­eth both the flesh and blood of the Word of God. You who presse the letter and urge the carnall eating of the flesh of Christ with the mouth, sticke in the blood of the flesh, but we who feede on Christ by faith, re­ceive the blood of the Word, and eate the flesh and blood of the Word of God in our heart according to Origens wholesome advise.

Secondly, in his 16 Homily upon Bibere di­cimur san­guinem Christi non­solum Sa­cra [...] [...] ­ritu, sed & cum sermo­nes eius [...] pi [...]us in quibus vita consistit. Numbers, there is a passage paralell to this, Who can eate flesh and drinke blood? he answereth, the Christian peo­ple, the faithfull heare these words, and embrace them, unlesse ye eate my flesh and drinke my blood ye have no life in you, because my flesh is meate indeed, He that spake this was wounded for our sinnes, and we are said to drinke his blood, not onely in the rite of the Sacrament, (when we drinke of the consecrated cup) but also when we receive his sayings, in [Page 132] which life consisteth, as himselfe saith, I. b. quis est iste populus qui in usu habet san­guinem bibe­ [...]e, populus fi­delis, popu­lus Christia­nus audit has, com­plectit eum qui dicit nisi mandu­caveritis carnem filij hominis. the words which I have spoken unto you are spirit and life, and a little af­ter hee concludeth, thou therefore art the true people of Israel, which knowest how to eate the flesh and drinke the blood of the Word of God. In this passage, with one blow he cuts off both your carnall manducation, and your halfe communion, the people as you heare drinke of the blood of Christ both in the Sacrament and out of it, but how? with the mouth? nay but by faith, therefore he saith, not that all Christian people drinke it, but populus fidelis, the people that hath faith in his words, and by receiving his sayings drinke his blood, both at the communion and at other times in hearing and reading the Word.

Thirdly, he is constant in this his fi­gurative and spirituall interpretation of the words of our Saviour in the 6. of Iohn, for in his 23 Homilie upon the booke of Hom. in Num. c. 28. Hom. 23. Iudaei car­nali sensu comedunt carnis Agni, nos autem comedamus carnem ver­bi Dei, ipse en [...]m dixit nisi come­deritis car­nes meas non hab [...]bitis vi­tam in vobis, hoc quod mo­do loqu mur carne [...] sunt [...] Dei. Numbers, he harpeth upon the same string, Christ our Passeoveris offered for us, let the Iewes in a carnall sense eate the flesh of a Lambe, but let us eate the flesh of the Word of [Page 133] God, for he saith unlesse ye eate my flesh ye have no life in you, this that [...] now speake is the flesh of the Word of God. If you can eate words with your mouth, and chew them with your teeth, you may in Origens judge­men eate the flesh of Christ with your mouth: but if you cannot do that, then according to our English proverbiall speech, eate your owne words, and re­tract your grosse and carnall asser­tion.

Fourthly, I presse you with a most materiall and considerable passage in In Mat. c. 15. Ille cibu [...] q [...] sanctifica­tur per ver­bism Dei per (que) obsecra­tionem, juxta id quod ha­bet materia­le in ventrē abit, & in secessum eijcitur, cae­terum iuxta precationem quae ills ac­cessit Pro­p [...]ne fidei fit utilis, efficiens ut perspicax siat animus spect [...] ad id [...] [...]ile est: nec mat [...]a panis, sed super illum dictus [...] est [...] prode [...] non indignè Domino comedenti illum. E [...] h [...]c qui [...] [...] [...] symbolico (que) corpo [...]e Multa porro & de ipso verb [...] [...] q [...]d fa­ctum est c [...]ro verus (que) cibu [...] qu [...]m qui cum ede [...]it [...] [...] in aeter­num quem nullus malus potest edere. Origen concerning the matter of bread, which he calleth the typicall and sym­bolicall body of Christ, and saith, it goeth into the bellie and is cast out in the draught; but for Christ himselfe, and his flesh, he saith, that it is the true meate, which whosoever eates shall live for ever, which no wicked man can eate. I am sure wicked men can and doe eate of the bread after consecration: it is [Page 134] not then in Origens judgement Christs flesh. I pray also resolve me what is that S. Origen calls the matter of bread which he tearmes Christs typicall and symbolicall body, and saith it goeth into the belly, &c. you dare not say Christs body. For it is blasphemy in the highest degree, to say that his glori­fied body passeth through the guts and is cast out into the draught: Substance of bread you say there is none, and to call accidents a body and the matter or materiall part of bread, is as absurd in speech as it is in sense, that a man can void tasts, and colours, and figures with­out substance.

Fiftly, I alleadge against you in the same Commentarie upon Saint Mat­thew, his interpretation of the words of the In Mat. Tract. 35. Edite, [...]oc est corpus meum, panis iste quem Deus verbum cor­pus suum esse fatetur, verbum est nutritorium animarum, & potus iste quem Deus verbū sanguinem suu [...] fatetur verbum est [...]tans & [...]nebrians [...]orda biben­ [...]um. institution, which can no way stand with your doctrine of Transub­stantiation, Take eate saith he, This is my body, the bread which God the Word saith to be his body, is the Word which nourisheth the soule, the Word which proceeds from Gods mouth by which man liveth, bread, the heavenly bread which is set upon that Table, of which it is written. Thou hast prepared a table [Page 135] before me. And the drinke which God the Word calls his blood, is the Word ma­king glad the hearts of the drinkers. Marke I beseech you, hee saith that Christ calleth bread his body, which he could not but by a trope or figure, sith bread and his body are substantiae dispa­ratae, substances of divers kinds, which cannot in truth and propriety of speech one be called the other. Secondly, hee saith that this bread is the foode of soules, and this drinke refresheth and maketh glad the hearts of them that drinke: it is the foode of soules, not bodies, and the drinke of the heart, not of the mouth, if wee beleeve this Father.

Sixtly, I retort your owne allegati­on against you, out of the fift In divers, loc. Evangal. Hom 5▪ In­trat & nunc Domi [...] sub [...]ectum cre­demium du­pl [...]ci figur [...] ve [...]more, &c. Homi­ly. The Lord (saith hee) even now comes under the roofe of Beleevers two manner of waies: The one when thou entertainest into thy house the Governours or Pastours of the Church, for by them the Lord enters into thy house, and by them thou becommest his Host. The other manner is, when thou takest that holy and uncorrupted banquet, when thou dost enjoy the bread and cup of life, eatest and drinkest the body and blood of our [Page 136] Lord, then our Lord doth enter under thy roofe, wherefore humbling thy selfe imi­tate the Centurion, and say, Lord I am not worthy that thou come under my roofe. Observe I pray you as before, that the faithfull enjoy the cup of life as well as the bread, whereof you utterly de­prive them, and that by roofe hee meanes the heart which entertaines Christ, not the mouth. That which S. E. addeth (suppose the soule bee wicked, this Author saith Christ goeth In) he adds of his owne, Origen saith no such thing, that Christ e [...]ters into the soule or heart of a wicked man, but all that he saith is this, where hee enters in unworthily, he enters in to the condem­nation of him that receives, that is, where the party unworthily eates of that bread, and drinkes of that cup: for in that bread Christ entereth in his typi­call and symbolicall body, as hee calls it before, not in his true and naturall, which hee proved unto us there, no wicked man can eate.

Seventhly, I conclude this Section with a testimony out of the last booke of De Christ. Hom dial. 3. Si ut oblo­quuntur isti carne desti­tutus erat & exanguis, cu­iusmodi car­nis, cujus corporis & qualis tan­dem sangui­nis signa & magines [...]anem & [...]oculum mi­ [...]istravit? [...]ussit (que) per [...]a [...] [...] [...] re­ [...]ovate. Origen, If as these men cavill or upbraid us Christ was destitute of flesh, [Page 137] and without blood, of what flesh, of what body, and of what blood did be admi­nister the bread and the cup as signes and images, commanding his Disciples by them to renew the memory of himselfe. Heare you how briefe he speakes, how fully in the language of the reformed Churches, bread and the cup are not the very body and blood of Christ by Transubstantiation, but signes, images, and memorialls thereof by representati­on. And if now you are cast as your conscience will tell you, you are by severall verdicts of Origen, thanke your selfe who would needs referre the matter to him among others, and bee tried by the bench of antiquity, where­by you are clearely overthrowne as you will be in your owne Court by your owne feed judge Gratian, your great Canonist, of whom in the next Paragraph.

PAR. 12.

GRatian de consecratione distinctione, 2. capite, hoc est quod dicimus, saith, as the Sicut ergo coelestis panis qui Christi caro est, suo modo voca­tur corpus Christi, cum revera sit Sacramen­tum corpo­ris Christi, illius viz. quod visibile, quod palpa­bile, mortale in cruc [...] posi­tum est, vo­catur (que) ipsa immolatio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus fit, Christi Passio, mors, crucifixio non r [...]i veritate sed significante myste­rio: sic Sacramentum fidei (quod Boptismus intellignur) fides est. heavenly bread which is Christs flesh, is after a sort called the body of Christ, wh [...]n as in truth it is the Sacra­ment of the body of Christ, I meane of that which being visible, palpable, mor­tall, was put upon the Crosse, and that immolation of the flesh which is done by the hands of the Priest, is called the Passion, death and crucifixion, not in the verity of the thing, but in a signifying mystery: so the Sacrament of faith (Baptisme) is faith. The Coeleste Sacramentum quod verè representat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi, sed impropriè, unde dicitur suo modo sed non rei veri­tate, sed significante mysterio, ut sit sensus vocatur Christi corpus, idest significatur. glosse ad­deth [Page 139] the heavenly Sacrament which tru­ly doth represent the flesh of Christ, is called the body of Christ but improperly; wherefore it is said in a sort but not in the truth of the thing, but in a signifying mysterie. This testimony of Gratian is like a great torch throughly lighte­ned, which a strong blast of winde bloweth not out, but maketh it blaze the brighter. Three puffes you and your Chaplaine have at it. First, you say Gratian is no authenticall Author with you, much lesse the glosse. Secondly, you say his words are meant of the acci­dents which are a Sacrament onely of Christs body. Thirdly, your Chaplaine addeth, that the flesh of Christ on the Al­tar is a Sacrament of Christs visible and palpable body upon the Crosse, you say the lesse to the purpose by saying so much, and your answers interfere on the other. For if Gratian bee no au­thenticall Author with you, why doc you straine your wits to make his words reach home to the truth? why doe you contradict one the other to make Gratian agree to himselfe? the truth is, you have a Woulfe by the eares, you can neither safely hold him, [Page 140] nor let him goe. For if you reject Gratians authoritie, all the Canonists like so many Hornets will bee about your eares: if you admit him, you loose your cause, for then you must con­fesse, that after consecration, that which remaineth on the Altar is not indeed Christs body, but a Sacrament thereof, whcih is no otherwise called Christs body, then your oblation in the Masse is called the crucifying of Christ, and that I am sure you will say and sweare too is not in the truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery. To examine your answers severally.

First, you impeach Gratians credit, telling us, that with you he is no authen­ticall Author: What you meane by au­thenticall I know not, a classicall Au­thor sure he is with you, who preferre him before Dionisius, Exiguus, Isidorus, Cresconius, Burchardus, Ivo, and all other compilers of antient decrees, and reade him publikely in your Bellar. de Scriptor. Ec­elesiast ad annum 1140 Ipse solus ob­tinuit u [...] publicè in Gymnasijs praelegeretur & multorum doctissimorū virorum Commenta­rijs illustra­reu [...]. Schooles. What esteeme Aristotle is in with Phy­losophers, Hypocrates with Physitians, Euclides with Geometricians, Iohan­nes de sacro Bosco with Astronomers, Ptolomey with Cosmographers, Peter [Page 141] Lumbard with Schoole Divines, Iusti­nian with civill Lawyers, the same in Gratian with Canonists. And if be­fore he were not an authenticall Au­thor with you, yet since the yeare 1580. in which by the authority of Gregory the fourteenth, hee was revi­sed and purged, he must needs bee au­thenticall with you. Howsoever it stands with Gratian (because it may be your Dioces of Chalcedon is not governed by the Canon Law) this te­stimony out of him is as a threefold ca­ble, which though you and your Chap­laine tugg never so hard at, you will ne­ver bee able to breake, for Gratian quoteth this out of the Sentences of Saint Austin, gathered by his Schollar Saint Prosper. Gratian is but the rela­ter and approver, S. Prosper or rather Vid. titulum decret. Aug. in lib. Sentet. Prosper. Saint Austin is the Author thereof, and is not Saint Austin with you an au­thenticall Author?

Secondly, upon better advise you admit of the authority of this testimo­ny, and shape a kinde of answer unto it, that when Gratian out of Saint Au­stin denies the bread to be Christs bo­dy, he meaneth the accidents of bread, [Page 142] which are Sacramentum tantum, the Sacrament onely, and not in truth the body of Christ. This answer cannot stand: for the accidents of bread are not panis, much lesse coelestis panis, hea­venly bread, or coeleste Sacramentum, a heavenly Sacrament, and lest of all Christs flesh, therefore the former words cannot bee meant of the acci­dents, but of the consecrated host. What S. E. adds to piece out your an­swer, that the accidents may be so cal­led in regard of their reference to our Saviours bodie which they cover; which reference is founded upon an heavenly action, to wit, consecration, is unworthy the refutation, for he beg [...] that which hee ought to proove, that the accidents of bread cover our Savi­ours body: this wee denie, and I have disproved it in the former Section. Be­sides, he seemeth to be ignorant of your Church tenet, which is, that the words of consecration worke upon the sub­stance of bread, and turne it into Christs body not upon the accidents.

Thirdly, the last answer which you or your Chaplaine give, is worst of all, (viz.) that the body of Christ on [Page 143] the Altar is a Sacrament of Christs visible and palpable body which hung on the Crosse for this is not onely an absurd and senselesse, but also an here­ticall and blasphemous solution. 'Tis absurd to make the same body num [...]ro to be a Sacrament of it selfe, tis all one as to say that the disease is the symp­tome of it selfe, or the Ivy bush is a signe of it selfe, or the face is the pi­cture of it selfe, or the substance is the shadow of it selfe. A Sacrament as your Schooles out of Saint Austin de­fine, is a visible signe of an invisible grace, how then I pray you can the flesh of Christ in the Sacrament (which you teach to bee covered un­der the forme of bread and so to bee invisible) bee a Sacrament of the visi­ble flesh of Christ on the Crosse, visi­ble things may bee signes and Sacra­ments of invisible, but it is a thing impossible, that an invisible thing should bee the Sacramentall signe of a visible. I would forgive your Chaplaine the absurdity and senseles­nesse of his answer, if there were not implied heresie in it against the fundamentall Article of our Creed.

[Page 144] 'Tis flat heresie to affirme that Christ had more then one individuall hu­mane bodie: but if the body of Christ really and substantially and carnally present on the Altar, is a Sacrament of his owne body, then on the Crosse, or now at the right hand of his Father, then hee must have two bodies, one visible and palpable on the Crosse, when hee suffered, and now in hea­ven, and an other at this very instant invisible, insensible, and impalpable on the Altar.

Thus having made good our fort in Gratian, I might passe to the next Section: yet because your Armour­bearer S. E. will not yeeld us this fort, but having produced some passages out of Gratian, and the Glosse against us leaveth it to the Reader to judge with P. 119, 120. what conscience I cited them for our opi­nion. I will out of this one distin­ction in Gratian, produce so many pregnant testimonies for us, that any indifferent Reader will marvell with what face you can denie him to bee ours. For the Glosse which you reject with such scorne, all that I will say shall bee this, that although he lived in times [Page 145] of thickest darkenesse, even in the midnight of Popery: yet hee saw a glimmering of the truth in this point, as appeareth by his note upon cap. ego Berengarius, unlesse saith he thou dost understand the words of Berengarius in a good and sound or wholesome sense, (in which according to a forme prescribed him by Pope Nicolas, hee confesseth Christs body to bee eaten in the Sacrament with the mouth & torne with the Nisi sa [...] intellig [...] verb [...] Be­rengarij in maiore [...] i [...] ­cidis heraes [...] quam ips [...] habuit. teeth) thou wilt fall into a worse heresie then his. And upon cap. Coeleste Sacr [...] qu [...]d est in Altari im­propriè di­citur corpus Christi, sicu [...] Baptismus impropri [...] di­citur side [...]. hoc est, The heavenly Sacrament which is upon the Altar, is improperly said to bee Christs body. And upon cap. utrum sub Christu [...] fas vorare dentibus no [...] est distinctio­ne, ego Be­rengarius contr [...] sed i [...]i hyperbo­l [...]è locu [...] est & veri­tatem excessit figura, It is unlawfull to devoure Christ with the teeth, so saith Gratian here, but a little above in the Chapter beginning, I Berengarius, the contrary is affirmed, but there he speaketh hyperbo­lically and exceedeth the truth: I grant you that in his notes upon some other Chapters hee seemeth to favour your Transubstantiation, and contradict him­selfe, and so appeareth like the Glossae dissectae, though in a farre [...]. other sense divided from him­selfe.

[Page 146] But as for Gratian on whose Text he Commenteth, who lived in times not altogether so corrupt, hee saw the truth of this point concerning the spi­rituall eating of Christ in the Sacra­ment by faith, and not with the mouth so clearely, ac si solis radio descripta esset, as if it had beene described before him with a beame of the Sunne. For to let passe the cap. per acta, in which by a decree of Peract [...] consecratione o [...]nes com­municent qui nolue­rint Ecclesia­sticis carere liminibus. Calixtus, he cashiereth your private Masses. And the cap. Divisio unius & eiusdem my­sterij sine grandi sa­crilegio non potest perve­ [...]ire. Comperimus, in which by a decree of Pope Gelasius, he brandeth your halfe communion with the crime of Grand­sacriledge.

1. In the Chapter Tribus, Pope Clemens gives charge to the Priest, Deacon, and Minister, to keepe with feare and trembling the reliques of the fragments of Christs body, what mea­neth he I pray you by fragments, hee cannot meane the fragments of acci­dents, for accidents have no fragments or reliques, neither can hee meane any broken parts of Christs very body, for himselfe teacheth out of Austin. c. Nec quan­d [...] mandu­camus par­ [...]es de ipso [...]us. qui, that when wee eate we make not parts of Christs body, but receive it integerrimè, [Page 147] most intirely, c. Omnes aequ [...]liter corpus Christi integerr [...] [...]. Quid sit: It remaines therefore, that by fragments, reliques, or remaines, hee understandeth broken pieces of bread, and if so, the substance of bread remaineth in the judgement of Pope Clemens, not onely after the con­secration but also after the Commu­nion. Cum ad re­verendii Al­tare cibis spi­ritualibus satiandus as­cendis, sacr [...] Dei tui corpu [...] & sangui [...] side respice, mente con­ti [...]ge, cordis man [...] susci [...] & maxim [...] totum ha [...] ­stu interioris hominis assu­me.

2. In the Chapter Quia corpus, hee alleadgeth out of Eusebius Emissenus, these words, When thou goest up to the dreadfull or venerable Altar, to bee sa­tisfied with spirituall meates by faith, regard, honour, and admire the holy body and blood of thy God, touch it in thy mind, take it with the hand of thy heart, drink it by the draught of the inward man. What need hee to have said, looke upon him with the eye of faith, touch him with thy minde, and with the hand of thy heart, and draught of the inward man, but to Vt quid p [...] ras de [...] & [...] [...], crede & m [...] ­ducasti, qui credit in au [...] manducat [...]. (Vid.) capu [...] cred [...]re. Cre­dere in Chri­stum hoc est manducar [...] p [...] vi­vum. exclude your carnall eating and drin­king him with the hand and mouth of the outward man.

3. In the Chapter Vt Quid out of Saint Austins booke, de remedio peni­tentiae, hee quoteth these words, Why dost thou prepare thy tooth and thy belly? beleeve and thou hast eaten, he that belee­veth [Page 148] in him eateth him: if the tooth and bellie have nothing to doe in eating Christs flesh, how doe you affirme that he is eaten with the mouth.

4. In the Chapter prima quidem out Vide supra in P. 11. of Saint Austin his Comment upon the fourth Psalme, he repeateth those two testimonies which before I produced in Paragraph the eleaventh. The first is a strong evidence against the carnall interpretation of Christs words, the latter against the supposed existence of Christs body in more places at once. The former is this, spiritually under­stand what I have spoken, you shall not eate this body which you see, nor drinke that blood which they who crucifie mee shall shed; I have commended a kinde of Sacrament or mystery unto you, which being spiritually understood will quicken you. The latter is, the body of Christ in which he rose must bee in one place, his truth or divinity is every where.

5. In the Chapter Non, he mentio­neth Non iste panis est qui vadit in corpus, sed panis vitae [...]rnae qui [...]imae sub­ [...]antiam [...]. out of Saint Ambrose, a sentence which directly excludes your eating Christ with the mouth, it is not this bread which goeth into the body, but the bread of eternall life which supporteth [Page 149] the substance of the soule.

6. In the Chapter Qui manducat hee expoundeth out of S. Austin, the phrase of eating and drinking Christ after this manner, he that eateth and drinketh Christ, eateth & drinketh life, to Ill [...] [...] [...]re [...]st re­sici, [...] [...] est [...] ­vere, quod [...] Sacr [...] visibiliter [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] & [...] eate him is to be fed or refreshed, to drinke him is to live, that which is visibly taken in the Sacrament, is in the truth spiritually eaten and drunke, if in the truth hee is eaten spiritually, hen not corporally or orally, for a Spirit hath no flesh and bones, and consequently no mouth and teeth. In the same Chapter hee ad­deth, that which is [...]. seene and our eyes tell us is bread and the cup, but that which faith being to be instructed requi­reth is the bread, is Christs body, the cup is his blood, but bread can no way bee Christs body properly as I have de­monstrated before, Austin therefore and Gratian stand for a trope or figure in the words of the institution.

7. In the Chapter Qui discordat Qui discor­d [...] [...] non mandu­cat carne [...] eius nec [...] sanguin [...] eius. out of the same Austin, hee debarres all wicked men from tasting the hea­venly food of Christs flesh. He who disagreeth (saith he) from Christ, eateth not his flesh, nor drinketh his blood, [Page] though he daily receive the Sacrament of so great a thing to his condemnation and perdition. But he who is at distance with Christ, may and doth sometime eate of that which is in the Pix af­ter consecration: it is not therefore the flesh of Christ which no wicked tooth or mouth can touch, but the Sa­crament thereof onely which is set on your Altar.

8. In the Chapter Panis est & cap. Revera, hee diggeth much ore out of Saint Ambrose his bookes de Sacramen­tis, whereof I will trie a little at this present. If there bee such force in the word of the Lord Iesu that thereby that began to be which was not before, how much more operatorie or effectuall is it, that things c. panis. ut sint quae eran [...] & in [...]iuà com­mu [...]ur. may be what they were and yet turned into an other thing, that they may bee what they were in substance, and changed into another thing in significancie and supernaturall efficacie. Christ saith, This is my C. revera. ante bene­dictionem alia species nominatur, post conse­crationem corpus signa­tur. body, before the blessing of heavenly words, an other kinde is named, after consecration the body is signed or signified, he tearmeth the cup his blood, before consecration 'tis called another thing, after Ante cō ­secrationem aliud dicitur, post conse­crationem sanguis Chri­sti nuncupa­tur. consecration [Page 151] it is called Christs blood. Why? be­cause the Wine is turned into Christs blood? no, but because it is a Sacra­ment of Christs blood, and beareth the similitude thereof, so saith Am­brose in expresse words, as thou C. panis: sicut morti [...] similitudinē sumpsisti ita etiam san guinis simili­tudinem bi­bis. ta­kest the similitude of Christs death, so thou drinkest the similitude of his blood.

9. In the Chapter Iteratur he brings in Pope Pascasius transubstantiating, if I may so speake, your externall, visible, and proper sacrifice of the Masse into a significative and mysticall. Quiae q [...]o­tidie labi­mur, quotidis Christ [...] mi­s [...]cè pro [...] bis i [...] [...]la tur. Because (saith he) we offend daily, Christ daily is offered for us mystically, and his Passion is delivered to us in a mysterie.

10. In the Chapter De hac out of De hac qui­dem hostia quae in Chri­sti comme­moratione mirabilt [...]r fit ed [...]re li­cet: de illa vero quam Christus in Aracru [...] i [...] ob [...]lit se­cundum se nulli edere lices. Hierom upon Leviticus, hee determi­neth, that it is lawfull for us to eate of that Host which is offered in memoriall of Christ: but that it is lawfull for no man to eate of that Host in it selfe which Christ offered upon the Altar of the Crosse. Whereof no other good con­struction can be made then this, that we may eate of the bread broken on the Lords Table, whereby Christs sacrifice upon the Crosse is represented, but not [Page] of the very body of Christ it selfe which was offered upon the Crosse. We may eate with the mouth Christs flesh in Symbolo, but not in se or secun­dumse, wee may eate it in the signe or Sacrament thereof, but not pro­perly and orally in it selfe. What you alleadge for your selfe out of Gratian, maketh very much against you, the P. 111. words are, The sacrifice of the Church doth consist of two things, the visible forme of elements, and the invisible flesh of Christ, both of a Sacrament, and re Sacramenti, as the person of Christ doth consist of God and man. To this di­stinction wee fully subscribe, that the Lords Supper or Sacrament consists of a visible part, to wit, the outward elements offered to our bodily senses, and of an invisible or heavenly part, the flesh and blood of Christ exhibited by the Spirit to the eye of our faith, but you cannot allow of this distincti­on of parts: For you have no elements at all. For accidents without sub­stance are no elements, and besides ac­cidents you have nothing in your Sa­crament but Christs flesh, which is the res Sacramenti. Moreover if the [Page 153] Sacrament consist of the elements and Christs body, as Christs person con­sisteth of his humane and divine na­ture (as Gratian out of Saint Austin affirmeth) then is not the substance of the element turned into the sub­stance of Christs body, but both re­maine entire, as the humane nature of Christ is not turned into the divine but remaineth entire.

What your Chaplaine urgeth out of [...] daies Confere [...] with Musk [...] p. [...]. Gratian for himselfe, I have answered els where.

PAR. 13.

NOw I will ascend from the trou­bled brooke to the spring, from the Canon Law to the divine, from Gratian to the Author of all grace, Christ Jesus himselfe, whose words This is my Body, you lay as the ground whereon you build both your carnall presence and Transubstantiation, and the sacrifice of the Masse, and the ado­ration of the Host. But it will beare [Page 155] none of them, nay rather as ground sha­ken by an earthquake, it will utterly overthrow them all, as may appeare by this Syllogisme.

• If in this sentence This is my Body, the meaning bee this Bread is my Body, the speech can­not be proper, but must of necessity bee figurative or tropi­call.
• But in this sentence, This is my Body, the mea­ning is, This Bread is my Body.
• Ergo this speech cannot be proper, but must of necessity be figurative and tropicall: and if so, downe falls Tran­substantiation built up­on it, and carnall pre­sence built upon Tran­substantiation, and the oblation and adoration of the Host built up­on the carnall pre­sence.

[Page 156] In this Syllogisme the consequence L. 3. de Eu­ [...]har. c. 19. Non potest [...]eri ut vera fit propositio [...]n qua sub­iectum sup­ponit pro pa­ [...] & praedi­ [...]atum pro corpore Chri­sti, panis [...] & cor­pus Christi sunt res di­versissime, & post. si lice; affirmare disparatum de disparato, lice bit eodem [...]ure affirma­re de nihilo aliquid, de [...]ce tene­bras, &c. of the Major is so evident, that Cardi­nall Bellarmine affirmeth, that it is im­possible that bread should be called Christs Body otherwaies then by a figure, for bread and Christs Body are things most divers, and if disparate substances, such as bread and Christs body are, might be affirmed one of the other, by the same reason wee might affirme something to bee nothing, light to bee darkenesse, and darkenesse to be light, &c. Bread is a substance inanimate, Christs Body is animate, bread of the figure of a loafe, or wafer, Christs Body of the figure of a man: bread inorganicall or with­out orgaines or members, Christs Bo­dy Organicall: bread made of wheat flower, Christs Body of Virgins blood: bread therefore in propriety of speech, can no more bee Christs Body, then Christ himselfe a Vine, or a Doore, or a Way, or a Rocke, all which spee­ches our Adversaries themselves confesse to bee tropicall and figura­tive.

The Minor or Assumption is prooved foure manner of waies.

• [Page 157]1. By testimonie of Scripture.
• 2. By the authority of Fa­thers,
• 3. Confession of our Ad­versaries.
• 4. Force of reason.

1. The Text is plaine, Christ tooke bread, and blesse [...], and brake, and said, This is my Body, what hee tooke, hee blessed, [...]e brake, hee gave of that he said, This is my Body. But hee tooke, he blessed, he brake, he gave bread, of bread therefore he said, This is my Bo­dy. When hee said Hoe or This, hee pointed to something, not to meere ac­cidents as you Bel. l. 3. de Euch. c. 19. Hoc non sup­ponit pro accidente sed pro substan­tia. confesse, for then hee would have said hac not hoc, these not this, nor pointed he to his owne body sitting at Table, for neither did the Apostles, nor could they doubt whe­ther the body sitting at Table were his body; neither were there any cohe­rence in the words, take this bread, breake and eate in remembrance of me, for this is my body which you see sit­ting at table with you. He pointed therefore to the substance of bread, when he said hoc This, and consequent­ly the meaning of his words are, [Page 156] [...] [Page 157] [...] [Page 158] This bread is my Body.

2. You take an oath to expound Scriptures, juxta unanimē consensum Pa­trum, according to the unanimous consent of Fathers, and therefore unlesse you will incurre the censure of perjury, you must allow of this interpretation of Christs words, This is my Body, that is, This bread is my Body, for so they Anno 105. Apolog. 2. p 98. [...]. Anno. 180. l. 4. cont Har. c. 57. eius conditionis quae est se­cundum nos accipens pa­nem suum corpus esse confitebatur Anno 190. Paedagog. l. 2. c. 3. Benedix­it vinum c [...] dixit accip [...]e hic est san­guis, &c. are expounded by

• 1. Iustin Martyr. The san­ctified food which nouri­sheth our flesh and our blood, by the change thereof into our nature, we are taught to bee the flesh and blood of him that was incarnate for us, Iesus Christ.
• 2. Irenaeus. How did the Lord rightly if an other were his Father, taking bread of this condition that is usuall amongst us confesse it to bee his bo­dy.
• 3. Clemens Alexandrinus. He blessed wine when hee said, take drinke this is my blood.
• [Page 159] 4. Tertullian. So Christ
  Anno 210. l. 4. cont. Marc. c. 40. panem cor­pus suum appellans. Anno 230. in Mat. Tract. 35. Panis quem Deus verb [...] corpus suum esse fatetur. Anno 250. Epist. 63. vinum fuisse quod san­guinem su­um dixit. Anno 340. i [...] 1 Cor. 11. Quid est pa­nis Christi corpus. Anno 365. Cyrill Hiros Catec. mist. 4▪ Christus de pane affir­mat hoc est corpus me [...] Anno 390. l 4 da sacrā [...] c. 5. Panem fractum tra didit Disci­pulis dic [...] accipite ho [...] Anno 390. ad Hedib. q▪ Nos [...] [...] panem quim fregis Dominus dedit (que) Discipulis s [...]is esse corp [...] Domini ipso dico [...]te hoc est corpus meum.
  taught us, calling bread his Body.
• 5. Origen. Christ confesseth the bread to bee his bo­dy.
• 6. Cyprian. It was wine which Christ said to be his blood, & Epist. 76. Panem corpus suum vocat.
• 7. Athanasius. What is the bread, Christs bo­dy.
• 8. Cyrill. Christ said of the bread. This is my Bo­dy.
• 9. Ambrose. He delivered broken bread to his Dis­ciples, saying, This is my Body.
• 10. Saint Hierom. Let us heare that the bread which Christ brake and gave to his Disciples is his body as himselfe saith.

[Page 162] to salve his credit, nay his faith.

First, in this answer you contradict the Tenet of your Church and your selfe. For if by hoc or this as the Fa­thers teach, wee are to understand hic panis, this bread, and the sense of the whole is, this bread is my body, and bread here stands not for bread in sub­stance, but in appearance onely, or in the exterior forme, or that which is made of bread as your Chaplaine hath P. 1 [...]. it, then the words of institution are not taken in the proper sense, but are absolutely and simply figurative, which your selfe denies, and Fisher the Jesuit P. 72, 73. of Transubstantiation, Sess. 2. and l. [...]. 9. Propriè non figuratè ex­plicanda sun [...] illa verba ho [...] est corpus meum. Bel­larmine of the Sacrament of the Eucha­rist (the words this is my body ought to be taken and expounded properly, not figuratively) and Alfonsus a Castro, and Sanctesius, and Salmoron, and Costorus, and Gardinerus, and Tonstallus, and Pa­negyrolla, and Roffensis, and Suares, and Uasques, and other Papists named and confuted by l. 10. de Eucha c. 15. Chamierus.

Secondly, this your interpretation no better agreeth with the Fathers words, then a wet mould doth with running mettall which makes it flie backe with [Page 163] a great force, for instance, Iustin Mar­tyr in the words above cited by bread or food, understandeth that whereby as hee saith our bodies are nourished, quae mutata nutrit carnes nostras, but that is not bread turned into Christs body; for Christs body is no meate for the belly, nor is it turned into our flesh. Irenaeus speaketh of bread, ejus conditio­nis quae secundum nos, of bread that is usuall among us, l. 4. c. 57. c. 34. of bread, qui est c terra, which is taken from the earth, such is not super-substantiall bread, or transubstantiated into Christs body. Clemens by wine understandeth wine allegorically tearmed Christs blood, [...], but that is not wine really turned into Christs blood, for that is Christs blood in propriety of speech, not by a Metaphor or Allego­rie. Tertullian as you expound him Epist. 57. Cor­pus suum p [...] ­nim vocat d [...] mul [...]m granorum ad [...]tione congestum & sanguinē suum vinum appellas de botris ai [...], aci [...]is pl [...]ri­mis expres­sum. speaketh of bread which was vetus figura, an antient figure of Christs bo­dy, but that could not bee bread tran­substantiated into his body, for before his Incarnation hee had no body into which bread could bee then turned. Cyprian speaketh of bread made of many cornes or graines, and of wine pressed out [Page 164] of many grapes. Ambrose speaketh of bread broken, but super-substantiall bread or turned into Christs body is not broken bread. Saint Hierome likewise speakes of broken bread, and consequently not of the heavenly bread which is Christs flesh. Epiphanius speakes of that which is of a round fi­gure and without sense, and such is ba­kers bread, but not that bread which Christ said, Iohn the 6. He would give us, to wit, his flesh for the life of the world. Gaudentius speakes of bread consecrated, before he gave it or said, This is my Body; but it was not accor­ding unto your doctrine turned into Christs body before the words this Chrysost. in 1 Cor. Hom. 24. Quem­admodum panis ex multis granis [...]itur. Aug. in Ioh. Tract. 26. Dominus no­ster Iesus Christus cor­pus & san­guinem su­um in ejs re­bus comme [...] ­davit quae in unu [...] ali­quid redi­guntur ex [...]ultis. is my body are uttered, neither [...]oth the Priest consecrate Christs body but the bread, for consecrare is ex communi sacrum facere, of a thing common before, to make a thing Sacred or a Sacrament. Saint Chrysostome and Saint Austin both speake of terrestriall bread, or as you call it bakers bread, not of transub­stantiated or coelestiall bread, for both of them observe in the bread and in the wine a representation of Christs mysticall body which is one consisting [Page 165] of many members, as a loafe of bread is [...]c, yet made of the flower of many [...]res or cornes, and the cup of wine is one [...]ough made of the juyce of many grapes. [...]int Isidore speaketh of bread which [...]engtheneth the body, and therefore of [...]ead in substance and not in appea­ [...]nce onely, Lastly, Arnoldus Carmo­ [...]nsis Arnol. de Card [...]nal. Chris op. de [...]nct. [...] significa [...] & significa­ia ijsdem vo­cab [...]olis cen­seren [...]r. whom you mistake, for Saint [...]yprian saith, not that bread is called [...]hrists flesh because it is turned into it, [...]t because the thing signifying and [...]ing signified are called by the same [...]ames.

Now to the shreds of sententes of Fathers which your Chaplaine takes from your bulke, I will returne as short answers in the order as he hath laid them. Irenaeus saith, that the bread [...] con [...]re. c. 34. in the Eucharist is not common bread, so say we also, for it is consecrated to a holy and heavenly use. Tertullian [...]. co [...]g. M [...]rc. c. [...]. saith, that hee made the bread his owne [...]ody, that is, as he expoundeth it him­selfe in the same place, the Dicendo hoc est corpu [...] me [...], idest sigura corgo­ris m [...]. sigure of his [...]ne body. Saint Hierom Epist. ad He dib. q. 2. saith, the bread came downe f [...]om heaven, but hee meaneth Christ himselfe, not the Sacramentall bread. [Page 166] for that came not downe from heav [...] but was made of wheate growing up [...] the earth. Saint Austin as you quo [...] De verb. Dom. Ser. 28. but indeed Ambrose 15. de Sacram. c. speaketh of super-substantiall bread, [...] thereby he meaneth Christs flesh or th [...] heavenly Manna, not that bread [...] eate in the Sacrament with the mouth as he admonisheth in the next word [...] it is not the bread which goeth in the body, but the bread of eternall [...] which supporteth the substance of [...] soule, with whom Saint Austin him selfe accordeth, Ser. 29. de verb. Do [...] Thy Shepheard and thy giver of life is th [...] Pastor & vitae, dator cibus & pa­nis aeternus, disce, & doce, vive & pasca. quid tibi sufficit cui Deus non suffi cit. meate and eternall bread, learne and teach, live and feed, what is sufficien [...] for thee if thy God bee not. In ancho­rato. Epipha­nius saith, that he who beleeved not th [...] bread to bee as our Saviour said (his body) falleth from salvation; 'tis true hee that beleeveth not the bread to be our Saviours body, as our Saviour said it to bee his body endangereth his sal­vation, for hee questioneth the truth of our Lord, but Epiphanius saith, not that Christs words are to bee take litterally, nay in that very place he [...] proveth the contrary: for the brea [...] [Page 167] [...] round and without sense, but our Lord Hoc enim est rotundae sigis­rae & insen­sibile, Domi­num vero nostrum no­vimus totum sensiti [...]um, to­tum sensum totum Deum. Cyril cattch. mistag. 4 [...] Catech. mistag 3. Pa­nis postinvo-cationem n [...] [...]st amplius, panis com­munis sicut unguentum post invoca­tionem non est amplius unguentum commune sed chrism [...] Descrip. ec­cles. ad an [...]. 250. [...] know is wholy sensitive or rather all sense. Saint Cyrill saith, that which seemes bread, is not bread, but Christs body, but hee in the words going be­fore, and in his Catech. plainely shew­eth his owne meaning, Come not there­fore as unto simple bread and wine, or [...]are bread and wine. The bread after the calling upon of the Holy Ghost, is no more common bread, as the ointment after benediction is no more common ointment but chrisme. Yet oyle after benedicti­on still retaineth the substance of oyle, and so doth the bread after consecra­sion the substance of bread. The Au­thor Decaen. Dom. who is so much in your Bookes, that wee finde him al­most in every Section; is not the bles­sed Martyr Saint Cyprian, as Bellar­mine proveth by many arguments, but a farre later Writer by name Arnoldus Carmotensis, as the Epistle Dedicatory to Pope Adrian, who sate Anno 1154. extant in All-Soules Library in Oxford testifieth: but bee hee Cyprian or Arnoldus who wrote the Treatises de cardinalibus Christi operibus, hee is no friend to your carnall presence, [Page 168] or Transubstantiation, for in the Chap­ter cited by you, hee hath these words, wee whet not our teeth to eate, but by Non dentes ad mordendū accuimus, sed fide sincerâ panem san­ctum frangi­mus & par­timur. sincere faith wee breake the holy bread. And in the words immediatly follow­ing those words which you alleadge, hee saith, that Christ powreth his di­vine Essence into the Sacrament, even as in Christ under the humane nature the divinity lay hid, therefore according to this Author, there remaineth the substance of bread, together with Christs Body Sacramentally united, as in Christ, the humane and the divine nature remaine united hypostatically. And moreover, that when hee saith the bread is changed, not in shape, but in nature, and by the Omnipotencie of the Word made flesh, that hee speaketh of a Sacramentall change and not sub­stantiall, and that by nature hee mea­neth the naturall and common use, not the essence of bread, appeareth by his owne words a little before in this Immortalita­tis alimonia datur a com­munibus ci­bis differens corporalis substantiae retinens spe­ctem. Tract of the Supper of the Lord. That although the immortall food de­livered in the Eucharist differ from common meate, yet it retaineth the kinde of corporall substance. And in [Page 169] the Treatise following, Our Lord, De unct. Chrism. [...] dit noster Dominus [...] mensâ in qud ultimum cum Apostolis participa [...] convivium proprljs ma­ [...]bus panem & vinum, in cruce vero manibus mi­litum corpus tradidit vul­nerandum, &c. saith he, at the Table in his last Sup­per, gave bread and wine with his owne hands, and on the Crosse hee gave up his body to bee wounded by the hands of the Souldiers, (pray take speciall notice that hee gave bread at the Table, and his body on the Crosse, not his body at the Table, no more then bread at the Crosse) that hee might expound to the Nations, how divers names or kindes are reduced to the same essence, and the things signifying and signified are called by the same names. If Cyril would be comming in as your Chaplaine spea­keth with his Conversion, and Nyssen with his Transmutation, and Theophy­lact with his Transelementation, they shall be met with and repayed all three in their owne coyne. Epist. ad Colosyrium convertens ea in verita­tam propri [...] carnis. Cyril who in his Epistle to Colosyrius (if it bee his, whereof Vasques doubteth in his 180. Disputation, upon the 3. part of Tho­mas his summes) saith, the bread and wine are changed into the veritie of Christs flesh: in his second booke upon Iohn Chap. 42. saith, that the waters of Baptisme are by the operation of the Holy Spiritus Sancti ope­ratione ad divinam aquae refor­mantur na­turam. Ghost changed into a divine [Page 170] nature. Orat. Catec. c. 37. pan [...] in car­nim. [...]. Nazianz. Orat. 40. [...]. Nyssen who saith that bread is transmuted into Christ body, saith in the same Oration, that Christs hu­mane nature is transmuted into a divine excellencie. And Gregory Nazienzes, saith, that by Baptisme we are trans­muted into Christ. Theophylact who upon the 6. of Iohn saith, the bread is transelementated into Christs body [...], saith that we are transele­mentated into Christ. You see therefore that neither Cyrils [...], nor Nyssen [...] [...], nor Theopylact's [...] come home to your [...], they import no more then a spirituall [...] Sacramentall change. Were they [...] bee taken in the most proper sense for a substantiall change: yet would they not helpe you a whit, for in the conversion of water into wine, or the transmutation of one element into ano­ther, the formes and accidents are chan­ged: but the common matter remai­neth the same, whereas in your Tran­substantiation the whole matter and substance perisheth, and the accident [...] onel [...] remaine.

Thirdly, I proove that the Pronoune (hoc) this standeth for hic panis by [Page 171] confession of our learned Adversaries▪ Cont Flo­ri [...]. l. 4 Di­cendum est quod hoc de­monstrat substantiam panu. Gerson, wee must say that the Pro­noune (hoc) demonstrateth the substance of bread. De diabol. Sophu. Chri­stus a [...] evi­dentur, hoc est corpus me­um, demon­strans panem. Gardiner, Christ saith plainely This is my Body, pointing to bread. De Sacr. Euch. l. 3. c. 19. Dominus accepit pann [...], beuedixit, & dedie Disci­pul [...], & de eo ait, hoc est corpus meum. Bellarmine, The Lord tooke bread, blessed it, and gave it to his Disci­ples, and of it said, This is my Bo­die.

Fourthly, I proove it by force of reason, when this Pronoune hoc is uttered it must signifie something then existent, but that could not be Christs body under the accidents of bread, for vour Bellar. l. 1. del [...] hoc 11. Aquinas p. 3 q 78 art▪ 5 In ulumo in­stante in quo profer­tur vox ul­tima ponitur conversio pa­nis in Corpus Christi. selves teach, that the bread is not turned into Christs body till the last instant, in which the whole propositi­on is uttered: it remaineth therefore that the Pronoune hoc stands for haec accidentia (which yee all disclaime) or hic panis, this bread as then unaltered. Hereunto you answer, that‘hoc doth signifie and suppose, not for that in­stant in which it is uttered, but for the end of the proposition, when the praedicatum is in being, as when I say this is a crosse and make it with­all, the word this doth suppose for the crosse, not which is when the [Page 172] word (this) is uttered, but which is within the whole time that I speak, so when I say taceo, I doe not signifie that I speake not while I am uttering this word, but that I am silent when I have done uttering.’ So saith your Chaplaine in these operative speeches P. 135. of our Saviour, Lazarus come forth, young man arise, the words Lazarus and young man, did not signifie persons existent then precisely when they were uttered, but when the speeches were compleat.

If Sophistry were the science of sal­vation, these knack and querkes of wit Refut. might be in high esteeme, wheras they no more befit Divinity then it would become grave Cato to cut many a crosse­caper. I might justly remand you & your Chaplaine to the disputations in parvis, where such cummin as this is tithed, or rather such gnats streigned by puneys in Logick: yet because you shall not say that I let passe any apex or title in your booke, I will examine all these your in­stances. To which I replie, first in ge­nerall, that you beg what you ought to prove and use a base fallacie in all this di [...] [...]d petitio principij: you [Page 173] take it for granted, that these words of our Saviour (This is my Body) are practicall in your sense, that is, worke a substantiall and miraculous change, which we denie, and you will never be able to make good proofe of.

For first, bare words as they are words, have no operative power, much lesse a vertue to worke miracles, which cannot be effected without the imploy­ment of the divine Omnipotencie.

Secondly, words that are practicall, that is used by God or men as instru­ments to produce any effect of this na­ture, are imperative or uttered in the imperative mood, as Be thou cleane, re­ceive thy sight, Lazarus come forth, young man arise, sile obmutesce and the like, not in the indicative, as This is my Body, This is my Blood.

Thirdly, the words of themselves can no more proove the bread to bee turned into Christs Body then the ac­cidents. For certaine it is, and con [...] ­sed on all sides, that when hee uttered these words, This is my Body, he poin­ted to that which he held in his hands, which was a substance clothed with the accidents, colour, quantity, tast and the like.

[Page 194] But your selves confesse, that by ver­tue of these words This is my Body, the accidents are not turned into Christs Body: therefore neither can it be proo­ved, that by vertue of these words, Th [...] is my Body the substance of bread is tur­ned into Christs Body.

In particular to your first instance in a Crosse, which at the same instant you make, and say this is a Crosse. I answer, first that if you could proove Christ had a purpose to make his Body in your sense, as you have to make a Crosse, when you say this is a Crosse, and make it withall, this instance of yours were considerable, but till you proove the former, 'tis nothing to the purpose. Secondly, either you have made the Crosse with your fingers before, or at the instant when you say (this:) or els your speech, this is a Crosse, if it be true, is figurative, the present tense est being taken pro proximè futuro, that is, for the time immediatly ensuing upon the utte­ring of your words.

To your second instance, in the word taceo, I hold my peace. I answer, that if you will make a proposition of it, you must resolve it into ego sum tacens, I am [Page 175] silent, and then the subject (I) is in be­ing when this word (I) is uttered, and likewise the praedicatum silent is in be­ing as soone as the word is uttered. Howbeit in ordinary and vulgar speech taceo is taken for jam nunc tacebo, I hold my peace, tha [...] is, I will utter not a word more.

To your third instance in Lazarus and the young man. I answer, that ei­ther Christ by a Metonymie, partis pro toto, called Lazarus his soule, or his bo­dy by the name of the whole Lazarus, or if Christs speech be proper, that both La­zarus and the young man, at that very instant when Christ called them were persons existent, their soules being re­turned to their bodies. For though the one came not forth out of his grave, nor the other arose till after our Sa­viours speech was compleat and ended, yet I say, and you shall never be able to disproove it, that at the same moment when Christ called Lazarus, Lazarus was in being, and so likewise the young man and the damsell. In a proposition every part or word is vox significativa, as soone as it is uttered, as you may learne out of Aristotles booke de inter­pretatione, C. [...], 2, 3. [Page 176] and S. Quot ver­ba sunt tot signa, signum nisi aliquid significat non potest esse signum. Austin his Dialogue with Adeodatus, therefore as soore as this Pronoune hoc is uttered, it must then signifie something then being. A proposition is a complexum, like to a heape, or a number of three graines, whereof though the number bee not compleat till the actuall adding of the third graine, yet hath every graine his existence when it is first laid: if the parts of the proposition signified not the parts of our conception, the whole could not signifie the whole, that which is in speech a proposition, is in the under­standing a composition, and the simple [...] must needs bee presupposed existent, before we can actually compound them. If this will not satisfie you, I leave yo [...] to Cardinall Bellarmine and the Trent Catechisme and Solmeron to be better informed in this point both of Gram­mer and Divinity.

In Mat. 26. Profectò propositio non est vera nisi postquam fa­ctus est cir­culus. Sed oratio ac­cipitur pro vera qua id quod futurū est accipitur pro iam facto per tropum, neu iuxta proprietatem sermonis. Solmeron 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 trope or figure be judged true.

The Fathers of the Catech. Trid, Huius vocis ho [...] ea vis est ut rei praesentis sub­stantiam de­monstret. Councell of Trent in a Catechisme, set forth by the [Page 177] commandement of Pope Pius the fift, affirme directly against you and your Chaplaine, that such is the force of this word hoc, that it demonstrateth the sub­stance of a thing present.

Cardinall Bel. l. [...]. de Sacra Euch c. [...]. In propositio­nibus quae significant id quod [...]unc fit cum dicitur, pronomina demonstra­tiva non de­monstrant [...] quod est, sed id quod erit, &c. Bellarmine taketh you also to taske, relates your opinion and professedly refuteth it. Some Catholickes saith he answer, that in such propositions which signifie that which is then done when it is spoken, the demonstrative pro­nounes doe not demonstrate that which is, but that which will be, and they give these examples, as if one drawing a line or circle, saith, this is a line, this is a circle, as also the pronoune ought to bee expoun­ded in those words of Christ, Iohn the 15. This is my commandement. You cannot but say that this is your very opinion, and the grounds you lay downe for it. Now observe I pray you how punctual­ly the, Cardinall answers them: Etsi prono­men demon­stra [...]ivum demonstret rem fu [...] ­ram, quan­d [...] n [...]hil est praesens quod demonstretur, ut in exemplis allatis: tam [...] si q [...] digito aliquid ostendit dum pronomen effert valde absurdum videtur dicere p [...]o­nomine illo non demonstrari rem praesentem. Atqui Domi [...] accep [...] [...] nem & illum porrigens, a [...] accipite edite hoc est corpus me [...], videtur igi­tur demonstravisse panem, & sane in illis verbis bibite ex hoc [...]. [...] durum est non demonstrare id quod erat, sed id tantum quod [...] [...] Al­though saith he, the pronoune demonstra­tive demonstrate a thing future when [Page 178] there is nothing present which may be de­monstrated by it as in the former [...]xam­ples: Yet if a man should point to some­thing with his finger when hee uttereth the pronoune hoc or this, it seemes to be very absurd to say that the pronoune this doth not demonstrate something present. But our Lord tooke bread, and reaching it, said, Take eate this is my Body: hee seemes therefore to have demonstrated bread, neither is it any thing against [...] which they alleadge for themselves, that a proposition doth not signifie till t [...] end of the proposition, when the whole is uttered, for though that be true of a pre­position which is a kinde of Oration, yet the demonstrative pronounes presently sig­nifie some certaine thing even before the other words follow, & verily 'tis exceeding harsh to say that in these words, Drinke ye all of this, the pronoune this doth not demonstrate the thing which then was, b [...] onely that which should be afterwards.

Lastly, whether hoc signifie as soone as it is uttered, or after the whole pro­position is pronounced, I demand of you what it signifieth, not these Bellar. de Sac. Euch. [...] 1. c. 11. Thomas di­ [...]it pronomen hoc non de­monstrare accidentia, quasi esset sensus hoc id est hee acci­dentia sunt Corpus Chri­sti; id enim v [...] absur­dissi [...]um esset. ac­cidents, for the accidents are not Christs Body. Aquinas, Vid [...]. de E [...]char. l. 10. 19. Suarez, and Bellar­mine, [Page 179] not onely reject that Exposition, but also brand it with the name of a most absurd conceit. Of the same judge­ment are Soto in quare. Sent. dis. 9. q. 2. Sot [...] and Ians. con­cord. eva [...]g. c. 13 [...], hoc est demonstra­tivum sub­stantia. Iansenius. If the pronoune hoc demonstrate not acci­dents it must demonstrate the substance; either of bread then or Christs Body, if the substance of bread, then is there in the words necessarily a Tropologie; if of Christs Body, then you make of them a Tautologie or Battologie. And here againe you sticke in the mudd, and though your Chaplaine labour with might and maine to pull you out of it, yet hee plucks you not out, but you draw him in, and both are swal­lowed up in the same quagmire. For if this your interpretation bee admitted, this body of mine is my body, these ab­surdities will necessarily insue upon it.

• First, that these words are not consecratory.
• Secondl [...], that they are not at all [...].
• Thirdly, that they are not argu­mentative or [...].
• Fourthly, that they are meere Identicall and [...]ugatorie.

[Page 180] 1. Consecratorie words are such, whereby something which before was common is made sacred, according to the words of Saint Austin, accedit ver­bum ad elementum & fit Sacramentum. But if the meaning of these words, This is my Body be this body of mine is my body, nothing by them of common is made sacred. For Christs body was never common, but alwaies most sacred, and by your explication hoc this hath no reference to bread but to Christs bo­die.

2. You teach generally that these words of the institution are not con­templative, but practick and opera­torie, that is, they effect what they signi­fie, and indeed upon this hinge hang [...] all your doctrine of Transubstantiation and carnall presence: but glossing the words with your paraphrase, viz. This body is my body, you breake downe this hinge. For all words which are opera­tory, or practicke, produce something by their prolation, which was not be­fore: but Christs body was his body before the prolation of these words; therefore by the prolation of these words it is not made. If you answer [Page 181] as your Chaplaine doth, that Christ by these words made not indeed his body, yet thereby hee made his body to bee under the shape of bread: you quite overthrow your doctrine of Transub­stantiatiō. For the putting a body which was existent before, in a place or un­der a shape where it was not before, as for example, a candle under a bushell, or a picture under a curtaine, or a face under a maske, is a translocation, or transposition, or alteration of habit, or whatsoever rather then a Transubstan­tiation. This your acute Schoolemen well saw, Aureolus, Vasques, and Sua­rez, and therefore contend for a new production of Christs body in the Sa­crament. For a meere succeeding of it in the place of bread, or union thereof with the accidents, or bringing it to, and placing it on the Lords Table will not inferre a Transubstantiation, their rea­sons are good. In 4. Se [...]. dist. 11 q. 1. Cum preci [...] unum succa­dit alteri, [...] est verum dicere quod illud cui suc­ceditur acc [...] ­dat & con­vertatur in illud quod succedit, i [...] e converso succedens accedit ad illud cui' s [...]dit, illud [...] transi [...] in aliud quod desini [...] antequam perv [...]niat [...] illud. Aureolus thus argues, when one thing precisely succeeds ano­ther, it is not true to say that that thing to which another succeedeth doth come, and is converted into that which succee­deth: that thing doth not passe into ano­ther which ceaseth to be before it come to [Page 182] that other; as for example, wee say not that the Sea or a river passeth into ano­ther, which is dried up before it can come to it: as you say the substance of bread is abo­lisht before the substance of Christs body succeed. In 3. Thom, disp. 1 [...]. c. 3. Unto cum illu qu [...]un (que) mod [...] fiat non potest non esse accidentaria Vasques thus impugne [...] your assertion, if Christs body bee [...] produced de novo but onely united and applied to the Sacramentall signes to which it was not before, this union, by whats [...] ­ver meanes it bee wrought is onely acci­dentall, and consequently cannot make [...] substantiall conversion. In 3. Thom. disp. 52. Sect. 4. Per sol [...]m actionem ad­ [...]uctivam rev non explicatur vera conver­ [...] substan­tialis & Trā ­substantiati [...] sed solùm translocatio quaedam: quando una substantia so­lum s [...]dit in loco [...] no [...] po­test prepri [...] dici [...]a con­v [...]i in altā. Suarez drive [...] this nayle to the head, by a meere addi­ctive action (whereby Christs body [...] brought to bee under the shape of bread) the true nature of Transubstantiation is not unfolded, such an adduction impor­teth onely a translocation and not a sub­stantiall conversion, when one substance onely succeeds in the place of another, the one cannot properly bee said to bee conver­ted into the other. For how absurd were it to say that D Bishop were transubstantiated into D. Smith, because D. Smith succeeds him in the See of Chalcedon: or that when your foure Lecturers at the Sorbon one after ano­ther read in the same pew, that at [Page 183] every new Lecture there is a new Transubstantiation, and by name that D. [...] who [...] at seven a clock, is transubstantiated into D. Filsac, who takes his roome and reades at nine a clock.

3. By this your Exposition you cut your selfe in the hammes, and enervat [...] your maine argument for Transubstan­tiation. For as I told you in the Con­ference, the bare affirming Christs body to be his body, prooves not that any thing is turned into it. If Christ were now comming in the clouds, and any poin­ting to the cloud should say this or there is Christs body, could any from thence con­clude the conversion of the cloud into his body. Every proposition which is of use in argumentation, and can affoord or minister a reason to proove any thing, must consist of one or more of the 4 prae­dicata topica, or at least one of the quin­que praedicabilia, as every young Sophi­ster can informe you: but in this pro­position This is my Body, as you exp [...]und it, this my body is my body, there is none of the 4 praedicata topica, or quinque praedicabilia. For the predicate herein is neither genus, nor species, nor differentia, [Page 184] nor proprium, nor accidents of the sub­ject, but the selfe same with it re and ratione.

4. Hence it followeth, that the propo­sition is meerely Identicall and neugato­rie, which to affirme of any of the words of the word of life especially of these whereby hee instituted a most di­vine Sacrament were blasphemy, this fearefull consequence thus I inferre up­on your interpretation.

If I thought you had not already you full [...]ad. I could add more weight t [...] my former replies, from the authority [Page 187] of your great Gamali [...]ls, at whose feete you and your Chaplaine were brought up, I meane Aquinas, Soto, Durand, and Bellarmine.

Aquinas thus loads you. Some have said that the pronoune this is to be under­stood 3. p q. [...]. 8. a [...]. 5 Alij dixe­r [...], quod dictio hoc fa­cit demon­str [...]nem ad sensum, sed intelligit [...] haec demon­stratio [...] pro illo in­stante locu­tionis qu [...] profer [...]ur hac dictio, sad pr [...] [...]imo in­stants loc [...] ­tio is sicu [...] cum aliq [...] not for the instant, in which the word is uttered, but for the last instant of the whole speech, as when I say tacco, I doe not signifie that I speake not while I am uttering this word, but that I am silent when I have done uttering of it, (is not this your owne instance, p. 127.) But saith Aquinas this cannot stand, because according to this glosse, the sense of Christs words should be my body is my body, which the above named speech doth not make to be so, because it was so before the utte­ring d ci [...] tacco, &c. Sed hoc sta­r [...] no [...] posest, quia secundum hoc huiu [...] locutionis hic esset sensus, corp [...] means est corp [...] meum, quod praedicta locutio non facit, quia hoc fuit ante prolati [...]em [...]n de nec hoc praedicta locutio significat. of these words.

Soto thus presseth you. This opinion I [...]s 4. Sent. dist. 1 [...] q. 1. ar [...]. [...]. Sed [...] (que) ista ops̄ ­n [...] [...] consona [...], [...]am [...]unc pronom [...] demonstra. res corpus as sensum s [...] [...]eret quod corpus est, corpus, haec autem forma non est ope­rativa, nec conversiva panis in cor­pus, quoniam ante etus prolationem id ipsum erat verum. saith he, (which referreth the pronounc hoc to that which is accomplished a [...]ter the pronunciation of the whole propo­sition, that is, to bread actually turned in­to Christs Body) is not consonant to the [Page 188] truth, for the the pronoune should demon­strate Christs body, and make this sense the body is the body. Now this forme of speech is no way operative, nor doth it turne bread into Christs body, because, before the uttering of them it was true that Christs body was his body.

Durand thus chargeth you. If the pronoune hoc points to Christs Body, the proposition may bee true, referring the Dist. 8. q. 2. Si singulari­ter demon­straret corpus Christi veri­tatem posset habere pro­positio, referē ­do demon­strationem ad [...]imum in­stans prola­tionis verbo­rum, quia tunc corpus Christi est sub speciebus panis, & esset sensus, hoc, id est, corpus meum est corpus me [...], sed haec forma non congruit Sacramento; quia per Sa­cramentum non efficitur us corpus Christi sit corpus sed solum efficitur quod corpus Christi continea [...]r in Sacramento. pointing thereof to the last instant of the prolation of the words, because then Christs body begins to be under the accidents of bread, and the sense may bee, this that is my body, is my body, but this forme of speech is not agreeable to the Sacrament, because this Sacrament doth not make Christs body to bee his body, but onely makes it to be in the Sacrament or under the accidents of bread, now the proposition so understood as above is expressed, onely implies that Christs body is his body, and not that it is made by this Sacrament, which is against the nature of every Sa­crament all forme wherein that is effected, by the uttering of the words which they signifie.

[Page 189] Bellarmine thus clearely confutes De Sacr. Euch. l. x. c. xx. Verba Sacramenta lia secundum Catholicos non sunt spe­culativa sed practica, effi­ciunt enim quod signi­ficant, unde etiam opera­toria dicun­tur. At si pronomen demonstrat solum corpus, verba erunt speculativa non practica, semper enim v [...]run est demonstrato Christi cor­pore dicero hoc est cor­pus Christi, five id dica­tur a [...]te con­secrationem sive postea: sive a laico, sive a sac [...]rdote, a [...] verba Sacramen­talia quia operatoria non sunt vera nisi dicau [...]r ab illo qui est legitimus Minister, [...]e (que) sunt vera antequam Sacramentum effisiatur. you, and cuts your throat as it were with a knife whet upon your owne grindstone. Sacramenta words according to Catholiques, are not speculative but practicall, for they effect that which they signifie, whence they are called operatorie, but if the pronoune hoc demonstrate onely the body, the words will bee speculative not practicall, for 'tis alwaies true, poin­ting to Christs body, to say this is the body of Christ, whether the words be spoken be­fore Consecration or after, either by a Priest or a Laye person, but the Sacra­ment all words, because they are operato­rie, or working words have not their force unlesse they bee spoken by a lawfull Mi­nister, neither are they true before the Sa­crament is administred.

PAR. 14.

THe two kindes in the Lords Sup­per, are like the eyes in our bo­dy which are mooved by the same nerve opticke: or double strings in an instrument which are tuned alike: [...] comparative reason therefore drawne from the one to the other cannot but be of great force. The sixt argumen [...] therefore in the Conference as you reckon was from thence drawne after this manner.

• [Page 191]The words used in the Consecrati­on of the bread, are so to bee ex­pounded as the like in the conse­cration of the cup.
• But the words used in the Conse­cration of the cup, are to bee ex­pounded by a figure.
• Ergo the words used in the Con­secration of the bread, are to [...]ee expounded by a figure.

In this Sylogisme, because you lay you [...] batteries at both propositions, the Major and the Minor I will fortifie them both, and first the Major It is a topi [...]k axiome similium est id [...]m judi­cium, like are to be judged by the like, and these are so like, that I. [...]. de Sacr. Euch. c. 10. Add [...] argumentum robustissi [...] ex scriptura, Nam si hoc demonstra­ret [...], ita etiamin consecratione vini hi [...] sive hoc [...] vin [...]. Bellarmine him­selfe draweth an argument from the one to the other. I will add saith hee a most forcible argument. If the pronoune hoc used in the Consecration of the bread, demonstrateth bread, then also the same pronoune this used in the Con­secration of the cup must needs demonsta [...] wine, the validity of which conse­quence dependeth upon the correspon­dencie betweene the words used in the institution of each kinde, neither indeed can any reason bee assigned why the [Page 192] words used in the one, may not as well admit of a figure as the words used in the other: both are dogmaticall, both have a precept annexed unto them, both are words of a Testament, both Sacra­mentall, and according to your doctrine alike operatory: never therefore ex­claime against us for expounding the words used in the institution of the bread by one figure, when you expound the words used in the institution of the cup by two figures at least. Blame not us for interpreting This is my Body, tha [...] is a signe or Sacrament of my body, when you your selves interpret This cup is the New Testament, that is, this drinke is [...] signe or Sacrament of the New Testa­ment: If you alleadge that Calix is ex­pounded in the same place by funditur, and argue from thence, that because the blood of Christ and not wine is shed for us: therefore this cup must needs signifie his blood: I answer, that the figure in panis in like manner is expoun­ded in the same place by frangitur, and 1 Cor. 11. 24. This is my Body which is broken. argue that because bread is broken in the Sacrament, and not Christs body, therefore (this) must needs signifie thi [...] bread. If you replie that frangitur is [Page 193] [...]t for frangetur, I will say in like man­ [...]er, that funditur is put for fundetur. [...]he Major being therefore put out of all doubt, let us examine the Minor, which was this. The words used in the Consecration of the cup, are to he ex­pounded by one figure or more. For the words as they are recorded by Saint Luke, are these, This Cup is the New Luk. 22. 20. Testament in my blood. Where we have a double figure: First, a Metonomie, [...]ntinentis pro contento, the cup is taken for the thing contained in the cup. Se­condly, signatū pro signo, the Testament for the Signe, Seale, or Sacrament of the New Testament. So saith Theophy­lact, In Luk. [...]. Sanguine suo novum Te­stamentu [...] obsig [...]vit. alleadged by you. In the Old Te­stament Gods Covenant was confirmed by the blood of bruit beasts: but now, since the Word was made flesh. He sea­led the New Testament with his owne blood. So your Gorran, the blood of Ie­sus Gor. in Luk. 22. Sanguis Christi est confirmatio novi Testa­menti. Christ is the confirmation of the New Testament, for a Testament is confirmed by the death of the Testator. Nay so your most accomplished Jesuits, Solme­ron, Sol [...]. Ies. Tom 9. Tract. 15. Subest in his duplex metonymi [...], primò quia continens pon [...]ur pro con [...], id est poculum [...] [...] pro [...]no [...]o quod vinum in ip­so contine [...]r Secundum est in eo quod [...] in po­culo foedus v [...] Testamē ­tum dicitur [...], cum s [...]us [...]ym­bolum. and Barradius, Solmeron pointeth to a double figure, saying, in these words we have a double figure, first, the cup being [Page 194] put for that which is contained in the [...] Secondly, the Testament for a Symb [...] thereof. Barradius though he expo [...] the word Testament as you doe for Legacie bequeathed by Christs w [...] yet he addeth expressely, that it is taken by a figure called Metony [...] What say you here to this, [...] word Testamentum is here taken p [...] perly enough. For not onely a mans [...] ward will. but also his outward wri [...] will in parchment, is commonly called T [...] stamentum, because it is an authent [...] Tom. [...]. l. 3. c. [...]. de iustit. Euch. T [...]sta­mentum su­ [...]ur pro le­gato Meto­ [...], conti­ [...] Testa­mentum su [...]ur pro co­te [...]to leg [...]o vel [...], hoc sensu sangu [...] Chri­sti est Testa­ [...] no­vum, id est leg [...] [...] no­vum & ad­mira [...]le. signe of his will. I pray expresse y [...] selfe a little farther, what meane y [...] by properly enough? doe you mea [...] by an usuall figure, or without a [...] figure, if you meane by an usuall figure, assent unto you, and it sufficeth for th [...] strengthening of my argument: if [...] meane without a figure, name me [...] Author of note, Divine or Civil [...] who before you affirmed that either Legacie bequeathed by will, or the p [...] per and parchment in which the will [...] writtē is in propriety of speech with [...] any figure, either [...] in Greeke, Testamentum in Latine, or Will in [...] glish. Not to take the advantage [Page 195] might against you, that the blood of Christ as you beleeve it to bee in the [...]acrament cannot bee an authenticall [...]gne of Christs will, because if wee should grant it to be there really, in your sense: yet it is not there visibly, [...]nd therefore cannot be an authenticall signe of it, like the paper or parchment [...]ou speake of, or as we teach the wine in the cup to be: I shall bee much in­ [...]ebted unto you if you can resolve mee [...]ow the blood of Christ can be without any figure, his last Will and Testament, sith

1. He made his Will at this his last Supper, but made not then his blood. [...]igest. de test. Testa­mentum est volunt [...] nostrae iust [...] sententia de eo quod qui [...] [...] veli [...] [...]st mo [...]em s [...]m. Mat. 26. 28.

2. His Will was his just determina­tion or appointment of what he would have done after his death, his blood is no such thing.

3. The Scripture speakes of blood of the Testament, hic est sanguis novi Te­stamenti, never of a Testament of blood.

4. Blood is a su [...]stantiall part of the Testator, and therefore not his Will or Testam [...]nt.

5. Every Will is either written or nuncupative, the blood of the Testator is neither.

[Page 196] After you have blunted the edge of these weapons, see how you can rebate the point of Ian har. Evang p 91. Dicendum est certum esse hanc la­cutionem, hic calix novum Te­stamentum est in me [...] sanguine, non posse accipi in proprio sen­so, sed per tropum quē ­dam. Sive enim Calix dicitur acci­pi pro vas­culo potorio d [...] quo bibe­b [...] Aposto­li, sive pro sanguine Sy­necdochicè in ipso pocu­lo contento, non potest consistere ut is illis verbis sit propria [...]: Ne­ [...] enim dixerit pro­pria locutio [...] vas [...]ulum illud potori­um fuisse Testamen­tum, cum in­certum sit [...] [...] ex­ [...] illud po­culum, [...]c nov [...] Te­stamentum [...] esse o [...]es testa­t [...]r [...], sed nec sang [...]is in calice [...] potest pro­pria loc [...] dic [...] Testa­mentum. Iansenius his dart [...] which he lets flie levell at you. These words saith he, cannot bee taken proper­ly, whether the cup be taken for the vessell used for drinking, or for the blood of Christ by a Synechdoche: for no man will say that the vessell in propriety of speech is Christs Testament, sith the Scripture te­stifieth that Christs Will is eternall, so i [...] not that cup, which no man knoweth whe­ther it be extant at this day or no, neither can the blood of Christ bee properly said to be his Testament, for his Testament i [...] one, not many, and Paul in the Epistle [...] the Hebrewes, teacheth out of Jeremie, that the Gospell is the New Testament, Christs blood is not therefore properly the New Testament. Moreover in Matthew and Marke the blood is said to be the blo [...] of the New Testament, it is not therefore the New Testament no more then the blood of Bullocks is the Old Testament. Lastly, the word cup cannot be taken for blood contained in the cup, as it is evident by that which is added in my blood. For the speech will not bee congruous if thou say this blood is the New Testa­ment [Page 197] in my blood: the cup therefore must be properly taken for the vessell, which undoubtedly in the proper sig­nification is not the New Testament, wherefore of necessity wee must con­fesse that these words this cup is the New Testament in my blood, cannot bee taken in the proper sense, but are spoken by a trope or figure.

PAR. 15.

THe last argument prosecuted in the Conference, was taken out of th [...] 26. of Saint Matthew, ver. 29. wher [...] Christ himselfe not onely after the blessing of the cup, but also after hee had ministred the Communion, saith, will drinke no more of this fruit of the vine. Doubtlesse Christ who institute [...] the Sacrament, and immediatly before consecrated the cup, ver. 28. best knew [Page 199] what it was; wine or blood, and he re­solves us that it was the fruit of the vine, and that we al know is wine, not blood, whence I framed this Syllogisme.

• No blood is in propriety of speech the fruit of the vine.
• That which Christ and his A­postles dranke in the conse­crated Chalice was the fruit of the vine.
• Ergo it was not blood.

For this blow you have a double ward; the first is, that Christ called his [...] blood the fruit of the vine, because it was such in appearance, the [...] of wine remaining after the [...] thereof was tur [...]ed into Christs blood. Put the question but to your owne con­science, and I dare say it will tell you R [...]fut. that this your answer is a meere shift and evasion. For why should not Christ who is the truth, rather call that hee dranke according to that which it was in substance and truth, then that which it was as you teach onely in ap­pearance, who ever heard accidents without substance, quantity or quality, moysture or rednesse called the fruit of [Page 200] the vine? did Christ drinke meere acci­dents in the cup? or doe you at this day in the consecrated Chalice? if so, your Priests could never be at any time over­seene or become light-headed in drin­king never so much of the consecrated cup. For it is a thing never heard of, that meere accidents should send up a fume, much lesse overcome the braine and cause drunkennesse in any man, and I hope you will not flie to a miracle, and say that your Priests braines are intoxec [...] ­ted by miracle, in case he take a dram to much of the wine he hath consecrated. Your owne Schoolemen put the case, that a Priest may sometimes forget him­selfe by drinking too deepe even in the holy cup. But I presse not this so much as that you in this your answer forget that we are about the Sacrament, where you will by no meanes allow of any such figure as excludeth the verity of the thing, otherwaies if you take a li­berty to expound these words by a fi­gure, and say, that Christ by a trope here called that which was his blood, wine, you shall never debarre us of the liberty of expounding the former verse by the like figure, and saying, that Christ [Page 201] called by a trope that which was in truth wine, his blood. 'Tis hard to say, and more then you can prove, that Christ ever dranke his own blood upon earth: Mal. in Mat 26. [...] c [...]o ness erat bib [...]rus sanguine [...] suum nec verè nec me­taphoricè, vi­num arste [...] metaphoric [...] bibiturus erat. Ego inquit dispo­no vobis ut edatis & bi­bat [...] super mensam me am in reg [...]o m [...]o, ergo non de sang [...]e suo s [...] de vino dixit, non bibam amodo de hoc geni­mine vitis. Evas. 2. Christ neither dranke his blood properly nor metaphorically, but wine he was to drink in heaven metaphorical­ly as himselfe said, Luke the 22. 29, 30. I appoint unto you a kingdome, that you may eat & drinke at my table in my kingdome, therefore Christ spake not of his blood, but of wine, when he said, I will drinke no more of this fruit of the vine till I drink it new in heaven, thus your own Maldo­nate.

Yet you have another ward you say, p. 162, 163, 164. that there is a Legall cup, and an Eucharisticall, both mentioned in Saint Luke, and that these words were spoken of the legall or common cup, as Saint Ierome, Saint Bede, Saint Theophy­lact expound.

This ward will not beare off the Refut. blow which comes with such a weight, that it drives your weapon to your head, for

1. 'Tis evident to any man that wilful­ly shuts not his eyes, that this in the 29. ver. hath reference to this in the 28. ver, [Page 202] drinke ye all of this, for this is my blood, but I will not drinke henceforth of this fruit of the vine, these words immediatly follow the other, and of necessity have relation to them: neither can they have relati­on to any other cup then the Eucharisti­call here, and in Saint Marke, because they make mention but of one cup, and that cup whereof Christ said, drinke ye all of this, for this is my blood of the New Testament. This reason alone convinced the conscience of your Learned B. Harm. Evang. Aff­erunt qui­dam Catholi­ci haec verba non esse di­cta a Domino post calicem sacrum, sed post priorem, cuius memi­nit Lucas, at id non pati­tur ordo Evang: cum enim Mat­theus & Marcus nul­lius alterius mentionem seccrint prae­terquam sa­cri, quando dicitur ex hoc genimine vitis, nullus alius calix intelligi po­test ab ijs demonstratus, quam cuius ipsi memine­runt. Iansenius who thus writeth upon this verse, Some Catholickes saith he, affirme that these words were not spoken of the Lord after he had drunke of the consecra­ted cup, but after the former, whereof mention is made in Saint Luke. But the order of the Evangelists will not suffer it. For sith Matthew and Marke make mention of no other cup then the consecra­ted, when it is said by them, of this fruit of the vine, no other cup can be conceived [...] be pointed to or demonstrated by them, the [...] that cup whereof they make mention. Of the same minde is Titelmanus, whose opinion Barradius the Jesuite relateth and defendeth in his 3. Booke of the Eucharist, c. 5.

[Page 283] 2. The Authors alleadged by you to the contrarie doe not weaken the si­newes of my argument, for neither Ierome, nor Bede, nor Theophylact de­nie these words to be spoken of the consecrated cup, though they allegorize upon them.

3. By following Bellarmine, you and your Chaplaine are fallen into a fowle flow, either you must say you tooke up your quotations upon trust, or els con­fesse you are a falsificator. For none of these Fathers alleadged by you, either in words or by consequence say that you put upon them, to wit, that the words mentioned in Saint Matthew are to bee understood of the Legall or common cup, Saint Cum Iude [...] credideri [...]e & adduxer [...] [...]os Pater a [...] fidem, tuned [...] vino corll bi [...] Dommus, [...]i nea transpl [...] tata est po [...] pulus Israel i [...]per Iere­miam Domi­nus sequitu [...] dicit [...]g se Domin [...] [...]e quaquar [...] [...] ha [...] vined off bib [...]s­rum nisi in regno Patris, regnum Patris fidem intell [...] [...] [...]. Ierome, and Vitis est plebs Iudaica, &c. Bede, and Non delecta [...]or [...] [...], [...] populi. Anselme have no distinction of two cups, but leaving after their manner the literall sense, expound allegorically the vine to be the people of the Jewes, and the fruit of the vine to be either their beliefe or their legall observances and ceremonies. Theophylact indeed makes mention of two cups, but saith not that [Page 204] the words alleadged by me out of Saint Matthew are to be referred to the le­gall or common cup mentioned in Saint Luke.

4. You are cast by your owne wit­nesses, for Ierome, Bede, and Theophylact, referre these words to the blood of Christ, and consequently to the Eucha­risticall cup as In Mat. c. 26. v. 29. Ierom in comment. Beda, Euthy­mius & Theophyla­ctus hoc loco ad sanguinē Christi refe­runt. In Mat. Tract. 25. Po­tus iste quem Deus verbum sanguinem suum fate­tur, est gene­ratio vita ve­rae, & est san­guis uvae il­lius quae mis­si in torcular passionis pro­tu [...]t potum [...]nc. Paedag l. 2. c. 2. p 116. [...]. Maldonate confesseth, wherein they doe but write after the Copie of the Ancient Fathers.

Yea but your Chaplaine S. E. wise­ly admonisheth me, that the Councell of Wormes and Innocentius, howsoe­ver in the exposition of this place, they joyne with us yet that they were thorough Papists. The stronger say I their testimonie against you, and a grea­ter presumption of the evidence of [Page 209] truth on our sides which extorteth such a confession from our greatest oppo­sites.

PAR. 16.

BY this time you see cause enough why in the forefront of my letter, I wish you a better cause: I am now in the third and last place to assigne you the reasons why I wish you a better Advocate.

These are in summe foure, viz. S. E. his

• 1. Cowardly Tergiversation.
• 2. Base Adulation.
• 3. Shamelesse Calumniation.
• 4. Childish subsannation and sense­lesse Scurrilitie.

[Page 210] Nat hist. 2. c. 44. In Olympia por­ [...]icus fui [...] [...] [...] ita [...]nstructa ut [...]icam ad [...] mul­ [...]s [...], [...]icta [...], [...]u sepiupla Plynie writeth that in the porch of 1. Tergiversa­ [...]ion. Olympia the same voice is seven times re­peated by an Eccho, such is the relation of S. E. wherein for answer to my se­ven arguments in seven Sections, he re­turnes your voice, and reiterates your dist [...]ctions and evasions seven times at least, I am perswaded that he hath by this time got your answers by heart, he hath conned them over so often. It should seeme that at Doway they professe an eighth liberall Science called Battologie. As for perfecting your Lordships an­swers where they were lanke and de­fective he seemeth to have made scru­ple of conscience thereof, least being but your second he should goe before you in any thing. Wherein he shewes [...]iadorus Si­ [...]lus. l. 3. [...]. himselfe as good a servant to your Lordship, as the antient blacke-moores shewed themselves subjects to their Prince, who if hee were maimed in any part of his body, they maimed themselves in that part, because they thought it un­seemely that any subject should be a more proper man or compleate then his King. Among many instances of his halting to­gether with you in your lame answers, I note three which are most notorious [Page 211] and obuious to every vulgar eye.

1. In answer to my first argument to proove the words of institution to bee tr [...]picall or figurative out of Tertullian, y [...] p. 28, 29. & seq. either ignorantly or wilfully mistake a type for a trope, and a reall figure, such as were the legall rites for a figure in words or rhetoricall ornament of speech and tell us of a meere figure, and of a figure which hath verity joyned with it, as when a King in tryumph sheweth how hee did behave himselfe in the warre. S. E. runs away with this errour, through many Pages and Sections, and when hee is out of breath, p. 57. leaves the Reader to sub­sume, that if the distinction be not good of a figure and a meere figure, that ei­ther ‘the Son of God whom the Scrip­ture calleth the figure of his Fathers substance is a meere figure void of being, God without divinity, or that he is a meere fiction,’ and a­gaine, ‘p. 58. A signe, image, or figure, is not necessarily void of being, as you conceive a shadow to be. Sacra­ments are signes and have some being, man is an image of God, yet a sub­stance, the Sonne of God according [Page 212] to Saint Paul is the figure of his Fa­thers Heb. 1. 3. substance’(he should say image of his person) but not an empty figure, unlesse that be empty which hath in it a a whole infinitie of perfection. Quid ad Rombum? whats this to my argu­ment, ego disputo de alijs ille respondet de Eras. Adag. cepis, I dispute of tropes, he answers of types, I dispute of words, he answers of things: I dispute of Metaphors or Me­tonomies, he answers of images and Sa­craments. Is Christ I pray you a trope? is man a figure in Rhetoricke? are the Sacraments Metonomies? is a King acting his owne tryumphs a Metaphor or an Allegorie? if you are ashamed to say so, bee then ashamed of your and your Chaplaines shifting evasions in your answer to my first argument.

When in answer to my second argu­ment taken out of Saint Austins third 2. booke, de doctrina Christiana, you said that the speech of our Saviour, Iohn the P. 67. 6. Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, you have no life in you, is according to Saint Augustine mixt of a proper and a figurative speech, and I replied upon you, that it is most certaine that Saint Austin in that place by figurate [Page 213] locutio, ment such a one as could in no Ibid. de dec. Chris l. 3. c. 16. Si hoc iam propri [...] sonat, nulla putetur figu­rata locutio. sense be proper, for S. Austins words are, if this now be taken in the proper sense, let it be accounted no figurative speech. Besides he speaketh of such a speech wherein an horrible wickednesse is com­manded or a verteous action prohibited, which can in no sense bee true in the proper acception of the words: Other­wise it should be lawfull to sin because expressely commanded, and sinfull to doe well, because forbidden. To this re­plie he rejoynes negry quidem.

When in refutation of your answer 3. to my argument, drawne from the pro­noune this in the words of the instituti­on, whereby you will have understood this bread transubstantiated into my body: I inferred this consequence thereupon, that the words of Conse­cration make nothing for Transubstan­tiation P. 300. or any thing els. For a proposi­tion that is meerely identicall, quoad significatum proves nothing at all. I may truly say, pointing to Christs body in heaven at the right hand of his Fa­ther, this or that body of Christ is his body, and will it hence follow, that bread or any thing els is substantially [Page 214] turned into Christs body? your Chap­laine answers ‘no, but something els, how els could your mouth utter such an impertinent discourse, ’with which words hee concludes the fift Section. And thus as when Philip of Macedon walked in state, Clisophus his flatterer comes in strutting after him, and when afterwards Philips thigh was run thorough so that hee halted downe­right, in comes Clisophus limping after him in the like manner: so where you are confident in your answer, S. E. is peremptorie, where you are profuse, he is redundant, where you are imperfect, he is defective, where you are lame, he halteth downe-right.

The best is, what he is faultie in his 2. Adulation. answers, hee mends in his encomiums, and where he is defective in Argumen­tation, he supplies it to the full with flat­tery Numero 179. Cato obieci [...] Fulvio. Nobiliori quod milites per ambitio­n [...]m donaret coronis, levis­simis de can­sis, nempe quia vallum curavissent, [...] [...]um strenue fo­dissem, quis inquit Cato v [...]dit quen­quam donari coro [...]d cum oppidum no [...] esset captum, au [...] incensa hostium ca­stra Gellius [...]tic. l. 5 [...] and Adulation. Erodius in his book de Iure Armorum, teacheth that none by the law of the Romanesmight have a mil­litarie garland given him, but upon some noble exploit done by him, as scaling the walls of a Cittie, or firing the enemies Tents, or the like. And therefore w [...] reade in Aulus Gellius, that Marc [...] [Page 215] Cato that Romane Worthie, framed a bill of indictment against Fulvius Nobi­lior, for rewarding his souldiers with gar­lands upon light occasions, and for meane services, as for looking to their fence, for digging a well strenuously. A like bill of indictement I might put in against S. E. for crowning you with a garland for doing no noble exploit at all, but one­ly holding up your buckler most valiantly. I referre my selfe for proofe hereof to his owne words wherewith hee en­deth P, 19 [...] his Pamphlet, I should say his Pa­gent. So my Lord (saith he) though hee were not permitted once to put an argu­ment, nor so much as to shew the grounds of our tenet; using the buckler onely, and never suffered for to draw the sword, got the field, and bore away the prize. A noble prize no doubt

A remarkable victory, and rich spoiles, Eras. Adag▪ Sa m [...]cida spolia sine sanguine & sud [...]. like those at Salmacis gotten without shedding a drop of blood or sweat. If C [...]esi­phon had met with no better an Advo­cate before the Judges, that sate in Ar [...]opaous at Athens, he had certainely lost his Crowne, the best flower whereof [Page 216] was Demost. [...]rat. de co­ [...]ena. Demosthenes his eloquence: yet as he ends, so he begins this his Panegy­rick rather then Apologie: as his last, so his first dishes after the French man­ner, are larded with your praises in such a fulsome manner, that I wonder your Lordships stomacke could brooke them. This Conference being short, I presently read it over, and liked so well some frag­ments P. 3. of my Lords answers which the Minister hath imparted, that I desired to see the whole: but could not then get a copie. Having lighted now at length on a Latine one, and liking it exceeding well, P. 4. I thought good to translate it, and impart it to others by the print. And could the Reader have beene a spectator, and seene P. 189. this action in the life, he would have ac­knowledged what M. Knevet hereupon did confesse, that M. Featley was too young for D. Smith. ‘He is many waies to weake to undertake so great a wit, so ready in answer, so strong in argument, so con­versant in Scripture, Fathers, Divines,’ Much lesse (what ever out-recuidance makes him thinke of his ability) is hee able to over-match an understanding so full of light, so ample, so vigorous, excel­lently furnished with all variety of lear­ning [Page 217] Davus ne [...]oquitur an herus, who is the speaker you, or your servant? if S. E. bee your Chaplaine as his every where exhibiting unto you more then ordinary reverence should implie; I will be bold to tell him that he is some­times very saucie with you, to spend his judgement upon your answers in such sort as he doth. It may be the Bishops P. 3, 4. of Chalcedons Chaplaines use such fami­liarity with their Lords: but assuredly the Chaplaines to the Ordinaries of England know better their distance. But if as we know that Matheus Tortus is Cardinall Bellarmine, and Doleman is Father Parsons, and Marcus Antonius Constantius is Steven Gardiner, so S. E. is Smithus Episcopus, then I am sorrie to see a Reverend Prelate so endeared to the Pope, and Cardinall Brandinus to be driven to this exigent, for want of a He­rauld to blazon his owne armes and trum­pet out his owne titles and praises. Yet I marvell not at it, because Chalcedon is very remote, and farre from good neigh­bours. Howsoever, whether it be hee or you, Edward Stratford, or Episcopus Smithus, it mattereth not much, domesti­cum testimonium is of little force in this [Page 218] case, it will add no more to you then it can detract from me. For love looketh through that end of the perspective glasse, which maketh the object seeme bigger: but hatred through that end which maketh it seeme lesse then in truth it is. Be it [...], or [...], or [...], selfe flattery, or servile flatterie, I passe by it, but I cannot so lightly passe the shamelesse slanders which I finde in this pamphlet cast by S. E. upon the dead and the living.

That you may be a Chevalter de gloire and a renowned conquerour, M Knevet 3. Calumniatiō must be your prize and die at Venice a Proselyte. For so S. E. your Herauld proclaimes to the world. M. Knevet upon the Ministers poore carriage in the P. 191. dispute and Tergiversation, afterwards when he should have answered, disliked the Protestants cause (which hee saw their Champion could not make good with argu­ment in the presence of a Scholler, not durst face to face appeare to defend it) and soone afterwards was reconciled to the Church, and at Venice died a Catholike. In this whole passage there is not a word true in your sense, but onely that M. Knevet died at Venice, if hee were re­conciled [Page 219] to your Romish Church, and died a Papist, name me the Priest who reconciled him, and on his death bed an­nealed him, and after his death buried him with your Romish rites, and bring some good proofe and testimonie here­of, to cleare your Chaplaine from the fowle imputation of belying the dead. Verily of all fowle we most hate and detest the crowes, and of all beasts the A kinde of Foxes in Barbarie. Iackalls, because the one diggs up the graves, and devoureth the flesh, the other picketh out the eyes of the dead. Had M. Knevet after he left France and travelled into Italy, when hee was out of hearing the divine harpe of Orpheus, I meane the preaching of the Gospell, beene enchaunted with your Syren song [...], I should have more grieved then mar­veiled at it: he being a young Gentle­man of a facile and affable disposition, and not deeply learned. But the truth is, he was constant in the truth of his Re­ligion to his last breath, and as the Lord Knevet and other of his alliance, and M. Russell and other of his acquaintance at Venice can testifie, he crowned his other good parts and graces with perseve­rance in the Orthodox faith to the end. [Page 220] Howbeit because Venice is farre off, and M. Knevet being dead cannot speake for himselfe, your Knight of the post S. E. thought he might securely by an officious lie, tending so much to your reputati­on, and credit of the Catholique cause indeare himselfe to your Lordship. For he knew well mortui non mordent & Nulli gravis est percussus Achilles. But certainely as he there forfeiteth his honestie, so hee forfeited his wits also, when p. 23. with a forehead (made o [...] the same brasse whereof the images are he daily worshippeth) he affirmes in print, that ‘since our Conference at Paris in England it selfe twise to his knowledge I refused to meete your Lordship in dispute.’For who will beleeve that your Lordship whom your very Lib. praesid. Benedictino­rum quem [...]es habent pr [...] doctissimo prudentissi­ [...]oq̄ magi­s [...]o. enemies acknowledge to be endewed with a very great measure of wisedome, could be so carelesse of your selfe as comming into England with faculties from the Pope, and there­by incurring the penalty of the lawes, that touched not onely your Miter, but your head, to send two challenges to the Arch-Bishops Chaplaine in house, to meet you at a disputation, especially [Page 221] after you heard that there were two Proclamations out for your apprehen­sion. No Sir, 'tis well knowne, that when you were in England you played least in sight and concealed your selfe not onely from Protestants, but from those l p [...]sid. Bene­dict p. 94 [...]n Anglia ad Episcop [...]m & e [...]s Vic [...] ­vios difficilli­mus est ac­cessus, [...]m ipsi se ca [...]s­simè occ [...]enr & p 124. nec potest ad [...]i Chalcedonē ­sis sine proba­bil [...] per [...]lo carceris, mor­ [...]is, exilij, a [...] gravis mole­stiae, & ta [...]s ips [...] quam Vicarij eiu [...] m [...] perse­cuti [...] la­ten [...]. who were most addicted to your Ro­mish religion whereof they complaine in print. In England say they it is a very hard matter to have accesse to the Bishop and his Vicars, because they most warily hide themselves, and againe the Bishop of Chalcedon cannot be spoken with­all without probable danger of imprison­ment, death, banishment or grievous trou­ble, and as well himselfe as his Vicars lurk for feare of persecution.

As for my declining a second mee­ting with you in France, which you up­braid me with, p. 180. us (que) 188. the in­diffident Reader even by your own re­lation will perceive, that the feare and difference whi [...]h hindred the second meeting was on your part, and not on mine, for as your selfe relate, p. 184. ‘I sent word by M. Knevet to you, that I would be ready to meete you the next weeke upon condition, a day might be allowed me to prosecute the rest of [Page 222] my arguments, and againe, p. 186. hea­ [...]ing of your purpose to leave Paris, on the Friday following I sent to you the Munday before word by M. Knevet, that I would meete with you upon Tuesday, on condition that I might have leave first to propose all the rest of my arguments which you refused to give way unto.’

You felt the smart of our weapons in the first conflict, in such sort, that you would not meete the second time, un­lesse I put in good security that I would not so much as draw upon you or shew you my weapons.

Yea but say you 'tis evident I decli­ned the conflict by my owne words to P. 187. one of my friends, whom I told ‘that Catholickes brought so many testimo­nies of Fathers, to prove the reall pre­sence, that there was need of many weekes to reade them over.’And over against the words many testimonies you quote in the Margent. Trait [...]è du S. Sa­crament P. 188. [...]rat P. Ma. [...]oel. In quo [...]on mod [...] [...]imen non [...]rebat sed [...]ix diserti [...]olescentis [...]haerebat [...]atio. de l'Eucharistie, par l'illust [...] Car­dinal deu Perron. Paris 1622.

I answer as Tully doth for Coelius, that there is little coherence, and much lesse verity in this objection: this calumnie [Page 223] like a bubble dissolveth it selfe. 'Tis well knowne I never tearme you Catholicks, but Papists, neither could the many testi­monies alleadged by Cardinall Perron for the r [...]all presence deterre me from a second encounter with you in the mo [...]th of September, Anno 1612. for that booke of Perron, as you your selfe note, was printed in the yeare 1622. so that to make your relation true, I must needs have had some speciall revelation, that the above named Cardinall ten yeares, after would print a booke of the Sacrament so fraught with Testimonies of the Fathers, that there needed many weekes to reade them. Yet farther to convince you, that I feared not to sup­ply the place of a Respondent in this very question, notwithstanding all that Bellarmine, and Perron, and Co [...]ceus or Garetius alleadge out of the Fathers for your carnall presence: a few w [...]ckes after our Conference, I encountred D. Bagshaw at Paris, and since M. [...]sher, and M. Musket. and D. Egleston, and M. Wood [...]e t [...]e Cō [...] [...] [...] [...] t [...]e App [...] dix [...] the [...] sher cau [...] in his ow [...] net. in England, and answered all they could alleadge out of Scriptures or Fathers in this point. Neither hath any of them as yet impeached any of my answers [Page 224] extant in print now this 12. yeares. Which happinesse I ascribe to the evi­dence of truth on our side, and not to any the least opinion of sufficiencie in my selfe, who have ever studied that golden Text of the Apostle, [...].

The greater wrong doth [...]our Gnatho offer me in facing downe his Reader, P 10 & 190. that in a challenge to Fisher the Jesuite I compare my selfe to a Lion and him to a butterflie, saying,

And he addeth in the Margent Featly of himselfe in his sacriledge. It seemeth to me that S. E. having learned out of Saint Austin that there is a threefold lie, l. de menda­ [...].

• 1. Officiosum an officious.
• 2. Pernitiosum or malitiosum a ma­licious.
• 3. Iocosum and a merry lie or lie in jest.

He thought himselfe obliged to make use of all three in his masters service, his officious and malitious lies, wee have heard before, now he puts his wits to it to frame a jocosum mendacium, to make himselfe and his Reader merry: but ha­ving [Page 225] no occasion of any such jest from any words of mine, hee breakes not a jest upon me, but sheweth himselfe ab­surd and ridicu [...]ous. For the words I al­leadge out of Martiall, are not spoken in the singular but in the plurall num­ber, nor of my selfe but others. If he hath not lost his sight together with his wit, he might have seene a relation in the Margent to a booke of Fishers, set out in the yeare 1626. in which he takes upon him to refute a Treatise of the Visibility of the Church, put forth by George Ab­bot Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterburie, and a Sermon of D Ushers Lord Arch-Bishop of Armath, and a replie of D. White Lord Bishop of Elic. These Lions I wisht in the Poets phrase to fall upon the bulls, meaning the Popes bulls, and not look after that sillie butterflie, Fishers sorrie pamphlet intituled sundry relations, This S. E. knew well enough to be my meaning, but hee was disposed to play with the Lions paw, ex Vngue (saith P. [...]. he) you may gather what a thing the Lion is: not minding what Iunius out of [...] [...]as. in embler [...]. Aelian observeth, that if the Lion he any way distempered or diseased, he makes him­selfe whole upon the Apc. To verifie [Page 226] which emblem, what mops and mowes doth he make, with what Apish imitati­on and ridiculous scurrilitie doth hee sport his Reader, saying, that I brought P. 190. my arguments written in paper, and urged them so (poorely) that M. Porie did prompt P. 141. & 142. him divers times. And hereafter Univer­sities must all neglect art in speech, and reade your predicament, which before times hath beene Featleus homo animal vivens corpus substantia, thus in English, accor­to your Logicke, Featley, Featley, Featley, Featley, Featley, Featley, where you the supreme genus of your new predicament are in predication to be common to other animals, bodies and substances, for so the supreme genus must be. I could have an­swered these insulsos sales with a my­cterisme, but because Salomon adviseth sometimes to answer a foole least he b [...]e too proud of his art or skill: let therfore S. E. your Iester (I should say your Chaplaine) tell me by what rule of Do­way Logicke doth this follow, M. F. disliketh D. Smith his exposition this is my body, that is, this bread transubstan­tiated into my body, is my body, because it implieth a meere Tautologie, affir­ming idem numero de eodem numero, Ergo ‘[Page 227] he overthroweth all the predicamen­tall classes.’In this proposition this my body is my body, the predication is nei­ther generis de specie, nor speciei de indi­viduo, nor accidentis de subjecto, but ejus­dem rei numero de eadem numero: the subjectū and praedicatum are both idem re & ratione, and therfore such an identicall proposition may be remooved and ca­sheered out of Logick, without any di­sturbing of the predicamentall rankes or files. And that hee may farther know that I have climbed up Porphyrie his pre­dicamentall tree as well as hee, I will make in it a bower or two for him and his fellowes to shade themselves under them.

Vide arborem.

[Page]Place this before folio 229.

PAR. 17.

THus leaving your Chaplaine in a bad predicamens, I returne to your Advers. D. m [...]. Tis sa ipso lic [...] exitis & vit temporalis e cessis pro a lictis rog [...]s Deum: ad immortali [...] tem sub ip morte tra [...] tur. selfe: and let me be bold to speake to you in the words of the blessed Martyr Saint Cyprian, win the day in the edge of the evening, enter yet into the Lords vi­neyard though at the eleventh houre. You were an ancient Doctor of Divini­ty, when I conferred with you at Paris 22. yeares agoe, and therefore now you cannot in reason but thinke of the day of your dissolution, and in Religion also, of making your accounts ready, which you Luke 16. 2. Redd [...] ra­tione vil [...] tionis t [...]. know ere long will be called for from you. How will you dare to appeare be­fore him who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, if you continue still perverting his Way, impugning his Truth, & therby depriving your selfe and others of his [Page 230] Life? O that I might be so happie as Iason was, with my darts to open your aposteme and wound you into health, and by arguments to confute you into heaven. Take (I desire you) this occasion (of re­plying to my answers) to retrive your former thoughts, and to examine upon what grounds you left both your dee­rest Mother the Church of England, and your famous Nurse the University of Oxford. Enter into a serious considera­tion what an ill change you have made of home for banishment, of security for danger, of allegiance for disloyalty, of truth for errour, of Scripture doctrine for traditions and legendarie fables, of Religion for Superstition, of the pure worship of God in Spirit for manifold Idolatry, of Jerusalem for Babylon, of Christ for Antichrist: and the Lord of his infinite mercy annoint your eyes with the eye-salve of the Spirit, that you may poc. 3. 18. see your errors before you go hence and be no more seene.