Before I answer your Doctours distinction, I can not but challeng S. E. for smoothering our Doctours maine argument.

I neuer saw your fa­ce, yet I know you. By your voice; by the beginning of your speach, by the verie opening of your mouth.

You can not but challeng. When man was first made, he was left (the Scripture saith) in manu con­silii sui, fit to deliberate on his a­ctions; with power giuen him, freelie to choose, and do, what in discretion he thought best. And the wise do so still, when the they see [Page 150] no iust occasion, they can choose and do forbeare to intrude themselues in­to Disputes and questions that are a­boue their reach, and in such matters to presume to teach and correct and challeng others that haue spent more time therein. Which wisdome and discretion be the first things of many which I misse in you, who are at this present so disposed that you can not forbeare; you can not but challeng. A Martialist sure from your natiuitie.

It were good wee knew whom you meane to set vpon, that others be out of feare. In the prosecution of Which Inquirie I meete another of your in­discretions. You know not yet the mā; onlie you haue seene two letters of his name; but were he some Deuine (though your self be but a smattrer in the Science, it matters not, you are re­solued and do challeng him.

May not the matter betwixt you (which you know was neuer any) be taken vp? No: by no meanes. Hath he donne you any wrong? None at all. [Page 151] Why then must you challeng, and him rather then some other?

For smoothering the Doctours Argu­ment. Are you the Doctour? No; sure you are not; I know you by your voice. Yet me thought when I toucht your booke first, I perceaued Esaws hand. The more circumspect must I be, comming to deale With so mon­strouse an Aduersarie, that hath more handes then one man.

Well: we haue had a sight of your one half; we know your genus, one that cannot but challenge. But such there may be perchance more, that are indiscreetlie determined to chal­leng, What is your difference let vs see that.

Before I Answer your Doctors di­stinction I can not but challeng. You doe not onlie challeng then, & that with­out discretion, for you can not but do so: but you Answer distinctiōs also. This indeede euerie challenger doth not. It is your difference, this. Neither woods nor villages breed any such challengers. So yow we haue from you, [Page 152] and of you, a definition, at least a Des­cription, taken according to the qua­litie which heere you come to shew.

I desire not to take away what God hath giuen you; your wit Master Wa­ferer, is not the slowest: and your vn­derstanding seemeth to be good e­nough were it out of the bondes of errour. But that humour which ma­kes you raise your selfe aboue the Church, and iudge, and condemne & contemne it, being seconded with the passion of a Spirit whollie Puritanicall, hat [...] blinded your vnderstanding, and so turned your wit awry, that had your friends loued you well they should not haue let you looke abroad in this publik manner. For, the condi­tion of the world is such that possiblie some will laugh at Mirth, and say

Why, man! you in your gowne and cap! be distinctions to be answered? are you yet to learne the difference bet­wixt an Answer and an Argument, bet­wixt a buckler and a sword, and yet can not but challeng? Ludere qui nescit— But I pray you Sir, will you meete at [Page 153] cuggels, or at sharp? not at sharp belike, for that were dangerous; your cause might haue holes made in it. no, not at sharpe. But, such as you thinke will strike with bucklers on­lie, you can not but challenge. Thus freelie will they speake to your face. But, what will your Academians do behind your back?

For smothering our Do­ctours maine Argument.

Not he. It was choked with a distinction. All his labour was to bring it forth into the light; which is far from smothering.

He makes him beginne to dispute at the third syllogisme.

The substance of your Doctors Argument is related and answered to the full. The pream­bles [Page 154] which you misse had rusted in the paper of Argumentes he brou­ght with him, had he not drawne them long after, for the print. The good soldier doth not esteeme a florish amongst strokes: when his aduersarie comes to strike, he stands his ground, and encounters; pede pes, densusque viro vir: but whilst of­fers are made onlie a farre of, he smi­les at the follie. To beate the aire is no conquest for a man.

The summe of your Doctors flou­rishing (which you call the maine ar­gument) as far as it is pertinent to the first obiection, is this. The Catho­lik tenet of the reall presence hath no ground in Scripture, Ergo. the Antece­dent is proued; because if there were any ground in Scripture for it, it were Matth. 26. or Ioh. 6. but in neither of these: Ergo. The Minor proued, be­cause these wordes Matth. 26. This is my body, are to be vnderstood figura­tiuelie. At which proofe the Catho­like Relator did beginne: and therin he did your Doctor more honor in [Page 155] the estimation of such as might be able to distinguish a graue Scholler from a trifling Punie, then if he had wire-drawne his discourse into more parts, importing but the same: and for the leading Enthimeme, traced in this, with a Coxcomb in his forhead, Po­sitio quam defendis falsa est; Ergo fal­leris.

But if I mistake not your pulse, a­nother thing it is that grieues you, which you doe not complaine of. Your Doctors argument was present­lie cut of, with a distinction, in so much that he was faine to take another, and from Scripture (which onlie you thinke able to warrant a tenet in mat­ter of faith) to passe to the Fathers: whom notwithstanding, you do not hold to be infallible in their Iudg­ment, as he was told at the same time. For auoiding of which disgrace in changing so soone and so oft his Me­dium, he hath premised a syllogisme with all kind of medium's in it; that so changing neuer so oft, he might be [Page 156] said neuer to change. As if I should argue thus

That doctrine which hath (1) no foun­dation in the word of God, and is (2) re­pugnant to the doctrine of the true aun­ciēt Church, & (3) ouerthroweth the prin­ciples of right reason, implying (4) pal­pable absurdities, and apparent (5) contra­dictions, is to be reiected as erroneous and hereticall. This is Featlies Maior. I subsume.

But Caluins doctrine of the Eu­charist, is such. Quamuis incredibile sit in tanta locorum distantia carnem Christi ad nos penetrare vt sit nobis in cibum, tamen meminisse debemus quantum arcana Spiri­tus Sancti supra captum nostrum emineant, & debet fides concipere quod mens non comprehendit. Though it be incredible that the flesh of Christ should penetrate vnto vs in so great a locall distance, to be our meate; yet wee must call to minde how much the secrets of the holy Ghost are a­boue our capacitie; and faith must con­ceaue what the vnderstanding is not able to comprehend. Caluinus lib. 4. Institut. cap. 17.

[Page 157] Ergo Caluins doctrine of the Eucha­rist is to be reiected as erroneous and hae­reticall.

Let me call this, my maine argu­ment; and I will leap from place to place, all the Topicks ouer; without changing my Medium: iust as your Champion doth.

Now touching this Argument: you will thinke that by denying the Mi­nor, you do satisfie for the present, till further proose be made: why then should not our Defendents deny all be satisfaction enough for yours, in that which, M. Featly barely had af­firmed? and for the rest, which was one parte onlie, (the first) which he did vndertake to prosecute, an Answer met his proofe and dispatcht it. Which made you step out into the list, to do, you knew not (for feare) what, or a­gainst whom. At last, it was resolued vnder your Cap, that you would ans­wer the distinction: but, (because it were to much for Hercules himself to deale with two at once) you would first of all challeng S.E. for smothering [Page 158] the maine Argument. Wherunto his Answer, I know, would be this, that it was fullie satisfied and dispatched, there being nothing obiected which was not directlie answered, either by denyall, if it were barely affirmed (euen according to the relation of your owne Doctor;) or by distinction of a terme in the proofe of that which was vndertaken; as in his Notes you find more at large.

Doctor Smith would fa­ther a false opinion vpon vs, that we hold there is a meere figure in the words, This is my body: whereas wee most plainly af­firme that the Sacramentall elementes are not meere emptie signes of the body and blood of Christ, but a true and liuely figure of them.

First you challeng; and next you giue the lie; wherein you shew your self more cholerick then mind­full. Are not you the man who main­taine that a proposition cannot be mixt: partlie proper, and partlie figu­ratiue? The distinction of a meere figure and not meere in speach, is nothing but a meere fiction, saith your Oracle, in his [Page 159] Relation, pag. 293. and pag. 294. how saith he, cā the same speach be figuratiue & proper, that is proper & improper? & a little after. what is this to proue that a speach which may not be properly taken, such is euerie figuratiue, may be properlie taken, and so figurata, and propria both? And you, Master Waferer, to the same tune, pag. 17. Since a proper speach is when wordes are taken in their genuine sense, and a figuratiue when they are translated or taken from their genuine sense, to be taken in their natiue sense and not in there natiue sense (besides that it is a meere fiction) is a plaine contradiction. And pag. 36. That there can not be a pro­per and figuratiue sense both, in one and the same proposition I haue already pro­ued. So you, & vitula tu dîgnus. When­ce it followes, that the proposition which wee speak of. This is my body, is according to you, meerelie figuratiue. for figuratiue you say it is; and, all fi­guratiue speaches are, you say, meere­ly figuratiue, the case then stāding so, the thing that fawnes on your lear­ned Mastership, may put forth the tō ­gue, quantùm sitiat canis Apula, tātùm, to [Page 160] lick vp againe, this Doctor Smith would Father a false opinion vpon vs, that we hold there is in the wordes (This is my b [...] ­die) a meere figure, Whilst the standers by, take notice that you confesse with all,Fallitur, qui plus aliquid sibi per Sacramē ­ta con­ferri pu­ta [...], quā quod verbo Dci obla tum vera fide per­cipiat. Caluin. 4 Instit. c. 14. §. 14 Nihil absurdius est quam Sacramenta [...]fferri supra verbum, cuius appendices sunt & sigilla. Idem in Consensu de re Sacram. pag. 755. Vocatur panis sacrae Coenae, corpus Christi, non quia sit, sed quia testatur nobis vere dar [...] in [...]cibum. Idem in Matt. c. 3. Et in c. 19. Eucharistiam vocat frustulum panis. Similiter frustum, crustulum, placentam, & laganum, vocant VVitta­kerus, Beza, Petrus Martyr. the opinion which your oracle, and your self, maintaine, to be fal [...]; for for much is imported by those words, D.S. would impose a false opinion vpon vs, (what opinion?) that we hold there is in the words a meere figur [...]. this opinion you say is false, and for to maintaine this false opinio you are come abroade a polemick in print; Antycira [...] some will say, and vnhappilie enough, me­lior sorbere meracas.

In the other part of your wordes by me cited in this §. wherein you would seeme to put downe your owne tenet for which your Doctor [Page 161] disputed, you shew your self ignorant in the cause.

The controuersie, was not about the spirituall effectes, which do follow vp­on the receauing of this blessed Sa­crament, but about the thing receaued into the mouth; Whether this thing were indeed our Sauiours bodie, ac­cording to the veritie and substance, as his wordes in proprietie of speech import, This (in forme of bread) is my bodie? Whether in the holie Eucharist there be reallie our Sauiours bodie according to the veritie and substāce? The Catholik Church takes his words (as being dogmaticall) properlie, submitting her vnderstanding to the omnipotent veritie that spake them: and affirmeth what he, her God and Sa­uiour, did affirme. Master Featlie on the other side laboured to proue that the wordes were not to be construed and vnderstood properlie; that the speach was meerelie figuratiue; and that Christ is not there (in the Eucha­rist) according to the substance of his bodie, or shrowded vnder the acci­dents [Page 162] of bread. In which tenet, you Master Waferer, ioyne with him, tel­ling vs,pag. 9. VVee (these are your wordes) denie such corporall presence of the body and blood, as if the thing signified and re­presented were according to the naturall substance thereof contained vnder the shapes of the outward signes. A figure (you know) was graunted; the que­stion was whether this figure had the veritie (the bodie and blood of Christ) in it; or whether it were emptie of it. Whether that which the Apostles re­ceaued into their mouthes, were a meere emptie figure of the bodie and blood of Christ; or whether the thing within that Sacramentall signe or fi­gure, were (as our Sauiours wordes in their proprietie import) his bodie and his blood. The Protestants that speak their minds plainelie, pretēd no more then a meere figure.

Their words are set downe in the Collation (whither S. E. directed you;See the Confe­rence of the Ca­tholi [...]k and Pro­testant Doctri­ne, with the ex­presse word [...] of Scrip­ture. ex­tant in English. pag. 266. & seqq.) where they, your Masters, and the best learned on your side, speake of the Eucharist, your owne, thus; [Page 163] It is not the bodie of Christ, not his very bodie, not his bodie it self, not his true bodie, not his substantiall bodie: not flesh, not Christs true flesh; but ano­ther thing, and much different from Christs flesh: not the thing it selfe of this mysterie, not our spirituall foode. It is nothing els but bread, nothing but common bread, nothing but a bare crea­ture, nothing but a bare signe▪ or figure, nothing but meere bread and wine. Only a signe, only a seale, only a token, only a testification, only a symbol, only a type of Christs bodie. It only hath the name of Christs bodie, it is only a simple ceremo­nie. It is so the bodie of Christ as the Pas­chal lambe was Christ, as the doue was the Holie Ghost, as the water of baptisme was the blood of Christ. It is the bodie of Christ only figuratiuelie, by resem­blance and no otherwise. symbolicallie, metonymicallie, tropicallie, significant­lie. no otherwise then a keie deliuered, is a house. the body It is present onlie by specu­lation, & meere imagination: as our bodies are now present in heauē. Christ is no mo­re cōmunicated there in the supper then in [Page 164] the Gospell: no more receaued in the Sacra­ment, then in the word; nothing more giuē in the supper then at preaching; no more offersd by the Sacrament then by the word, yea the Sacrament is inferiour to the word, and the memorie of Christ, bo­die is more fullie refreshed by the word then by the Sacrament.

All this and more hath beene told you, out of the mouthes of your grea­test Deuines and pillars of Protestan­cie. The words and places are cite [...], in the Conferēce l. 1. c. 10. a. 1. Where there is a clowd of domesticall, Protestant, witnesses against your Oracle and you, whose very names would sha­dow this leafe of paper. Among them you shall find your Caluin, Beza, Peter Martyr, and Swinglius who learned it of a Spirit, the Deuil it was Luther saies; with your English, Iuel, Perkins, Whittaker, Cartwright, &c. each, as learned, as your Featlie.

Hereunto you replye nothing: but insteed of a Replye haue calum­niated my Lord, and contradicted your self withall, Saying, Doctor [Page 165] Smith would faine father a false opinion vpon vs, and goes away currant with it, that wee hold (as he hath proued signa­tis tabulis, pag. 159. and your owne confession aboue cited may be added thereunto) that there is in the wordes (This is my bo­die) a meere figure.

But now forsooth, you most plai­nelie affirme (they be the rest of your wordes) that the Sacramentall elements are not meere emptie signes (wil you strike your owne fellowes in your choller?) of the bodie and blood of Christ, but a true and liuelie figure of them. As if a picture can not be a true picture, and a liuelie picture, and yet a meere picture; or a figure be a true figure, and a liuelie figure, and yet a meere figure.

The legall figures which were ac­cording to the Apostle but egena ele­menta, were meere figures, yet some of them as liuelie, yea more liuelie then your bread and wine. The blood of the Testament, and the Manna in the desert, did signifie our Sauiours flesh and blood in as perfect a man­ner, [Page 166] if you consider all the analogie to the full: and theAgnus Pascha­lis dicitur esse Chri­stus eadē prorsus ratione qua pa­nis ille dicitur esse corpus Christi pro nobis traditū. Beza (your admired patterne of Chri­stianitie, so you call him pag. 98.) in. 1. Corin. 5. Pascall lambe eaten at supper was a more liuelie fi­gure, flesh of flesh, blood of blood, kil­ling of killing; that lābe without spot, of our innocent Sauiour; then bread and wyne there distributed, if they were meere elementes, with a refe­rence to the thing represented, the Passiō, which was thē future respecti­uelie to thē both vizt▪ to the legall, & to the Sacramentall, supper, wherefore, since you are forced by the authoritie of holie Scripture to graunt that the legall figure was (not withstanding the the liuelines) a meere figure, it remaines that an other signe or figu­re; though liuelie, may be but a meere figure. The liuelines of a picture is to represent ad viuum to the life; and, a picture, the picture of the King, may do so, though it be nothing els but a meere picture, which your owne fel­lowes acknowledg whilst they graun­te, as before hath beene told you, that in the supper there is meere bread and wine, a signe and seale onlie, nothing els but bread and wyne, which tenet you [Page 167] likewise hold in your mind, as appea­res in your whole pamphlet throug­hout: but it is in is self, so poore a thing, so short of precedent figures,Cal­uin ci­ted a­boue; pag. 156. yet the same Caluin sai [...]h. cū signa hic in mundo sint, ocu­lis cernā ­tur; pal­pentur manibut; Christus quatenus homo est, non alibi quam in c [...]lo quae­rendus est Calu. in Confess. de re Sa­cram. art. 21. so vnworthie of the chiefest place amongst Sacraments in the new Te­stament, so contrarie to the proper sense of our Sauiours words, and so vncapable of those high encomium's which the Fathers giue, or attributes which they do predicat [...]on, the bles­sed Sacrament; that, you are ashamed openlie to professe it: still iugling with vs, and in steed of answers which you pretend, giuing vs words, nothing els. as to the communicantes (after faire promises of the bodie and blood of Christ present by VVa­fer. pag. 8 [...], Mor. p. 135. Gods omnipotence changing the exteriour elementes, and penetrating into our soules according to the substā ­ce of flesh and blood,) you giue no­thing but meere bread and wine.

Doctor Smith should haue proued that the same proposition may be true in a natiue, genu [...]ne, and proper sence, though the wordes be vsed in a peregrine, figuratiue, and impropre sence.

It was ridiculous enough to challeng at buckler onlie, as he did who came into the feild to answer di­stinctions; but to be an andabatarian in such a combat, not daring to open his eies to behold his enemies so blunt a weapon, is superlatiuelie absurde. His populus ridet.

The word questioned for impro­prietie, is corpus, in this proposition, hoc est corpus meum. This word corpus doth directlie signifie (if we speake as the chiefest Science doth conceaue it,) the^(a) substance or part of sub­stance, which requires three dimen­sions, leingth, breadth, and thicknes, according to which notion it is, (in the words of institution) taken pro­perlie; and the proposition proper, by [Page 169] the possessiue meum, this word corpus bodie, was determined to a mans; not whose soeuer; but our Sa­uiours.

The same word Corpus, Bodie, both in the apprehension of the vulgar (as you may learne by present experience when you please,) and according to the Philosopher (as heereafter shall appeare) doth import withall, the naturall manner of being of such a substance; which manner is, to be a thing extended according to the fore­said dimensions: and, a mans bodie, to be a thing figured and visible. which manner of being naturallie flowes out of that kind of substance, and vsuallie comes into the conceit with it. And in regard of this manner, the proposition is improper; for such an extension, imported also com­monlie by the word corpus, is not there. It is improper, I say, if you re­gard the manner of being, vsuallie im­ported also by the word corpus, bodie; but, proper, if you regard the substance of the thing directlie signified by the [Page 170] same word. If you regard the substance of the thing directlie signified, the wordes are taken in their natiue, ge­nuine, and proper sence, and the pro­position is in that kind natiue, genui­ne, proper: If you regard the manner of being (imported also vsuallie by the word,) the attribut is not taken properlie, nor the proposition pro­per. Had you opened your eies to look vpon the distinction which you answer, Relatiō pag. 39. you might haue seene that in these wor­des, (This is my bodie) there is a figure: not a meere or naked one, voide of truth and proprietie. because, although they signifie that the Eucharist is the bodie of Christ trulie, reallie and properlie accor­ding to the thing, yet, they doe not affir­me it to be the bodie of Christ after such a corporall and naturall manner as other thinges are the thinges which they are sayed to be: but after a spirituall, inuisi­ble, mysticall, sacramentall manner; and such a one as doth figuratiuelie shew and represent the naturall manner of being of the same bodie in another place.

Now; though for words to be ta­ken [Page 171] in their natiue sence, and not to be taken in their natiue sence, as long as it is secundum idem, be contra­diction; yet, to be taken in their na­tiue sence according to the substance of the thing directlie signified, and not to be taken in their natiue sence accor­ding to the manner of being vsuallie impor­ted also by them, is not secundum idem, nor any contradiction.

Good Master Doctor take notice, that since, a prop [...]r speache is when wordes are taken in their genuine sence; and a figuratiue when they are translated or taken from their genuine sence, that to be taken in their natiue sen­ce, and not in their natiue sense (besides that it is a meere fiction) is a plaine con­tradiction, because the sence would be natiue and not natiue.

Against whom do you fi­ght good Andabatarian? who tould you that the speach was proper abso­lutè, simpliciter; and figuratiue or im­proper absolutè simpliciter: that the wordes were taken in their natiue sence, and that they were not taken [Page 172] in their natiue sence? that secundum idem, they were, and were not? This is a fiction of your braine, a chimericall goblin that your ignorāce hath made for your argument to fight against. Those against whō you pretēd to dea­le, haue noe such thing; they doe not saie the speach is proper absoluté, sim­pliciter; and, that it is absolutè, simpli­citer, figuratiue: they say onlie that, it is proper absolutè, simpliciter, and figuratiue or improper secundum quid. Which you will proue to be a contra­diction, when you proue this to be so, Aethiops est niger, Aethiops est albus secundum dentes: and haue demon­strated (against the logick rule) that an argument holds well from secun­dum quid to simpliciter. Open your eies (braue challenger) and read in great letters what they defend, THE SPEACH IS ABSOLVTè TO BE SAID PROPER; AND FIGVRATIVE ONLY SECVNDVM QVID.

By this time, hauing beene distempered with a giddines of vnderstan­ding, so that you could hardlie pe­ceaue [Page 173] what you were to doe, you are reeld ouer the entrie, into the matter of the first argument; where you beginne to shew your Diuini­tie; and will reade a lesson to my Lord and S. E. before you know what it is your self. My L. had said, figures, some, were not meere figu­res as were the legall; but, had the veritie ioyned with them, of which kind he brought 3. the first an increa­ted figure, the sonne of God, who is (according to the Apostle) the figure of his fathers substāce [...] and hath it also with him, yea and in him. heereunto M. Mirth as followeth.

I graunt since the Diuiné essence was incarnat, that the sonne is essentiallie the same with the Father, who though quoad▪ hypostasim in respect of his filiation he be a distinct person from his father, yet quoad naturam according to his essence he is equallie sharer of the same godhead, and is not an other but the same God. But I pray Sirs take notice that these wordes are spoken of the Sonne [Page 174] as his Diuinitie manifested it self in his humanitie, so then as the Diuinitie of the sonne did manifest it self in his flesh, he had the image of his fathers person ingra­uen in him; so [...] signifies: tell me then is this image the same with the father whom it represents? is God the sonne God the Father? is the second per­son the first? or is the Diuinitie of the sonne as manifested in his flesh the person of the Father? if not then this instance proues not your distinction which mani­taines a figure to haue a veritie ioyned with it.

1. Tim. 1.Some (the Apostle saies) will needes be Doctors of the law though they neither vnderstand what they say, nor of what thing the speake, and among these Doctors (M. Mirth) you take a place; violating, with a prophane temeritie, the sacred my­steries of Religion, and vndertak to teach diuinitie to graduates in Di­uinitie, before you can speak sence in matter of Diuinitie. For which rea­son, this worthie specimen of your improficiencie therein (which being [Page 145] the first in your book (I haue tran­scribed,) deserues not a relation, yet since you giue it for a lesson to better then my self; and call for good attention with pray Sirs (D. Smith. & E. S.) take notice that— I will ouer it once againe, with as many pauses (for the reuerence to such a Master) as there be parts in it.

Waf. I grant since the Diuiné essence was incarnat that the sonne is essentiallie the same with the father.

The sonne, essentiallie the same with the father, (how? not absolutlie, but say you) since the Diuine essence was incarnate. Before (it seemes) he was not [...], consubstantiall; his generation was not eternall, or if it were, the essence which by this ge­neratiō he receaued was not the same which God the Father hath, but ano­ther, for had he receaued the same, (as the Scriptures teach, and the Ca­tholik church beleeues,) he had beene [...], consubstantiall, before the incarnation, which is more then your Mastership doth admit. A bad les­son [Page 176] that is (Master Mirth) which can-be learned without forgetting of the Creed.

Waf. Who though quoad hypostasim in respect of his fillation he be a distinct person from the father, yet quoad na­turam according to his essence he is equallie sharer of the same God head, & is not an other but the same God.

Hetherto it hath beene beleued in the Church, that the sonne of God receaued by his eternall gene­ration the Diuinitie, all; the whole nature or essence, together with all the essentiall attributes. That there is in him [...],Coll. 2. [...] all the fullnes of the Diuinitie. and our Sauiour himself to his fa­ther;Ioan. omnia tua mea sunt, thy creatu­res are my creatures, thy perfections my perfections, thy substance my substance, and thou thy self art my, Father: but now the case is changed in M. Mirths lesson; the Diuinitie is diuided betwixt the Father and the sonne, and each hath an equall por­tion of it. the sonne is a sharer [Page 177] in the Godhead, and equallie sharer with the Father. What part he leaues the Holie Ghost I doe not find, whe­ther he, (the Holie Ghost,) hath an e­quall share with the Father and the sonne: or none at all, as not being in­carnate; for the Sonne got his share this Master thinks, since the Diuine es­sence (in him) was incarnate, since which time he is essenti [...]llie the same with the Father.

Waf. But I pray Sirs take notice that those words [...] are spoken of the Sonne as his Diuinitie mani­fested it self in his humanitie.

Why not rather (if I may be so bold to speake to so great a Master) of the Sonne as consubstantiall to the Fa­ther, as the Auncients haue vnder­stood it? especiallie,Ioan. 1. since it followes immediatlie, that He caries or sustaines all things [...] by the word of his power. this he doth not as man, but as God. and as God also, the world was made by him, Hebr [...] 1. as you find immediatlie before. and the like in S. Iohn, per ip­sum facta sunt omnia, all things were made [Page 178] by him, who was in the beginning, befo­re the Incarnation they were made by him, by the word which was in God, and was God, by this intellectuall, subsisting Word (which doth expres­ly represent God the Father, and is his liuelie image, Imago Dei inuisibilis, and his eternall Sonne, the splendor of his glo­rie, 2. Cor. 4 Coloss 1 Hebr 1 Sap. 7. Basil. Hom 15 de fide Epiph. in An­cor. Amb [...]l 2 Exam Greg. Nyss▪ li de diff. ess. & hyp. the [...] of his substance, the spotles glasse wherein he beholdes his owne glorious maiestie, Cādor lucis aeter­nae, speculum sine macula Dei Maiestatis; [...] & imago, totum in se monstrans pat [...]m, the expresse image, shewing the father all within himself. by him, I say, by this Word mundus factus est, reuolu­tions of ages, the whole world, was made not by him as appearing in flesh, as man, no [...] but by him, as God.

Had you rather heare a Protestant speake then me? His diuine nature hath no lesse then three to expresse it, sonne, brightnes, and character: and two to proue it, the making, and supporting all. Agree­ablie to these three we beleeue of him, that he is consubstantiall as the sonne, coeter­nall [Page 179] as the brightnes, coequall as the cha­racter; against the new heads of the old Hydrasprung vp againe in our daies. An­dr. Serm. vpon this text. Hebr. 1. you proceede.

Waf. So then as the Diuinitie of the sonne did manifest it self in the flesh he had the image of his fathers person engrauen in him: so [...] signifies.

Be it that it signifies to engraue an image, this grauing is not proper (neither the Diuine, not the humane nature, is carued or graued properlie) but metaphoricall; signifying the ex­pressing of an Image. And what Chri­stiā Diuine doubts but that the sonne of God, being Verbum aeternae mentis, is, and from all eternitie, an expresse image of his Father? & infinitelie more expresse, more liuelie, more cleare, then the nature, or soule, or vnder­standing, or arte, of man; as shewing the whole Diuinitie within it, and comprehensiuelie representing God the Father. Will you denie this Ma­ster Mirth? will you denie that the Sonne of God did still represent his [Page 180] Father, and that he is his eternal Ima­ge? if you do, you blaspheme: and if your words, as they are by you inten­ded in way of answer be wel conside­red, you do. But we must on to your Conclusion, which is

Waf. Tell me then, is this Image the same with the father whom it represents? is God the sonne God the father? is the se­cond person the first? or is the Diuinitie of the sonne as manifested in his flesh the per­son of the Father? Birckbeck Featlies compa­nion, ob­iecteth that the signe and the thing signified cannot be the same in that verie respect and point wherein they are opposite. If he meanes by that his manner of speach in that verie respect and point, that the relations be distinct or not the same, there is no question of it: one relation is not the other▪ If he meanes that the same thing in substance cannot (in regard of diuers accidentall formes) be denominated by them both, he begs, and cannot proue it. By his example in the Trinitie, the sonne is not the Father, it seemes he meanes the former Paternitie and filiation be op­posite relations, which cannot one be affirmed vpon the other, either in abstracto, paternitas est filiatio [...] or in con [...]reto, pater est filius, yet the minister beleeues, I suppose, that both are in God; where they be sub­sistent. And though the Fa­ther be not the sonne, yet the Father is with, and in the Sōne. this he beleeues too, and this is enough to iustifie the dist [...]nction which I am defending. Those who call the Eucharist a signe, do saie also [...]hat it is the bodie. Ex duabus rebus constat (Eu­charistia) terrena & coelesti. the bodie, and the species But none euer said that, to be the bodie was to be the si­gne, or that it was the bodie and the signe secundum idem. And since it includes both within it's notion, it is easilie vnderstood how both secundum diuersa may be verified. That which is inuisiblie within, (the bodie) is signified, it hath the one relation: that which is with­out, exposed to our eies, (the species, Sacramentum tan­tum,) doth signifie, it hath the other relation attribu­ted to it, these things be distinct, and the relations being opposite be in their kind distinct also. Some too, say that it is the signe of our Sauiours bodie as visible in it self vpon the Crosse, because the species do represent that also, or bring it into the me­morie of beleeuers, as hereafter you will heare when wee come to the place which is vrged out of Gratian. Heere in this place it is sufficient to note that it followes not, The Sacrament is by some called a signe or figure Ergo they did not beleeue the bodie is within it, within it I say, this doth not follow▪ where­fore that part of the distinction wherein it was said, some figure may haue the veritie within it, may stand. if not then this instance proues not your distinction, which main­taines a figure to haue a veritie ioyned with it.

That the sōne is not the Father, or the second person the first, a child but seuen yeeres old, could tell; and yet that instance of the eternall sonne being the figure of his fathers substance [Page 182] doth illustrate what was saide in the explication of the distinction; name­ly, that a figure may haue the veritie ioy­ned with it; God the Father being inse­parablie with his sonne, whom the A­postle calls the figure of his substance: and in him too, if we beleeue the sonne himself, the Father is in me, and I in the Father, Ioh. 10. v. 38. and afterwards a­gaine, twice, in one chapter; giuing motiues also, to persuade men to be­leeue it. And if the sonne hath the Fa­thers essence in him, how can the Fa­ther be separated from the Sonne? can he leaue his essence, and be gonne? A­gaine, as the Father hath immensitie, so also hath the Sonne; how then can the Father be any where, and the Sonne not there also; or the Sonne anie where without the Father with him? He is verbum mentis, an intelle­ctuall word; and therefore immanent, abiding in the conceauer, and so pre­sent with him. Vnigenitus in sinu Patris. No violence can separate or diuorce them, hauing both, but one nature, one existence, and that, vncapable of [Page 183] diuision; as being in it self a pure act.

It may be further added, that, were the words of the Apostle vnderstood of the sonne of God as man, and only so, my Lords instance would still be good, for God the Father is neuer se­parated frō the Sonne; wherfore God the Sōne being within that humani­tie, God the Father was not absent. The fullnes of the Diuinitie did & doth inhab [...]te and dwell in him corporallie [...] the Scripture saies; and,Col. 2. 2 Cor. 2 Deus, erat in Christo, mundum reconci­lians sibi. Do you not beleeue that the Fa­ther is in me? Io. 10.

Now Sir; to returne to the wordes againe; if the place of S. Paul doth not make good what was told your Do­ctor, vzt, that some figure had the veritie ioyned with it; it is, either be­cause the sonne of God is no [...] [...] the figure of his Fa­thers substance; and this you will not say; because S. Paul affirmes it: or, because that [...] of the Fa­ther is not with this [...] as in effect you doe saie, and therein de­nie [Page 184] the [...] reuealed in Scripture; which is a foule errour in Diuinitie. It is pittie that vnlearned men be permitted to vent in writing such stuffe, fit for nothing but to breede Apostasie, and vndoe the sim­ple reader.

So then this similie makes nothing against vs, since it onlie illustrats such a figure as to which the thing signi­fied is present.

If it doth that, it doth all for which is was brought. But see your giddines; you scarce haue breathed [Page 185] since you said; this instance proues not your distinction which maintaines a figu­re to haue the veritie ioyned with it.

The king in triumph may be the same king which ouercame in the warre: but he in this solemnitie represents some past actions, and postures of his be­hauiour in the conquest; not himself. that triumph is the figure of the kings victorie not his person.

One instance was enough to make the distinction vnderstood; and after much adoe, you haue, in fine, granted as much; vzt, that the for­mer instance doth illustrate such a figure as to which the thing figured is present: wherefore I neede not proceede vnto the second, wherein it was said that the King shewing in triumph how he did be­haue himself in the warre, Rclat. pag 15. VVaf pag. 24. is in this latter action a figure of himself as in the former. and the lesse neede there is, because instantlie you accord & saie T'is true. If it be true then it may stand, to shew that the substance of the thing signi­fied or represēted, may be in the signe or figure; for the king in the warres [Page 186] and the king in the triumph is the same King, the same bodie, the same substance. Whether he be in this po­sture or in that; whether he fight or floorish; whether he be in this motiō, or in that other; he is one and the same mā: the actions are distinct, but not the person. Moreouer, as the King triumphing is the signe, he figure, the thing represēting, so is the King vi­ctorióus, & subduing his enemies, the thīg signified, called to mind, represē ­ted. By the glorious shew at home, he would represent & bring to mind his Royall comportment abroad; by this triumph, that warre. He would haue men call to mind that He was in that action, that there He shewed his va­lour, making it appeare how that His hand merited the scepter, and His head the crowne. And whilst you cō ­ceaue it otherwise, you come short of the nature of the shew. you take a­way the grace of the royall action re­presented, in taking out of it the kings Person, which is the life and lustre in it. you take, the soule out of [Page 187] the bodie, the diamond out of the ring, the sunne out of the daie. To say nothing of your subtilitie in con­ceauing (by occasion of that repre­sentation or signe) postures without members, wounds without bodies; a battell fought & a victorie obtained without thinking on a man. If your braine be the theater of such specta­kles, you must needs purge.

Nauiget—

His last similie (or in­stance) is the weakest. Bread, saith he, exposed in the shop is a figure of it self as to be sould. But (by the Doctors leaue,) bread as it is to be sould is not it self, Ergo it is not the figure of it self.

Now you are in forme, and therefore your Aduersarie had need to looke about him, least with your Ergo, you draw the strings and shut him in the bagge. You are examining the last instance, Bread as expo­sed, is no [...]or then bread as vendible. A stone, or the bakers Cat in that place, is no signe of it. wherein it was said that bread (suppose a white loafe) ex­posed in the bakers shop, is not onlie [Page 188] bread but a signe, and not onlie a si­gne but bread; it is both It is a signe of vendible bread, and it self is the verie thing whereof it is a signe, as you may presentlie knowe, if you will but a­gree with the baker for it. You need not aske of him whether he will sell it or no; he signified his mind to sell it by exposing it there. Wee doe not say that the vendibilitie is the signe of the vendibilitie, but that the same thing which is exposed, (the loafe of bread) is the subiect of both the deno­minations, for, it is the [...]e vendible, you graunt: and it stands there to sig­nifie that bread (euen that loafe if you like it) is there vendible. And if the same substance may be in the signe, & the thing signified, wee looke no fur­ther into the similie: we do not contēd that to signifie is to be signified; that is not in our thoughts.

I would here haue left you in the bakers shoppe, but that you le [...]t ou [...] into the margine to see whether pos­siblie the manna, as in the Arck, could be a signe of it self, as in the desert. By [Page 189] that which hath beene saide about the two former instances it appeares that it might. The same substance is, according to seuerall reasons,Your coloure hath a referen­ce to your bodie. your bodie hath a referen­ce to your soule that is within it, why may not the Sa­cramen­tall spe­cies haue a refe­rence to the bodie that is inuisiblie within it? See the place of Gratian, Arg 4. or to the bo­die visiblie on the Crosse? Ibidem. where you confesse as much. See also Peter Martyr, suprà pag 55. capable of both denominations. I say seuerall; because the reason founding the one denomination, is diuers from the reason foūding the other. You looke perchance for a reall order or relation betwixt the signe and the thing sig­nified; but such an order is not ne­cessarie: nor, in some cases, possible. The King (you say) by his triumph doth represent actions past: that relation can­not be reall, because those actions are past. yet, an understanding hath power to make them, or rather (as I told you before) to make the king in that action, stand before our appre­hension obiectiuè: and so may com­pare, this to that; or (rather) the King in th [...]s posture, to the king in that po­sture. And reflecting againe vppon [Page 190] this comparison, finds a reference. But these nicities which you call in­to the dispute, are troublesome to the Reader that neuer was in schooles The An est, he perceaues better then the quid; let vs put that, the An est, in an example within his reach.

Your tailor hauing made you new cloathes, brings his bill, and bidds you cast it vp. NOW let it be supposed, that you haue onlie shillings in your pocket, and vse them as counters in casting vp this bill. It will happen that, as they, (the shillings) stand for pounds, and pence, so they may stand for shillings too. When all is done; and all abated that may be; be the summe rigorouslie due, fiue pound and three shillings, which three shillings you may let the tailour take, whilst you go in­to your closet to fetch the fiue poūd: and to studie, whether those shillings were the signes of themselues. Vpon the table in the account, they were signes of shillings; and when you first tooke them out of your pocket, they were [Page 191] shillings: if now, you will not haue the same to be the signe and the thing signified, you must giue other, to the taylor: and let those be hereafter bul­lion, for hauing once beene signes.

If this case had any difficultie, yet in ours there is none. Who cannot con­ceaue that the species of bread may be referd to a bodie, as a signe of it, if it be indeed inuisiblie within? He is verie stupid that cannot vnderstand it. Well Sir, if you be resolued about your shillings, bring Tertullian out with you: for the next busines is a­bout a place in him, Acceptum panem, Profes­sus ita­que se concupi­scentia concupisse ed [...]re Pascha vt suum (indignum enim vt quid a­lienum concupisceret Deus) acceptum panem & distributum discipulis, corpus suum illum fecit, hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est figura corporis mei, figura autem non fuis­set, nisi veritatis esset corpus, caeterum vacu [...] res quod est phantasma (vide quod infrà citatur ex li. 5. c. 20.) fi­guram capere non posset▪ aut si propterea panem corpus sibi finx [...]t quia corporis carebat veritate, ergo panem debuit tra­dere pro nobis. Faciebat ad v [...]nitatem Marcionis vt panis cru­cisigeretur. cur autem panem corpus suum appellat, & non magis peponem quem Marcion cordis loco habuit, non intelligens veterem fuisse istam figuram corporis Christi, dicen­tis, per Hioremiam, aduersus me cogitauerunt cogitatum, di­centes Venite conijciamus lignum in panem eius, scilicet crucem in corpus eius? itaque illuminator antiquitatum quid tunc voluerit significasse panem, satis declaruit, corpus suum vocans panem. Sic & in cali [...]is mentione testa­mentum constituens, sanguine suo obsignatum, substan­tiam corporis confirmauit, nullius enim corporis sanguis po­test esse, nisi carnis, nam & si qua corporis qualitas non car­nea opponetur nobis, cerie sanguinem nisi carnea non habe­bit ita consistit probatio corporis de testimonio carnis, proba­tio carnis de testimonio sanguinis, vt autem & sanguinis ve­terem figuram recognoscas aderit Esaias, quis inquit, qui aduenit de Edom? rubor vestimentorum eius ex Bosor &c. multo manifestius Genesis in benedictione Iudae, ex cuius tri­bu, carnis census Christi processurus, iam tunc Christum in Iuda deliniabat. [...]auabit inquit, in vino stolam suam, & in sanguine vuae amictum suumistolam & amictum carnem demonstrans, & vinum sanguinem, ita & nunc sanguinem in vino consecrauit, quitunc vinum in sanguine figurauit, Tertull. adu. Marcion. lib. 4. c. 40. Vide Cyprian. lib. 2. Epist. 3. & distributum discipulis, corpus suum il­lum fecit, Hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est, figura, corporis mei, and the rest, [Page] recited in the margent. Out of which wordes M. Featlie did argue for such a signe as had not the veritie ioyned with it.

It is most plaine that Tertullian (in those wordes) meanes to interprete himselfe against transubstan­tiation, for if he had held his bodie to be [Page 193] trulie and substantiallie in the bread, why would he haue added to these wordes, he made it his bodie, this interpretation, that is, the figure of his bodie?

The words figura corporis mei, are not an interpretation of corpus, in that speach corpus suum illum fecit, as you may easilie know not onlie by the Authors discourse, but also euen by the Syntaxis of the wordes. Panem fecit corpus suum, id est fecit figura cor­poris, is no congruitie in Latine. And againe, that mei, which followes, doth repugne to the construction which you make; panem fecit corpus suum, id est, panem fecit figura corporis mei,

Suum, id est, mei. this is so vntow­ard that you will neuer be able to perswade a man, Tertullian meant it should runne so. The words id est fi­gura corporis mei, are an exposition of the subiect, hoc, as your Doctor was told in the Conference: and the Authors intention was to say, that our Sauiour by the wordes of conse­cration hoc est corpus meum, turned an old figure, bread, into his bodie. Acce­ptum [Page 194] panem, corpus suum illum fecit. Wherein he is so so farre from inter­preting himself against transubstan­tiation, that he doth auouch and teach it.

T'is meere Sophistrie to attribute those wordes (that is a figure of my bodie) to the subiect, (this.)

This is all which is retur­ned in answer to four seuerall reasōs, demonstrating, and out of this Au­thors owne wordes, that his meaning was, by these words id est figura corpo­ris mei, to interpret and declare what before, that thing was, which our Sa­uiour now, by Consecration turned, into his bodie. Some thing, he saith, our Sauiour made; fecit; and by spea­king these wordes, Hoc est corpus meū. Fecit, hoc est corpus meum dicendo. the thing he made it of, was bread, Acceptū panem, &c. The Question is, Whether cōcerning this bread Tertulliā would say, that of no figure he made it a figure; or, Whether he would saie, that being before a figure of his bo­die, he now turned it into the same [Page 195] bodie. the wordes are Acceptum panem corpus suum illum fecit, dicendo, hoc est corpus meum. the interpretation is, id est figura corporis mei. Which interpreta­tion, if you ioyne to the subiect hoc, it makes the later of the two senses: if you ioyne it to corpus, the predicate, it may be drawne to the former pla­cing it thus, hoc est figura corporis mei, this is my bodies figure, putting insteed of corpus, figura &c. Which your owne men, Chamier, Hooker, and o­thers will not endure; (and with rea­son, for the word which is the predi­cate, corpus, signifies the thing cruci­fied, as appeares by saint Paul This is my () which is broken for you. you cannot put figure there, insteed of bo­die; & say, this is my figure which is bro­ken, for you.) whereupon they take corpus properlie [...]. And allthough our tenet would suffer no preiudice by admitting that the Eu­charist is a figure, and consequentlie by saying that our Sauiour by conse­cration made it so, for you were told there is a figure though not an emptie fi­gure, [Page 196] and in the Conference my Lord told your Doctor that of curtesie he would admit the word figura, pag. 22. figure, to be referd to the word corpus, bodie, that his argument might runne on; yet certain it is that Tertullian doth intend the later sence, and not the former. For, the figure which he speakes of was before; and our Sauiour did not, you you confesse, make by consecration, that which was before. Figura autem non fuisset. Non intelligens veterem istam fuisse figuram. quid tunc voluerit signifi­casse panem. Birk­beck pag. 61. doth make a Syllo­gisme, where­of if you chang the mi­nor put­tng this, But bread was an old figure of Christs bodie, His Ar­gument is answered. He translates there also, figura, non fuisset, a figure it could not be, to make it serue i [...] turne. Vt autem & sanguinis vete­rem figuram in vino. and the rest, which you find in the Relation.

In other places he makes bread the subiect in this proposition, as in these panem quo ipsum corpus repre­sentat, bread by which he representes his verie bodie, Againe panem corpus suum appellans, calling bread his bodie, and presentlie after corporis sui figuram pani dedisse, he gaue to bread to be the [Page 197] figure of his bodie; in which places he is easelie vnderstood to meane that bread re­presents Christs bodie as a figure, not to be sustantiallie the same.

It doth not follow out of the affirmation of a figure that the substance of the bodie is not heere:Plane de substan­tia Chri­sti putant & hic Marcionitae suffragari Apostolum sibi, quod phan­tasma carnis fuerit in Christo cum dicit quod in effigie cō ­stitutus non rapinam existimauit paria [...]i Deo, sed ex­hausit semetipsum accepta effigie serui, non veritate. & in similitudine hominis, non in homine; & figura in­uentus homo, non substantia, id est non carne: quasi non & figura, & similitudo, est effigies substantiae quoque acce­dant. Benè autem quod & alibi Christum imaginem Dei in­uisibilis appellat. Numquid ergo & hic qua in effigie eum Dei collocat? aeque non erit Deus Christus vere, si nec homo vere fuit in effigie hominis constitutus. Vtrobique enim veritas necesse habebit excludi, si effigies, & similitudo, & figura, phantasmati vindicabitur. Quod si in effigie & in imagine, qua filius patris, vere Dei praedicatus est; etiam in effigie & imagine hominis, qua filius hominis, vere hominem inuen­tum. nam & inuentum, ratione posuit, id est, certissime hominem: quod enim inuenitur, constat esse. Tertull. li. 5. aduo r. Marc. c. 20. Faciliùs intelliges quod in hac sententia obscurum est, si legas hoc modo. numquid ergo & hic quia in effigie eum Dei collocat, aeque non erit Deus Christus? vere; si nec &c. & postea. vere Deus predi­catus. [Page 198] this being not a meere emptie signe or figure, but such a one as hath in it the substance of the thing signified and represented, as your Doctor was told in the beginning. And according to this Author, our Sauiour turning the substance of bread into his bodie, did by this meanes put the veritie within the figure; and so left it such a figure as we speake of; not emptie (as before in Ieremies tyme) but full. The very same is imported by the the wordes which you cite in the first place. repre­sentare, is, rem aliquam praesentem siste­re, to exhibite a thing present. And our Sauiour by turning the substance of bread into his bodie, doth thereby, exhibite his bodie present; vnder the figure of bread: and so properlie doth represent it. In this signification Ora­tors, Lawiers, and Deuines, vse the word. and Tertullian himself, very frequentlie, as, where he saith that our SauiourTer­tull. de Resurr. car. represented the thinges foretold by the Prophets; that theIbid. ge­nerall Iudgment shall consist of a re­presentation of all mankind; that God [Page 199] li. 4 con. Marciō. See sto­re of te­stimo­nies of this kind in Card. Peron. pag. 211. 212. representing Christ, said This is my sonne &c. itaque iam representans eum. And this is the natiue and proper sig­nification of the word. To exhibite a thing present in a signe or figure, is not so properlie rem sistere praesentem, as is the other exhibition of the thing in it self; wherefore that signification is lesse proper. yet in this sence also, the word is heere verified; for, the Sa­crament is a signe or figure of the bo­die; and it hath also the bodie in it. Our Sauiour himself who did institu­te it, was the figure of his Fathers substance, and had his Father in him. suprà pag. 178.

The second place you bring is this, panem corpus suum appellans. where you suppose the word panem to be the subiect, and to be taken properlie,Subiectiō est in Gram­maticae prior no­minati­nus, de quo aliquid dicitur: Grammatici vocant suppositum. vocatura nonnullis antecedens, quia in ipso sensu debet sem­per antecedere, etsi in oratione interdum sequatur. Deus erat verbum [...]. nobilitas sola est atque vnica virtus, Keker. ex Melancth. which (if it could be proued) would not yet serue your turne: for we could easilie expound the wordes, by [Page 200] others of the same Author before ci­ted: panem corpus suum fecit dicendo hoc &c. The calling, would I then say, was practicall; such as turned the bread into his bodie: dicendo hoc est &c. corpus suum illum fecit. Dixit & factum est. he made it to be so, and he made it dicendo. Call to minde the Speaker, and you will not think the thinge to him hard or difficult. It is he, per quem omnia facta sunt. He that sendeth forth light, Baruc. 3. and it goeth, calleth it againe, and it obeieth with trembling. The starres haue giuen light in their watches and reioyced, they were called and they sayd we are heere, and they haue shined to him with cheerfullnes that made them.

Benedi­ct [...]one et­iam na­tura ipsa mutatur. S. Ambr. de myst. init. c. 9. Ante verba Christi Calix est vi­ui & aequae plenus: vbi verba Christi operata fuerint, ibi san­guis efficitur qui plebem redemit. Idem Sacram. l 4. cap. 5. Inuenimus Calicem mixtum fuisse quem Dominus obtulit; & vinum fuisse quod sanguinem (practice) dixit. S. Cypr. li. 2. Ep. 3. Sacrificium verum & plenum tunc offert (Sacer­dos) in Ecclesia Deo Pa­tri, si sic incipiat offerre se­cundum quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse. Ibidem. And had there beene in this Father any obscure spea­ches touching this matter, the diuine Prouidence hath not left vs without meanes to learne his minde: for to­gether with his booke there is come into our hands from Antiquitie, such a comment, (Sermo de Coena) that wee neede not studie long to finde it out, Panis non effigie. &c. Did the word panem stand for Ba­kers bread, I would say, that this bread was by the wordes of conse­cration, [Page 201] changed, panem corpus suum fecit dicendo hoc est &c. and so no mo­re bakers bread after consecration, though before it were, it is after­wards, the bodie of Christ, supernatu­rall, heauenlie bread; the bread of life. [...]. it seemes bread it is in the shape of bread; but in substāce it not bread. Cyrill. Qui est à terra panis [...] percipiens vocationē Dei, iam non communis panis est, sed Eucharistia, ex duabus rebus constans, terrena &c Caelesti. the bread which hath being from the earth, receauing the call or inuocation of God, is now, not common bread, but Eu­charist consisting of two things, the earthlie, and the heauenlie. Iren. lib. 4. c. 34.

This answer you see is readie, if [Page 202] that supposition of yours could be made good. But your obiection is not so farre aduanced as to require an answer: and you are engaged in a fur­ther busines: being to proue, that when the consecration is donne, the bakers bread remaines according to this Author, which is contrarie to his words before alleadged, corpus suū il­lum (panem) fecit. the bodie of Christ is not (you know) bakers bread. and by consecration our Sauiour did this, Hoc est corpus meum dicendo.

By the order of the wordes you cannot get aduantage as before I did insinuate, & now confirme it by this, that indifferentlie he puts either first: lib. 3. contra Mar. c. 19. Panem corpus suum appellans. and lib. 4. cap. 40. corpus suum vocans panem. See the margent a­boue pag. 191. Wherefore omitting that dispute, which is not heere ma­teriall, let vs inquire what the word panem (be it the subiect or the predi­cate) doth signifie in that propositiō, Whereunto it is easelie answered out of the same Author, that it signifies, [Page 203] not proper, but mysticall, not earthlie, but Heauenlie bread. The veritie of which answer appeares by the scope of his discourse. He is expounding an obscure place of antiquitie, found in Ieremie the Prophet, Mittamus lignum in panem eius: which wordes are vtte­red in the person of the Iewes. By lignum he meanes the Crosse. that eius is referd to our Sauiour of whom the Iewes spake, mittamus lignum, let vs cast wood vpon, let vs crucifie panem eius. the word panem (and that word onlie) is obscure. If it be taken for earthlie, bakers bread: the sēse would be, let vs crucifie bakers bread. which could not be the sence. What bread; then, is this which they threaten to crucifie? it is Heauenlie, mysticall, bread; not bread in substance, but the bodie of Iesus Christ. Against this bread, they did afterwardes conspire, they did cru­cifie, this bread.Itaque ill. &c. pag. 192.

And that indeed this mysterie was couched vnder those words in the Prophet mittamus lignum &c. our Sa­uiour himself, best able to tell the meaning of Antiquitie, declared, in [Page 204] calling his owne bodie bread, Ioh. 6. and afterwardes exhibiting it (the ve­ry same that was crucified,) in the forme of bread by turning bread into it, and so giuing it, Matt. 26. Lue. 22.

On the other side, if we make of the words that construction which you would haue, you I say, who con­tend that in the proposition before alleadged, panis stands for earthlie bread, figuratiuelie representing the bodie; the sence would be, that the crosse was cast vpon that earthlie bread; that bakers bread was crucified. which is false, and ridiculous. Si panem eo sensu corpus suum Dominus appella­uit, faciebat ad vanitatem Caluini, vt panis crucifigeretur: Why? because the crosse was to be laide vpon that bread whereof our Sauiour did interprete the speach or words of Ieremie, mitta­mus lignum in panem.

You had from me in the former place (obiected) one reason why Tertullian did not vnderstand impro­perlie the predicate corpus in our Sa­uiours [Page 205] words, hoc est corpus meum. Heere now you haue an other out of this second place, which declares that he vnderstood it to be so farre from a meere figure, or bread-a-figure, that it is (he beleeued) the thing it self which was crucified, which agreeth well to the determination that our blessed Sauiour himself doth adde by way of difference to distinguish it from corporall bread-a-figure. He doth not (as you would haue Tertullian against his owne discourse expound him) meane to say, this is a figure, or, vnderstand by the predicate or word corpus, the figure of a bodie, the whole sence then had beene this, This [...]s a figure which is crucified for you: but he saith, this is [...] my ve­rie bodie, which is giuen for you. And so much you Chamier doth acknow­edge against Featlie. Quaeritur quid sit corpus meum, sanguis meus. Nos candi­ [...]e & liberè ac libenter respondemus [...] interpretandum, cum He­ [...]ychio in Leuit 22. Sancta Sanctorum sunt propriè Christi mysteria, quia ipsius est [Page 206] corpus de quo Gabriel ad Virginem dice­bat, Spiritus Sanctus superuenier &c. — Est igitur corpus illud, id est solida substantia humanae naturae, quam assum­ptam in vtero Virginis circumtulit in Hy­postasi sua verbum— Etenim omnino Christi corpus, non nisi dupliciter no­minatum est, vel proprium illud a nobis designatum, vel mysticum quod est Ec­clesia, the Question is, what is Corpus meum my bodie, sanguis meus my blood. whereunto wee answer inge­nuouslie, openlie, and willinglie with Hesichius that it is litterallie to be interpreted. The mysteries of Christ are properlie the holie things of holies, for it is his bodie of whom Gabriel said to the Virgin, the Holie Ghost shall come from aboue &c. It is therefore that very bodie, that is to say, the solid substance of humane nature, which being assumed in the Virgins woombe the word caried about in his Person. For Corpus Chri­sti signifies but two things in all; the pro­per bodie which wee haue now specified; and the mysticall, which is the Church. so he: a protestant, and he instar om­nium; [Page 207] you know the man that said so, and if it be so, then a greater scholler then he that said so, your Master Featlie.

The third place, corporis sui figuram pani dedisse, will neither yeeld solid proofe for you; nor vs; because (omit­ting the cause of doubting whether they be Tertullians words or no, which is insinuated, together with the reason, by Pamelius out of whom you reade pani) the lection (and it seemes by some defect in a copie out of which other later were transcri­bed) is doubtfull: whether it should be pane, as Latinius thinks; or panis as most do reade with Beatus Rhena­nus; or pani, as Pamelius found in one of the three Vatican copies whi­ch he had, and where the ground shakes, none but W—build on it. Moreouer none of those lections do fauour you, and were it pani, the sence would be that he gaue to cele­stiall bread (his bodie) the figure which was before, by turning the substance of it into the substance of [Page 208] his bodie, and with the exteriour shape which was left couering the same: so ioyning figure and veritie to­gether, and by the one confirming to vs the other. leauing the Church withall, a Sacrament, consisting of them both: not the bodie onlie; that were not a Sacrement; and the com­municant would haue horrour to re­ceaue naked flesh: nor the figure on­lie, that would haue beene elementum egenum, futurorum vmbra, a signe and nothing but a signe: but figure, and bodie to; and so, that (the tyme of meere figures exspiring,) the former substance of the figure,Vt ergo in Genesi per Mel­chisedeth Sacerdo­tem be­nedictio circa A­braham possit rite celebrari, praecedit ante imago Sacrificij in pane & vino scilicet constituta. Quam rem perficiens & adimplens Dominus, panem & cali­cem mixtum vino obtulit. Et qui est plenitudo, veritatem praefiguratae imaginis adimpleuit. S. Cypr. l 2. Ep. 3. bread, by conuersion passeth into the veritie, the bodie. thus, (were it pani) the pla­ce would make for vs; and imply a transubstātiation as I haue declared. neither would the words admitte any other so genuine a sence, as his. for, if you take pani for bakers bread, the construction (supposing which [Page 209] is a thing manifest and aboue demon­strated that the figure he speakes of was an old figure) would be, corporis sui figuram pani dedit, he gaue to (bakers) bread the (old) figure of his bodie, (which figure also was bakers bread) which is as much as if he had said, he gaue bread to bread, old to new; iumbling belike both together to make one loafe of two, as some doe mingle beere, old and new together, when the one is newlie made, and the other growing soure. Pane, and panis, were further from your pur­pose, as I could easilie shew if any should pretend it; the fittest (if you could find it in any copie) were pa­nem; but hitherto no such appeares; and if it should in time, we should not be to seeke a solution, hauing allreadie said that the sacrament, cal­led also by the name of bread (for diuers reasons els-where specified) is a figure of the bodie, but not a mee­re and emptie figure.

I had allmost forgot to take notice of your translation of the wordes, cor­poris [Page 210] sui figuram pani dedisse, he gaue to bread to be the figure of his bodie. If he had donne so, either at the supper by making of it the blesed Sacrament, which is a figure (though not em­ptie) of his bodie: or in Ieremies time (as he was God, Tertullians word being Deus: sic enim Deus in Euangelio &c. vt hinc iam eum (id est, Deum) intelligas corporis sui figuram pani dedis­se: mark also the preterit:) if, I say, he, as God, be said in Ieremies time, to haue giuen to bread to be the figu­re of his bodie: yet should you not haue translated the wordes so as you do. I do not speake of translating de­disse he gaue; I suppose you meant dedit: but, of translating the word, suppose dedit, he gaue to be. Which translation in other matter your self would not endure. Sempronius Lepido dedit asinum. were this Lepidus a frinde of yours, you would not turne dedit, he aue to be.

In the margine pag. 23. S. E. had cited other words of Tertullian for [Page 211] a further exposition of his meaning; Caro corpore vescitur; and these next you glosse.

the meaning of Tertullian in those wordes, caro corpore & sangui­ne Christi vescitur, vt & anima de Deo saginetur; is, that the bodie receauing in the outward element (which otherwhere he cals the figure of his bodie) the soule presentlie apprehends the thing signified, vzt, the bodie of Christ.

See Masters! a golden ex­position; cleere, natiue, proper, sub­tile, accurate. The bodie eates the flesh, that is, the soule doth apprehend it. O monstrous wit, able to make quidli­bet ex quolibet▪ I can not sufficientlie admire, I am astonished when I con­sider thy streingth and perspicacitie. Before, I knew thou couldst make cō ­tradictions: (which omnipotencie it self cannot;) and now I see thou canst: finde senses, where they be not. But, ‘Pluribus intentus minor est ad singula sensus.’ Whilst you were looking beyond the [Page 212] obiect of Gods power, to tell vs what he cannot do, you did not consider that Tertullian being in that book whence the wordes are cited, to de­fend the Resurrection of bodies, which Hereticks did impugne, chieflie out of the basenes of flesh; and it's origen at first, & corruption at last; as appeares by the fourth ch [...]pter of that booke: he, on the contrarie, speakes much in commendation of it. Vituperationem laudatione dep [...]llas. ita nos rhetoricari quoque prouocant haeretici, &c. you may refute and repell the dispraise of a thing by the praise and commendation of it, and Hereticks prouoake vs to plaie the Rhe­thoricians in this kind. so he, ca. 5. where he beginns to praise it, continuing to the tenth chapter. in the middest of of which discourse, hauing spoken in the praise of humane flesh in com­mon, he betakes himself to speake of the dignitie of the flesh of Christians, particularly. So much quoth he, be said out of the publik forme as it were of humane condition in the behalf of flesh: let vs consider now, how great a prero­gatiue [Page 213] this friuolous (as Hereticks in contempt, stile it,) and base substance hath from God in as much as it is the forme of Christian men, Porro si vniuersa per car­nem sub­iacent anima, carni quoque subiacēt, &c. Et hac qui­dem velut de publica forma humanae conditionis in suffra­guim carni procurauerim: videamus nunc de propria etiam Christiani nominis forma quanta huic subtantia (heretici.) friuolae ac sordidae apud Deum praerogatiua sit, & si suffi­ceret illi quod nulla ommino anima salutem possit adi­pisci, nisi dum est in carne, crediderit; adeo ca­ro salutis est cardo, de qua cum anima Deo al­legitur, ipsa est quae efficit vt anima allegi pos­sit. Sed & caro abluitur, vt anima emaculetur. Caro vaguitur, vt anima consecretur. Caro signa­tur, vt & anima muniatur. Caro manus impo­sitione adumbratur, vt & anima spiritu allumi­netur. Caro corpore & sanguine Christi vescitur, vt & anima de Deo saginetur. non possunt er­go separari in mercede, quas opera coniungit. Ter­tullian. de Resurrect. carnis. cap. 7. & 8. O­biter aduertet Lector quot in hac vna senten­tia Tertullianus indicat sacramenta. and there come in the wordes aboue cited; wherein, (as appeares both by the wordes them selues and also by the scope of his discourse) it is euident that he meanes to say, the flesh euen that which Hereticks vilified, [Page 214] doth receaue into it self by the mouth the bodie and blood of Iesus Christ, to the end the soule by the worthie re­ceauing of it, be diuinelie fatned: the flesh, saies he, caro, vescitur. and what doth it eate? a meere signe or figure, bakers bread? is this the greate pre­rogatiue? no, vescitur corpore, the bodie it self: that his sacred and diuine bo­die, his creature man, by his bodilie mouth, the flesh, doth eate: and there­by the whole hath benefite; the soule grace; (so he receaue woorthelie,) & in time glorie: and the bodie, (as other auncients haue more clearlie expres­sed themselues) immortalitie. He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer. In another place he saith the hands also touch it: wherein he doth agree with S. Augustine, De I­dol. n. 31. & 34. out of whom the next argument was taken, who saith, our Sauiour had his owne bodie (euen that which was crucified) in his owne hands, and that we receaue it with our mouth. Citat. inserius.

He (D. Smith, or S. E) saith he hath good reason to referre that [Page 215] which followes the propostion (this is my bodie) vzt the figure of my bodie, to the subiect (his,) and not to the predicate bo­die, because it may be shewed otherwhere in him, that what followes the proposi­tion in that manner must be referred to the subiiect and not the predicate.

This is willfullie to my­stake and misreport. when D. Featlie in the conference had said, it did not follow that Tertullian in the place obiected had disordered his words because he had done the like elswhere,pag. 17. my Lord answered (as you find in the Relation) that he did not inferre that Tertullian did heere speake so, because he had donne the like in other places, but be­cause he doth affoorde in this verie place (cited) four seuerall reasons why he must be soe vnderstood. which thing was in­culcated againe by S. E. so that you doe manifestlie impose, against your owne knowledge, when you tell vs the authour saies he hath good reason to referre &c. because it may be shewed o­ther where in him that what followes &c.

[Page 216]In the end of this your first se­ction, you bring a place out of the Sermon de vnctione, which makes a­gainst your self, and for vs; as will ap­peare to him that reades it:Dedit itaque D.N. in mensa in qua vltimū cum A­postolis partici­pauit conui­uium, propriis manibus panem & vinum, in cruce verò manibus militum corpus tradidit vulnerandum, vt in Apostolis secretius impressa syncera veritas & vera synce­ritas exponeret gentibus quomodo vinū & panis caro esset & sanguis; & quibus rationibus causae effectibus conuenitent, & diuersa nomina vel species ad vnam re­ducerentur essentiam; & significantia & significata eisdē vocabulis censerentur. His gratiae supernae priuile­giis, esu sanctificati panis refecti, &c. to which purpose I haue cited the wordes at leingth in the margine. He speakes of consecrated bread, esu sanctificati panis refecti, and saith the bread is flesh, and the wine blood, (vt exponeret gentibus quomodo vinum & panis, caro esset & sanguis.) and that diuers species are re­duced to one essence, which is donne by turning the bread into the bodie. whence it comes that this thing hath both names; it is called bread, as being made of bread: and being in the exte­riour forme of bread. and it is also the [Page 217] bodie it self, which bodie is the thing signified by the sacrament, and is re­allie (according to the substāce, in it. This chāge of the signe into the thing signified, and the being of the same thing (that which was signified) now vnder the forme of bread, is more cleerelie deliuered by the same Au­thor in a former sermon de Coena, Pa­nis iste quem Dominus Discipulis porri­gebat, non effigie sed natura mutatus, om­nipotentia Verbi factus est caro: & sicut in persona Christi humanitas videbatur & latebat diuinitas, ita sacramento vi­sibili ineffabiliter diuina se infundit essen­tia. that bread which our Lord gaue the Disciples, being changed not in shape but in nature, is by the omnipotencie of the Word made flesh: and as in the person of Christ the humanitie did appeare and the diuinitie lie hid, so (heere) a Diuine essen­ce doth vnspeakablie powre it self into a visible sacrament.

Some graue Deuines think this Author to be saint Cyprian that glo­rious martyr and prelate of the Church Primitiue, other writers, [Page 218] amongst whom is Erasmus, esteeme him at least a very learned man of that Age, and so much appeares by the work it self,Ad D. Corneliū Papam &c. ti­tulus. E­go quidē nec a meipso neque ab alio quae­ro nomē, neque e­nim ali­quid me existimo esse cum nihil sim, qui hoc a vobis maxima supplica­tione quaesiui, vt non essem quod sū, &c. in Praefat. operis. dedicated to Cornelius then Pope. He was a Catholike Father as all know, saies your patron, Mortō pag. 125. yet you, but an infant at the time of this Conference, pag. 2. (hauing not what to answer to the forsaid words wherein he hath expressed himself so plainely against your He­resie as nothing can be imagined mo­re plaine and opposite,) call him before you in the peremptorie ter­mes of a Pedant; and vouchsafing his work no better words then bastard, and surreptitious brat, will needs giue him the ferula, because he did not compound his Orations by your Thomasius Dictionarie: or call vpon you to teach him what words were then in vse, in honore vocabula; what out of date, verborum vetus interit aetas; what had not obtained the Gramma­rians leaue to passe, being as yet strang and new, cinctutis non exaudita [Page 217] Cethegis. The best is, and it is well for him, that he is so far of, your Master-ship cannot reach him: ferulae manum subduxit.

Being now come to the end of this argument which you would haue grounded in Tertullian, I cannot omit to tell you that your owne great Euangelist Martin Luther, exa­mining the same words in his book entituled Defensio [...] verbo­rum coenae, accipite, comedite, hoc est corpus meum, contra phanaticos Sacra­mentariorum spiritus; concludes that in them Tertullian doth auouch the presence of the bodie it self,Debent demon­strare quod di­ctum Ter­tulliani non tantum possit sed omnino necesse sit in eam sententiam quam ipsi (Sacramentarii) habent, accipi. Quod si non faciunt, iure eos mendaces & falsarios accusamus cum glorientur se suae causae certissimos esse & manifestissimam veritatem habere. Luth. Def. verb caenae, pag. 406. Tertullian is affirmat Christum in caena panem corpus suum fecisse, secundum verba sua Hoc est corpus meum. Hic nullum verbum ambiguum aut amphibolou audias. nam panem facere corpus suum expresse, clare, & signate dicitur. Ibidem. Vocabulum figura, obscurum & ambiguum est. Ibidem. Quod si Oecolampalius demonstrare non potest figuram hic imagi­nem significare, manifeste deprehenditur deprauator Tertulliani & falsarius, & cum suo corporis signo occumbit. Quando autem de­monstrauerit? ad calendas Graecas, cum cuculus in Lusciniam muta­tus fuerit. Ibidem. in the sa­crament. [Page 220] satis aperté videmus Tertullia­ni sententiam esse quod verum & natu­rale Christi corpus sit in pane coenae, pag. 407. and that the sence which Oeco­lampadius then (and Featlie now) would put vpon the words, is forced and violent; Tertulliani dictum violenter in suam opinionem trahit, vt figura hic coactè sonet signum, contra suam natu­ram; cùm tamen nec possit nec id Tertul­lianus admittat. pag. 406. He is large and spends diuers pages in exami­ning Tertullians mind; and was your Masters Master, the great light and Euangelist, and Reformer, top-full of the Spirit Protestant. Refute him first. If you, slight him, primarium E­uangelij propugnatorem, (Swinglius Sa­cramentariorum post Diabolum Princeps,Cum au­tem panis sit figura corporis Christi, plane necessa­rium est vt verum Christi corpus vere ibi adsit vbi figura eius est, quae ex pane per verbum figura eius facta est. (Est haec alia verborum interpretario, qua contendit esse figuram corporis praesentis) Hanc esse Tertulliani sententiam mihi exploratissimum est; nec verba eius quicquam obscuritatis & perplexitatis habent. pag. 407. Ex his liquido constat Tertullianum omnino velle vt in pane sit cor­pus quod pro nobis datum est, ne oporteat asseuerari merum pa­nem pro nobis esse datum. Ibidem. Ex his omnibus luce meridiana clarius est, vt mea fert opinio, quod Tertullianus figuram hic non eo sensu vsurpet quo Oerolampa­dius, pro simulachro aut signo, sed pro re visibili, quam eo nomi­nat figuram corporis Christi, quod ei corpus Christi insit aut subsit. Ididem. M. D. Smith told M. Featlie that of curtesie he vvould admit the vvord figura to be referd to corpus that his argument might runne on, and he make the best he could of it. In the relation; su­pra, pag. 22. in Exegesi fol, 335.) take it not in ill part if others heereafter [Page 221] forbeare to look more vpon your scriblings, allreadie confuted and condemned by the Leader of your Sect.

The second Argument was of Saint Augustines words of eating the flesh of the sonne of man, Figura est &c. lib. 3. de doct. Christiana. And it was answered that this ea­ting is figuratiue according to the manner, for this flesh is not diui­ded (in the eating) in it self; as other flesh: but not figuratiue accor­ding to the thing, the flesh.

In the margine of the relation, S. E. put these words, which Waferer (though he dispute oft against mar­ginall notes,In relat. supra pag. 35.) takes no notice of; Were it denied that Saint Augustine [Page 223] speakes there (li. 3. de Doct. Christia. c. 16.) of Sacramentall eating, the Minister could not proue it. recon­dendum in memoria &c. This is ano­ther solution of this second Argu­ment; for the same may be answe­red diuers waies, as the former also might. But, to insist vpon that which was giuen: what hath Waferer brou­ght against it?

I will maintane that the verie bodie of Christ is not corporallie present vnder the shapes of bread and wine. And first I may deale with Doctor Smith, as &c.

Hauing donne with the first argument, you come now to the place of the second, where for­getting that you came into the field as a second onlie, to make good your Doctors obiections, nothing els; you beginne others: and will fight against some bodie, (if any bodie please to loose time and fight with you) with argumentes out of your owne learned head, and maintaine that [Page 224] the bodie of Christ is not corporallie pre­sent vnder the shape of bread and wine. Where, by the word corporallie, if you meane the naturall manner of being which bodies cōmonlie haue, consisting in the extraposition of par­tes in order to place; all being not in the same part of the place, but one part of the bodie in one part of the place, and an other part of the bo­die in another part of the place; as your partes are; your eies, your no­se, your eares, your handes, your leggs, your feete: if you take the word corporallie, to signifie this man­ner of being, I know not who doth hold or auouch it in the Sacrament. Catholikes doe not. If by corporallie, you meane substantiallie, or, accor­ding to the substance of the bodie; and in this sence vnderstand [...], you do vndertake more then all your masters cā proue. And you ouer­mach your self in singling out a Do­ctor; some Logician, that knowes his Catechisme, and hath heard that the Eucharist is such a signe or image as [Page 225] hath in it the bodie and bloud, ac­cording to a supernaturall, spirituall manner; and that the Fathers do spea­ke sometimes of sacramentall, some­times of spirituall receauing onlie: might serue to combat with you, if perchance he did not esteeme it vnworthie of him to meete one who comes tilting at him with a—.

You are prouided no doubt, of a goodlie sheffe of speares; had eue­rie one of them beene headed with an Ergo, they would haue penetra­ted a braine that had beene armed double-coxcomb. And had you thought on it, you might haue ad­ded in your dedicatorie to the greatChal­lenge. Challēge Challenger, your Father in God

Or vinum, wine; that rather: for if your launces wound, there is no blood: if they pierce, there is no bo­die: but suddainly insteed of a mans [Page 226] bodie, bakers bread; and wine, in­steed of blood. ‘Pectora percussit, pectus quoque —’ You looke perchance that some bo­die meete you, in this new field of your owne pitching, that with your fearfull engines you may do, what Featlie could not with his argumen­tes. alas! poore, man! faine he would, and can not find an aduersarie to pro­ue himself vpon.

How? The Church? o no. that is to great a task for you. It hath beene to hard for whole Legions of furious Heretickes. it hath stood against all Errours that euer were. There are in it millions, of great schollers: and you but in your ABC yet. It is an ar­mie, castrorum acies ordinata. What, you. you, fight against the church? as you loue Mirth Waferer, talke no more of that. if you do, men will thinke you be madd.

The compasse, Master Waferer, wherein the battle was to be, was drawne with your Champions owne sword; the Arguments to be answered, [Page 227] the Scriptures to be expoūded, the Fa­thers to be looked into, were those, & those onlie, which he brought. The subiect of the writing which you will needs stickle in, was a Conference wherein Doctor Smith, now Bishop of Chalcedon, defended against D. Featlie. The Controuersie was about the reall presence. Some twentie yeeres after it was past, your Doctour set forth a Re [...]ation of that he said had passed in it; which Relation being par­tiall, S. E. set out an other. That which the Reader did expect to learne here by, was to know how the matter wēt; what were the Arguments, what the Answers: and which of the two Com­batants had the honour of the daye. In which case it is impertinent to al­leadge other Argumentes, or to heare you dispute four and twentie waies more, against that and other tenets.

When S. E. came to represent a­gaine what had beene donne before, he kept himself within the compasse which your Doctor had prescribed. He made no discourse to shew how [Page 228] in all ages our doctrine had been held, by the Fathers, and Deuines, & the Christian Churches generallie Which thing it had beene easie fo [...] him to do, after Garetius, & Sainctes and Gualterius, and Bellarmine, Pero [...] and others, he did not gather toge­ther, and vrge, the texts of Scriptur [...] with all their circumstances, euer hetherto vnderstood, and necessarily to be vnderstood, properlie: he did not cite any Fathers at all but such onlie as your Doctour had obiected, whose meaning he was to declare by their owne writing: euerie one knowing best his owne minde, and being the best interpreter of his ow­ne wordes. He did forbeare to make Arguments, and kept himself vnto the matter obiected by Doctour Featlie; who otherwise, would haue cried out againe that the lawes of answering were violated. If you would needs vndertake to represent the tother part, you should haue donne the like in that kind; not haue gonne out of the compasse, to florish there, where [Page 229] no man was: but haue set vpon the Solution where you found it, and this [...]oo, not by way of answer to distin­ctions, as elswhere you do for the most part, repeating still, Doctor Smith [...]oth not proue, (which if he had vn­dertook, your Champion would haue runne out of the roome) but by further discouering the force of Ar­guments there proposed, and the Ans­wers insufficiencie. If you think your self better able to make choise of Ar­guments for your Doctours tenet [...]hen he himself was, he is not much beholding to you for your opinion of his art or iudgment: And vnles you [...]hought his to be of themselues to weake, what neede had your witt [...]o send a new supplie? This offi­ciousnes of yours makes litle for his honour.

Hauing giuen a sight of your for­ces, to those who please to looke on [...]hem: you displaie in the the rereward our Opinion: which is, it seemes, so [...]asie as any child may conceaue it, and [...]er so hard as it exceedes mans capa­citie. [Page 130] Elephants are ouer head and eares, and Emmets wade thorough the same water.

Euerie punie can tell you that though bread seemes onlie bread to the eie, and in sustance be nothing els, yet in it's spirituall vse and signification it's the bodie of our Sauiour: not that Christs bodie is present vnder the acci­dentall formes of the element, though it be therewith spirituallie eaten. This I confesse to be a mysterie, but if you de­maunde what it is, Ile answer you as Octauius did Caecilius when he expected to heare what God was, Nobis ad in­tellectum pectus angustum est &c. so if you expecte to heare exactlie what this mysterie is, I answer it is a Mysterie; and if I could perfectlie disclose it's secretes, and shew you what it were, then twere no Mysterie.

Magnum sibi fatuitas quaedam videtur esse mysterium, saint Cyrill saies. Is it not belike some Chimera you speak of, that is so clearlie dark, and darklie cleare?

[Page 131]But master Waferer, what difficul­tie were there to conceaue bread-a-fi­gure, bread-a-signe? are you con­founded at the mysteries of an Iuie­bush, or a letter? they be signes, as vnlike the thinges they signifie, as bread is vnlike flesh, or wine vnlike blood. Or, if God should please to tell vs, he would giue him grace that recea­ued bread the signe, worthelie; what vnconceauable matter were there in in this? is it not easie to conceaue that he is able to do so; or that (if he promise) he wil performe it? The­se, forsooth, you call mysteries; in­explicable vnconceauable myste­ries: least (when Catholikes ob­iect the Fathers, admiring in­deede our Sauiours being in the Sa­crament) you be without the fantom of an answer.

Doctor Smith saith that a figuratiue speach seemes to haue adioyned vnto it a certaine negation, but there is non egation in a figuratiue speach as figuratiue, saue onlie the negation of, or [Page 132] translation from the natiue signification, which helps to confirme what I said be­fore, that a proper sence and a figuratiue are as much as natiue and not natiue, pro­per and not proper.

Before indeed you com­plained of those who said you plea­ded for a meere figure in the words Hoc est corpus meum; and if you be re­membred,Apol. pag. 9. you saie Doctour Smith would faine father a false opinion vpon you, that you held there is in them a meere figure. which former speach of yours, is not confirmed, but contradicted rather, if now you say that a speach any way figuratiue hath a negation ofDo those hold the same, who say Nobis vo biscum de obiecto conuenit? all proprietie, or a proper speach a gation of all impropreitie. For, were that so the one of thē were meerelie & in all respects proper: & the other, meerelie & whollie figuratiue, which thing you there denie. You know Wee do not say that the same speach is either purelie, or absolutlie, both proper and improper: but we say that it may be proper according to the thing signified; and figuratiue, in regard of the māner of the same thing, [Page 233] as you were told before. which is farre from contradiction in the vn­derstanding of him that vnderstands what a contradiction is. as, for an Ethiopian to be absolutlie said black, and yet secundum quid, according to his teeth, white, is no contradi­ction but a truth, in the iudgment of euerie one that euer saw those men.

That a figuratiue or improper speach hath a negation ioyned to it, as farre as it is figuratiue or improper, it is manifest: for the word improper, si­gnifieth a priuation; and a priuation doth participate of a negation. Priua­tio saies the Philosopher in his Me­taphysick, contradictio quaedam est, lib 10. t 15. aut impossibilitas determinata, siue simul accepta cum susceptiuo. I said, as farre as it is figuratiue or improper; whence it followes that, if it be purelie figu­ratiue, it hath ioyned to it a perfect or whole negation of proprietie: as in this your example, Herod is a fox. if it be figuratiue onlie as it is rela­ted or compared to the manner of the [Page 234] thing signified, it hath not ioyned to it a negation of the thing, but of the manner onlie. and consequentlie, the speach may still remaine proper as farre as concerneth the substance of the thing, which substance is by it directlie signified. as in our exam­ple This is my bodie: which wordes, in asmuch as they signifie the substan­ce of our Sauiours bodie, be verified properlie; though they be not pro­perlie verified according to the man­ner which the same wordes, if they were taken fullie in their whole vsuall sence, would also import.

When you say that in a figuratiue speach as figuratiue, there is no ne­gation, saue onlie the negation of, or translation from, the natiue signi­fication, you say true considering the force of that your as—But frō thence you can no more inferre what you pretend, vzt that it is absolutly figuratiue, then one might inferre of an Ethiopian, that because he is, white secundum quid, according to [Page 235] his teeth, Ergo he is absolutlie white.

Doctor Smith laies downe this rule, that a proposition is absolutlie and simplie to be esteemed proper or figu­ratiue, rather from the thing which i [...] af­firmeth then from the manner; which rule is absurd, for there is the same thing affir­med in a figuratiue proposition which is in a proper.

Heere is a trick of leger­demain, cunninglie vsed, to steale a­way the truth, before proued, and approued. The iugling will appeare if your discourse be put in forme. The reason first, There is the same thing affirmed in a figuratiue propositiō which is in a proper, as Herodes est vulpes: He­rodes est cal [...]idus; they be your exam­ples. then your inference, Ergo it is ab [...]urd to saie that a proposition (which is proper in regarde of the thing si­gnified by it, and improper in re­gard of the manner of the same thing vsuallie also signified by the word) is absolutlie & simplie to be esteemed pro­per or figuratiue rather from the thing [Page 236] which it affirmeth then from the manner, to wit, of the same thing, who sees not the incoherēce of this argumēt, & that you labour to destroy one truth with an other? The Controuersie was, and is, about a mixt proposition, such a one, as in regard of the thing directlie signified is proper; and im­proper in regard of the manner of the thing. It was said and maintained a­gainst Doctor Featlie, that this, Hoc est corpus meum, is such a proposition: and your self must needes graunt it to be so, vnlesse you will haue it to be meerelie figuratiue, or meerelie pro­per; both which you disauow, as a­boue hath beene declared. If it be not meerlie figuratiue, nor meerlie pro­per, then sure it is mixt: for a figura­tiue speach pure, and vnmixt, is meer­lie figuratiue. Moreouer this proposi­tion, being not meerlie figuratiue, is proper as farre as it regards the sub­stāce of the thing signified: according to the tenet of the Catholike Church, which holds and beleeues, the bodie, signified properlie by those words, to [Page 237] be reallie and trulie there, according to the veritie and substāce of the thing, which, euen according to your owne rule, is enough to make the speach proper, in that sence: for you saye, that proposition is proper in which the predicate doth in i'ts natiue sence signifie that thing which agrees to the subiect. & the same proposition, in as much as it is compared to the manner of the thing, is figuratiue and improper; for the bodie hath not in the Sacrament the common manner of a bodie, as, extension of parts in order to place, and visibilitie: but another manner, as your Doctor was also told. Which being so, the Question was touching the modus loquendi, Whether this mixt proposition, being proper in re­gard of the substance, and improper in regard of the manner, (or general­lie, Whether a proposition which is proper in regard of the substance, & improper in regard of the manner,) be flatlie and simplie to be said pro­per, or improper? Whereunto it was answered, and well, that a proposition [Page 238] is absolutlie and simplie to be estee­meed (proper or figuratiue, proper or improper) rather from the thing which it affirmeth, then from the manner: and consequentlie, since the proposition (hoc est corpus meum) is proper in regard of the thing it affir­meth, it is absolutelie to be said a proper speach. The reason of the rule is manifest, for the denominatiō is to be taken from that which is the principall; and the thing, doubtles. is more principall then the manner of the thing: the substance, more princi­pall then it's accidentall manner. an E­thiopian though he be white secun­dum quid, is absolutelie or sine addito said black.

Your owne rule before cited, con­firmes all this, but this is not the first time you fight against your self we know, the same thing may be signi­fied by diuers propositions, whereof some be proper, & others figuratiue: as in holie Scripture we find the Di­uine perfections to be signified some­times by proper speaches and some­times [Page 139] by metaphoricall. But the Que­stion was, Whether one, and the same proposition, (not diuers, but one) being proper in regard of the thing si­gnified, and improper and figuratiue in regard of the manner, were to be called absolutlie, sine addito, proper; and onlie secundum quid, according to the manner, figuratiue? As if it had beene demaunded, whether one that is white onlie secundum dentes, and all the rest black, be flatlie or simplie to be said white, or black, the Answer was, that the proposition, hauing in it the foresaide mixture, was rather to be saide proper; and the man, rather to be saide black, which is true, not­withstanding that there be other mē, some white some black: and other propositions, some figuratiue, some proper, respecting the same thing.

No proposition is figura­tiue according to the thing signified.

You meane that it hath not that denomination as it is vnder a reference to that thing. Before you said it, I thought otherwise, and shall [Page 240] do so still, euen of that which you bring for Instance, Herodes est vulpes. that your proposition, is figuratiue in comparison to the thing signified, which is Herods Wilines. this wilines of Herod, the proposition doth signi­fie and affirme; not properlie, (it is not the proper significatiō of vulpes,) but metaphoricallie, and by transla­ting the word to signifie that wherein Herod hath some kind of analogie or agreement with a foxe;Orators look not for Me­taphors in things but in words. Ad vnum verbum contracta similitu­do. as you know by the nature of metaphors, out of Aristotle, Tullie, and others. And be­cause vulpes, the predicate, doth not properlie, but metaphoricallie, signi­fie that thing which is affirmed vpon Herod, therefore is the proposition figuratiue and improper, euen by cō ­parison to that thing, it is an impro­per signe of that which you would haue me to conceaue. The word in­deed hath an other significatiō, which is that we call proper, which your di­ctionarie leads you to, but according to the thing which answers to that, [Page 141] it's proper signification, the proposi­tion is not verified. In all other pure figuratiue propositions you shall find the same, and therefore you must al­ter your vnlearned assertion, that no proposition is figuratiue according to the thing signified; and all your discourse that depends vpon it, wherein, im­pertinentlie to the matter in Questiō, you compare one materiall obiect or thing, to seuerall propositions: whereas you should compare one proposition to the principall and proper, or se­cundarie and improper obiect of it's termes. The proper obiect of this word or signe vulpes, is a foxe. it signifies that thing, properlie, and taking it as it signifies to vs that thing, the pro­position is false: the improper obiect whereunto by translation it is exten­ded, is a wilie fellowe; and taking it in this sense, the proposition is true. neither are these thinges in this man­ner signified, one and the same thing: vnles a wilie man perchance be pro­perlie, with you, a foxe.

[Page 242]Moreouer, the manner of signifying in wordes, is either proprius, natiue & proper:Sensus sacrae Scriptu­rae, lite­ralis, mysti­cus, Sen­sus lite­ralis, pro­prius, impro­prius. Sensus mysticus, alleg. tropol. anago­ric. vt infra. or improprius, and translatitius, metaphoricall, and improper. Euerie word that hath a metaphoricall sig­nification, hath a proper also; as ap­peares by the etymologie of the na­me. and the way to know in which sense the proposition (wherein it stands) is verified, and consequentlie whether it be taken in the proper or the metaphoricall sence, is to compa­re it to the thing. Herod is a fox, Mirth is a locust. If you compare the proposi­tion in it's proper signification, to the thing, it is improportionable, diffor­me, and false: if you compare the same (material) proposition in it's metapho­ricall signification, to the thing, it is proportionable, conforme, true. Wherevpon we conclude the speach to be metaphoricall. If the proposi­tion be according to the natiue sence verified vpon, or in, the thing, we say that it is proper: as these other. Herod is wilie, Mirth is an Heretick. If it be ve­rified according to the substance of [Page 243] the thing properlie signified, not ac­cording to the manner; it will then be called proper absoluté sine addito, ta­king the denomination frō that which is principall;For wee say that a thing is white, or not white, not be­cause all is so, but because the grea­test or most parts be so. (Dicimus enim aliquid ess [...] album aut non album, non quia totum es [...] tale saith the Philosopher, 6. Phys. tex. 38. sed quia maximae partes eius, & plures, sunt tal [...]s;) though not omnibus modis, in regard of the improprietie annexed, respectiuelie to the manner. as this: hoc est corpus meum.

Before I leaue this point I must put you againe in mind how you do still weaken your owne opinion more & more, and fight against your fellowes whilst you contend that heere corpus the predicate is taken improperlie. It is true that if it were taken improper­lie according to the thing signified by it, the proposition were figuratiue or improper: but it is false, euen in the iudgment of the learnedest of your owne men (so ignorant you are in the cause you vndertake) that it is so ta­ken. The word corpus, (I repeate the same againe) is not taken improperlie [Page 244] according to the thing by it signified not, as the word vulpes, in your pro­position (which is your great Masters instance in this very matter) Herodes est vulpes. no. But properlie, [...] for that substance quam cruci affixam, & in sepulchro depositam Verbū suscitauit à mortuis, de qua suscitata di­ctum est, videte manus meas & pedes meos contrectate me & videte, nam Spiritus carnem & ossa non habet prout me con­spicitis habere. quam denique transtulit in coelos inde reddendam terris postremo ad­uentu. denique quicquid dici potest ad de­scribendū, circumscriben dūque, suis veris proprietatibus illud ipsum indiuiduum. for that substance which being nailed to the Crosse, and laid in the sepulcher, the Word raised from the dead; of which (substance) it is said, See my hands and my feete, feele me and see: for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see I haue. Moreouer that substance which h [...] caried into heauen, to render it againe a [...] the last comming, and finallie, what eue [...] can be said to describe and circumscribe the very same indiuiduall substance with [Page 245] it's true propertie. So your Chamier, l. 10. c. 2. confessing Corpus to be, by our Sa­uiour, taken litterallie [...] not in a borrowed but in the natiue sence: howeuer you, Master waferer, will haue it not to be taken heere in it's natiue but in a borrowed sence: and the proposition (this which you spea­ke of) therefore to be figuratiue be­cause the word that is the predicate is so taken.

I omit to note further how you be troubled with an equiuocation of a speach figuratiue according to the man­ner, hauing not wit enough to distin­guish the modus essendi, which is in the obiect, from the modus significandi, which is in the word or speach: or to know vnder what referēce a word hath proprietie; vnder what, it hath not; & how, and when, these denominations be pure or vnpermixte. But I haue now giuen you occasion (enough for for a Scholler) to reflect vpō the mat­ter. On you go to seeke: and if you cannot finde, to make, absurdities.

S. E. seekes to iustifie that answer of his Lords of a figure mixt of a figuratiue and proper action, for he saith that the same speech may be proper and fi­guratiue, as a garment of a mingled colour is white and black: but let him know that it is not the same speech if either the signi­fication or the manner of signifying be changed.

you and your Doctour in his Relatiō, purposelie inuolue things that in thēselues are cleere. My Lord had said, not of a figure, but of a speach, (that of our Sauiour vnles you eate the flesh &c.) that, according to S. Augustine, it was mixt, which he de­clared at large in the Conference. & M. Featlie himself takes notice of it, telling vs that he said our Sauiours speech,Feat. Relat. pag. 294 vnles you eate &c. is proper and figuratiue according to S. Augustin: figu­ratiue according to the manner of eating, but according to the matter it self, proper: and so it is a mixt speach of a proper and a figuratiue, thus your Doctor himself [Page 247] at last relates it; obscuring the same a­gaine presentlie in the accommoda­tion of the distinction to the thing in Question.

What that is which you would teach S. E. touching the speach of our Sauiour, (which is not meerelie figuratiue euen by your owne con­fession;) neither I, nor you know. The Holie Bible is still the same, though there be in it both proprietie of speach, and figures. A mingled gar­ment is still one, though there be in it white and black, and a proposition which is verified improperlie, accor­ding to the manner of the obiects being, which is vsuallie by the wordes (consequentlie as it were) imported; and properlie according to the sub­stance of the thing directlie signi­fied, is still one and the same pro­position.

Why doth S. E. instance in that proposition (1. Cor. 15. it is sowne a naturall bodie, it is raised a spiri­tual,) to proue that a proper sence, [Page 248] and a figuratiue may be in one pro­position?

It had beene requisite you had first beene able to vnderstand what is said, before you began, to take vpon you to refute it. S. E. brings ex­amples to shew that it is not peculiar to S. Augustine onlie, to call a thing spirituall in regard of the manner, though substantiallie, or according to the substance it be not so; for in like manner Sainct Ierome doth call on Sauiours flesh, which is flesh indeed and reallie, spirituall in regard of the manner which in the Sacrament it hath; Spiritualis atque diuina caro de qua (Christus) dixit, Caro mea vere est cibus &c. And S. Paul for the like reason doth call the bodie after it is risen a­gaine, spirituall, seminatur corpus anima­le, surgit corpus spirituale. Confer. pag. 47. His words are, And as S. Austine heere calls this speach figuratiue in regard of the manner, though the same speach in regard of the substance receaued be not figuratiue, So doth S. Ierome call the flesh of our Sa­uiour in the Eucharist spirituall in regard [Page 249] of the manner, though the substance of flesh be not a Spirit; and the Apostle tear­mes the bodie spirituall in regard of the condition it shall haue in the Resurrection though for substance it consistes of matter still, and by corporeum differ from a spirit intrinsicallie as much thē as it doth nowe So he.

Next vnto this willfull mistake, you enter into a discourse of diuerse senses in one and the same place; which discourse laies your ignorance more open: but is little to the matter of the Conference. That there are not two senses a figuratiue and a proper in one place of Scripture, you will proue, VVaf. pag. 36. you say. If you meant to proue that one and the same place, cannot be fi­guratiue secundum quid, in regard of the māner, & absolutè, proper, as hath beene defended before, in seuerall occasions, you quicklie forget what you meant to do, or were not able to do what faine you would haue donne: for you bring not anie ar­gument at all to make it good. Of [Page 250] litterall senses in generall, you wri­te something, confusedlie, and see­me to denie there may be manie in one place or text of Scripture: but not one argument appeares to proue the thing which wanted proofe, vzt, that one and the same place could not be figuratiue, secundum quid, and proper absolutè or simpliciter. If you meant to proue that one & the same proposition could not be proper abso­luté, simpliciter; and improper or fi­guratiue absoluté simpliciter; your la­bour was impertinent, since the pro­position in Question was neuer said by my Lord or S. E. to be such. nei­ther haue they said that any other pro­position had the two sences mentio­ned, in that manner. That the same man may be white secundum quid, and absoluté black; the same speach, im­proper secundum quid, and absoluté proper, hath beene said; and the speach obiected, hoc est corpus meum, is such. That this, or anie other, is absoluté proper, and absoluté figurati­ue [Page 251] or improper; or the same man absolute white, and absolutè black, is the meteor of your braine, which like an Ignis fatuus leads your argument still out of the right way.

The sence of a place of Scripture is either literall or mysticall. Some pla­ces haue both; as that, Abraham It is written that A­braham had two sonnes, the one by a bond-maid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bond-woman was borne after the flesh; but he of the free-woman, by promise (24.) which things are said by an Alle­gorie: for these are the two testaments, the one from the mount Sina which gendreth to bondage, which is Agar. &c. (26.) But Hierusalem which is aboue, is free, which is the mother of vs all. &c. Now wee brethren, according as Isaac, are the children of pro­mise. (29) but as then he that was borne after the flesh persecuted him that was (borne) after the Spirit: euen so it is now. Ad Galat. 4. duos filios habuit, vnam de ancilla, & vnam de libera; sed, qui de ancilla secundum carnem natus est, qui autem de libera per repromissionem. Gal. 4. The mysti­call sense is threefold, allegoricall, tropologicall, and anagogicall, and the same place may some times haue all three. For example, in the place [Page 252] now cited, and as it is expounded by the Apostle, there is the Allegori­call, Haec sunt duo testamenta &c. v. 24. the Anagogicall, illa autem quae sursum est Hierusalem &c. v. 26. and the tro­pological, sed quomodo tunc is qui secun­dum carnem natus fuerat persequebatur eum quisecundum spiritum, ita & nunc. v. 29.

Concerning literall senses, it is the tenet of S. Augustine lib. 12. Confes. that there may be diuers; tWo three, four, or more; in the same words, and since a word may haue many significations, why might not the Holie Ghost, vnderstanding all verities, and all significations, of all words, vse the same words, in the same speach, (as that; in the begin­ning God created Heauen and Earth,) in many significations, at once? This speach in Isaie, generationem eius quis enarrabit, the Fathers vnder­stand sometimes of the temporall, sometimes of the eternall generation of our Sauiour; and that of God the Father, in the Psalmes, Filius meus es [Page 253] tu, Ego hodie genui te: the Apostle takes in one sense, Act. 13. and in an other sense, Heb. 1.

Touching the mixture of proper & figuratiue; it hath beene tould you that the same place may be proper absolutè, simpliciter; and figuratiue secundum quid: you crie out for one such, and do not mark that before your face you haue alreadie two: nisi manducaueritis carnem filii hominis &c. and hoc est corpus meum. That this is proper according to the substance of the thing signified, we proue by the common rule of interpreting the Scripture, when it proposeth do­gmaticallie matters of Diuine belee­fe, and the same is confirmed to vs abundantlie by other places of Holie Scripture which do concerne this Sa­crament and sacrifice, and by the testimonie of the Holie Ghost in the Catholik and vniuersall Church, which did euer beleeue it since our Sauiour (truth it self) spake these wordes. That the same speach is figuratiue & [Page 254] improper in regard of and respectiue­lie to the manner of the thing which māner vsuallie the word corpus doth import, it is euident; for, the bodie hath not in the sacrament, extension of parts in order to place: but is the­re, all in euerie part of the dimen­siōs of bread, according to the man­ner of a Spirit.

When M. Mirth had come thus farre, imagining (poore man) that he had got some victorie, he puts a crowne vpon his head; and snatching the trumpet, giues notice of a new battle; wherein he meanes to set vpon the little digression of S. E. which digression he cruellie dismem­bers; and spurnes the pieces of it ouer the rest this Section, to and fro; con­temptiblie. I cannot without pittie see the thing so misused; perhaps if the parts be gathered together, the discourse may stand againe; and affri­ght him, in the middest of his triumph.

Next I will runne ouer againe this section, and page by page will [Page 255] answer the daintie subtilities of Master S. E. and iustifie our Doctors discourse against his Notes.

If you will proue your tenet, you must ouer againe, and a thousand times againe; and then will find your self (as the mill-horse doth after all his labour) euen there in the end where you were in the begin­ning. Did not this appeare in your Doctors first argument, and in this you now prosecute, which is the second? can you do more then he? but now, forsooth, you will answer page by page: and in matter of Logick & Philosophie. We haue lost allreadie to much time in hearing your [...], and this (though the matter come neerer to your cap) will (most liklie) be lost also, but you teach, & wee must harken, you will answer subtilities you say, page by page, that is, exactlie.

you say words do signifie conceptions, I would haue you know [Page 256] there is a great deale of differēce betwixt conceptio, and conceptus.

Satis pro imperio. What S. E. meant by a conception you haue presentlie in his next words, The con­ceptiō is an Image representing the thing which wee think on. This Image, vi­tallie proceeding in the minde, is pro­perlie in English named a conception of the vnderstanding.Confer. pag. 8. Some name your Mastership will allow it in our language; such as may distinguish it from the obiect or the thing concea­ued. I pray you turne your Dictiona­rie and find what name this is. turne to which word you please, conceptus, or, conceptio. S. E. vsed neither, but onlie said words do signifie the conce­ptions of the mind. which English, you cauilling at, should haue mended; (seeing you will needes make your self his Master:) and haue taught him, and your owne Dictionarie to speake it better, in good English: and such english as doth not equallie si­gnifie things obiected, whether they be feigned, or not feigned.

[Page 257]For proofe of this Assertion, words do signifie the conceptions of the mind, he needed not your helpe, hauing cited in the margine these words of Aristotle, (which it seemes you do not vnderstand,) sunt ergo ea quae sunt in voce, earum quae sunt in anima passionum notae. neither had he neede of Smiglecius, hauing cited the Commen­tators interpretation, which is clea­re enough, dictiones significant primó intentiones quae sunt in anima.

you tell how the species which together with the vnderstanding concurre to the framing of verbum mentis, are sent into the mind or vnderstanding by way of sence; but you are deceaued; the­se species which concurre with the vn­derstanding to frame verbum mentis, are species intelligibiles, and the obiect sends no species into the eie, or anie other sen­ce, but sensible species, and those sensi­ble species are not sent into the vnderstan­ding by way of sence.

It would haue well be­come a Master, (Master Waferer,) if he finds a fault, to shew the way [Page 258] to mend it. and if you do not shew that it is indeed a fault, howeuer your sillie Pupils may be content to beleeue it on your word without euidence of reason (and will profit accordinglie in their studies,) your aduersaries in the matter, will not.

If the species of paper, be not sent into your mind by paper, and by the way of sence, how came it thether? did you know what was in this Cen­sure before you reade it? are you able to make vs a particular description of that part of the world which is not yet discouered, and to write vs their historie? it seemes you can; for you gather not your knowledge by waie of sence. your Intellect, by priuiled­ge, was otherwise stored from the beginning, which is the reason why you teach diuinitie before you learnd it; and talke non-sence, so familiar­lie: whilst others comming more nakedlie into the world, with their Quo omnia fieri, the passiue or possible: and quo omnia facere, the agēt; [Page 259] are faine to learne before they teach, and to abstract from the phantasmes (which exteriour obiectes by the sence cause in them) the formes of thinges, whereby they may conceaue or vnderstand.

Aristotle thought that the possible vnderstanding or intellect, is,Arist. 3. de Ani­ma. [...]. 4. & 13. as a painters table that hath yet no picture in it: and his reason doth demonstrate what he saith. In this table, the Soule (whose instruments all the powers be) doth with her actiue intellect, as with a spirituall hand, describe the species of that which is represented and offered to her by the phantasie: & then doth vse it (the same species) to conceaue intellectuallie the obiect of it,Imagi­natio a­liud est a sensu, & ara­tionatio­ne. Arist. 2. de Ani­mat. t. 153. which obiect it had onlie imagined or by the phantasie conceaued be­fore.

The phantasme of it selfe was not able to describe the foresaid species or Image in the spirituall table which the soule hath, as wanting actiuitie in this higher kind; but there is in the soule power enough to make it. A [Page 260] faire picture in a transparent glasse-window, is not of it self able to make it's species in the aire, or in your eie; but light comming vpon it, the species is made: so heere the picture which is in the Imagination cannot of it self worke a species in your vnderstāding, but the spirituall light comming on it,Species impressa, the species is imprinted. This way, ac­cording to the Philosopher, the spe­cies comes into our mind: and from the thing conceaued. First into the exteriour sence: from thence; (not the same species numero, but in equiualēce the same) into the interiour sence; and still further, till at last (being purged of it's materiall conditions, or abstra­cted from them,) it arriues in the vn­derstanding: where it is not corporeall, as in the senses, but spirituall accor­ding to the nature of the power whe­rein it is receaued, and is not a sensible specie (that is, seruing for the sense to know by) but an intellectiue species, as being in the vnderstanding, and seruing it to conceaue the thing that [Page 161] was offered to the sense; a man, paper;Quoniā autem vt in v­niuersa natura est ali­quid, al­terum materia cuique geners: quod ia [...]o sic est, quod potentia est illa omnia▪ alterum causa & effecti­num, eo quod omnia efficiat, quae res vsu venit in arte si cum mate­ria comparetur: ita etiam in anima hae adsint differen­tiae necesse est. Atque est quidam intellectus talis quod omnia fiat, quidam quod omnia faciat, veluti habitus, perinde ac lumen: nam lumen quoque quodammodo sacit actu colores, eos qui sunt potentia colores Arist. 3 de Anima. t. 17. & 18. In nobis intellectus agens & possibilis est per comparationem ad phantasmata. quae quidem com­parantur ad intellectum possibilem vt colores ad visum: ad intellectum autem agentem vt colores ad lumen, vt patet te [...] ­tio de Anima. S. Tho. 1. p. qu. 54. a. 4. whitenes.

That which presents it self to the eie saith S. E. is not the pure essence or quidditie of a thing as they speake in Schooles; it is an extended coloured thing, which thing we do see, and cōceaue, and name, agreeing that such or such a word shall be in speach the signe of it. And do they in the Schooles indeed say that we do con­ceaue a man as we see him, not in the pure essēce or quidditie of a mā but as an exten­ded or coloured thing? and do wee agree that this word (mā) shall be a signe of that extended coloured thing?

Had you meant to make such a comment, you should haue left out the text by which the Reader presentlie seeth your mistak. Doth S. E. tell you that in schooles we do not conceaue a man in the pure essence and quidditie of a man? he knowes well enough how a man is cōceaued, both in the schooles of Metaphysick, which doth abstract from sensible matter; & in the Schooles of naturall Philosophie which doth not abstract from it, but it seemes that you do not; and there­fore if you were yet to begge your grace for Master, you were in dan­ger to be put back, least the Vniuer­sitie in your ignorance should be dis­graced. And the rather, because you do not vnderstand a peece of plaine English, which you take vpon you to refute. In S. E. thus it is. That which presents it self to the eie to be seen (mar­ke that,Confer. pag. 51. to the eie,) is not the pure essen­ce or quidditie of a thing as they speake in schooles, and you by experience know it, but it is a thing sensible, and to be per­ceaued with this organe and facultie, [Page 263] (mark that also, with this organ; this organ and this eie, is not our vnder­standing, one would think;) it is an extended coloured thing, which thing, we do see, and conceaue, and name, (I pray you haue not you a name, did your Godfather if you be Chrisned, vnderstand or conceaue the thing he named; or did he not conceaue it? how knowes he you, his God sonne, from an other man or woman?) a­greeing that such or such a word, shall be in speach a signe of it.

Looking on a man, saith S. E. we conceaue in our minde his figure, colour &c, (you had neede put in &c.) representing all in one image, we subordinate, as a signe of it and of it's obiect also this word man. Now I perceaue you dreame that the sen­sible obiectes come into the vnderstāding; which makes you tell vs of an extended co­loured thing.

If S. E. can dreame so well, it seemes that his dreames are better then your watchings; and that he can discourse of Philosophie in his sleepe [Page 264] better then you can do whē you pre­pare your papers for the print. That which first of all moues our vnder­standing (whilst it is heere in our bo­die) is a sensible thing, sending into it a species in manner aboue specified. Were all such remoued out of the world, and that a man by no sence at all euer perceaued any thing, his tabu­la picturae aptata that he brought with him into the world, would be in the end as naked as it was in the begin­ning of his life. When he hath once gotten the species of some things, he can finde out some others; as by the effect he finds a cause; by Creatures, God:Rom. 1. Inuisibi ia ipsius (D i) a creatura mundi per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta a cō ­spiciuntur, sempiterna quoque eius vir­tus & diuinitas; but first his vnderstan­ding must be moued by something that offers it self vnto the sence, whose nature it abstractes from the materiall or indiuiduall conditions, and so directlie conceaues it;S. Thom. 1. p. q. 84. a. 6. being able also (by reflection at least) to cō ­ceaue singulars, which the sence per­ceaues [Page 265] directlie. The parcell which you cite out of S. E. is so maimed that it hath lost all sence, but I will presen­tlie restore it.

Heare what your owne wordes say, this word man signifies a man is a thing not in his pure essence and quidditie as they speake in schooles, but an extended coloured, figured thing &c. Is not this a prittie brat of your owne conception, and laid at the Schooles like a bastard to see who will father it? either blush your self or giue me leaue to laugh: I thought before that all that this name (homo) doth import were animal rationale, sure I am the defi­nition doth answer perfectlie to the defi­nitum, & is exactlie true without respect had to colour or figure.

The whirlewind in your braines hath so confounded the spe­cies of things, that all is now troubled which comes from you, whether you relate or dispute: wherefore I must looke vpon S. E. his booke, & thence transcribe his wordes which you ca­uill at. Next vnto those by me before [Page 266] cited, he said thus, Looking on a man, we cōceaue in our mind his figure, [...] 51. colour, &c. representing all in one Image, to which Image we subordinate (as a signe of it, and of it's obiect also) this word, a man. Where he saith (you see) that this word man, is imposed to signifie that sensible thing whose Image we had conceaued in our mind; and to such things men vse to giue names. Aske your neighbour what a calf, or ā oxe, or a bull, signifies; and he will tell you of a sensible figured thing. & the same substance may be, successiuelie, all; ex­cepte there be oxen with you that neuer were calues. and aske a schol­ler, he will still tell you there is diffe­rence betwixt an oxe, and a calf; they be not synonyma. you are not a child you think; yet are a man: what is become of your other substance, that indiuiduall substance which longe agoe you had? or is it still the same?

But either S. E. must blush, or he must giue you leaue to laugh. What needs the disiunctiue, M. Waferer? [Page 266] he may blush, and you laugh too. neither neede you his leaue to laugh where and when you will. Though much laughing in others be no good cognizance, it agrees with you so well that it were inciuilitie to denie you the vse of it, your priuiledge, and naturall propertie; for you are Mirth. And he may blush, and so may Alban-Hall, and Oxford, and your Mother, all may blush; and haue cause to blush in you: the first in an aduersarie; the second in a pu­pill; the third in a graduate, and the fourth in a sonne.

But whilst you laugh, do not di­stracte me too; for I am studying hard and seriouslie, vpon a Question; which your discouse hath occasioned in my mind: and my poore inuention hath searched all the species and for­mes in her litle closet to find a solu­tion for it, and none will serue; vn­lesse peraduenture one, which she hath put aside. I can not well propo­se it in common; but I will softlie tell it you. Sir this it is: Whether [Page 268] your mother were a man?S. E. (Do­ctor) was not de­ceaued. Forma dat nomē & esse. the reason of doubt which occurres out of your discourse (and not to doe her any wrong, I haue indeede no other reason to moue such a doubt, though sometimes her sonne doth argue wi­thout reason,) is, because, if the definition of a man, all that the word or name doth signifie, do agree to her, the name also doth, and may be verified on her: now the definition of a man Animal rationale, (which you would haue your Reader to be­leeue is all that the word signifies,) doth agree to her; for I suppose your mother was some reasonable creature: whence it followes, vnles you will diuorce the definition and definitum, that the name (which doth signifie that definition, and that onlie if you saie true,without respecte had to co­lour or figure or any other accidens) doth agree to your mother:VVaf. pag. 41. and con­sequentlie this is true, that your mo­ther is a man.

A man, I say: that is the word in Question; that was the word of S. [Page 269] E. in his example; and if it be graun­ted once that it signifies more then the substance or quidditie, more then animal rationale (as it must do if it si­gnifies not your mother, aswell as you:) then his discourse is currant, and your exception both vnlearned, and impertinent, he did not instan­ce in the latine word homo; he meant to giue the Readers who do not all vnderstand latine, an example of that he had said, in our owne language, which hath names also, you might haue knowne too, that some latine wordes signifie more then some other, English, or latin do that be taken some times for the same, homo, signifies more then vir. May it please your learned Mastership to consider with your self how this argument may be satisfied; but let none els know. The forme I laide aside, was the species of an hermaphrodite. I sup­pose you will make no further speach of it. Lapidi dictum puto.

You (S. E.) adde that without colour and quantitie the na­me [Page 270] is not perfectlie answerable to the intellectuall image; as if the vn­derstanding did conceaue man as coloured: you must conceaue coloratum is the pro­per obiect of the sence of seeing, and the­refore can not be the obiect of the vnder­standing formallie and qua sic.

If a reasonable creature, without adding more, doth answere fullie to the name we speake of, (man,) your mother Master Waferer, is a man, there is no waie to scape;Laeto. vnles you say that she hath not all this, and so either is no creature, no animal; or not rationale, not reasonable; or, nei­ther animal nor rationale; Or that the word (man) signifieth more then animal rationale that is not in your mother, which were to retract your Apologie and to let the discourse of S. E. stand againe, as first it did.

Moreouer, you must acknowledge that a mans vnderstanding can con­ceaue, not onlie substance, but also [Page 271] colours, and quantitie, and figures: and consequentlie, it may be able to conceaue an extended, and figu­red, and coloured, liuing substance. How do you conceaue the Predica­ments, the ten genera, and their spe­cies? whith your intellect, or with your heeles? or not at all? if your heeles serue your turne, you may runne ouer them apace without troubling of your head: if not at all, he was forsworne that presented you for your grace: if with your intellect, then ones vnderstanding may con­ceaue a man coloured, he may con­ceaue colour as well as man; and co­lour in a man, and, for that as, you may keepe it till there be neede; to­gether with your formallie and qua sic. Let coloratum or what els you please be the proper obiect of the sight; it is all vnder the obiect of the intelle­ctiue power, which may know what all the sences can; and more, where­by it comes to passe, that coloratum cannot be the proper or adequate ob­iect [Page 272] of this power; but some thing lar­ger, that includes it.

If (homo) signifie co­lour, what colour is (homo) I pray? If you say white, then say I a black man is no man▪ if black then a white man is not perfectlie a man.

This is but to make waie for a conceipt as you think, which your head was great withall; albus an ater (homo) sit nescio. VVaf. Ibidem. Suppose I put color, into the place of homo; & argue (as you do,) thus; If the la­tine word color doth signifie colour, what colour is (color) I pray you? if white, black is none: if black, white is none. To Which Question your Mastership thinks there is no o­ther Answer possiblie to be made, but this, albus an ater sit nescio. The Philo­sophers are wont to saie that in gene­re latent aequiuocationes: do you vnder­stand this? I think not. But, to your in­terrogatorie; the species or differences in colour, which you speake of, are not properties of the nature of man [...] but the one, of this, the other of that, [Page 273] Indiuiduum; from which the species or nature is abstracted▪ and no man is without colour; it is found in all and euerie one:An black for exā ­ple. though this or that (a) determinate colour be not in euerie one. In the extraction of a definition, we looke wherein all agree; begin­ning first as we can, with a fewe;The conclu­sion. & still comparing more and more, till we find the notion common vnto all. Facilius est singula de finire quàm vniuer­sale; Arist. 2. Post. A­nal. [...]. 82.83. qua propter oportet a singularibus ad ad vniuersalia transire: aequiuocationes enim latent magis in vniuersalibus quàm in indifferentibus, quemadmo­dum autem in demonstrationibus o­portet (a) esse ipsum, syllogizatum fuisse, ita & in definitionibus manifestum est. hoc autem erit si per ea quae singulariter dicuntur, sit in vnoquoque genere defi­nire seorsum, vt simile non omne, sed quod in coloribus & figuris, & acutum quod in voce, & ita in commune progredi ob­seruantem, ne aequiuocatio incidat. Cum ad senatum redire­mus, atque vt missa in vniuersum aboleretur ageremus &c restabat aahuc non minimus conatus quo scilicet exempla proderemus qua nulla cum parabola coniuncta forent coepi­mus omnia cogitare, attamen aliud nihil exemplorum occur­rebat, &c. cum vero tredecima dies adpeteret, vera nar [...]o, &c. visus sum mihi in somno multo cum taedio denuo contendere cum aduersario scriba, sicque obmutuisse vt—ibi tanquam é machina visus est monitor adesse, ater fuerit an albus nihil memini (somnium enim narro) qui diceret, qum ignau [...] respondeses quod in Exodo scribitur, est enim Phase, id est, transitus Domini protinus vt hoc phasma visum est simul expergesio, & e lecto exilio, locum apud septuaginta pri­mum vndique circumspicio, ac de eo coram tota concione pro virili dissero. Swinglius lib. de subsid, Eucharist.

[Page 274]The acumen of your iest, albus and ater. (Wherewith you bred your self a difficultie, your aduersarie suffering none, as you haue seene,) hath let your cause blood (so vnwarie you were) in the head-veine,See the liues of Luther, Swin­glius, Corol­stadius, &c. By Master Brier­ley. by directing the minde of the hearer to the stories of your predecessours, the glories of your Gospell, Luther, Caralostadius & Swinglius; who were instructed by a black thing, the Deuill; against the Masse. Luther saith in plaine tearmes, it was Diabolus and Satan. & Swinglius ater fuerit an albus nihil memini. But Con­radus Sclusselburg (himself a Protestāt) with diuers other Protestantes, affir­me [Page 275] that, without doubt, it was tho Deuil, Sole meridiana clarius est non Deum verum, sed Diabolum ipsissimum, Swinglio per somnium suam Haeresin Sa­cramentariam inspirasse. Schlu. Theop. Caluin. in pro­oem, It is more cleere then sunne light at mid-day that it was not the true God but the very Diuell him­self that inspired into Swinglius in a dreame his Sacramentarian heresie. Not albus then, but ater.

Thus farre touching the Philoso­phicall part of that Digression, (the rest you were content to lett passe, as you do still the grearest part of S. E. his Notes, without replie,) in the exa­men wherof you haue shewed your ignorance in that kind of learning too. It is needles to examine that poore Inference which you build vp­on your owne mistakes. that will fall of it self▪ it tottered, and was sensles when I looked on it. Next, you will needs, thrust in a dispute, of the veritie of propositions.

A proposition is not said to true or false because it is answerable to the [Page 276] intellectuall image, but answerable to the thing.

That which S. E. had said, was this; that in attributing the name to a thing (for example the name man, to your mother) we seeme to saie that it hath in it self, Confer. pag. 52. al which the name doth signifie; that is, all which the conception (wher­unto this name was subordinated as a signe) doth represent: which is not exactlie true (you will sweare in the exam­ple of your mother) if the forsaid exte­riour forme be wanting. Apolog. pag. 44. Heere was, you see, little cause for you to come in with your let me tell you that a proposi­tion is not said to be true &c.

Did wee suppose a vocall proposi­tion had formallie in it self, veritie, in comparison to the thing or obiect, still the discourse of S. E. doth stand good: for euen in that case, you must saie that words had their significations giuen them by men that vnderstand; who appointed them to be signes, not of what thinges soeuer, but, of those which they conceaued. whence it will follow that, the word or name cannot be exactlie verified in the thing, [Page 277] if in the same thing be not all, impor­ted by the name. But, formall veritie, if Aristotle may be iudge, is in the vn­derstanding; non enim est falsum & ve­rum in rebus sed in mente. 6. M [...]t. tex. 8. And vocall propositions are said true, inasmuch as they be signes of true mentall propositions. Sunt ergo ea quae in voce earum quae sunt in mente passionum notae: & ea quae scribuntur earum quae sunt in voce. lib. 1. de Interp. tex. 1. For the interpretation of which words we will not be beholding to Smigle­cius as you would haue vs. many write Philosophie, that vnderstand not the Philosoper: and whether he be one of those, or not, I neither know, nor meane to looke. the words are cleere without a Comment. Wherein for­mall veritie doth consist, wherein trans­cendentall veritie, and how the vnder­standing whilst it doth attribute the predicate to the subiect doth in actu ex­ercito know truth; are things not ap­pertaining to this place: nor (if one may iudge of your skill in this by the rest which you haue vttered) within [Page 278] the sphere of your knowledge.

I had almost forgot to take no­tice of two other passages in this your Examen of the Digression; the one is, how easilie in the heate of your pas­sion, you bring a man (had it beene your Aduersarie you might haue begd a solemne Triumph) to almost no­thing. Hauing defined him, (you say, out of S. E.) a thing not in his pure essence and quidditie, but extended and coloured &c. first (yourHeare what your owne words say, this word man signifies a thing—so then we will be beholding to you for perfecting the definition of a man thus, homo est animal quantum & coloratum; as good as that of Plato Homo est animal bi­pes & inplume. and as the Philosopher put a cock with his feathers pluckt of, into Plato his schoole & cryed Ecce homo Platonicus, so might wee put a picture of a man into yours and crie Ecce homo Iesuiticus, because you will be content with this definition Homo est quid quantum & coloratum. VVaferer pag. 42.43. words are in the margine) you laugh at this man. (belike your Father was not such a thing; but one of the naked, abstracted substances, which other­while [Page 279] conuerse with women,) you first (I say) laugh at the man. and then begin to dispoile him of his de­finition. the difference rationale you cut of; and define him, animal quan­tum & coloratum: then you laugh at him againe, and bring in Diogenes ghost to keepe you companie. After this you take out animal; and so ma­ke him sensles, thus; homo est quid quan­tum & coloratum. He is mangled enough, now, one would think; hauing neither eies, nor hands, nor eares: you haue made of him a lump of earth, quid quantum & coloratum. one blow more and you may beat him into dust. but that will not satis­fie your rage; you turne him thus diffigured, this quantum & coloratum into a meere shape or picture, that he may be without substance: and then you stab him through, with an Ecce homo Iesuiticus; wherewith you fixe him to the paper, where he han­ges Pag. 43. till he be torne out, to light tobacco, and so turned into smoke.

[Page 280]The other passage is about sucking will you saie that an Ivie bush is not a signe that wi­ne is to be sold there, because you cā ­not suck sack, claret, & white wine out of an Ivy leafe? VVafer. pag. 44. wine out of an Iuie bush. you do but bungle in the application; I will help you to do it better. It is an Em­bleme of your communion; wherein you suck, blood, out of wine. your opinion is that it is nothing indeede but wine, standing for the signe of blood; as an Iuie bush before the tauerne dore, is nothing but Iuie, standing for a signe of wine. You saie alsoe, that it doth exhibite to you real­lie the blood of Iesus Christ, euen that which was shed vpon the cros­se. Is not this like sucking wine out of a signe wherein it is not; out of a bush of Iuie? It is as fit an exposition, as apt a simile, as one would haue desi­red, onlie we must recite some of your doctrine which it doth illustrate. Pag. 10. you saie, Though the verie bodie and blood of Christ be not substan­tiallie contained vnder the shapes of bread and wyne, yet they are reallie com­municated by the holie Ghost vnto vs at & by (marke that by) the faithfull & worthie receauing of those mysteries. Pag. [Page 281] 13. bread is more then a bare figure of the bodie, for it hath the effectuall presence of the bodie ioyned with it, though sub­stantiallie it be not become the same. And though the bread be not in substāce Christ, yet the faithfull receauer hath (since to giue him effectuallie and in substance is the same) the substance communicated to his soule as veritie as the bread enters his mouth. Pag. 62. Ile graunt you that the out ward signes are signes of Christs bodie present after consecration, but I denie that the bodie is there present after the manner you define. Tis not there corporallie but mysticallie, and sacramentallie, and yet so as besides the intellectuall presence, there is also a reall & exhibitiue presence in respect of dona­tion on Gods part, and reception on mans part. Heere, besides the intelle­ctuall presence, (by faith) is a reall exhibition; and a reall reception of the bodie: the verie substance of it, is as reallie communicated to the soule and as verilie, as the bread (deliuered by the Minister) is receaued in the mouth: and [Page 282] all this is donne by meanes of the si­gnes, exhibiting those thinges vnto vs. Is not this sucking blood out of wine, and wine out of an Iuie bush?

To our tenet, (which is the Catho­lick) that embleme doth not agree; for in our Sacrament there is vnder the exteriour signes, flesh and blood, ac­cording to the substance and veritie: the whole bodie, the whole humani­tie of our Sauiour, the Mediatour; he himself, with all the ornaments of his humanitie, and all the infinite perfe­ctions of his Diuinitie, is there: and, receauing the blessed Sacrament into our mouthes, wee do receaue, in it, all this. The vintners wine be not thus in his Iuie bush, that you may sucke sac­ke from thence.

After this, M. Waferer enters into the matter of transubstantiation, which matter was not handled in the Con­ference. He might haue saued himself the labour he takes, and looseth, in talking of it, had he (as he might and should) haue obserued (but that he was willing to confound Questions [Page 283] and runne out of one into another) that which my Lord in the beginni [...] gaue the auditorie then present, to vnderstand.Confer. pag. 7. See also Featli Pag. 288 That the Conference was to be, not of Transubstantiation, but of the reall presence onlie, which by order of disputatiō ought to be first. and so it was agreed, and nothing said of that mat­ter. What he brings against it, is ordi­narie stuffe, and the manner of deli­uering it, worse then ordinarie. The authors which he cites are Caietan & Scotus: who notwithstanding (as is well knowne to Schollers that are a­ble to read their books) do maintaine and defend, and that,Caiet. 3. p. q 75. Scotus in 4. d. 10. & 11. The words obiected against vs out of him to proue the doctrine of transsubstantiation to be new, be these d. 11. qu. 3. where he speakes of the Lateran Councell. Quicquid ibi (in Concilio Lateranensi) dicitur esse eredendum, tenendum est esse de substantia fidei: & hoc post illam declarationem factam ab Ecclesia. Et si quaeras quare voluit Ecclesia elige [...]e istum intellectum ita difficilem huius articuli cum verba scripturae pos­sent saluati secundum intellectum facilem & veriorem secundum apparentiam, de hoc articulo; Dico quod eo Spiritu expositae sunt Scripturae, quo conditae. Et ita supponendum est quod Ecclesia Catholica eo Spiritu exposuit quo tradita est nobis fides, spiritu scilicet ve­ritatis edocta; & ideo hunc intellectum elegit quia verus est. Non enim in potestate Ecclesiae fuit facere istud verum vel non verum, sed Dei instituentis: sed intellectum a Deo traditum Ecclesia explicauit directa in hoc vt creditur Spiritu veritatis. He that well considers these words, will easilie perceaue there is in them no occasion giuē to pretend that he denies the doctrine to be auncient, since he affirmes it to be contained in the Scripture; & that the Church by directiō of the Holy Ghost whose assistance the Catholicks beleeue, found it there. Eo Spi­ritu expositae sunt Scripturae &c, &, ideo hunc sensum elegit quia—. you will not I hope, accuse the Scripture of no­ueltie. See Saint Augustine Contra Epist. fundam. c. 4. E­pist. 118. de bapt l. 2. c. 4. & 9. l. 5. c. 17. Contra Crescon. Gram. l 1. c. 33, Scripturarum in hac re tenetur veritas cum hoc facimus quod vniuersae iam placuit Ecclesie &c. It is the Church that is to teach vs, the meaning of the Scripture; docete. and the holy Ghost directs her in it, docebit vos. larglie and pro­fessedlie, both the Real [...] presēce, which [Page 284] was the matter of the Conference; & [...] transubstantiatiō, which matter he would faine runne into, to make a further demonstration of his igno­rance and vnsufficiencie. Next he saies the churches of Asia and the Greeke churches dissented, that is, [Page 285] denied transubstantiation. He might aswell haue tould his Reader that wee do: they hauing as fullie de­clared them selues in their Profession, bookes and Councels; And that verie Councell of Florence whēce he would (against the whole streame of autho­ritie) make good his rash assertion, in the Instruction of faith giuen to the Armenians, which was made in pu­blick session, sacro approbante concilio, that verie yeere he speakes of, 1439. doth ackowledge it, in these wor­des, Ipsorum verborum virtute substan­tia panis in corpus Christi & substantia vini in sanguinem, conuertitur; ita ta­men vt totus Christus continetur sub spe­cie panis, & totus sub specie vini: sub qualibet quoque parte hostiae consecratae & vini consecrati separatione facta, to­tus est Christus. by vertue of those verie words (of consecration) the substance of bread is turned into the bodie, and the substance of wine into the blood: yet so, that whole Christ is contained vnder the species of bread, and whole vnder the species of wine, and also [Page 286] whole Christ is vnder euery part of the consecrated hoast and consecrated wine, when there is a separation or diuision made. See Cardinall Peron, his booke against P. Mornay, pag. 812. & s [...]qq. and Censu. Eccles. Orient. Respons. 1. ad German. c. 13. & Responso 2. c. 4.

He saies pag. 47. and most igno­rantlie, that the Churches tenet of a substantiall change vnder the species; which change wee call transubstan­tiation, was a thing not knowne or taught for 1215. yeeres after Christ. which is a lie, many times confuted, by our Deuines; Bellarmine, Peron, Allen, Gualterius, and others, yea, and by your owne too, Master Mirth, your owne men, Protestants, confesse that Damascen taught it, that Gregorie and Austine brought it into England, that it entred early into the Church. Cited in the Pro­test. Ap. tract. r. sect. 7. subd. 4. See also sect. 2. subd. 2. Reade the discourse of M. Brierley p. 184.

Least you should outface such as want bookes, some few of those which held the change, shall (for their sakes) be represented on the by. I told you that Protestants cōtradict your assertion; and your frind Crak [...] thorps [Page 287] also, (Birkberks learned kins­man,) whō you cite in your margine. But I come neerer,pag. 232. this your Doctors frind, Birckbeck, will admit, (and with his aduise,) that it was publik­lie taught, in England by Lancfranc, long before the time you speake of. So will (I come neerer yet) Master Waferer of Alban-Hall, and with the same Doctors approbat, Who saith pag. 48. (so soone he forgot himself) your transubstantiation is no better then the coynage of the monk Damascen; who liued anno 730. This I note by the way only, to shew your ignorance and temeritie in your assertions; and how little your word is to be regar­ded. The point it self, I do not heare examine, because I will not leaue the matter of the Conference, as you stri­ue to do. ²

[Page 293]S. E. had said that Berengarius bro­ched yourAbout the yeere of our Lord 1060. the deny­ing of transubstantiation began to be accounted Heresie; and in that number was first one Berengarius who liued about [...]. 1060. Fox pag. 1121 Brier. heresie, and this you [Page 294] Master Waferer, take heynouslie; telling vs that you haue it from the Apostles. If you had said that one of them (Iudas) was of your opinion, you might peraduenture haue found Scripture for it, in the 6. of S. Iohn. where after our Sauiour had said the bread which he meant to giue was his flesh, that flesh which he would giue also for the life or redemption of the world, the Iewes began to dispute of the modus, how that could be, quomodo potest hic nobis carnem suam dare ad manducandum, how can this man giue vs his flesh to eate? whervpon our Sauiour told them that his flesh was meat indeed, and that his blood was drink indeed, and that they were to eate this flesh and to drink this blood. heereat some of the Disciples were scā ­dalized, and said, as you do, durus est hic sermo, this is a hard speach, they had not the patiēce to heare of it; they beleeued not; and amongst those was the man, I spake of. Sunt quidam ex vobis qui non credunt, sciebat enim ab initio Iesus qui essent non credentes, & [Page 295] quis traditurus esset eum. there are some of you that beleeue not. For Iesus knew from the beginning who they were that belee­ued not, and who should betray him. you know the man; he was of your opi­nion. yet Berengarius being the first that taught it openlie as a doctrine, he may well be said to haue broached it first. and, if insteed of the word opinion, or heresie, you put in, Sacra­ment; that it runne thus, Berengarius broached your Sacrament; it may be no metaphor, for it is wine that is in your communion cup, & nothing els but wine.

Heere is an end of your second Se­ction. I will leaue you now alone, in your recreation roome, and go speake with others, at the dore, you shall heare of me againe by that time you haue stepped into your third Se­ction; where if you can compose your self thereunto, we will be more seriouse. It is not my labour (it was your Mothers,) to breed Mirth.

[Page 296]Master Mirth is a merrie man; he can laugh out anothers eies: and his owne, it seemes, (is not laughing the cause?) be not fullie open, he hath studied so long in the Vniuersitie, and talkt there so much of homo, that he hath forgotten part of his owne mo­ther tounge. I haue beene disputing with him about a peece of it, and would haue left him sooner being wearie in the verie beginning, (dat sine mente sonum,) to heere so manie words with so litle sence, but that he would haue taken occasion there­by to make the presse labour againe in the edition of an other as imperti­nent a discourse; not omitting to ap­point his title-pages to stand, and proclaime me coward at euerie cor­ner-poste in Londō where the players put vp their bills, vnles I come the second time to the Comedie must I call it, or, Mirth's Tragedie.

Our dispute was about the signifi­catiō of this English word man, whe­ther it doth onlie signifie the sub­stance, the quid as they speake in [Page 297] schooles, animal rationale; or, whether it doth import, or bring into the vn­derstanding of him that heares or reades it and knowes our language, and in that kind signifie, more then animal rationale. It is an easie Question, (and scarce a Question but that he will make it so) which euerie English man or woman, or child, may determine. The child hath not yet learned to speake, and the old woman dotes, that knowes not the difference bet­wixt these two names, man, and, wo­man. and should one write the storie of his Petegrie, changing these names & expressing the female by the word man, the male by woman, schollers would think that he were madde. If you looke into the lāguage, you shall finde the like in other wordes. Those who gaue to thinges their English names, came not to the students in Metaphysick to haue them first abstra­cted. Men were, and had societie, and could speake, before they met to build Schooles. The Scottish, and Welsh, and Irish, were not inuented [Page 298] in Vniuersities; and they which made bricks at Babell were not all Masters of Art.

I neuer hard that a soule, in it self had any sex, or that animal rationale meta­physicallie abstracted from all acci­dētes, was an hermaphrodite, though those words haue a good sence in them, forma dat nomen & esse, and ra­tio quam significat nomen est definitio. Before such absurdities were inferd out of these words, it would be de­maunded what is this definitio? What this forme? manie formalities haue na­mes which haue not proper definitiōs; rationale, sensible, corporeum, and other differences, haue none: and the prima genera (substantia, quantitas, ad aliquid, and the rest) non habent genera; there­fore no proper definition. Neither are the substantiall differences of things, so knowne, as that, without taking into our vnderstanding their properties which are of another kind or predica­ment, we can vnfold or conceaue them. Wherof he may presentlie haue proofe sufficient, that would but en­deuour [Page 299] himself, or put another, (you Master Waferer,) to define the seuerall species of liuing thinges, beastes, trees, flowers, &c.

When naturall things were by man first named in vulgar language, their definitions or notions (which they who named them conceaued) were proportionable to their nature, which did occurre to the sence in­uested with certaine proprieties; & neuer otherwise; in which case, the Philosopher himself saies, it is hard to make ^(a) abstraction▪ neither was a [Page 300] Metaphysicall one, necessarie to the first imposition of the word or name, since the thing conceaued with it's properties, is sufficientlie distinguished from other thinges, and capable enough of a different name or signe. & in this manner, the Latine word Homo, (to speake of that language too, for your sake,) needed to sup­pose no other notion then that which might be gathered by obseruing a mans motion, discourse, figure, con­tenaunce, and other accidents found in all men that came to notice and not in any other thing but in mā. Thē further, as mē came to the knowledge of the Metaphysick, and therbey were able to abstract a substance frō sensible [Page 301] properties, and figure and quantitie, the name was applied to signifie that abstracted thing also, yet so, that it left not, to be withall, that it was before. Whence it comes to passe, that the same word, signifiing, ac­cording to diuers abstractions, more, or lesse, may be sayd to be, or not to be, entirelie verified in the same thing.

Aristotle in his first de Anima puts a difference betwixt the Logician & the naturall Philosopher, in their manner of defining, Differenter definiet natura­lis & Dialecticus &c. where he saith, the Logician defines by the forme, the Philosopher by the matter; and brings an example of each. In the sixt of his Metaphysicks he shewes how the Na­turall Philosophers way of defining isDifferē ­ter defi­niet Na­turalis & Dialecticus vnumquodque ipsorum. Vt ira quid est. Hic enim, appetitum recontristationis, aut aliquid hu­iusmodi; Ille autem, feruorem sanguinis, aut calidi circa cor Horum autem, Hic quidem assignat mate­riam, Ille veró formam & rationem. Ratio enim haec ipsius rei. Necesse autem esse hanc in materia huius­modi, si erit. Sicut domus haec quidem ratio &c. Arist. l 1. de Animat. 16. Qui accipit materiam in definitione, & dimittit formam, diminuté accipit: qui autem acci­pit formam & dimittit materiam, existimatur quod dimittit aliquid non necessarium, sed non est ita: quo­niam forma debet accipit in definitionibus secundum dispositiones in quibus existit. Commentator, Ibidem. [Page 302] diuers frō that of the Mathematician, or the Metaphysick. The Naturarall Phi­losopher doth (in his definition) ab­stract from indiuiduall matter (which he calls vltima, 7. Me [...]. [...].35. others signata,) for his definition must be constant and vniuersall; otherwise it would not serue his turne to make a demon­stration: but he doth not abstract from sensible matter, or that which is affe­cted with sensib [...]e qualities, as the other two doe.Arist. l 6 Me­taphys. t 2. vide Com­mentat. Ibidem. Eorum quae definiun­tur, & ipsorum quid est, quaedam qui­dem ita sunt vt ipsum simum, quaedam vt ipsum concauum. Differunt autē haec quo­niam simum quidem vna acceptum est eum materia, est enim simum conca [...] us nasus, concauitas vero absque materia sensibili. Si cuucta igitur naturalia ita vt simum di­cuntur, vt nasus, oculus, facies, caro, [Page 303] os, omnino animal, folium, radix, In defi­nitione enim carnis & ossis o­portet quod ponatur calidum & frigi­dum ali­quo modo cōtem­peratū; & simi­liter in aliis. S. Tho. ibidem. Aristot. cor­tex, omnino planta, (nullius enim eorum ratio absque motu, sed semper habet ma­teriam;) manifestum est quomodo in natu­ralibus oportet ipsum quid est quaerere, & definire; & cur etiam de quadam anima speculari Naturalis est, quaecunque non sine materia. Accordinglie, he doth elswhere define ali. 2. de Ani­ma. t. 4. & 5. Actus primus corpo­ris orga­nici &c. soule. and as for singulars, he saith they cannot be defined.Ari­stot. l. 7. Meta­phys. t. 35. Totius verò, vt circuli hu­ius, & singularium alicuius sensibilis aut intelligibilis (dico autem intelligibiles quidem, vt Mathematicos, sensibiles verò vt aeneos & ligneos) horum inquam non est definitio, sed intellectione aut sensu cognoscuntur. cum verò abeant ab actu, non est manifestum vtrum sint al.-quando an non sint: tamen semper dicun­tur & cognoscuntur vniuersali ratione; Materia vero per seipsam incognita. Materia verò quaedam sensibilis, quae­dam intelligibilis: sensibilis quidem vt aes & lignum, & quaecunque mobilis materia: intelligibilis verò quae in sēsibilibus existit non prout sensibilia, vt puta ipsa mathe­matica. The metaphysick doth ab­stract [Page 304] from all these three matters, signa­ta, sensibili, intelligibili: he can ab­stract a substance from quantitie, sensi­ble qualities, and indiuiduation, and ac­cordinglie define it; without expres­sing any of them in the intellectuall; or adding them, in the vocall defini­tion.

Thus far in common. Now to co­me to our particular cause. The Scien­ce which contemplates a substantiall bodie and according to whose abstra­ction it was named, is Naturall Philo­sophie, which Science, (according to the knowne doctrine of the schooles, wherunto the best Peripa­teticks, and the greatest schoolmen also, do subscibe,) doth not abstract from sensible matter; but defines by it. It abstractes à materia signata; and according to this abstraction & way of defining, doth impose names to things naturall; ratio quam significat nomen est definitio. Wherfore this La­tine word corpus, and this English word, bodie, (it is the like of all others imposed according to this ab­straction,) [Page 305] in the iudgment of the Naturall Philosopher do not abstract from such matter, but do signifie a thing sensible. And if the thing whe­rein they be verified be not such, he doth not esteeme the speach to be entirelie proper; because the words import or brīg into his vnderstāding such a thing, howbeit, the speaker is not tied to this notion, for he may vse another kind of abstractiō; & according ⁴ [Page] to that may peake his mind.

Heereby appeares the truth of those passages against which M. Wa­ferer most ignorantlie did cauill: as that of S. E. pag. 51. That which pre­sents it self to the eie to be seene is not a pure essence or quidditie as they speake in Schooles, but it is a thing sensible, and to be perceaued by this organ and facul­tie, it is an extended coloured thing, which wee do see and conceaue; agreeing that such or such a word shall be in speach a signe of it, and the rest, which you [Page 307] may reade in him. And of Cardinall Allen pag. 57. A thing being put out of it's naturall manner of being, and out of [...] naturall conditions and sensible pro­prieties agreeing to such a name, and en­dowed with strange accidentes, although it keepe it's substance, yet because it wants the conditions of subsisting which together with the substance come to the sence and conceit of man, and are com­prehended vnder the proper name, it almost leeseth it's proper name; or if it keepe it, yet not so properlie as if it kept it's proper manner of being. And of my Lord, pag. 39. I admit that in these wor­des, This is my bodie, there is a figure, not a meere or naked one void of the truth & proprietie, but a figure ioyned with the truth and with proprietie: because allthough they signifie that the Eucharist is the bodie of Christ trulie, reallie, and properlie according to the thing; yet they do not affirme it to be the bodie of Christ after such a corporall and naturall manner as other things are the things that they are said to be, but after a spirituall, inui­sible, mysticall, sacramentall manner, & [Page 308] such a one as doth figuratiuelie shew and represent the naturall manner of being of the same bodie in another place.

In which wordes there be two things more specified, the one is that the Sacramentall manner of existence, is figuratiuelie the naturall manner of existence; which also came to passe by the Institution, as appeares more fullie in the Gospell, do this in remem­brance of me. The other, that the wordes This is my bodie, do likwise insinuate the spirituall manner of exi­stence which the bodie hath heere in the sacrament; for, they do not si­gnifie the bodie in what manner soeuer, or abstracted (I speake of the proposition, not of corpus, which is a simple tearme) but they signifie determinatlie our Sauiours bodie with this kind of existence which it hath in the species or forme of bread.

Out of the former distinction of a double abstraction; if you should hea­re an vnderstanding man denie, that there is any kind of improprietie in the word corpus, you were to know [Page 309] that he takes it according to the Me­taphysicall abstraction; in which sen­ [...] the terme is entirlie proper, as be­fore was obserued, not according to the Physicall. So easilie you may recō ­cile him, with the others cited by S. E. and thereby see how little it doth import the maine, whether in the word, there be, or be not, admit­ted a kind of improprietie. In the word, I say, or terme; for it is one thing to speake of that single word, and an other thing to speake of the proposition; whose sence I haue vn­folded, as far as occasion hath beene offered; and shall doe further as I shall finde cause. I must now to M. Waferer againe, who is gotten to his next section and there expects me.

The third argument was about the killing letter; out of Origen, who by the killing letter meant (as it was Answered) not the Catho­like sence, but the Caphar­naiticall.

S. E. makes a noise with the Capharnaiticall straine, as if it diffe­red from their carnall eating: but I re­ferre the Reader for satisfaction to D. Featlie his Conference, which vnans­werablie conuinceth their shifts of weak­nes and obstinacie.

Vide Bellar. li. 2. c. 8. §. tertius l [...]eus. Sunt cer­ti deni­que fines quos vl­tra ci­traque nequit consistere rectum. Had you setled a litle your countenance whilst you were alone, it would haue mended the matter something, for much laughter doth [Page 111] not well consist with Magisteriall grauitie; but to put on a brasen face, [...]d auouch to the Reader what by reading without further studie or instruction, he knowes to be other­wise, is an extreame, more absurde. What kind of eating the Capharnaiets did meane, my Lord told your Doctor out of the Fathers, and, S. E. repea­ted the it againe. They thought S. Au­gustine saith, that our Sauiour would cut of some peeces from his bodie and giue them to eate. Carnaliter putarunt quod praecisurus esset Dominus particulas quas­dam de corpore suo & daturus illis. whe­runto Chamier your great Panstratist, from whom now & thē you borrow matter for your Pamphlet, subscri­bes in these wordes. Et hoc quidem ve­rum, quod ipsa lectio indicat; and, Quis non videt (lo what Andabatarians he makes you two, Doctor Featlie and your self,Cham. lib. 11. c. 19. n. 30.) in hanc formam argumenta­tos esse Capharnaitas? Omne corpus car­naliter manducandum, laniandum est, at secundum Christū eius corpus carnaliter est manducandū Ergo idem laniandum est. [Page 112] This is true, as one may see by the verie reading of the place. Who sees not that the Caphernaits argued in this manner? Euerie bodie that is carnallie to be eaten is to be cut or torne in peices; but accor­ding to Christ, his bodie is carnallie to be eaten; therefore it is to be cut or torne in peices. So they, as your Master Cha­mier tells you▪ wheras we beleeue, that the bodie of our Blessed Sauiour is receaued whole and entire vnder the forme of bread, as S. E. told you in his Notes, and my Lord in the Confe­rence defended against your Doctor. Is there no difference M. Waferer betwixt these two? betwixt eating of flesh in it's proper shape and recea­uing it in the forme of bread; betwixt receauing a bodie whole, entire; and eating but a peece? Belike there is no difference with you betwixt all, and some; betwixt a part, and the whole; betwixt a liue, and a dead thing; bet­wixt a corporall, and a spirituall man­ner of existence; betwixt the exteriour formes of flesh, and bread, who would haue thought a man of your name & [Page] nature, could be so melancholie, as not to discerne this?

But you are not your self disposed, & therefore send him that will haue satisfaction to Doctor Featlies Conferen­ce. Suppose he go.

Intererit multū—Is there more then was when S.E. read it ouer? Nothing at all. But S. E. hath not Answered, why so good M. Waferer? Because it vnanswerablie conuinces those shifts (that is, S. Augustins exposition,) of weaknes. Is that all? (S. Augustine might be weake to grapple with a Lion;) and obstinacie.

Away with this melancholie M. Waferer▪ what? may Featlie dissent from your Oracle Chamier, and from the Scripture interpreted by his Spi­rit, and from Sainct Austin, and other auncient Fathers, and from the Catho­lick and vniuersall Church, with com­mendations; and S. Austin not dissent from Featlie without obstinacie? What Vertigo brings this about? may no­thing be said for him, nothing answe­red in his behalf? No▪ for the Do­ctors [Page 114] Argument doth Vnanswereablie conuince.

And who dares looke such an Ar­gument in the face? S.E. belike ran a­way, let's see that first: for if he durst abide, greater Scholers neede not feare. The Doctors obiection I will put downe all, as he relates and hath amplified it himself; and will com­pare it with the Answer that was made.

Featlie. Origen saith Hom. 7. in Leui­ticum. If you follow the letter in these words, vnles you eate the flesh &c. that letter killeth.

Answer. He speakes of the litterall sence wherein the Capharnaites vn­derstood those wordes; not of that wherein the Church doth vnderstand them. This answer you may read more at large in the Relation, pag. 63.

Featlie. what is litera Capharnaitica, the litterall sence wherein the Capharnai­tes vnderstood the words?

Answer. They thought, as S. Augu­stine saith, that our Sauiour would cut [Page 315] of some peeces from his bodie and giue them to eate; quod precisurus esset parti­culus quasdam de corpore suo; this being the common, obuious, carnall way, of vnderstanding such a speach. They neuer thought of receauing a mans bodie whole, vnder the forme of bread: which is the sence, left vnto the Church by the Apostles; and confirmed by the Hole Ghost the Spirit of Truth. The words be not meant of dead, na­ked, flesh: they containe Spirit and life. Pieces of flesh, not vnited to the Diuine Person, such as they thought he would haue them take, and carnall eating of such pieces in their proper shape and forme, profites nothing to saluation; the thing were horrible in it self. It is the Spirit, the Diuinitie, giues a quick­ning vertue to that which is vnited to the word, Cyr. Al. Anath. 11 and this same word doth teach another sence which is the verie life of that letter; and doth also (in it's kind) giue life to the receauer: Spiritus est qui viuificat Caro non prodest quic­quam; verba quae ego locutus sum vobis Spiritus & vita sunt. Let Saint Augu­stine [Page 316] speake againe, Non crediderunt aliquid magnum dicentem, & verbis illis aliquam gratiam cooperientem, sed pro [...] voluerunt ita intellexerunt, & more ho­minum, quia poterat Iesus aut hoc dispone­bat Iesus, carnem qua indutum erat ver­bum, veluti concisam distribuere creden­tibus in se, Durus est inquiunt hic sermo. which imagination of cutting in peeces, and consuming it, our Sauiour, as he saies, refutes in the next words, Si ergo videritis filium hominis &c. Illi putabant, saies he, erogaturum corpus suum, (concisum vt suprà,) ille autem di­xit se ascensurum in coelum, VTIQVEIN­TEGRVM. Where he doth oppose inte­gritie to chopping or cutting into pee­ces. He goes on. Certe vel tunc videbi­tis quia non EO MODO quo putatis ero­gabit corpus suum. certe vel tunc intelli­getis quia gratia eius non CONSVMETVR morsibus. And againe afterwards in the same place. Magister bone, quomodo caro non prodest quicquam, cum tu dixe­ris nisi quis manducauerit carnem meam, & biberit sanguinem meum non habebit in se vitam &c. Non prodest quic quam, [Page 317] sed quomodo illi intellexerunt: carnem quippe sic intellexerunt quomodo in cada­uere dilaniatur, aut in macello venditur, S. Augu. tract 27. in Ioan. non quomodo spiritu vegetatur. They be­leeued him not, affirming a great matter and couering a grace vnder those words: but as they listed so they vnderstood, and as men vse to do, because Iesus could or disposed it so, that he would distribute vnto those who beleeued in him the flesh which the word had put on, cut in peices as it were. This say they is a hard saying. Ibidem. They thought he would giue them his bo­die, (cut in peices) he said he would as­cend into heauen, intire verilie, [...] bona gra­tia. de vocabu­li sup­positio­ne vide Theo­logos. Vide Turrian. de Euch. tr. 2. c. 13 & 19. not cut in peices. Surelie then at least you shall see that he will not giue his bodie eo mo­do quo putatis in that manner you ima­gine▪ then at least you will vnderstand that his grace will not by bitts be consumed. Good Master, how doth the flesh profit nothing, when as thy self hast said Vnles a man eate my flesh and drink my blood he shall not haue life in him, &c. It profiteth nothing, but as they vn­derstood; for they imagined it, as it is torne [Page 318] in peices in the carkasse, or sould in the butchers shop: S. Aug. Ibidem. not as it is quickned with the spirit.

Featlie. For ought appeares by Scri [...] ­ture or any auncient record, the Capernites errour was in this that they construed Christs words groslie and carnallie as you do▪ which you and thay should haue taken spirituallie: my wordes are Spirit and life.

Answer. Seeing our Sauiour (I repeate my Lords words) saith his flesh is trulie meate, and that his words are trulie life, they are to be vnderstood so that they be expounded both properlie and also spiri­tuallie or mysticallie▪ which thing we rightlie doe when wee say they are to be expounded properlie according to the substance of the thing eaten, because that substance which in the Eucharist we eate is the verie substance of the bodie of Christ: and also spirituallie according to the manner, because wee do not eate cutting and mangling it (as the Caphar­naites did conceaue) but without hur­ting it at all, no otherwise then if it were a meete Spirit. Thus farre my Lord▪ [Page 319] who did also declare out of S. Augu­stine (whose antiquitie I suppose Featlie will not call into question) & out of another more auncient then he, what kind of eating the Caphar­naites did vnderstand. Quidam quia non credebant, nec poterant intelligere abierunt retrò, Serm. de Coe. Cypr. quia horrendum eis & ncfarium videbatur vesci carne humana, existimantes hoc eo modo dici, vt car­nem eius vel elixam vel assam, sectamque membratim edere docerentur, cum illius personae caro SI IN FRVSTA PARTI­RETVR, non omni humano generi posset sufficere; qua semel consumpta VIDERE­TVR INTERIISSE (mark this by the way) RELIGIO, cui nequaquam vlte­rius VICTIMA superesset. Sed in cogita­tionibus huiusmodi caro & sanguis non prodest quicquam, quia (sicut Magister exposuit) verba haec spiritus & vita sunt, nec carnalis sensus ad intellectum tantae profunditatis penetrat nisi fides accedat. you heard S. Augustine before, Pu­tauerunt quod precisurus esset Dominus particulas de corpore suo. Carnem veluti concisam distribuere quomodo in cadaue­re [Page 320] dilaniatur aut in macello venditur non quomodo spiritu vegetatur. Some, becau­se they did not beleeue nor could vnder­stand, went back, for that it seemed to thē wicked and horrible to eate mans flesh, thinking it was meant they should eate it roasted or boiled, and chopt in peices; whereas the flesh of that person (Christ) were it diuided into portions or bitts would not serue all mankind: and being once consumed, Religion would seeme to haue perished withall; no victime or sacri­fice then remaining. But in such thoughts as these, flesh and blood profiteth nothing for (as our Master himself hath expoun­ded) these words are spirit and life; and vnles faith comes in, the carnall sence pe­netrateth not vnto the vnderstanding of so great a depth. Breiflie; they meant the common, carnall way, of eating flesh, in it's owne forme and shape, peece after, peece, whereby the thing eatē by degrees is consumed. Of which kind of eating our Sauiours words were not indeed to be vnderstood, for his bodie was not to be cut in peeces and to be consumed; nor in it's [Page 321] proper shape to be deuoured, but to be receaued in another shape, and still to remaine whole, entire.

Featlie. There is no such thing (as that which in this answer is attributed to the Capharnaites) implied in the litte­rall meaning of these words (vnles you eate my flesh) nor can be gathered from any circumstance of the text.

Answer. The Question is not whe­ther that be the true sence of the letter; wee know it is not: but whether the Capharnaites did vnderstand or con­ceaue it so. And that they did, it hath beene prooued, first by the testimonie of S. Augustine; and he not alone neither. Secondlie by the confession of your owne Chamier out of whose quiuer you take the chiefest of your bolts; who thinks them blinde that by reading the place perceaue it not. Thirdlie our Sauiour himselfe corre­cting them, doth insinuate what they meant, by telling thē, caro, the carnall meaning of his words, nō prodest quic­quam, doth nothing auaile, there is a higher meaning which the Spirit, the inte [...]our man, and, by faith onlie, can [Page 322] perceaue, in them. Spiritus est, qui vi­uificat, flesh apart and separate from the Word, who for vs was made flesh, giues not spirituall or eternall life. You mistake in thinking he meanes to let it be consumed with eating, or cut in peeces; he will keepe it still, & in the sight of men appeare againe & ascend, immortall, impassible, entire. Si ergo videritis filium hominis ascenden­tem (vtique integrum saith S. Augustin) you will then see that he vnderstands and can effecte more then you are able to conceaue; and therefore meri­ted to be beleeued in this. and, that he meant not to haue his flesh consu­med, cut in peeces, and eaten that way which you imagine. Fourthlie, they (the Capharnaits,) meant that eating which the word eate doth first signifie & which at the hearing of it mē com­mōlie do cōceaue, (see aboue, pag. 2▪ 3) not reflecting vpō that peculiar notiō which our Sauiour tooke it in, which notion by Philosophers had neuer beene thought vpon.

Featlie. A man might eate flesh accor­ding [Page 323] to the rigour of the letter, though he neither buy it in the market nor cut it.

Answer. For buying, there is no dif­ficultie▪ but I pray you Master Featlie, was it euer heard that one man did with his mouth eate an others bodie, in its owne shape and forme, without cutting or tearing? did the Anthropo­phagi swallow men whole? their mouthes then were great▪ greater thē the Capharnaites, who were as other men: and therefore thought not of that way, but of the common. Nei­ther did they think of eating a mans bodie entire in the forme of bread: that eating of mans flesh neither the Phi­losophers nor those who gaue the name (anthropophagie) to man eating nor those Iewes (the Capharnaits) euer had seene, or could haue inuen­ted: it was the Eternall wisdome who did (not reproue, but) ordaine it, as appeares more distinctlie in the Insti­tution of the B. Sacrament which we speake of. This thing in my hand in the exteriour forme of bread is my bo­die, the verie same that shall be deliuered [Page 324] scourged, nailed on a crosse, woun­ded, for you; take, and eate, it.

Featlie. The horrour of the sinne of anthropophagie or eating mans flesh, is not in buying mans flesh nor in cutting it: but in eating it with the mouth and chamming it with the teeth. If wee should do so in the Sacrament wee should follow the killing letter Origen speaketh of, and runne vpon the point of Saint Cyrills sharp re­proof, doest thou pronounce the Sacramēt to be man eating: and doest thou irreli­giouslie vrge the minds of the faithfull to grosse and carnall imaginations?

Answer. Grosse and carnall eating, eating peece by peece, eating by the mouth a mans bodie in it's proper forme, that horrible anthropophagie, we detest. What and how, wee eate, ac­cording to our Sauiours Institution, you haue beene told ouer and ouer; and in the former Argumēt this mat­ter of anthropophagie is discussed.Suprà, pag. 67. Reade the Notes againe: they stand good. Neither is any new thing heere obiected, but onlie wee are told (and it is forsooth, a great mysterie) that [Page 325] the sinne of Anthropophagie or eating mans flesh, is not in buying, nor in cut­ting it that is to say, to buy or cut, is not to eate. Sure, a learned obserua­tion.

Featlie. I oppose against your Inter­pretation S. Chrysostome, who saith. To take Scripture according to the letter, is to take it according to the sound of the words. To which Doctor Smith replyed, when I see the words of Chrysostome I will answer them▪ you shall when you please quoth Master Featlie.

Answer. Neither is heere any thing new. what this word eate, and eating mans flesh, See pag. 301. & seqq. do sound in the eares of men neuer instructed in the Chri­stiā schoole, who knows not? But why did not Doctor Featlie, if he thought the words worth the reading, cite the place? could he not find it out in all the time betwixt the Conference and the printing of Relation, which were neere twentie yeeres.

Featlie. Now I appeale to the Eare of all that are heare present, whether these wordes, nisi manducaueritis carnem, sound [Page 326] after Doctor Smiths Caperniticall straine. I heare nothing but the eating of the flesh, which you do as properlie as the Caper­nites could conceaue, with the mouth and teeth.

Answer. And I apeale to the Iudg­ment of all that reade this Censure, or the Relation of S. E. (which hath the same in substance, all,) whether this vnanswerable Argument be not answe­red; And whether S. Augustine (whose exposition it was that by this vnans­werable Argument was impugned) be not freed from that vnworthie impu­tatiō wherewith the Pedāt chargeth the maintainer, of weaknes & obstinacie.

In the margine Featlie cites the Confession of Berengarius: & S. E. in his margine (it being a quarrell onlie on the by) cites the place where he may find my Lords Answer: in his booke, against a prating Minister of Raschall who (take his owne wordes, for I can not imitate his elegancie) challenged all English Iesuites, and Iesuited Pa­pistes, in the world, tagge and ragge, to answer his (confused, sillie) bookes, or anie piece, or parcel of [...]hem. [Page 327] which bookes (since you seeme not to know so much M. Waferer I now tell you) were answered. his Babel was surprised, Bell confounded. A further Answer to that marginall citation then a marginall citation, S. E. did not esteeme necessarie; especiallie consi­dering that the said Confession was not obiected in the Conference. Nei­ther could it beseeme so great a Chā ­pion as you proclaime your Doctour, to stricke whē he was out of the feild▪ and to your owne disaduantage you sollicite a melius inquirendum. Featle pag. 296. mar­gine.

For, casting my eie vpon it, I finde that your Doctor deales not, in it, fai­relie. He refers the words tractari, frangi, dentibus atteri, to Corpus na­kedlie, putting it thus, Credo corpus D. N. I. C. sensualiter & in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari, frangi & fi­delium dentibus atteri; whereas Berenga­rius in his Confession doth not so▪ the Confession (which is recited heere in this margine)Ego Be­renga­rius— consentio Sanctae Romanae & Apostolicae Sedi; & orae, & corde profite or de Sacramentis Dominicae mense eandem fidem me tenere quam D. & Ven. Papa Nico­laus, & haec sancta Synodus authoritate Euangelica & Apostolica tenendam tradidit, mihiquo firmauit: scili­cet panem & vinum quae in altari ponuntur, post con­secrationem non solum Sacramentum sed etiam verum corpus & sanguinem D. N. Iesu Christi esse, & sensuali­ter non solum sacramento sed in veritate manibus sa­cerdotum tractari, frangi & fidelium dentibus atteri, iurans per sanctam & homousion Trinitatem, & per haec sancta Christi Euangelia. De Consecr. distin. 2. c. 42. hath whithin it's owne [Page 328] termes an explication, if wee looke well vpon it. which explication that you may see the better, I will first take the sense of the Confession into partes; and then looke vpon the connexion or coherence of the wor­des. which donne, the Reader may reflect againe vpon it as it is in it self, altogether.

The first part of the sense is this, Profiteor panem & vinum post consecra­tionem, non solùm Sacramentum sed etiam verum corpus & sanguinem D.N.I.C. esse. I professe that the bread and wine, be, after consecration, not a sacrament only but also the true bodie and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ. Heere is (I do not [Page 329] say all the wordes, but one) part of the sēce. importīg that the cōsecrated bread & wine be a Sacrament; & not onlie a Sacrament, but also the true bodie and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ. so that, vnder the name of consecra­ted bread (it is the like of consecrated wyne) Berengarius in this Confession comprehendeth two thinges; the visible Sacrament, (by which he mea­nes the species:) and the bodie which is inuisible. Non solùm Sacramentum, sed etiam corpus. you know the force of the particles, and can resolue the proposition (I suppose) according to the rules of Logick. The like you haue in the Canon Hoc est. which af­terwards the Doctor obiecteth, Con­tendimus Sacrificium Ecclesiae duobus confici, duobus constare, visibili elemen­torum specie, & inuisibili D.N.I.C. car­ne. Wee contend that the Sacrifice of the Church doth consist of two things; the visible species of the elements, and the in­uisible bodie of our Lord Iesus Christ. And in ould Irenaeus, Qui est à terra pa­nis [Page 330] percipiens vocationem Dei, [...]. iam non communis panis est, sed Eucharistia, ex duabus rebus constans, terrena, & coelesti. The bread which hath being from the earth, receauing the inuocation of God, (being consecrated,) is now, not com­mon bread, but Eucharist, consisting of two things, the eartlie, (the species,) and the heauenlie, (the bodie.) And another ould Father before cited, Panis iste non effigie sed natura mutatus, omnipotentia Verbi factus est caro. That bread being changed not in shape (there is the spe­cies remaining:) but in nature, is by the omnipotencie of the word made flesh. (there is the inuisible substance, the flesh, or bodie of our Sauiour Iesus Christ.If you finde in authors teritur with corpus other­while; you finde a caution with it, Sub vtraque specie, & sub vtriusque speciei particula singula, totus est Christus Iesus; & sumitur residens in coelo, sedens ad dextram Patris: ipse verè est in hoc Sacramento, dētibus teritur (secundum species) & integer manet. Manduca­tur & non corrumpitur. Immolatur & non motitur. Stephan. Eduen. lo. de Saciam. Altar. c. 15. vixit circa annū 950. Credimus terrenas substantias quae in mensa Do­minica per sacerdotale ministerium diuinitus sanctifi­cantur, ineffabiliter, incomprehensibiliter, mirabili­ter operante superna potentia, conuerti in essentiam Dominici Corporis; reseruatis ipsatum rerum specie­bus, & quibusdam aliis qualitatibus, ne percipientes cruda & cruenta horrerent; & vt credentes fidei proe­mia ampliora perciperent; ipso tamen Dominico cor­pore existente in coelestibus ad dextram Patris immor­tali, inuiolato, integro, incontaminato, illaeso: vt verè dici possit, & ipsum corpus quod de Virgine sumptum est nos sumere, & tamen non ipsum: ipsum quidem quantum ad essentiam, veraeque naturae proptieta­tem, atque virtutem; non ipsum, si spectes panis vini­que speciem, caeteraque superius comprehensa. Hanc fidem tenuit à priscis temporibus, & nunc tenet Ec­clesia quae per totum diffusa orbem Catholica denomi­natur Lanfrancus Archiepiscopus Cantuar. li. de Eucharist. Vix [...] circa annum 1059. & cum Bérengario disputauit.) I proceede vnto

The second part of the sence, Profi­teor panem (eundem) sensualiter non so­lùm Sacramento sed in veritate manibus [Page 331] sacerdotum tractari, frangi, & fidelium dentibus atteri. I professe that the (con­secrated) bread, is sensiblie touched with the bands of Priests, broken, and by the faithfull chewed, not in sacrament onlie but in verie deed. This is the second part of (I do not saie the words: but) the sence: wherin you will haue more adoe to finde a difficultie, then I shall [Page 332] haue to finde the solution,The Questiō is not what o­ther men say of them: but what is con­tained manife­stlie in them. which the wordes, if they be supposed to stand thus, offer of themselues. That the Preist doth touch the consecrated bread with his hand, and his mouth, and his tongue, euerie one knowes; and our Sauiours bodie being therein reallie, in rei veritate, not in signo tantū, he, doth also touch it, more, then the woman touched it, who toucht im­mediatlie but his garment. yet, you can not denie but that indeede and trulie she did touch it. Some denied, then, that any had donne it; and our Sa­uiour himself confuted them, and af­firmed, and proued it. The historie is in the Ghospell. A woman that had a bloodie flux, came behinde our Sa­uiour, and touched his garment, the border of it; he demaunded, who it was that had touched him, they denied that anie had done it. Negantibus om­nibus &c. he stood in it, still, that it was so:And a woman — came behind him, and touched the border of his garment: and im­mediatly her is [...]ue of blood stanched, And Iesus, [...] who touched me? When all denied, Peter and they that were with him said, Master the multitude throng thee—. And Iesus said somebodie hath touched me, for I perceaue that vertue is gonne out of me. And when the woman sawe that the was not hid, she came trembling, and falling downe before him she declared vnto him before all the people for what cause [...] had touched him,—Luc 8. tetigit me aliquis: and proued it, nam & ego noui virtutem de me exijsse, where [Page 333] vpon, the woman fell vpon her knees at his feete, and confest it.

It is not necessarie when wee saie wee touch or see a thing, that euerie thing in it, euerie essentiall part be according to it self an obiect of the sense; or that the sense perceaue eue­rie part of it that is sensible. He who lookes you in the face, saith he sees you, though the rest of your bodie be within your cloathes. and if you, being an [...] cataphract in your protestantish [...] should for feare pull downe your beuer be­fore you come into the list, your Ad­uersarie for all that might light vpon your () vnlesse you bring with you Giges his ring, so to make your self inuisible; as other of your Cham­pions it seemes did, manie hundred [Page 334] yeares together; for none of them ap­peared, vnles it were to Swinglius one, Ater an albus, he knew not; and an o­ther to Luther, With a great voice.

I see a man, yet my eie doth not dis­cerne the substance of his soule; or his matter; or his sauour. and, by touching him, I doe not feele his colour, or dis­cerne his forme from his matter. Wee should end manie controuersies in Philosophie soone, if soules could be seene with eies, and matter touched. There is a distinction amongst the Peripatetiks, of perse, and per accidens, appliable to many thinges. and, per accidens is said manie waies, M. Mirth; which had you learned, you might haue beene a better Scholler then many be, and more worthie of your cap.

You haue heard the sence of Beren­garius: I come now to looke vpon the coherence of his wordes, which one cannot mistake in as far it appartai­nes to the former part. Consentio autem S. R. Ap. Sedi & ore & corde profite or &c. scilicet panem & vinum quae in altari [Page 335] ponuntur post consecrationem non solum sacramentum, sed etiam verum corpus & sanguinem D. N. I. C. esse: The sumne whereof is this, Profiteor panem & vi­num post consecrationem non solum Sa­cramentum esse sed etiam verum corpus & sanguinem.

The later part is this, & sensualiter non solum sacramento sed in veritate ma­nibus sacerdotum tractari, frangi & fide­lium dentibus atteri. where, though he do not repeate the word panem, yet the construction of the sentence doth inforce the repetition of it. Profiteor panem, esse corpus; & manibus sacerdo­tum tractari, what? the same panem. This is the natiue construction of the wordes. The coniunction &, doth but couple diuers attributes, est corpus, & tangitur, & atteritur; leauing the subiect still vnchanged. as if I should say, Petrus est substantia, & currit, & discurrit; Substantia, and currens, and discurrens, were attributes; and Petrus the subiectum to them all.

If anie should demaund how corpus [Page 336] and Sacramentum both, can be predi­cated vpon this subiect panis: I desire him first of all to looke againe vpon the former part, and he shall see dire­ctlie without all controuersie that it is so. Profite or panem & vinum post con­secrationem non solum Sacramentum sed etiam verum corpus & sanguinem esse; Supra pag. 239 there both are affirmed▪ and the like is in the Canon Hoc est, before also ci­ted. whereunto may be added the wordes of S. Ireneus. And the thing is easilie conceaued; for, the Consecrated heauenlie bread, the Eucharist, the Blessed Sacrament, hath the exteriour forme of bread; it is a Sacrament: and within that forme, or exteriour signe, it hath the bodie of our Sauiour it containes, or concludes, both, vnder the name:Berenga­rius. Qui dicit panis & vinum altatis solummodo sunt Sacramenta, vel panis & vinum alta­ris solummodo sunt verum corpus Christi & sanguis, modis omnibus panem & vinum superesse constituit. [...]anfrancus. Nihil horum Romana Synodus or dendum esse decreuit: nec Humbertus Episcopus ad confiten­dum vel iurandum horum tibi aliquid tradidit. Prior quidem sententia per quam dicitur, panis & vinum al­taris solummodo Sacramenta sunt; tua est tuorumque sequacium. Posterior verò quae enunciat, panis & vinum altatis solummodo sunt verum Christi corpus & san­guis, nullius hominum est. Nam, & tu veritatem carnis & sanguinis negas; & Ecclesia Christi sic panem in carnem, vinum cred [...]t conuerti in sanguinem, vt tamen salubriter credat & veraciter recognoscat Sacramen­tum esse Dominicae passionis, diuinae propitiationis, concordiae & vnitatis; postremò assumptae de Virgine carnis & sanguinis, singula suis distinctisque modis. Lanfrancus lib. de Sacrament. Altaris, aduersus Beren­tium. wherefore both together, may well be affirmed on it.

[Page 337]And if Berengarius had affirmed the one onelie (abstracting from, but not denying, the other, abstrah [...]ntium non est mendacium) as, when I say, the Heauenlie bread is the bodie of our Sauiour, Panis consecratus est corpus Christi, and stop there; it had beene easie, in this case also, to giue the true sense: for, sometimes the word panis, and Sacramentum, and Eucharistia, sup­ponunt pro corpore, connotande speci [...]s; as Deuines well remember. To sa [...]e nothing of that figuratiue kind of speach, wherein the part is elegantlie [Page 338] taken for the whole; I presu­me you know the di­stinctiō betwixt suppositio and significatio. or, the whole for the part: which figure, if wee should vse in speaking of this mysterie, (as S. Iohn did in speaking of the Incar­nation, Verbum caro factum est,) wee should not exclude, but include, and confirme the reall presence; as he doth the Incarnation, in the wordes but now cited. Neither be wee so scrupu­lous, as neuer to vse a figure in this matter of the blessed Sacramēt. though none, without contradicting God him self, can auouch, in it, or in the wordes of Institution, a meere figure.

But to returne againe to the Profes­sion; you may perceaue now (if you will but set aside your humor of par­tialitie, and iudge according to the plaine sense and construction which the words offer (that what some other (suppose a Schoole-man) might haue expressed in a larger discourse; saying for example, that, the bodie, not ac­cording to it's owne forme and na­ture, but according to the Sacramen­tall species and figure wherein it is, is touched with hands and teeth, euen [Page 339] that, Berengarius in fewer wordes doth professe, in saying, the conse­crated bread is touched with hands and teeth. making the subiect of his speach bread, which word (bread) he had im­mediatlie before professed to signifie both, the species or Sacrament, and the bodie. and therefore chooseth ra­ther the same word be resumed agai­ne, when he speaketh of touching, then to put corpus, in place of it, least the Reader by that occasion conside­ring the thing signified by it, apart, & not as in that Sacramentall forme, might mistake him. Which now (if he attend to his wordes, and their con­struction, and coherence,) he cannot do; being not able to finde whereun­to tractari and atteri be related, or what is in the speach, the subiect of touching or chewing, till he comes to panem in the beginning: where he findes withall that it signifies both corpus and the species together.

And, did panis (which is to be resu­med in the second part as I haue shewed) stand there, in that second [Page 340] part, for corpus, connotando species, or by a Synecdoche stand (it self signify­ing the Whole,) for a part: yet still the same warines doth appeare, in that tangi and atteri were not attributed to the bodie, but as signified by a name bringing the species withall into the hearers mind; by a name signifying the whole: and not standing for a part but as it is within the whole. The ho­nour of which prudent circumspe­ction is not indeed due to Berengarius, but to those who conceaued & drew the forme.

Consider now the speaches Master Waferer, and see how they differ, that which Featlie puts in his margine as Berengarius wordes, Credo orpus Do­mini &c. manibus sacerdotum tractari, frangi, & fidelium dentibus atteri: and Berengarius his owne wordes, as they are to be ordered according to the right Syntaxis. Profiteor de Sacramentis Panem (he meanes that which is con­secrated, the Sacrament) manibus Sa­cerdotum tractari, frangi, & fidelium dentibus atteri. who doth not perceaue [Page 341] how the later brings with it an expli­cation, whereby it is made intelligible, which the former doth not? He who saies the Sacrament is handled, broken, touche▪ with the teeth; is easilie vnder­stood, but when you saye the bodie is handled, broken, touched, the speach is obscure, and needs an explication.

Yet with an explication, he that beleeues the reall presence, will percea­ue the meaning of it (of your propo­sition, for of that I speake now) to be that according to the forme of bread wherein the bodie is, it is said to be tou­ched, handled, broken, though not ac­cording to it's owne proper forme. and with this explication he will belee­ue it.

Those who denie God to be Incar­nate, will neuer beleeue that he could be seene with mens eies, that he could be nailed vpon a crosse. He that is infinite, might he, saie they, haue a figure? he that is impassible, suffer? he that is immortall, could he die? yes, he could.

Being in the forme of God, he esteemed [Page 342] it no robberie himself to be equall to God; but he made himself of no reputation, ta­king on him the forme of a seruant, made into the likenes of men, and found in the fashion of a man, he humbled himself and became obedient vnto death, euen the death of the crosse. Phillippens. 2. He was God and in the forme of man. as he was God, according to his diuini­tie, he could not suffer; he was infini­te, immutable, immortall, impassible. as man, according to his humanitie, he had a visible shape, a figure, in which he was seene, and touched, and suffered; and died. No man euer saw God. Ioan. 1. yet, He was seene vpon the earth, and conuersed amongst men. Baruc. 3. God is a Spirit. Ioan. 4. and a spirit cannot be touched, or felt with hands. it hath not flesh and bone. Luk. 24. but yet, feele and see, &c. Ibidem. reach hither thy hand—my Lord and my God. Ioan. 20. The Word was with God, and the Word was God; the same was in the be­ginning with God. all things were made by him. Ioan. 1. true. and, the Word was [Page 343] made flesh, and dwelt amongst vs. Ibidē. That which was from the beginning; which wee haue heard, which wee haue seene with our eies, which wee haue loo­ked vpon, and our hands haue handled of the word of life: and the life was manife­sted, and wee haue seene it, and beare wit­nes, and shew vnto you that eternall life which was with the Father, and appea­red vnto vs; that which wee haue seene and [...]eard, &c. 1. Ioan. 1 Heare you this Master Wa [...]erer? life, eternall life, that which was with the Father, that life, appeared vnto vs; wee saw it, with our eies; wee toucht it, with our hands.

Touched life, touched the intelle­ctuall Word, touched God, a Spirit; with bāds. What? would you haue mo­re light to see how this might come to passe? behold. The life was the light of mē. It was the true light which doth illu­minate euerie man that cōmeth into the world. This light is neere. it is neere you; you are a man. Ioan. 1. The word was made flesh. Now you see it. that Word, that life, that Spirit, God, was in the forme, [Page 344] of man, and according to that forme, he was touched, with hands.

You beleeue it▪ and see withall how sacred mysteries, when they be deliuered in some termes be more ea­silie conceaued, then in others. When I saie, Christ, was touched with hands, torne with whips; nailed vpon the Crosse; you conceaue me without a commē ­tarie: but, when I saie, God was torne with whips, or, nailed vnto the Crosse, you expecte an explication, least the the hearers mistake the meaning as those Hereticks did that thought the Diuinitie suffered. So, when wee saie, the Sacrament is touched with hands, or teeth; panis, (consecratus,) or sacra­mentum, manibus tractatur, frangitur, I shall be easilie vnderstood. But if one saie, as Featlie puts it, Corpus Domini nostri manibus Sacerdotum tractatur, frangitur, there will be expected an an explication, least the hearers mi­stake, and think, that our Sauiours bodie according to it's owne dimensions and forme, is vsed so.

[Page 345]As for those wordes in rei veri [...]ate, whether you take them to signifie that the bodie is trulie touched, accor­ding to that Sacramentall forme whe­rein it is; or, that this touching of the bodie, is distinct from touching of it in a meere signe or Sacrament; it will come in the end all to one. For, being reallie in the forme which is touched, it is trulie said to be touched otherwise then it could be by the touch of an emptie signe▪ and a further determi­nation of it was not necessarie. It is not such as that of the Iewes, or of the woman; touching him. one of those was by the garment; the other was, secundum inhaerentem formam. this forme heere which immediatlie receaues the touch and communicates the denominatiō to the bodie as in it, is more vnited then the one of those, and therefore more apt to communicate the denomina­tion; howeuer it be said lesse vnited then the other. Whether the denomi­nation be, in regard of the bodie, (for the species there is no difficul­tie,) proper, or improper, or lesse pro­per; [Page 346] the Confession doth not specifie. Should I talke of Analogie, Mor­tons ri­gour would haue wine broken proper­lie: though he were not well aware it ensued vpon his pretence you would not vnderstand me; and if I speake of Aequiuocum à consilio, you will take occasion to make inuectiues against mentall reseruation, for you are cu­rious to paint dolphins in a wood. wherefore I will onlie repeate what hath beene said allreadie. the bodie is so approximated to the hand, and mouth, by a reall presence in the forme of bread, that it cannot be trulie said to be touched Sacramento solùm.

Neither is this manner of speach found heere onlie in this Confession whereunto Berengarius did subscribe. Others before had it; and they were such as vnderstood better then you, the power of words: and in what sort (in mysteries of this nature) they might be verified. Sapientum est rebus imponere nomina, and to those who are skilfull in reuealed Theologie it appertaines to name formalities where they find names wanting to things appertaining to this obiect: or to ap­ply [Page 347] words, before inuented,Stephan Episc. Eduen­sis, suprà pag. 3, 1. to signi­fie more thē those inuentors thought on: so making them Analogicall, or E­quiuocall; as they see cause.

Tertullian. Zelus perorabit ingemens C [...]ristianum &c. eas manus admouere Corpori Domini, quae Daemonijs corpora conferunt. He speakes of those who made Idols. Proh scelus! semel Iudaei Christo manus intulerunt, isti quotidie corpus eius lacessunt. ô manus praecidendae! Ter­tull. i [...] de Idol. c. 7 Zeale will plead lamenting and gree­uing that a Christian touches the bodie of our Lord with those hands that made bodies for deuils. Ibidē. Oh the villanie! the Iewes once laid violent hands on Christ; these molest his bodie dailie. ô hands worthie to be cut of! This is he, if you remember, who said, Caro vescitur cor­pore. S. Cyrill of Alexandria Iure san­ctae Congregationes d [...]e octaua in Eccles [...]is fiunt, & foribus sublimiore modo clausis visibiliter simul atque inuisibiliter Chri­stus omnibus apparet. Inuisibiliter quidem vt Deus, visibiliter in corpore. praebet e­nim nobis carnem suam tangendam, vt fir­miter [Page 348] credamus quia templum verè suum suscitauit. and in an other place vpon those wordes, Ego in ipsis & tu in me, vt in vnum sint consummati. Corporaliter (saith he) Filius per benedictionem mysti­cam nobis vt homo vnitur, spiritualiter autem vt D [...]us, &c. Cyrill. Alexan. l. 12 in Ioan. c. 58. Hol [...]e assemblies are rightlie made in Churches vpon the eight daie, and the doores being shut after an higher manner Christ appeares to all, visiblie and inuisiblie both: inuisiblie as God, visiblie in his bodie. For he g [...]ues vs his flesh to be touched, that wee may constantlie beleeue he truly did raise his temple, (or bodie.)Idem li. 11 in Ioa. c. 27 The sonne (of God) by the mysticall benediction (con­secration) is vnited vnto vs as man, cor­porallie: as God, spirituallie. S. Chryso­stom. Quemadmodum in Regijs, non pa­rietes, non tectum aureum, sed Regium corpus in throno sedens omnium praestan­tissimum est, ita quoque in Coetis Regium corpus, quod nunc in terra, vien­dum tibi proponitur. Neque Angelos ne­que Archangelos, non Coelos, non Coelos Coelorum, sed ipsum horum omnium tibi [Page 349] Dominum ostendo. Animaduertis quo­nam pacto quod omnium maximum est at­que praecipuum, in terra non conspicaris tantum sed tangis (he is approximated [...]hen sufficiētlie to verifie those words which were obiected) neque solum tan­gis sed comedis, & eo accepto domum re­dis? Chry­sost. Hom. 24. in Ep. pri. Corint. As in royall pallaces the walls and the gilded roofes are not esteemed the most magnificent thing of all, but the roy­all person seated in his princely throne: so is the kings bodie in heauen. Now this ma­kest thou see heere on earth. For heere I shew thee, not Angels, nor Archangels, nor heauens, nor the heauen of heauens, but I shew vnto thee him who is the verie Lord of all these things. Thou perceauest now in what manner thou doest behold heere on earth that thing which is most pretious and most honourable of all other: and how thou doest not see it onlie, but also doest touch it; and that thou doest not touch it onlie but also doest eate it, & hauīg receaued it returned vnto thy house. Hoc Corpus affixum, verbe­ratum, morte victum non est Hoc corpus sol cruci­fixum videms, radiosauertit.— Hoc corpus in praesepi reueriti sunt Magi, & viri impij & barbari longo iti­nere confecto cum timore & tremore plutimo adora­uerunt. I mitemur igitur saltem barbaros, nos qui coe­lorum ciues sumus. Illi enim cùm id praesepe & tugu­rium tantùm, neque eorum quiequam quae tu nunc in­tueris viderent, summa accesserunt reuerentia & hor­rore: tu verò non in praesepe id, sed in altari; non mulierem quae in vlnis teneat, sed Sacerdotem praesentem & spiritum perabunde fuper proposito diffusum sacrifi­cio vides, nec simpliciter vt illi corpus intueris, sed & eius potentiam & omnem cognoscis administrationem, & nihil eorum quae per ipsum facta sunt ignoras, & di­ligenter es initiatus in omnibus. S. Chrysost. Hom. 24. Pri Cor. Ascende ad coeli portas, & diligenter attende non coeli sed coeli Coelorum, & tunc quod dici­mus intueberis. Etenim quod summo honore dignum est, [...] id tibi in terra situm ostendam, Ibidem. Non est teme­rè hoe excogitatum, nec frustra memoriam mortuo­rum inter sacra mysteria celebramus, aut accedimus pro istis agnum illum iacentem (in altari) & peccata mundi tollentem deprecantes; sed vt his consolatio il­lis aliqua siet. Idem Hom. 41 pri. Cor. Pro omnibus o­ramus qui ante nos vitâ functisunt, maximum creden­tes animarum iuuamen pro quibus offertur obsecra­tio sancti illius & tremendi [...] quod ante nos iacet Sacrificij. S. Cyrill. Hier. Catech. myst. 6. Sanctum ac viuisicum, i [...]ruentumque in Ec­clesia celebramus Sacrificium, [...]n hominis alicuius nobis similis & communis cor [...]us; similiter & precio­sum sanguinem esse [...] quod proponitur, credentes, sed magis tanquam proprium vinificantis verbi corpus accipimus. Anathem. 11. Conc. Ephes. That which lieth, on the Altar, before the Priest, heere on earth; may be touched, with hands: what hinders? And what this thing is, it is made out of Controuersie, by these words, proprium verbi corpus; quod in praesepi reueri­ti sunt Magi; affixum, verberatum; quod summo ho­nore dignum est: agnus peccati mundi tollens; obse­cratio ill [...]us quod ante nos [...]acet Sacrificij. Vide S. Dio­nis. A [...]eopag [...]. 3. Hierarch Ecclesiast, which bookes are well defended by Master Brie [...]ley in his treatise of the Masse. [Page 350] [Page 351] Before he said that our Sauiour after his Ascension exhibited his bodie to vs, vt teneremus & manducaremus, quod, saith he, maximum dilectionis signum est. quos enim amamus nonnunquam etiā morsu petimus. And before that againe, shew­ing how the words of S. Paul (which are prīcipallie vnderstood of vnbloo­die immolation) be verified also in breaking of the host, which action is (though not an essentiall, yet) an in­tegrall part, as it were, of the vn­bloodie immolation, Quare addit, saith he, quem frangimus? and he answers, Hoc in Eucharistia videre licet, in cruce autem minimè: sed omnino contra, os enim [Page 352] eius non comminuetis ex eo. Sed quod in cruce passus non est id in oblatione patitur. The same Father in an other place, Quos radios solares non deberet excedere manus illa quae hanc carnem perrumpit, os quod igne impletur spirituali, lingua quae cruentatur hoc admirabili sanguine? in which words he doth most vehemēt­lie vrge a reall presence to the Priests hands and mouth and tongue, in regard of the species of bread, and wine, whe­rein they be. And againe. O miracu­lum, ô Dei benignitatem qui cum patre sursum sedet, in illo temporis articulo om­nium manibus pertractatur! there is no miracle in being touched in a meere signe. Quum Spiritum Sanctum inuoca­uerit sacrificiumque illud horrore & re­uerentia plenissimum perfecerit, communi omnium Domino manibus assidué pertra­ctato, quaero ex te quoto illum in ordine collocabimus? And Quis daret nobis vt e­ius carnibus impleremur? quod Christus fecit vt maiori Charitate nos astringeret, & vt suum in nos ostenderet desiderium, non se tantum videri permittens deside­rantibus, [Page 353] sed & tangi, & manducar. Idem in eadē Hom. Why doth he adde, which we break? this in the Eucharist wee may see: not vpō the Crosse, but quite otherwise, you shall not bruise a bone of him. But what he suffered not vpon the Crosse, that he suffers in the oblation, (the Masse.)Idem Hom. 26. in Matth. Then what sun-beames had not that hand need to be more pure, that breaketh vp this flesh, that mouth which is filled with this spirituall fier, that ton­gue which is embrued or sprinkled with this wonderfull blood? Idem de Sa­cerdo­tio l 3. O the miracle! o the benignitie of God! he that sitteth a­boue with the Father, is touched at the same time with euerie ones hands.Idem de Sa. cerd l. 6 Dare you, Mirch, Featlie, Morton, publik­lie call your cōmu­nion bread so? when he (the Priest) hath inuocated the holy Ghost and celebrated the most reue­rend and dreadfull Sacrifice, touching dailie with his hands the Lord of all, I demaund of thee in what rank or order wee shall place him? Idem Hom 46 in Ioa. Who would graūt to vs to be filled with his flesh? this Christ hath donne to oblige vs vnto him with more loue, and to demonstrate his affectiō to vs: suffering, himself not onlie to be seene of such, as desire it, but to be tou­ched [Page 354] also, and eaten. Reflect on this. Christ himself, the Lord of all, he that sitteth aboue with the Father, (this is not bakers bread,) is touched with hands, andEt den­tibus carni suae infigi. Ibidem. teeth also.Cyrill. Hier. Catech. myst. 5. Accedens ad communionem, non expansis manuum vo­lis accede, neque cum disiunctis digitis, sed sinistram veluti sedem quandam subijcias dextrae quae tantum regem susceptura est, & concaua manu suscipe corpus Domini. Approaching to the communion, come not with the palmes of thy hands spred out, nor with thy fingars parted; but, hol­ding thy left hand as it were a resting pla­ce vnder thy right hād which is to re­ceaue so great a king: that with the hollownes of thy hand thou maiest recea­ue the bodie of our Lord. Before you hea [...]d Saint Augustine saie that wee receaue the Meditatour,Supra pag. 45. God and man, with our mouth.

If against these Fathers, you should obiect that the flesh of Christ is im­passible in it self, and that our Sa­uiour vnder the consecrated species doth not appeare in his owne forme to our eies: they would Answer that; [Page 355] yet notwithstanding he may be seene and touched, with hands, and mouth according to the Sacramentall forme wherein he is. God, in himself, is im­passible; but because he was in the forme of man, he might suffer, and be nailed vppon the Crosse; and this, without driuing the nailes (as you seeme to conceaue) through the Di­uinitie. And, according to the same (humane) forme he was trulie seene, though the mens eies discouered him not according to the diuine forme, with­in. For, had they knowne it, they would hot haue crucified the Lord of glorie.

If secondlie you obiect the Ca­pharnaites interpretation; the Rea­der (by that which hath beene said before out of S. Augustine) will take notice of your willfull errour in that behalf; and acquit these great Schol­lers heere cited from so foule an im­putation. Wee neither eate, not touch with mouth, or hands, the flesh of our Sauiour according to it's proper [Page 356] forme, (which was the Caphernaietes errour;) but in the forme of bread, we touch, and eate it. The bread which I will giue is my flesh. Ioan. 6. Mat. 26. 1. Cor. 11. My flesh is meate in­deede, take (with your hand) and eate (with your mouth) this (in forme of bread) is (what?) my bodie, [...], this is my bodie which is broken for you.

To that part of the section where he mistakes S. Augustine to main­taine a corporall eating when he affirmes that Iudas receaued the price of our Re­demption, not by his faith for that was shut, he being reprobated, therefore into his bodie. I answer that there are two kinds of eating in the Sacrament, one both corporall and spirituall, wherein the bo­die feeds on the outward elements corpo­rallie, whilst the soule receaueth the true bodie and blood of Christ by faith, the o­ther onlie corporall wherein the receauer partakes onlie the outward signe, and not the bodie signified. So I say, Iudas recea­ued the last waie onlie, and not the first, [Page 357] though his faith had shut out Christs bodie yet his mouth was open to let downe the Sacrament of his bodie. He (as all the wicked) receaued panē Domini the bread of the Lord, Sacramento tenus, according to the visible signe: the other eleuen (as all the faithfull) did also reuera indeed par­take panem Dominum of bread which was the Lord.

It is well you confesse, that your Answer is but to part of the discourse: it hath hetherto beene your manner, the rest is such as you know not how to cauill at it. The words of S. E. which you pick out be these, Iudas (according to S. Augusti­ne) receaued the price of our Redemption not with the mind sure (he was then a trai­tor) but with the mouth. The substance of your Answere is, that he receaued bread, and wine; the signes or elemen­tes; but, not the bodie, and blood. which answer is so farre from satis­fying the place of S. Augustine, that it is directlie cōtradictorie.S. Aug. Epist 162. his words are, Tolerat ipse Dominus Iudam, Diabo­lum, [Page 158] furem, venditorem suum, sinit acci­pere inter innocentes Discipulos, quod fi­deles nouerunt precium nostrum. Our Lord himself suffers Iudas, a deuill, a thiefe who sould him; he lets him receaue amōgst the innocent Disciples that which the faithfull know our price. That which the faithfull, the Apostles, knew to be the price of our redemption, that he, Iudas tooke, what was that? wine, or blood? non corruptibilibus auro vel argen­to redempti estis, saith our Pastor, sed pretioso sanguine quasi agni immaculati Christi. 1. Pet. 1. You were not redeemed with corruptible things, gold and siluer; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lambe without spot or blemish. And the Saints in the Reuelation,Apoc. 5. Redemisti nos in sanguine tuo, thou hast redeemed vs in thy blood. This is the price of our Redemption as the faithfull know; and this, Iudas, though he was a trai­tor, did receaue amongst the rest of the Disciples; not, with deuotion, nor with faith neither; not corde, no; he was one of those qui non crediderunt: [Page 159] but ore tantum, with his mouth, onlie▪ whereas the other, both with heart, Aug. l. 2. con. Ad­uers. leg. c. 9. and mouth, into themselues, did recea­ue it. And so did the Church in S. Augustines time. Wee receaue with faithfull heart and mouth, the mediatour of God and man, man Christ Iesus (this is not bakers bread) giuing vs his bodie to be eaten, and his blood to be drunck: though it seeme (to such as Waferer is,) more horrible (euen thus, with the mouth) to eate m [...]s flesh then to kill, and to drinck mans blood then to shed it.

In Baptisme wee were incorporated into Christ, made one flesh: and this v­nion he doth consummate, as S. Au­gustine doth insinuate by the reall ex­hibition of his bodie in the Sacrament. But this matter is to high for M. Wa­ferer; who at least should haue re­garded the words of Origen (before his eies) who saies of our Lord in the Sacrament,Suprà Conf. pag. 65. Where he enters vnworthilie there he goes in to iudgment, to the recea­uer. Mark well, there He (He, to whom Origen will haue the communicant [Page 360] saie,Vt ad perficien­dum my­sterium vnitatis accip [...]a­mus ipsi d. s [...]o, quod ac­cepit ipse de nostro Cap. fir­miter ex Conc. Lateran. as the Church doth at Masse, Domine non sum dignus vt intres sub te­ctum meum, Lord, I am not worthie that thou enter vnder my roofe: this is not bread, he would not haue you call bread, Lord, as S. E. told you in his Notes) Where He enters vnworth [...]lie, there He goes in to Iudgment to the recea­uer. The like, of inuocating our Lord there, in the forme of bread, on the Alter, wee haue inRogā ­tes Ag­num pro­positum. S Chry. Hom. 41. in 1. Cor. S. Chrysostome, Obse­cratio sancti il­lius & tremendi quod in altari positum est Sacrificij. Saint Cyrill. Hier. Ca­thec. Myst. 5. S. Cyrill, and others, the thing which heere I vrge is, that the Church did in S. Augustines time, receaue that which he calles the Mediatour, not with heart onlie, but also (hoeuer to infidels the thing might appeare horrible,) with the mouth: that the A­postles did eate panem Dominum, bread the Lord; which bread, vnderstood well what they did: and that Iudas, notwithstanding his malicious infi­delitie, [Page 361] receaued (he doth nor saie the outward signes, onlie, as you do, but) the price of our Redemption; adding that the faithfull know it so to be. Those know it that haue learned the diffe­rence betwixt blood, and wine, bet­wixt panis Dominus, the Mediatour, and bakers bread. He knowes itS. Au­gust. tract. 62. in Ioan. qui di­iudicat, hoc est, discernit à caeteris cibis, Dominicum corpus with the eie of faith who perceaues that [...] S Cy­rill. Hier. Catech. t. 4. that which appea­re bread, is not bread (in substance.) what then? [...] but the bodie. the bodie? how? did not our Sauiour take bread? yes, he did; but thatSerin. de Caena Cypr. bread being changed, not in shape, but in nature, is by the omnipotencie of the word made flesh: as you were told from An­tiquitie.

You will replie that the rest of the Apostles hauing faith did receaue two thinges, one with the bodie by the mouth, to wit, the outward ele­mentes or signes: the other With the soule by faith, to wit the bodie and [Page 362] blood: which later, Iudas (wanting faith) could not do, and therefore on­lie with his bodie by the mouth re­ceaued the signes, this, S. Augustine, you think, insinuates when he saith of him that he receaued panem Domi­ni, hauing said of the rest that they re­ceaued panem Dominum.

Answer. of panis Dominus bread the Lord, the Mediatour, you heard before from S. Augustine, that the Church in his time, (it is the same of the Apo­stles,) receaued it, not onlie with their heart or soule, but also with their mouth: that mouth which, in his words is distinguished from the soule or heart. Of the bread of our Lord, panis Domini, (which S. Augustine, expoun­ding the 40. Psalme, qui edebat panes meos, &c. saith, Iudas did eate contra Dominum against our Lord, according as it was before prophecied,) I will speake afterwards; Per buccellam illum designauit, vt appareret de illo dictum, qui edebat panes meos. S. Aug. Enar. Psal. 40. he designed him by the morsell, to make it appeare that it was [Page 363] said of him, He that eateth my bread. Let that bread alone a while, and let vs consider whether Iudas (who did not receaue spirituallie) tooke anie more, according to S. Augustine, then onlie the outward signe. Sure, our Sauiours blood, the price of our Redem­ption, is more then your outward signe which you speake of; and Iudas, ac­cording to S. Augustine, receaued (he doth not saie the signe of the price, but) that which the faithfull know to be the price of our Redemption. such indeed as had not faith, Iudas himself, thought it bread and wine; but the faithfull, the rest of the Disciples, they knew that, in substance, the thing was not bakers bread, as before con­secration, but panis Dominus, bread the Lord; not wine from the grape, but the price of our Redemption, Act. 20.28. the verie blood of God. Number now the thinges re­ceaued by the rest (all that is antecedēt to the effect which the Sacrament doth giue,) and the thinges receaued by Iudas, and see whether you can [Page 364] find what such thing they receaued more, the signes, both receaued: the bodie and blood, the price of our Re­demption, both receaued; what is there els in the Sacrament that is ante­cedent to the effect which it produceth in the worthie receauer?

If wee consider the effect of the Sa­crament, the Apostles by it (by the Sa­crament) receaued increase of grace, they receaued it to life: but Iudas cō ­ming vnworthilie, with treason in his heart, increased by a sacrilegious act the grieuousnes of his sinne. A man ought to come with great reuerence and preparation to receaue the bene­fites of God, but peculiarlie to this Sacrament wherein with the benefi­tes he is to receaue God himself, he ought to examine himself well and look into euerie corner of his cons­cience that there be nothing amisse in it when he comes that searcheth Hie­rusalem with a candle, and hates iniquitie with his heart. If malice, if abomina­tion, be not remooued, if due prepa­ration [Page 363] be not made, the Diuine Iusti­ce will reuenge the contempt or ne­glect; and that also, for example of others, euen (oft) in this life, which made the Apostle giue a generall war­ning vnto all that offer to come to this table, to trie themselues first.1. Cor. 11 Let a man examine himself, and so let him eate of that bread and drink of that cup, and the reason. For he that eateth and drin­keth vnworthilie eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lords bodie, not omitting to mention the execution of Gods vindicatiue iustice vpon the transgressors. For this cause many are weake and sicklie amongst you, and many sleepe. There are in S. Cyprian, and other auncient Writers,S. Cypr. Serm. de lapsis. diuers examples of Gods iudgmentes in this behalf vppon such as ante ex­piata delicta, ante exomologesin factam criminis, (mark this by the waye, for Confession;) ante purgatam conscientiam, haue pressed in amongst communi­cantes to receaue; and thereby offerd violence (as he spekes) to the bodie and [Page 366] blood of Iesus-Christ. But wee need not goe so far to fetch examples, the example of him, wee were but now speaking of, Iudas, being notorious and most fearfull. He had receaued vnworthilie, and quicklie after (his crime being enormous) the Diuine Iustice permitted the Deuil to take possession of him, and to vse him in the betraying of the sonne of God; and after, in the vtter vndoing of him self.

Our blessed Sauiour knowing this, did signifie it in the reaching of a peece of bread.Ioan. 13. Luc. 22. Cum intinxisset panem, dedit Iudae Simonis Iscariotae. Et post bu­xellam introiuit in eum Satanas. When he had dipped in, the bread, he gaue it to Iudas Iscariotes the sonne of Simon, and after the sop Satan entred into him. After which, exiuit continuo, he presentlie went out about the treason, this was panis Domini, quem manducabat contra Dominum. the poena, the execution of the Diuine Iustice, did accompanie it, he had before made himself liable [Page 367] hereunto: but heere beganne the ma­nifest execution, and, by a new act of ingratitude in resoluing to betraie his Lord, and Master, who had admitted him to his table, and with his owne hand reached him bread, he merited (so we sometimes vse the word) that the execution should beginne at this instant or moment. Which ingratitude was so great that God in the Prophet, at the forsight of it, could not (as it were) forbeare to complaine, long before,Psal. 40. August. tract. 59. in Ioan. qui edebat panes meos (Saint Au­gustine reades, in the place obiected panem meum [...] magni­ficauit super me supplantationem. mine owne familiar freind in whom I tru­sted, he that did eate of my bread, hath greatlie troden me vnder foote. And this buccella, this panis Domini, was not the Sacrament according to S. Augu­stine. Non vt putant quidam negligenter legentes, tunc Iudas Christi corpus acce­pit; intelligendum est enim quodiam omni­bus eis distribuerat Dominus Sacramen­tum Corporis & sanguinis sui, See S, August. tract. 62. in Ioan. vbi & ipse [Page 368] Iudas erat, S. Tho. 3, p. q. 81 art 2 Card. Peron. Passag. S. Aug. pag. 226 S. Aug tract 62 in Ioan. Quid autem erat pa­nis tra­ditori datus, nisi de­mon­stracio cui gra­tiae fuis­set in­gratus? Intrauit autem Satanas post hunc panem in Do­mini traditorem, vt sibi iam plenius possideret, in quem prius intrauerat vt deciperet. S. Augu. Ibidem. sicut Sanctus Lucas euidentissi­me narrat: Ac deinde ad hoc ventum est, vbi secundum narrationem Ioannis aper­tissimè Dominus per buccellam tinctam at­que porrectam suum exprimit traditorem. Iudas did not then receaue the bodie of our Lord, as some who read negligentlie do think: for wee must vnderstand that our Lord had alreadie giuen the Sacrament of his bodie and blood to them all, where Iu­das also was, as Saint Luke most plainelie relateth, and then afterwards this hapned, where according to the relation of Saint Iohn, our Lord by the morsell dipped and giuen, did manifestlie designe the partie that would betraie him. So he, in his Cō ­mentarie vpon S. Iohn; where he hath more to this purpose. By this heere cited, it is cleere what he meant by panis Domini. he is his owne interpre­ter. What he meant by panis Dominus, and Mediator Dei & hominum, you know too, not bread, not a meere [Page 369] signe or figure, not the Sacramentall e­lement as you speake, with a reference to the bodie or grace; that is not panis Dominus, bread the Lord; it is not Me­diator Dei & hominum, the Mediator of God and men, Who then? it fol­lowes, Homo Christus Iesus. Vide su­prà in Praefat. & pag... See againe the words of S. Chrysostome pag. 349 S. Cyrill pag. 350. and Origen pag. 65.

I will not heere dispute what the more learned of your men, Bilson, Hooker, Andrewes, &c. (some of them be cited by Montague in his Appeale c. 30) [...]old in this point whe­reon depend others of great waight. Either they take the words, Hoc est corpus meum, in theirIf they do not: the proposi­tion is with thē meerelie figuratiue Feat: Pag 294 & VVa­fer. pag. 35. vido sup. pag. 159. as it is w [...]th others pag. 163. natiue, pro­per sence, [...] or they do not? If they do not, the difference is in obie­cte; since wee do. As, betwixt vs, and Arians, about these Words Ego & Pa­ter vnum sumus, there is difference in obiecto. If they take them in their na­tiue, proper sence, [...], they are consequentlie to admit (yourMor­ [...]ō [...]ed aboue pag 293. Pa­tron tells you,) the consequēces which [Page 370] you Puritans denie. amongst which consequences you may finde the mo­dus. Nobis vobiscum de obiecto conuenit, saith Andrewes to Bellarmine.Per am­biguita­tes bi­lingues, communem fidem adfirmant, &c. Tertull. aduers. Va­lentin. Citatur inferius in solutione Arg. quinti. Do Con­silium vt apertè fidem Ecclesiae praedices, aut loquaris vt credis. Dispensatio etenim ac libratio ista prudens verborum, indoctos decipere potest: Cautus auditor & lector citò deprehendet insidias; & cuniculos qui­bus veritas subuertitur, apertè in luce demonstrabit. Et Ariani quos optimé nosti, multò tempore propter scandalum nominis homousion se damnare si­mulabant, venenaque erroris circumliniebant melle verborum. Sed tandem coluber se tortuosus aperuit, & noxium caput quod spiris totius corporis tegeba­tur, spirituali mucrone confossum est. S. Hieron. Adu­err. Ioan, Hierosol. Ep. ad Pammach. Quod si quando vr­geri coeperint, & aut subscribendum eis fuerit, aut ex­eundum de Ecclesia, miras strophas videas. Sic ver­ba temperant, sic ordinem vertunt, & ambigua quae­que concinnant; vt & nostram & aduersariorum con­fessionem teneant: vt aliter haereticus aliter catholi­cus audiat; quasi non eodem spiritu & Apollo Delphi­cus atque Loxias oracula fuderit, Craeso & Pyrrho di­uersis temporibus sed pari illudens stropha. Exempli causa pauca subijciam. Credimus, inquiunt, resurre­ctionem futuram corporum. Hoc si bené dicatur, pu­ra confessio est. Sed quia corpora sunt coelestia & ter­restria, & aër iste & aura tenuis iuxta naturam suam corpora nominantur, corpus ponunt non carnem: vt orthodoxus corpus audiens, carnem putet: haereti­cus spiritum recognoscat. Haec est eorum prima deci­pula, quae si deprehensa fuerit, instruunt alios dolos, & [...]nnocentiam simulant, & maliciosos nos vocant; & quasi simpliciter credentes, aiunt; Credimus resurre­ctionem carnis. Hoc veró cùm dixerint, vulgus indo­ctum putat sibi sufficere, maximé quia idipsum & in [...]ymbolo creditur. Interroges vltra, circuli strepitus [...]ommouentur, fautores clamitant: Audisti resurre­ [...]tionem carnis; quid quaeris amplius? Et in peruersum [...]udiis commutatis, nos sycophantae, illi simplices ap­ [...]ellantur. Quod si obduraueris frontem, & vrgere [...]oeperis, carnem digitis tenens, an ipsam credant re­ [...]urrecturam quae cernitur, quae tangitur, quae incedit [...] loquitur. primò rident: deinde annuūt. Dicentibus­ [...]ue nobis, vtrum capillos & dentes, pectus & ven­ [...]em, manus & pedes, caeterosque artus ex integro [...]essurrectio exhibeat: tunc verò, risu se tenere non [...]ossunt, cachinnoque ora soluentes, tonsores nobis [...]ecessarios & placentas & medicos ac sutores ingerunt. [...]dem S. Hieron. de Error. Orig. in Epist. ad Pammach & [...]cean. Congregatis Episcopis, volentibusque voces im­ [...]etatis ab Arianis inuentas è medio tollere.— & litte­ [...]rum sacrarum voces certas & confessas scripto com­ [...]ecti; nimirum, ex Deo esse silium, & natura vnige­ [...]tum esse verbum, cumque solum virtutem & sapiē ­ [...]am esse patris, & verum Deum esse, vt Ioannes dixit, [...] splendorem gloriae, & formam substantiae patris vt [...]aulus scripsit: hic Eusebiani prauas suas opiniones quentes, inter sese mussitate: Imus quoque & nos, inquientes, in vestram sententiam. Nam & nos quo­que ex Deo sumus, &c S. Athanas. Epist ad Episc. Aphric. Episcopis verò denuò interrogantibus paucos istos, Anne agnoscerent Filium, non creaturam esse, sed vir­tutem & vnicam sapientiam Patris, & per omnia ima­ginem indemutabilis patris, & Deum verum? Depre­hensum est Eusebianos inter se conlusuriate & annue­re; nimirum, quasi ista etiam ad ipsos pertinerent. Nam & nos, inquientes, imago & gloria Dei ap­pellamur, — Quod si etiam Deum verum Filium nuncupent, id & nos quoque non malè habet, quo­niam verus Deus factus est. Haec Arianorum cor­rupta & pe [...]uersa mens. Caeterum Episcopi intelle­cta eorum fraude, collegerunt in vnum has voces &c. Ibid. Non omnibus dormio. Post panis vinique benedictionem, se suum ipsiu [...] corpus praebere ac suum sanguinem disertis ac per­spicuis ve [...]bis (Christus) testatus est. Quae verba à sanctis Euangelistis commemorata, & à D Paulo po­stea repetita cùm propriam illam ac apertissimam si­gnificationem praese ferant, secundum quam à Patri­bus intellecta sunt, indignissimum [...]nè flagitium est ea à quib [...]sdam contentiosis & prauis hominibus ad fictitios & imaginarios tropos quibus veritas carnis & sanguinis Christi negatur, contra vniuersum Ec­clesiae sensum detorqueri. Conc. Trident. Sess. 13. c. 1. Animam sub vtraque, vi naturalis illius connexionis & concomitantiae qua partes Christi Domini &c. c. 3. Quid? credant ne filio ita dicenti. Ego & Pater vnum sumus? Certè inquient, quia ita scriptum est, credimus, Sed quomodo vnum sint &c. S. Athan. vbi supra. and [Page 371] [Page 372] [Page 373] more particularlie in his 9. Sermon Of the Resurrection, pag. 476.At the name of IESVS euerie kn [...]e should bow &c Philip­pens 2. If to his name, then your ar­gumēts against relatiue image wor­ship are confes­sedlie inualid. His name, He, Iesus, hath left behind to vs, that wee may shew by our reuerence and respect to it, how much wee esteeme Him; how true the Psalme shall be, Ho­ly and reuerend is his Name. But if wee haue much adoe to get it bow at all: much more shall wee haue to get it donne to his name. There be some that do it not. What speake I of not doing it? there be that not only forbeare to do it themselues, but put themselues (he speakes of Puri­tans) to an euill occupation, to finde faults where none is, and cast scruples in­to mens mindes, by no meanes to do it. Not to do it at his name? Nay at the Holy mysteries themselues, not to do it: where his name is (I am sure) and more then his name, euen the bodie and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ; and those, not with­out his soule; nor that without his Dei­tie: nor all these, without inestimable high benefits of grace attending on them. So he, your Doctor Andrews. Are these things, all, within your commu­nion-bread? [Page 374] surelie no,Iesus, a Sauiour. secundū rationē spiritu­alis & Vniuer­salis sa­lutis, nomen est pro­prium Christo. S. Th. 3. p q. 37. a. 2. Ego sum Dominus, & non est absque me Saluator. Isa. 43. Not more, nor so much, as in his Name, the soule, (for example,) is not there, at all, any way, no not as in a signe. vnles at leingth, the words of Institution, soūd with you thus, Hoc, est, corpus meum; this bread, doth signifie, my soule. Which interpretation had yourDoctor Carolstadius ex his sacrosanctis vocabu­lis, Hoc est corpus meum, miserè distorquet pronome [...] Hoc. Suinglius autem verbum substantivum Est, ma­cerat. Oecolampadius nomen Corpus, torturae subii­cit. Alij totum textum excarnificant & inuertunt.— Alij dimidiam partem textus crucifigunt, — Alij dicunt non esse articulos fidei, ideoque non esse de hi [...] contendendum, liberum enim cuique esse vt hic sen­tiat quicquid velit. Hi omnia pedibus conculcant & destruunt Veruntamen Spiritus Sanctus est in his sin­gulis & nullus vult erroris argui in his tam diuersis & contrariis probationibus & textus ordinationibus cùm tamen vnam tantùm textus collocationem vera [...] esse oporteat. Adeo crassè & manifesté Diabolus no [...] naso suspendit. Luther. Desens. verb. coenae pag. 387, Grand-Father heard of, he would with open laughter haue redoubled his crassé & manifeste Diabolus vos naso suspendit.

The fourth Argument was taken out of Gratian and the Glosse, that the Heauenlie bread is the flesh of Christ secundum quē ­dam modum. It was Answe­red that the Glosse which doth vse the word Sacramentum, speakes of that which is Sacra­mentum tantum: and Gratian of the Canon, saith the Heauen­lie bread which includes the flesh of Christ, is the visible flesh or bodie secundùm quemdam mo­dum.

For satisfaction concerning Gratian, if you but please to reade D. Featlie on another occasion, you shall fin­de [Page 376] him instead of yeelding that Gratian contradictes himself, proue that he oppu­gnes your transubstantiation. See the Cō ­ference betwixt D. Featlie and M. Mus­ket, pag. 60. &c.

He must looke for satisfa­ction somewhere els, it seemes, who doth expect it; as no man euer did frō you to my knowledge. Well! at your request, I haue turned vnto the Con­ference, and the page 60. What is there?

Featlie. I make a breach vpon you with two Canons; the Canon-lawe, and the Canon of your masse.

Answer. Nonne hoc spumosum?

But stay: let vs make a demurre vp­on the Doctors preface, and consider whether it be likelie that he doth vr­ge Authoritie, sincerelie. He who doth offer to perswade vs, that the Canon-lawe, that Gratian, that the Masse it self is against the reall presence, as heere in this argument he vndertakes to do, what will he not affirme? what testi­monies will he not presse to serue him? what so strong that he will not [Page 377] wrest? what so sacred that he will not violate? he might aswell vrge against vs the Canon made at Trent, in this matter, and outface me, that in this defence, I, do not auouch, but oppo­se it. I cannot think him in his wits that vndertakes to perswade me, white is black: neither is he much wi­ser that takes on him to know the meaning of the Church better then Shee her self. Ea quae in voce, Arist. sūt earum quae in anima passionum notae. Where the wordes are obscure or ābiguous, it is better the speaker interprete his ow­ne mind: then you that are not of his counsel.

I am sent hither by Waferer, to see how the Doctor doth vrge the Canon of Gratian; which I will examine, God willing, before I returne to looke a­gaine on his pamphlet: but, since in­steed of one Canon I find two, drawne together, to make the greater noise; I must giue the one a lift, to remoue it out of my waie, before I meddle with the other. Which waie the mouth of it stands, the Doctour (he stood in his owne light,) could not see. He tels vs [...] [Page 388] it is against the Reall presence. Why so Master Featlie? becauseFeatl. Conf. with M. Musk. pag 66. it is verie incongruous to pray to God to looke dow­ne mercifullie vpon Christ, and to accept the bodie and blood of his sonne, as he did Abels sacrifice of first fruites: yet the Canon of the Masse doth so, Offerimus tibi de tuis donis & datis hostiam puram &c. panem sanctum vitae aeternae & cali­cem salutis perpetuae: supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris & acce­pta habere sicut accepta habere dignatus es munera pueri tui Abel. Wee offer vnto thee of thy benefits and guifts, a pure hoast, — the holy bread of eternall life and the chalice of euerlasting saluation. Vpon which vouchsafe to looke downe with a fauorable cleere countenance, and to accep of, and auow them, as thou hast vouchsafed to accept of the guifts or o­blations of Abel thy child.

Answer. That quae, is not referd, as you pretend, to Christ, or his bodie absolutè. reade againe and marke it. Neither would anie scholler conclu­de (suppose your premises had beene [Page 389] right,) ergo the Canon denies the reall presence: it affirmes it, and in those verie wordes. But rather thus, ergo that prayer is not well conceaued. or, is incongruous. Which is farre from your mark.

Wherefore to help out your argu­ment, you adde an other peice. Per quem (Christum) haec omnia Domine sem­per bona creas, sāctificas, viuificas, benedi­cis & praestas nobis; by whom o Lord thou doest euer create, sanctifie, quicken, blesse, and bestow vpon vs all these good things. Whence, your inference is, as before, that the Canon is against the reall presence. But I turne it vpon you. The words cannot be verified with­out a reall presence, ergo the Canon, by them, doth make for the reall presen­ce. And the auncient Fathers who de­declare themselues to be directlie for the reall presence, vse the same kind of speach. To beginne in S. Cyprians time, one, as auncient as he, tels vs, vsque hodie veracissimum Corpus suum creat, & sanctificat, & benedicit. till this [Page 390] verie day, he doth create, and sanctifie, & blesse his owne most true (not a meere figure then,) and most holie bodie. How so? let the same Authour tell, how the Sacrament (for of that the Canō spea­kes,) is made, Panis iste non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro. Well, but how quickned? & sicut in persona Christi humanitas vide­batur & latebat Diuinitas, ita Sacramen­to visibili ineffabiliter Diuina se infundit essentia. Another; Influit oblatis vim vitae conuertens ea in veritatem propriae car­nis, vt corpus vitae quasi quoddam semen viuificatiuum inueniatur in nobis. Serm. de Coe­na Cyp. S. Cyril. Alex. E­pist. ad Calos. That bread being changed not in shape but in nature, is by the omnipotencie of the word made flesh: and as in the Person of Christ the Humanitie did appeare and the Diui­nitie lie hid, so (heere) a Diuine Essence doth vnspeakeablie infuse it self into a vi­sible Sacrament. He doth flow into the things offered the power of life, conuer­ting them into the veritie of his owne flesh: that the bodie of life might as a cer­taine quickning seed be found in vs. The like is in S. Chrrysostome, S. Ambrose, [Page 391] and others; as you might haue lear­ned partlie out of Gratian whom you cite, had you but read him.

Moreouer, in Scripture it self, these words haue a larger sence then that which you conceaue.Ioan. 17. Ego pro eis sanctifico meipsum. there sanctifico is offero, or sacrifico: himself being (as the words import) both the victime and the Priest. Psal. 101. Populus qui creabitur laudabit Dominum. Psal. 50. Cor mundum crea in me Deus. Praecipio 1. Ti­mot. 6. tibi coram Deo qui viuificat omnia. These words, viuifi­cat, and creabitur, haue a latitude as you see. And, since allmightie God doth not onlie giue life, but still con­serue it,Hebr. 1. portans omnia verbo virtutis suae; why may not he be said in that regard also, still to quicken; why cānot an action of omnipotencie able to abstract accidents from the subiect still keeping them in being, and vnder them to make a succession of substances, be called (in large sence at least) crea­tion? since none but the Creatour can, in chief or as principall, produce this [Page 392] effect? and he, who puts in the Sacra­ment the bread of life, which heauenly bread liues it self, and giues life to the receauers, why may he not be said (in a large sence at least,) to quic­ken the thinges that are before the Priest?

And you Master Featlie, that are so strait-laced as not to suffer words to be euer vsed but in one sence, and that (of all) the most rigorous, what sence will you find in Scripture, where words are not, euer vsed so? or, to for­beare that question and come neerer, how will you expound (of bread and wine, which is your intent) these wordes by you obiected? Haec omnia Domine semper bona creas, sanctificas, vi­uificas; and the like before cited out of the Fathers? was your communion-bread made of nothīg? is it aliue? did the Church in her liturgie meane to pro­fesse this? was this the Fathers mea­ning? shew me (to vse your owne wor­des,Featl. pga. 68. Master Featlie) in what tolerable sence (those elementes) may be said cō ­tinuallie [Page 393] to be created and made aliue, sith before they cannot be said not to haue beene, or to haue beene dead. Creatio est ex nihilo, Viuificatio est rei prius mortuae aut non viuae. So you, inuoluing your credit in a difficultie, out of which you will neuer extricate your self till you beleeue as we do.

But, there is a prayer (to resume that argument for the Readers sake) supra quae propitio & sereno vultu respicere di­gneris &c. True, there is indeed such a prayer: & the quae, that is in it, (which word you catch at,) reflects on things otherwise, and more, then you ima­gine. Haec quotiescumque feceritis — vnde offerimus— supra quae propitio & sereno vultu respicere digneris, & accep­ta habere, sicut—vt quotquot ex hac al­taris participatione — repleamur per Christum—. See the like (and withall the meaning of it,) in the Liturgie of S. Iames, Respice in nos, & ad nostrum hoc rationabile obsequium, idque accipe vt Abel dona accepisti, — ita quoquee manibus nostris qui peccatores sumus, re­cipe [...] [Page 398] Apocalyps, a Prophecie which thou hast beene pleased to inspire and sug­gest vnto one of his Disciples, wee reade that an Angel came and stood before the Altar (the Altar of thy mercie)Apoc. 8. with a golden censer, and that there was giuen vnto him much in­cense, that he should offer of the prayers of the Saints. and, that the smoke of the in­cense ascended from his hand before thee, ô God. And wee, though not yet Saints, be cōsecrated vnto thee in the blood of thy deare Sonne, wherefore let our incense, our prayers, ascend too. Iube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime altare tuum in cons­pectu Diuinae Maiestatis tuae, vt quotquot ex hac Altaris participatione sacrosanctū filij tui corpus & sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione coelesti & gratia replea­mur per eundem Christum Dominum no­strum. Commaund, o God, these things to be brought by the hands of thy holy An­gell vnto thy holie Altar in the view of thy Diuine Maiestie, that wee, as many of vs as by this participation of the Altar [Page 399] shall receaue the most holy bodie and blood of thy Sonne, may be replenished with all heauenlie blessing and grace through the same Christ our Lord. So the prayer which you speak of; in the Canon of the Masse.

I haue staid so long vpon it, that Waferer, who sent me to looke vpon the place of Gratian: will think I haue for feare, taken Sanctuarie, and dare not appeare to answer it against his Master Featlie; who hauing [...]got the Canon readie, is leuelling it against our cause: and (since now I am de­fending it) against me. The Minister by a stratagem hath gotten me iust before his Doctor, and I may not (without losse of honour) steppe back or runne away.

Well: stand I must. But is this thinne paper (my poore armour) Canon-proof? the bullets will flie thorough & thorough; or, I shall be blowne a­way out of rerum natura. If I be killed, Master Mirth, youle singe my Dirge [...] and laugh, a peale or two. I leaue you [Page 400] this writing for a remembrance of me; and for your greater comfort, will tell you mine; that if I die in this cause I shall neede no more Cano­nizing.

Your aime is (M. Featlie) to proue that our Sauiours flesh, is not vnder the species or accidentes of bread, after Consecration. I am directlie opposi­te. I saie, it is there. Giue fire to your Canon.

Featlie. Gratian hath these wordes. As the Heauenlie bread, which is Christs flesh after a sorte or māner is called Christs bodie, whereas indeed it is the Sacrament of his bodie: and the sacrifice of the flesh of Christ which is donne by the Priests hands is said to be his Passion, death, and crucifying, not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie. Thus Gra­tian.

Answer. And well: had it not beene your misfortune (shall I mitigate your action by that word?) to corrupt the text, by omitting that substantiall and intrinsecall part of the sentēce which [Page 401] answers directlie to that argument you made out of it; as will appeare in the ensuing citation and discussion. In regard whereof, in the otherSee the Cō ­fer. pag. 68. and Feat. Relat. pag 295. Con­ference where you did obiect the same words (as vnanswerable) you broke of the citation before you came to them: which was no great argument of faire dealing in the triall of so great a cause. Was it not this which Waferer meant when he said Feat­lies argument wasVVa­fer. pag. 50. mincinglie produced? If the Canon thus cor­rupted, do chance anon to burst, and and the peices flie about your eares, each enough to confound you, thank your self. To the text of Gratian, so al­leaged, you ioyne wordes out of the Gl [...]sse, which are cited aboue in the Catholicke Relation pag. 68. and shall be brought againe when their turne comes. The text must go first.

Featlie. In this allegation, vnlesse you will taxe Gratian with false quoting, there is a threefold Cable which can­not easilie be broken, first Saint Augusti­nes [Page 402] authoritie, out of whom S. Prosper collecteth this sentence: secondlie S. Pros­pers, who in effect relates it, and appro­ues it: and thirdlie Gratians, who inserts it into the bodie of the Canon-lawe, and citeth both for it.

Answer. We shall be held hard to it (it seemes) with this triple Cable. & this mustering of men together, to make good the breach which the Ca­non (you presume) will make in our Cause, makes a great noise amongst the vnlearned, who expect by this time when the mountaines will bring foorth.

Featlie. The words of Gratian and the Glosse heere are so cleere against your reall presence of Christs bodie vnder the accidentes of bread and wine, Brutum Fulmen. that neuer any Protestant spake more expreslie and directlie against it.

Answer. Implerunt cornua bombis.

Featl. pag. 62. I think I must bid you, as Master Musket did, Frame your argument out of those wordes.

Featlie. Gratian heere speakes of the [Page 403] bread after consecration, for before it is consecrated it is not Coelestis panis hea­uenlie bread, much lesse caro Christi, Christs flesh; by your owne confession. But heere he saith this heauenlie bread is but after a sort Christs bodie and not in­deed, as the opposition betwixt suo modo, after a sort, and reuera indeed, plainlie sheweth (as if I should saie, that picture is after a sort, or in some sence, Caesars, it being indeed the true picture of Cae­sar) Therefore after consecration the Sa­crament is not in truth Christs bodie, but onlie in a signifying mysterie.

Answer. If you take the bumbast out of this Argument, it will be more in fashion; though not altogether. The Sacrament consisteth (you were told before) of two things; the one visible, the other inuisible: the Con­trouersie is not whether all this be the bodie, (the species or shape of bread, may signifie but cannot be, a mans bodie;) but whether the bodie be reallie according to the substance within that accidētall shape, whether [Page 404] it be contained (as the Councell spea­kes) in the Sacrament. Conc. Trid. Sess. 13. Suprà, pag 182. & seqq. Suprà, pag. 73. You haue beene tould also that a thing may represent or signifie that which (according to the substance) is within it: and that a substance, vnder two seuerall formes, may by the one signifie it self as in the other.

The Doctours Argument out of the Canon doth touch vpō these two points, wherefore I am to see whe­ther it doth affirme or denie them. 1. Whether the bodie be or be not in the Sacrament. 2. Whether by the Sacramentall forme be signified the naturall forme or shape as it was vpō the Crosse, the substance vnder them both being the same.

In his Minor, (for his Argument is an ill fauoured kind of Syllogisme,) he hath imposed: for, these words, this heauenlie bread is but after a sort Christs bodie and not indeed, (what euer mea­ning they might haue) be not in the text, seuerall peices be deceitfullie patcht together, for aduantage. That [Page 405] the Reader may see, and iudge, I will represent heere the Canon it self;VVafer. p. 50. by parts, for the Doctors engine may be taken in peices; & at leingth, because the Apologist complaines this Argu­ment was mincinglie produced. The first part.

Hoc est quod dicimus, hoc modis om­nibus adprobare contendimus, Sacrificium scilicet Ecclesiae duobus confici, duobus constàre; visibili elementorum specie, & inuisibili D. N. I. C. carne & sanguine: Sacramento & re Sacramëti: sicut Christi persona constat & conficitur Deo & Ho­mine, cū ipse Christus verus sit Deus & ve­rus homo: quia omnis res illarum rerum na­turam & veritatem in se continet ex quibus conficitur, conficitur autem Sacri­ficium Ecclesiae Sacramento & re Sacra­menti, id est corpore Christi. Est igitur Sa­cramentum & res Sacramenti id est cor­pus Christi. It is this wee say, this it is which wee labour by all meanes to proue, namelie that the Sacrifice of the Church is made and doth consist of, two things, the visible species of the elements and the inui­sible [...] [Page 408] and blood of Christ. And this is that mincha, that cleane oblation (as the Fa­thers tell vs,) which is offered by the Church euerie where; according as the Prophet Malachie did foretell. I come now to the second part of the Canon wherein the difficulties that might occurre about this, be dissolued, our cause more confirmed; and yours di­rectlie contradicted.

Caro eius (Christi) est quam formá pa­nis opertam in sacramento accipimus, & sanguis cius quemsub vini specie & sapo­re potamus. Caro videlicet carnis, & san­guis Sacramentum est sanguinis: carne & sanguine, vtroque inuisibili, intelligibili, spirituali, significatur visibile Domini N. I. C. corpus palpabile, plenum gratia omnium virtutum, & Diuina Maiestate. His flesh it is which in the Sacrament wee receaue couered with the forme (or spe­cies) of bread, and his blood which wee drink vnder the species & sauour of wine. The flesh indeed is a Sacrament of the flesh, and the blood is a Sacrament of the blood. By flesh and blood both inuisible, intelligible, spirituall, is signified the visi­ble, [Page 409] palpable bodie of our Lord Iesus Christ, full of the grace of all vertues & of Diuine Maiestie. You see how it saith first that our Sauiours flesh is couered in the Sacrament with the (exteriour) forme of bread; & the like of his blood, which is in the forme of wine: Caro e­ius est quam forma panis opertam &c. with what face then could you saie that Gratians words are cleere against the reall presence of Christs bodie vnder the accidentes (or exteriour forme) of bread? or,Featlie pag. 61. that this heauenlie bread (ac­cording to the substance) is not indeed Christs bodie, but a signe onlie? Secōdlie it saith (which ruines vtterlie all Wa­ferers sillie discourse against S.E. vpō this occasion) that the flesh heere, is a Sacrament of flesh; and the blood, a Sa­crament of blood. Caro videlicet carnis & sanguis Sacramentum est sanguinis. in explication whereof it saith Thirdlie, that the inuisible and spirituall flesh which is heere couered with the ex­teriour forme or accidents of bread doth signifie the visible and palpable bo­die [Page 410] of our Lord Iesus Christ and the like it is of the inuisible and spirituall blood. carne & sanguine, vtroque inuisi­bili, intelligibili, spirituali, significatur vi­sible &c. Whereby wee are instructed against Featlie when he saith pag. 63. that Gratiā doth not oppose modū modo, Featlie pag. 63. the manner to the manner (when he com­pares the consecrated bread to the ble bodie,) but modum rei verae, and veri­tati rei; the manner to the truth of the thing; and (that) therefore in saying it is suo modo there, Featlie Ibidem. he implieth that it is not there trulie, or in the truth of the thing, visiblie or inuisiblie. for the text of Gratian doth affirme the flesh to be there inuisiblie; couered with the forme of bread. and, that this inuisible spiri­tuall flesh of Christ is a signe of, or doth signifie, his visible bodie; as hath beene obserued from the wordes be­fore cited. After which ensue those which Fealie stands vpon, being the third part of the Canon, in this te­nour.

Sicut ergo Coelèstis panis qui vere Chri­sti [Page 411] caro est (the Doctour, perchaunce according to the coppie which he did vse, leaues out verè) suo modo vo­catur corpus Christi, cùm reuera sit sacra­mentum corporis Christi, (how so, if it be verè corpus Christi? it followes, and exactlie, according to the doctrine of the former part, carne inuisibili signifi­catur visibile corpus:) ill [...]us videlicet quod visibile, palpabile, mortale, in cruce suspen­sum; (this Featlie conninglie left out: whereas it is indeed the solution of his Argument. Hetherto one [...] of a comparison; now followes another) Vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis quae Sacerdotis manibus fit, Christi passio mors crucifixio, non rei veritate sed significan­te mysterio: (now comes the [...] common to them both;) sic Sacramē ­tum fidei, quod baptismus intelligitur, fi­des est. As therefore the heauenlie bread which indeed is the flesh of Christ, is after a sort called the bodie of Christ, whereas in truth it is the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ, I meane of that which being vi­sible, palpable, mortall, was put vpon the [Page 412] Crosse; and (as) that immolation of the flesh which is donne by the hands of the Priest is called the passion, death, and cru­cifixion, not rei veritate in veritie of the thing, but significante mysterio in a signi­fying mysterie: So the Sacrament of faith, Baptisme I meane, is faith. The force and life of which comparison you haue in S.E. pag. 72. Heere breeflie I obserue that this text, in the double [...] speakes of two things; the one is the flesh of Christ in the Sacrament, which it calls panem Coelestem: the other is the act of immolation performed by the Priest, which it calls immolationem car­nis. Of the first of these it saith agai­ne, two things: the one appertaining to the quid of it in ratione rei; telling vs that it is according to the interiour substance caro Christi: the other apper­taining to it as it hath put on rationem signi; telling vs that it is Sacramentum corporis Christi visibilis & crucifixi. Of the second also two; the one that it is a mysticall mactatiō, crucifying, death, of Christ: the other, that it is not his death [Page 413] or crucifyīg in rei veritate. Vocatur immolatio car­nis quae Sacer­dotis manibus fit, Chri­st [...] passio non rei veritate sed signi­ficante mysterio. The two for­mer thinges, vizt the heauenlie bread, & the act of Immolation, Featlie (either of ignorance or of purpose) doth con­found: so to drawe vpon the one (a­gainst the authours intention, expres­sed in cleare tearmes, more then once, or twice;) all that is auouched of the other which prooceeding, in a matter of this nature, vrged and insisted vpō in two seuerall disputations (to decrie the reall presence of the bodie of our Sauiour in the signes, which when Lu­ther beganne, was beleeued by all the knowne Christian Churches in the world, and is so plainlie deliue­red in Scripture that the greatest Pro­testantes in the world were in con­science thereby confessedlie conuinced;Luther. Melan­ [...]ton, &c.) and not vrged onlie, but also seuerall times printed, to the ruine of poore soules which esteeme him a great clerck; giues vs iust occasion to complaine of it as vnworth [...]e of a Scholler; and in it self vnconsciona­ble. And to think, as Waferer doth, [Page 414] that he thereby proues Gratian to oppugne transsubstantiation, or, that his discours doth satisfie what S. E. had said about the text, is a signe that the iudgment or vnderstāding power is in the man defectiue. But stay wee are to answere his interrogatorie, that will kill the cause.

Featlie. Hath Christ tWo bodies, one visible and palbable, an other inuisible? & the (heauenlie) bread is trulie the one, and s [...] Sacrament onlie of the other?

Answer. Not two according to the substance, the Dualitie is in the man­ner, it is the same bodie, which on the Crosse was visible, in the Sacrament it is inuisible, and, as hauing one of these manners of existencie, it was a signe the text saith, of it self, as in the other; carne & sanguine vtroque inuisibili, the­re is the bodie in one manner of existē ­cie, significatur visibile Domini corpus, there is the same bodie in an other man­ner of existencie againe, that caro quam forma panis opertam in Sacramento acci­pimus, &, the caro crucifixa, are in sub­stāce [Page 415] but one. Corpus visibile, palpabile, in cruce suspensum, and coelestis panis qui veré Christi caro est, or, as he doth o­therwise also call it, caro inuisibilis in­telligibilis, spiritualis; are according to the substance, but one thing.

Had you cast your eie on that which in Gratian followes, out of S. Ierome, you had seene a further confirmation of this double manner, together with the solution of your difficultie. Dupli­citer intelligitur caro Christi, & sanguis: vel spiritalis illa atque Diuina, de qua ipse ait (caro mea verè est cibus & sanguis meus verè est potus, & nisi mand caueri­tis carnem meam & biberitis meum san­guinem non habebitis vitam aeternam;) vel caro quae crucifixa est, & sanguis qui militis effusus est lancea. The flesh and blood of Christ is vnderstood two waies: either that spirituall and Diuine, whereof he himself saith my flesh is meate in­deed and my blood is drink indeed; &, vnles you eate my flesh and drink my blood you shall not haue euerla­sting life: or the flesh which was cruci­fied, [Page 416] and the blood which by the soldiers launce was powred out. according to this distinction of the same flesh, secū ­dum d [...]uersos modos, he doth resolue an other difficultie of videbit & non videbit, both verified in the same, being taken according to diuers man­ners of existing. Iuxta hanc diuisionem, & in sanctis eius (Christi) diuersitas car­nis & sanguinis accipitur, Com. in c. 1. ad Ephes. vt alia sit ca­ro quae visura est salutare Dei: alia caro & sanguis quae regnum non queant possidere. According to this distinction, the diuer­sitie of flesh and blood is taken also in the Saints: that it be one flesh which is to see the saluation of God; another flesh and blood which cannot possesse the kingdo­me. How another? how alia & alia? se­cundum substantiam? no that were not to reconcile Scripture, but to decrie Scripture, and the common Article of the Resurrection: but, alia & alia secun­dum modum. And, of the flesh of Christ in like manner; that spirituall and Di­uine flesh which he saith we are to eate, and the flesh which was crucified [Page 417] be not alia & alia secundum substantiam; no: be they Master Featlie? diuina quae veré cibus, and crucifixa; be these alia & alia secundum substantiam? you will not say they be: but alia & alia secundum modum.

When the Scripture saith, God gaue Saul another heart, the meaning is not that he tooke out that which was be­fore, and put in place, another, sub­stantiallie distinct; but it was another in the manner or accidentall being and S. Augustine cont. Adamant. Cum indue­rit (corpus) in corruptionem & immortali­tatem, iam non caro & sanguis, sed in cor­pus Coeleste mutabitur. &, de fide & sym­bol [...]. In Coelestibus nulla caro, sed corpora simplicia & lucida, quae appellat Aposto­lus spiritualia. S. Aug. con. A­dimant. c. 12. when the bodie shall haue put on incorruption, and immortali­tie, (it shall be) now not flesh and blood but it shall be changed into an heauenlie bodie. Idem De fide & Symb. cap 10. Credi­mus & carnis resurrectionem. Non tantum quia reparatur a­nima, quae nunc propter carnales affectiones caro no­minatur: sed haec etiam visibilis caro quae naturaliter est caro, cuius nomen anima non propter naturam, sed propter affectiones carnales accepit. Haec ergo visibi­lis, quae caro propriè dicitur, sine dubitatione credē ­da est, resurgere. S. Aug. Ibidem. Si mutatis moribus dicimus hominem non esse qui fuit, si denique muta­tis aetatibus ipsum corpus non dicimus esle quod fuit: quanto magis ipsum non erit, tanta conuersione mu­tatum vt non solum immortaliter viuat, verum etiam inuisibilem videat. S. Aug. Epist. 111. Non hoc corpus quod videtis &c. Supra. pag. 53. Vide ibi marg. Ait mo­d [...]cum et iam non videbitis me, quia eum corporaliter tunc videbant quando iturus erat ad patrem; & eum deinceps mortalem visuri non erant, qualem cum ista loqueretur videbant. tract. 101. in Ioan. In the coelestialls, no flesh, but [Page 318] simple and bright bodies, which the A­postle calls spirituall. He that conceaues what is said before of the manner of de­fining which theSupra, pag 301. & seq. naturall Philoso­pher doth vse, will vnderstand this ea­silie. and this, heere affirmed, by these learned Fathers, according to the mā ­ner which the Scripture also doth fre­quent in speach, is a double confir­mation of that Philosophie.

Featlie. Gratian opposeth not modum modo, but modum rei verae and veritati rei.

[Page 419] Answer, This is answered allrea [...]ie: In the first part of this [...] he doth oppose modum modo. he doth op­pose the inuisible flesh, conu [...]red w [...]th the forme of bread, to the same fl [...]sh as it is visible: and saith that the former is a signe of the lather. Which I haue plai­nelie shewne by the text it self, and haue produced the words wherein this is euidentlie affirmed. In the se­cond part of the [...] he doth op­pose one action to another; or, one manner of immolation: to another manner of immolation affirming the Consecration or act of vnbloodie im­molation to be the bloodie passion, not in rei veritate, to consecrate is not to crucifie; but significante mysterio; as hath beene also tould you. Moreo­uer, the confounding of these two, thereby to conclude the flesh not to be there, in the Sacrament, according to the truth of the thing, visible or in­uisiblie, (so you speake,) hath beene detected for à grosse corruption, re­pugnant to the text.

[Page 420]Featlie. And now hauing brandished the sword of the text of Gratian, let vs see how you can ward a blow with the scabbard, the Glosse.

Answer. The lightning of your sword was like the thundring of your Canon. Surely Doctor, it was a violent Obie­ction, this.

Featlie ex Glossa. Dicitur Corpus Christi impropriè suo modo, non rei veri­tate, vt sit sensus vocatur corpus Christi, id est significatur.

Answer. If Souldiers whē the sword cannot pierce, nor the Canon make a breach, should giue an onset with their scabbards, what Elogium befits them, Doctour? the scabbard too should be fit for the sword; the com­mentarie should be according to the text; or neither is good. Who told you that Deuines were to be directed in the vnderstanding of matters purelie [Page 421] Theologicall, by a Canon Lawier? or, that the Author of the Glosse did ful­lie comprehend the text? which (as you haue seene, and so much he sawe too) contradictes the fond Heresie of emptie signes, and bakers bread mo­reouer, the Glosse it self in plaine tear­mes affirmes (as you find cited in S.E) that bread is transubstantiated into the bodie, Suprà, pag 75. that where before was bread and wine, there is now (after consecration) the accidents (of them) onlie, that vnder those accidents the flesh and blood (of Christ) doe lie hid and are couered; and the reason; least there might be horrour in receauing, if the shape of raw flesh and blood should appeare. And yet forsooth if wee beleeue you, the words of Gra­tian and the Glosse heere (in the scrappe you cite perchance) are so cleare against the Reall presence of Christs bodie vnder the accidentes of bread and wine, that ne­uer any Protestant spake more expreslie, Featl. pag. 61. as if an Atheist out that place Dixit in­sipiens in corde suo non est Deus, should cite for himself onlie the later part [Page 422] non est Deus, and then auouch that ne­uer Atheist did speake more expres­lie. Is this your sinceritie? is this faire proceeding in the tryall of Religion? &, must the presse groane vnder this? the monument of the greate Dispu­tant must it be built vpon these pil­lars? and his Statua be adorned with a garland of these flowers? O Consciē ­ce! ô Religion!

In the Relation set foorth by S. E. Doctor Featlie is said to haue ack­nowledged that Gratian did contra­dict himself:Pag. 70. who then can excuse this his vrging of the place againe, in a second Disputation; and printing of it afterwards twice; still pressing the place against the Reall presence; once anno 1624. in diuulging one Confe­rence; and againe anno 1630. in the pu­blishing of another, who cā saie that in vrging these mens Authoritie he did not impugne a knowne truth? or if he did not knowe it, if he could not vnderstand their words, what mist was there in his vnderstanding? what [Page 323] ignorance, in so great a Rabbin?

But heare his Eccho, in the Apolo­gie. In this Section (wherein the place of Gratian and the Glosse are discus­sed) so far as Doctor Smith and his Anta­gonist argue, VVafer. pag 50. if you peruse the places you shall find the arguments (though so min­cinglie heere produced) vnsatisfied, where you are forced to put a trick on Doctour Featlie, and make him confesse against Gratian, least his Lordship should be non-plust. I can not but pittie such slender pollicie. But for satisfaction concerning Gratian if you but please to reade Doctor Featlie on another occasion, (in his Con­ference with M. Musket, pag. 61. &c.) you shall finde him insteed of yeilding that Gratian contradicts himself, prooue that he oppugnes your transsubstantiation. Thus innocentlie, the godlie sincere Brother ‘Cui nec Ara, nec—’

I now returne to the wordes obie­cted, putting you first in minde (which Featlie doth acknowledge was told him in the Conference)Featl. pag. 29 [...] that [Page 424] three thinges in a Sacrament are to be considered, as Diuines note; 1. that which is Sacramentum tantùm. 2. that which is res Sacramenti tantùm. Vide Suar. 3. p. to. 3. disp 1, Sect 3. Tria di­stingnū ­tura Theologis in Sacra­mentis novae le­gis, res tantum, &c. Et disp. 42. Sect. 1. 3. 4. Magist. in 4 d. 8. S. Tho. 3. p. q 73. a. 1. Ibidem­que Cō ­menta­tores. 3. that which is both res & Sacramentum that which is (heere) Sacramentum tantum, be the species of bread & wine, which are signes, but are not reallie, either, of the thinges by them signified: that which is res Sacramenti tantum, is grace which is signified by the Sacrament (as you may know by the generall definition) but it self not being visi­ble, is no signe, of this S. Bernard spea­kes in the place cited by Waferer pag. 49. rem Sacramenti nemo percipit nisi di­gnus. that which is both Sacramentum and res Sacramenti, as signifying and being also signified, is the bodie of our Sauiour in the signe. According to this distinction, commonlie receaued and knowne when the Glossatour ma­de his exposition, it was answered that he spake of that which is Sacramentum tantum, to wit the specie, which are not reallie and properlie the bodie and blood of Christ, but improperlie [Page 425] and significatiue onlie. to which mea­ning his owne words would haue di­rected you. Sacramentum, scilicet spe­cies visibilis, the Sacrament that is, the vi­sible species. and, species panis sub qua la­tet corpus Christi, est Sacramentum car­nis, the species of bread which hath vnder it our sauiours bodie, is the Sacrament of Post conse­cratio­nem sa­cerdotis, quae sacrificium dicitur, duo sunt ibi, scilicet Sacramentum & res Sacramenti; quae ante consecra­tionem ibi non erent. Glossa. ad Can, Hoc est. and againe. Siue sacrificium hic dicatur ipsum Sacramentum, scili­cet species visibilis: siue corpus Christi: siue immolatio (so he tooke it when he said it was consecratio) corporis Christi: non est verum quod hic dicit, scilicet quod constat ex Sacramento & re Sacramenti; (none of these are constituted of the two things heer especified) sed tenen­tur collectiuè, pro ipso Sacramento & re Sacramenti. Ibidem. Caro, id est, species panis, sub qualatet corpus Christi, est Sacramentum carnis Christi. & sanguis, id est, species vini sub qua latet sanguis Christi, est Sa­cramentum sanguinis Christi, Ibidem. Coelestis panis, id est, coeleste Sacramentum quod veré repraesentat Ch [...]i­sti carnem, dicitur corpus Christi, sed improprié. Ibi­dem, Caro Christi potest intelligi secundum illam for­mam & quantitatem quam habuit in cruce: vel secun­dum quant tatem corporis glorificati quod spirituale videtur, quod nulli sensui subiacet. Idem, ad Can. Du­pliciter. Non hoc corpus manducaturi estis, id est, non in eadem specie, vel grossitie, vel repraesentatione, sed in Sacramento. Idem, ad Can. Prima. Licet enim vbique sit etiam in altari quolibet in vera forma quam de Vir­gine sumpsit; non tamen subiicitur corporeis sensibus. Ibidem. Vide quae de transubstantiatione tradit, pag 75. flesh.

[Page 426]That he spake of this exteriour shape, and not of the thing within it, it is yet further manifest by that which hath beene cited out of him touching the reall existence of the bodie, vnder that forme; and the tur­ning of bread into it. See the Confe­rence pag. 75.

An vnderstanding Reader, by this which hath beene said, will be able himself to finde the meaning of^b. others (if any be obiected) that vse the [Page 427] [Page 428] [Page 429] like speaches: & the better, if he beare in minde the varietie of supposition that happens in these words,Vide Suar. 3. p. to. 3. disp. 42. sect. 4. § Secun­do colli­gitur. Euchari­stia, Sacramentum, Panis consecratus. you shal finde thē takē sometimes pro cor­pore, connotando species continentes: Sometimes pro speciebus, connotando corpus contentum: sometimes pro toto composito, for the whole consisting of the bodie and the species, both. Ac­cording to which diuersitie of accep­tion, such propositions as ouer hastie or vnlearned men think opposite, will be found to containe a good sence.

Hauing freed the Canon from you M. Featlie, and got possession of it a­gaine, I will turne it against your A­pologist to driue away that sillie tro­ope of Arguments which he hath brought into this Section. You re­member the charge that was in it. This in substance: [...] in the Sacrifice of [Page 430] the Church two thinges, one the spe­cies of the elementes, and this visible; the other, the inuisible bodie of our Lord. 2. the inuisible thing, the flesh, is couered with the visible. 3. the flesh is a Sacrament of the flesh. 4 the in­uisible and spirituall flesh in the Sa­crament, doth signifie the visible & palpable bodie which was vpon the crosse. 5. the Heauenlie bread, which is indeed (according to the substance) flesh; is the sacred signe or Sacrament of the visible mortall bodie. 6. the act of immolatiō performed by the Priest is called the passion of Christ, non rei veritate sed significante mysterio. The Reader remembers all this. I request him also to reflect vpon the discourse of S. E. pag. 71 which Master Waferer with all his Arts doth impugne, and I am now defending, the substance of his Argumentes (for his words do not merit the transcribing) is without order (for he hath none at all) as fol­loweth.

Waferer. S. Augustine saith Epist. 23. [Page 431] Secundum quemdam modum Sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est.

Answer. That which is Sacramentum tantùm, Aliqui putabāt species solas es­se Sacra­mētum. Vide Suarez disp. 42. 2. is secundum quendam modum (to wit significatiue) Corpus Christi: that which is res & Sacramentum, is corpus Christi; or caro spiritualis, veré. and the same, is corpus Christi visibile vt visibile secundum quendam modum; to wit repre­sentatiue. the Canon, sicut ergo &c. illius quod visibile &c.

Waferer. The same thing cannot re­present it self, for there is similitude betwixt the representing and the re­presented, which similitude cannot be in case it be the same thing.

Answer. Why not? if it be (as our Sa­uiours bodie is) in diuers exteriour formes or shapes at once? why may it not by the one represent it self as existēt in the other? the similitude (such as it is) is not founded, as you conceaue, in the substance preciselie,where­fore they be not the same in that verie respect and point, and was aboue also answered Birckbeck pag 180. but in the ex­teriour shapes or formes, which be not heere the same, in the representing, and [Page 432] the represented▪ Th [...] Canon. Carne inuis [...] ­bili significat [...] visibile Domini corpus.

Waferer. It is not onlie without ground [...]th the Gospell, but also false, to saie [...]he same bodie was in diuerse formes or shapes at once.

Answer. Our Sauiours bodie was in the shape of bread, inuisiblie. This in my hand is my bodie. and it was visi­blie sitting at the table at the same time; h [...] said take, eate, this is &c. The Cànon. Carne inuisibi [...]i, intelligibili, spi­rituali, significatur corpus Domini visi­bile, palpabile. The Quod then, is the sa­me.

Waferer. If one and the same thing can be in seuerall formes, one forme may represent the other, but the thing represents not it self.

Answer. had your opposition beene to purpose you should haue put it thus, but the thing by the one cānot repre­sent it self as in the other, which was the proposition you vndertooke to dis­prooue. I doubt whether your eies be fellowes, you mistake so oft, that which is before them; and, it seemes, [Page 433] if I may speak according to your Phi­losophie, that either they be meere ac­cidents, or, the one is not like vnto the other. For in both, is, (am I not mistaken?) the same forme or substan­ce. S. P [...]ete fishing, was a figure of S. Peeter preaching. What? did accidents onlie fish? & other accidents preach? [...] was the fisher a figure of the preacher [...] Peter in one action, of himself, as in the other? this matter is allreadie dis­pacht, pag. 185. & seqq. where you shall finde an answer to your dis­course about the Manna. The Canon. Caro carnis & sanguis Sacramentum est sanguinis.

Waferer. The bodie is not in the Sa­crament in it's proper shape,Sed & Chri­stus post resurre­ct [...]onē su [...]m diuersa actione diuersa que temporum ratione, sui ipsius ty­pum gessit & figuram. Vt enim a [...]t Augustinus; appa­rens duobus Discipulis &c Alger de Sacram. l. 1 c 18. Ille contendat Christum mentitum esse singendo, qui negat eum quod signifie [...]ui [...] impleuisle faciend [...] S. Aug. de mend. [...]on, Cons c 13. ad illud, sinxit se longius tre. longius nāque profectus super omnes coelos, &c. Ibid. how then can the Sacrament represent it as so existent.

[Page 434] Answer. The shape represented is the visible shape and forme our Sa­uiour had. The Canon. Carne inuisibili significatur visibile corpus. and againe, Sacramentum est corporis, illius videlicet quod visibile. Neither is this represen­tation, vniuocall; or the relation, na­turall to the species, as you suppose: but it is founded in the Diuine action or institution, which serues it self of that analogie which the matter doth afford. Reade your owne wordes pag. 60. Most certaine it is that the sacramen­tall signes and actions are the memoriall & figure of no other bodie then that of our Sauiour on the Crosse.

Your Questions about the meaning of the word hoc, into which you would haue the whole proposition (ô worthie man to write Diuinitie!) to be transubstantiated, will finde an answer in the next Sectiō, though you must not expect that I repeate there againe in terminis, so choise a peece of M. Mirth. No more with Gratian for this time.

[Page 435] Waferer. The species (you now dis­pute against that which was answe­red to the wordes of the Glosse) can­not be called Coeleste Sacramentum in regard of their reference (the wordes of S. E.) to our Sauiours bodie which they couer.

Answer. Why so?

Waferer. Nothing is a sacrament in respect of couering.

Answer. That which inuisiblie cō ­taines, and exhibites to vs, not onlie grace, but the Authour of grace, may therefore well be called a Sacrament. such couering well deserues the name; though couers, be not all, Sacramen­tes. Howbeit you mistake S. E. who told you the reference to the bodie in­closed was enough to draw vpon it this title Coeleste, Heauenlie. The sa­cred bodie of our Sauiour is within the species: whence it comes that the one hath rationem contenti, the other continentis: which notions are concea­ued, you know, relatiue, and, since a relation is specified by the terminus, that relation is not naturall which is [Page 436] terminated vnto, and reciprocated with, that which is aboue nature. To inquire for an action making imme­diatlie these r [...]ferences, were needles. Euen in those that are naturall the Phi­losopher lookes for no other action then that which makes the founda­tion, which he calls the fundamentum. where one thing containes another, the reference followes of it self. That by the consecration the bodie is put within the species, the Gloss [...] (whose Authoritie you are againe scanning) told you, and by the words of Institu­tion it is manifest.Suprà pag. 75 Matth 26. The Canon. Caro e­ius est quam forma panis opertam accipi­mus.

But why should you make anie difficultie about the title of sacred and heauenlie, drawne vpon the species in a sence equiuocall, by reasons of the refe­rence? When wee vrge against you, the Fathers, to proue that our Sauiour in the Eucharist is to be reuerenced and adored, then you tell vs that the wor­ship is exhibited to the formes becau­se [Page 437] they be sacred; and you can fetch examples from Baptisme: how then comes it to passe that whilst you dis­pute against vs,The words Reuer [...]n­ce, Ho­nour, & Adoratiō simplie in themselues, without the adiunct and addita­ment Diuine, cannot conclude the Diuine woship proper to God.— Vnder the degree of Diuine wor­ship, wee our selues yeild as much to the Eucharist, as S. Augustine did to baptisme whē he said (epist. 164) wee reuerence baptisme wheresoeuer it is, Morton. of the Masse l 7 c 2, sec. 3, Diuine Nazianzene teaceth that the Angels are present at baptisme, and do magnifie or Honour it with their presence and obseruance, Idem Sect 2. VVere the Crucifix as glorious as either art could fa­shion— it is but a meere signe inuented by man; and th [...]refore how infinitely more honorable in all Chri­stian estimation must a Sacramentall signe be, wh [...]ch onlie the God of heauen and earth could insitute? Idem li. 4. c. 2. Sect 3 in the Challeng. Reuerence is a due respect had vnto things or persons, according to the good qualities that is in them, this is either inward, or outward, the inward is our estimation of them, ac­cording to their conditions and properties: the out­ward is our open expression of our said estimation, whether by words or acts, their inward &c. Idem. l. 7. c. 9. See the words of D. Androes cited p. 373. and what both of them say to Theodoret, & adorantur (symbola) vt quae illa sint quae creduntur, whereof Andr, in his Op. posth. and Mort l. 7. c. 2 and cease to declaime against vs for the re­latiue honour wee giue to reliques and other holy things: ob­seruing withall that they both come short of Theodoret, ado­rantur vt quae illa sint. they loose their san­ctitie? But see! your braines turne a­bout, and you will bestow the same [Page 438] title vpon bread and wine; and that, (the thing which iust now you disli­ked,) in regard of reference to flesh & blood: Take my opinion (say you) that meere accidents can neither properlie nor improperlie be called Coeleste Sacramentum in regard of their reference to our Sa­uiours bodie which they couer, VVafer. pag 57. but bread and wine may be so called, (and why?) in regard of their mysterious vse and signi­fication, (how so?) the reference vnto that Coelestiall foode which they are then made instrumentes to conuay vnto vs, gi­ues them that denomination. So you.

The seuerall comparisons of the Sacramentall species comes heere too, into the Ministers head, and troubles him: so many relations, in one thing; to the bodie visible existent on the [Page 439] crosse, to the bodie inuisible contained within, and to the grace which (being a Sacrament) it doth also relate vnto. Three relations, in one thing; this makes him sweate, with labour to cō ­ceaue it. But there is one thing, your owne self Master Waferer, wherin there be more then thirtie, to your Father, to your brothers, to the communitie whereof you are a part, to your (alas! poore) flocke, to your mother Vniuer­sitie, to your masters there, to your seruant, what spend I time to reckon? as many senses, and powers, & partes; as manie seuerall accidentes, and qua­lites, and habits, as you haue; as manie seuerall vertues as are in you, (but I must not found on them least my nū ­ber proue to short;) as manie seuerall comparisons as you haue to bodies, (I omit all other thinges which would make the number more then double) liuing or not liuing, celestiall or ter­restriall, greater or lesse, then you; so [Page 440] manie relations you Master Waferer, haue. Number them, if you can; a [...]d you shall finde for euerie one that I promised, a thousand, do you sweate vnder the burden?

You told vs but a while agoe that bread and wine haue a reference to the bodie and blood of Christ;VVafer. pag. 34. and it is your common tenet and the great my­sterie which you do mngnifie and ex­toll as a thing aboue the capacitie and conceipt of Christian men though neuer so learned: yet, least you want an Aduersarie, you pleade against this also now your owne self. There is, saie you, a relation inter signum and signatum, which relation cannot be founded in the colour of bread, VVafer. pag 58, because no relation is founded in qualitie, but relatio similitudi­ninis, now the colour of flesh and bread is not a like, and so there can be no relation of similitude betweene them. and so on you go to conclude that the relation which wee admit is no where but in a Iesuites doting head. See your owne k [...]kerm. of the institution of signes. VVas it not you [...]hat ob­iected out of Tertull. and the Glosse, the word representat? and are not you the men would haue the Sacrament to be a signe? which if it were [Page 441] so, his condition were yet better then yours; for he hath within the conse­crated species that which is indeed heauenlie, the best thing (to speake with S. Chrysostome,) that is in all the world: whereas your Sacrament is reallie nothing els but bakers bread, with the relation of a signe, which relation (your owne argument comes back vpō you) is not founded in the colour nor in the substance of bread, flesh and bread are not alike, but onlie in the supposed institution, which kind of relations being not reall, giue me leaue to conclude in your Logick, yet more ciuillie, that, it is no where but in the sacred pia mater of a Catha­rist.

Waferer. I haue four reasons why I dislike your opinion which defends meere accidents to be called a Sacra­ment.

[Page 442] Answer. you are content that a peece of bread, wherein there is no thing els but bread, the rest being in your head onlie, be called a Sacrament? why then may not those species be so called which do couer and infold that great mysterie of pietie which was manife­sted in the flesh, iustified in spirit, ap­peared to Angels, and was preached vnto Nations? if the price of our Re­demption, the Mediatour betwixt God and man, the holie of holies, if Deus ab­sconditus be within those species, with­drawne from our sight, and they not onlie signifie, but exhibite him to the receauer, why may they not be called a Sacrament?

Waferer: They do not signifie by institution.

Answer. That institution which brings in, the bodie, vnder them, doth also make them to containe it. so comes relatio continentis. Could a man put more wit into your head,In ad a­liquid non est morus; Contingit enim altero mutato, verum esse alterum, nihil mutans: quare secundum accidens, motus horum est. Arist. 5 Phy [...] tex. 10, Motus non est per se in ad aliquid, sed solum per accidens. S. Th. ibidem. the relation would follow without other trouble. [Page 443] When your meate is in your bellie who makes the relation? when, how, by what meanes? looke on Aristotle 5. Physicorum cap. 3.

Waferer. the pronounce hoc in the words of Consecration, doth not sig­nifie these accidentes, therefore these accidents cannot get a relation by vertue of the words of Consecra­tion.

Answer. He that fills a cup or chalice doth not make it, yet the relatio conti­nentis ad rem contentam, followes vpon that his action, his action brings wine into the cup; and consecration brings our Sauiours bodie into the forme of bread: which donne, the relations be not wanting.

Waferer. The bodie is not produced by consecration, nor the species, there­fore the relation of one of these to the other, followes not vpon the con­secration.

[Page 444] Answer. Whether the bodie be pro­duced or be not produced by conse­cration, is not the matter heere dis­puted; but whether it be present. Nei­ther would your argument conclude if wee supposed your antecedent to be whollie true. When you fill a chalice, you neither produce the cup, nor the wine; yet the relation of conti­nencie doth follow, and so doth it when you fill a place, though you produce not your self that are in it.

Waferer. Relations following vpon actions are onlie betweene the agent or efficient and the effect or thing it makes,

Answer. You see this to be false in the example before specified, could not you and I be neerer one to the other vnles the one of vs be made a­gaine? or is the Sunne made a new as oft as it is vnder a new signe? the mo­one perhaps you will saie is, because there be new moones.

Thus farre concerning the four ar­guments of your dislike,VVafer. p. 61. which you [Page 445] conclude with this iyngling clinch, that becomes your cap well, So much (mēd that word much, and put so little; you must not commend your self,) for Doctor Featlies Illation against your Relation.

One thing more I must note (befo­re wee leaue this Section) that, whe­reas in it you haue shewed your self much offended with S. E. for saying the species were also signa corporis Christi praesentis, your consciēce would not let you make an end before you had granted it, in these words,VVafer pag 62. Ile graunt you that the outward signes are, signa corporis praesentis, signes of the bo­die present after consecration, yet to shew your self still replenished with the spirit of contradiction, you tell vs you denie that it is there after the man­ner wee define, how then M. Waferer? is it obiectiue onlie?Ibidem. as the thing be­leeued is said to be in the beleeuer; or as the men you looke vpon, are in your eie; or as the thing you loue is thereby said to be in you or you ra­ther [Page 446] in it? heare a mysterie. Tis not cor­porallie but mysticallie and Sacramental­lie,VVafer. Ibidem.and yet so as besides the intellectuall presence (by faith and loue) there is also a reall and exhibitiue presence (of the bo­die, I suppose,) in respect of donation on Gods part and reception on mans part. But what it this, great Apollo? Is the bodie, (antecedentlie to the effectes which follow the reception) reallie exhibited and reallie receaued more then intellectuallie? do men, with their bodilie mouthes, receaue heere, that which is in heauen onlie, no nee­rer?

Your, Master, Caluin, hath lead you it seemes into the clowds, to mount there, for a banck is to low for you. Non solum beneficiorum Christi signifi­cationem habemus in Coena; sed substan­tiué participes, in vnam cum eo vitam co­alescimus, and,Cited in Morton pag 151. Ergo in Coena miraculum agnoscimus, quod & naturae fines & sen­sus nostri modum exsuperat: Quod Christi [Page 147] caro nobis fit communis & nobis in ali­mentum datur. Wee haue in the Supper not a signification of the benefits onlie, but being made substantiallie participant, wee do become one life with him. Where­fore wee acknowledge in the Supper a miracle, that transcends the bounds of na­ture, and compasse of our reason, to wit, that the flesh of Christ is made to vs com­mo [...], and giuen vs for our nourishment. So hee. Now Waferer, mount you, though wee heard you once alreadie. [...] Euerie Pu­nie can tell you that though bread seeme onlie bread to the eie, VVafer pag. 34. and in substance be nothing els, yet in it's spirituall vse and si­gnification, it's the bodie of our Sauiour, (this your Punies you saie, know, what is there in it more; hark and learne,) not that Christs bodie is present vnder the accidentall formes of the ele­mentes though it be therewith sprituallie And what hath Morton more then bread, with certaine references which be not reall? a signe, a seale, an instrument; what answers heere to these three names, à parte rei, more then bread? [Page 448] eaten, (this were Papistrie, take heede of it; but, what or how then?) This I confesse to be a Mysterie: but if you de­maund what it is; He answer you as Octa­uius did Caecilius when he did expect to heare him describe what God was, Nobis ad intellectum pectus augustum est, & ideo sic Deum digne aestimamus dum inaesti­mabilem dicimus &c. so if you expect to heare exactlie what this mysterie is, I answer, it is a mysterie, and if I could per­fectlie disclose it's secretes and shew you what it were, then twere no mysterie. So then, besides the benefit of grace which is the effect of due receauing, and besides the intellectuall presence which is by faith, those that will, must beleeue a mysterie, aboue mans appre­hension, vnexplicable, incomprehen­sible. Will you now see the mouse? The bread is a signe of our Sauiours bodie; and the communicants take it in their hands;S Hier. Epist. ad Ctes. and eate it with their moutheS. Ecclesiae victoria est, vos aperiè dicere quod fentitis.

The Fift obiection was that Hoc stands for bread, because the Fa­thers, sometimes call the Sacra­ment by that name, and the pro­noune relates to nothing els. The Answer was that Hoc, (who­se signification of it self is confu­sed) relates vnto the thing which is vnder the species when the forme is whollie vttered; and that this thing is Heauenlie bread and by the Fathers so called.

[Page 450]In this Section (as appeares by the Synopsis which Waferer himself sets before it,) be many thinges both im­pertinent to the Argument (which was of the signification of the word Hoc;) and without order, packt toge­ther. As. 1. Of the sixt chapter of Saint Iohn, whether it speakes of the Sacra­ment, which Question he concludes negatiuè, so cashcering one of his ow­ne Doctors Arguments. 2. Of transub­stantiation. where he would haue the Reader know from him, yes, that the Fathers speake hyperbolicallie, when they saie bread is changed by the power of omnipotence not in shape but in natu­re, that the nature it self is changed; that it is transelemented. And hauing said, for explication of those places, that in transelementation, the materia prima (which is an element or principle of the thing; aswell as the forme) doth remai­ne; he tells vs, the Fathers meane a change in office. Your greatest Prote­stantish polemicks come in fine to the same. Expectu eadem a summmo m [...]moque, as if that office (to re­present [Page 451] or signifie the flesh of Christ,) came in place of the nature or forme of bread: or that, a substantiall forme, or element, were turned into an ens rationis, which is in a Ministers emptie braine. 3. Of adoration. where he would ridiculouslie perswade the Reader that the Councel of Trent will haue latria bestowed vpon mee­re accidentes for being (Sacramentum tantum) sacred and Sacramentall sig­nes onlie: as if the Church esteemed that a motiue of Diuine and highest worship. 4. Of Omnipotencie, where he professeth not to meddle with Gods absolute power, and yet denies things which we maintaine to be donne onlie by that power. 5. Of the Incarnation. where he saith that, since our Sauiours manhood is inseparablie vni­ted to his Diuinitie in that sence it may be said to be euerie where present to it. and that the vnion of our Sauiours mā ­hood to the Deitie is extended as far as (th [...]) Deitie. 6. Of miracles. Where he saith that, that which is onlie spirituall [Page 452] (he meanes inuisible, such as the chan­ges made in the elements bread and wine, by consecration, or by the Sacra­ments, in our soules; or by God in his Saincts:) is wrought no where but in the mind. These effects, and other spirituall created things,S. Hier. ad Ctes. all, (if this tenet hold,) are imaginarie. Non necesse habet con­uinci, quod sua statim professione blasphe­mum est. I spare paper, to some other, better purpose: what neede I spend it?Ibidem. Sententias vestras prodidisse, superas­se est.

This Euripus homo, Wauerer, in his discourse, doth saie and vnsaie; and interprete himself (when some bodie it seemes warned him of his grosse er­rours against the Commō Creede) no better in effect then, if hauing said it is; I should adde for explication, that is,Quo te­neas vultus mutaintē protea nodu? it is not: wanting discretion to lea­ue out, what he had not wit enough to mend.

The Obiections which he brings, such as he picks heere and there out of others, he thrusts together in a [Page 453] bundle, without order, like sticks in a fagot; which if it were caried to Car­fox, and set on fire, would illuminate the four quarters of the Vniuersitie. Will you heare some recited; and ob­serue in him whilst from his extaticall throne or pulpit he scatters Oracles to sanctifie the attentiue eares of a­stonished Pupils, an example of sweete, ingenuous, faire, ciuill, gra­cious comportment.

Whist! he speakes.

let me see what you would haue this bread in the Sacrament to be. Such (say you) as whereunto the Diuine essence doth ineffablie power it self, euen as in Christ vnder humane nature the Di­uinitie lay bid. And finallie such bread, of which our Sauiour saith it is my flesh for the life of the world. O most insufferable dotage! First because the blasphemous comparison of putting Christ so in the bread shaps, as his Diuinitie was in his humanitie, as if he were personallie vni­ted to them as he was to the humane na­ture. [Page 454] 2. you would against sense as well as the condition of a Sacrament make an in­uisible thing namelie Christ, inuisible vn­der the accidens of bread to be a signe of a visible thing namelie of Christ visible on the Crosse, and so make either two Christs, or els the self same bodie to be at the same time both eating and eaten, visible and in­uisible.

Who bolder then blind bay­ard? who more furious in charging men with errour and dotage, then tho­se who be most ignorant, and haue least wit? I told him before of his te­meritie, but the Ethiopian will not change his skinne, nor the Leopard depose his spots. The Holie Ghost saies of Heretickes, (and wee finde the expe­rience of it) that they are2. Tim. 3. elati, su­perbi, criminatores, proterui, tumidi, Epist. Iust. Hi autem (the scriptures saies of them) quaecumque quidem ignorant, blasphe­mant. 2. Tim. 3. As Iannes and Mambres with­stood Moyses, so do these also resist the truth, men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith; but they shall pro­ceede [Page 455] no further; for their follie shall be manifest to all; as the others was.

It is a peece of stupid ignorance (in a writer of polemicall bookes) to think, and an vnsufferable calumnie it were to report, that wee beleeue two Christ; or that he whom wee be­leeue, is vnited hypostaticè personal­lie to the bread shapes. To iustifie that wee saie, by you recited and so deep­lie charged, I neede do no more but pray the Authours themselues to come foorth, and againe speake it ouer be­fore your face. When you see parties, peraduenture you will blush.1 Cor. 11. Iesus Christ our Redeemer, God and man. Take, and eate, this (in the forme of bread) is my bodie which is broken, Ioan. 6. gi­uen, for you. The bread which I will giue is my flesh for the life of the world. my flesh is meate indeed &c. the Com­ment you shall haue anon, out of S. Ierom. The Authour of the Sermons in Saint Cyprian, and of the same age,Motton pag. 25. Serm. de Coena. whom all know (your Patron sayes) to be a Catholicke Father. That bread [Page 456] being changed not in shape but in nature, is by the omnipotencie of the Word made flesh. These two places, the one out of S. Iohn, the other out of the Sermō that is in S. Cyprian, Waferer tooke notice of: and in his waie there were more;Cyrill. Catech. 4. Canon Hoc est, as that of S. Cyrill, That which ap­peares breade, is not bread; but the bodie. and of the Canon taken out of S. Au­gustine by S. Prosper. It is the the flesh of Christ which wee receaue couered with the forme of bread. and, by the flesh and blood, Ibidem. both inuisible, intelligible, spiri­tuall, is signified the visible, palpable bo­die of our Lord Iesus Christ. and in Saint Ierome. Hieron. Com­ment. in 1 ad E­phes. ad Paulum & Eu­stoch. Idem in Ep. ad Hedib. q. 2. The flesh and blood of Christ is vnderstood two waies: either that spiri­tuall and Diuine, whereof himself saith My flesh is meate indeede &c. (marke this Comment Master Waferer,) or the flesh that was crucified. and; Our Lord Iesus, he the guest, and the feast; he the eater, and the thing eaten.

But staie! what is all this? a mans bodie, our Sauiours, in bread shape; flesh, inuisible, vnder the forme of [Page 457] bread. an inuisible thing vnder accidēts the signe of a visible thing vpon the Crosse. the same bodie at the same time eating and eaten, visible and inui­sible.

O insufferable dotage!

And this comparison tooSerm. de Coen. in Cypr. As in the person of Christ, the huma­nitie did appeare, and the Diuinitie lie bid: so (heere in the Eucharist) a Diuine essence doth vnspeakablie power it self in­to a visible Sacrament. What is your opi­nion of this?

O blasphemous compari­son!

Com. in in Ioan. l. 4. c. 11. The malignant minde (S. Cyrill saith) presentlie with arrogance reiects all as friuolous and false whateuer it vnder­stands not, yeilding to none, and thinking nothing to be aboue it self. Belike some Spirit hath inspired this man, and on the suddaine giuen vs a Diuine, that can teach without learning: the verie same which taught Luther to declai­me against the Masse. But, Master Wa­ferer, bethink your self; is this langua­ge [Page 458] for a Master of Art but of yester­daie, to giue a graue Prelate, and a mā of knowne learning? and then also, when he speakes in the verie words of Antiquitie, of holie Fathers, of Iesus Christ? Is this the modestie such a stri­pling should haue had, the learning which you promised, the charitie which you pretend? you, who do la­ment the Schismes of the Church, and are continuallie in thanksgiuing for the great light you see wherein you haue discouered how the solid and sub­stantiall nature of bread is transelemented into a feigned reference. is this the vin­dicating of your Churches cause, and the cleering of your Doctor, it's abbetter? O the Pedanticall insolencie! O most insolent arrogancie of most arrogant Apostacie.

Of the first apostatizing Spirits it is said in Sripture, their pride ascendeth e­uer. They would haue thrones, for­sooth, (each one, for they are all of one mind,) in the sides of the North: from whence, without submitting [Page 459] themselues to any, they might con­trowle, all. and into the same region high pride hath raised this Apol. making her self this chaire; and recea­uing him, in her lap. There he sits, and controwles, Antiquitie. This it is when supercilious Pedants come from As in praesenti, to print books and giue Diuines lessons in Diuini­tie.

Not to trouble my self or my Reader with the repetition of all those infinite solecismes which this opinion includes: take notice of this, that it di­stroies the definition of an Indiuiduum, & makes Christs indiuiduall bodie not to be indiuiduall. Indiuiduum according to lo­gick is quod est indiuisum in se & diuisum ab alijs omnibus, as Socrates is distingui­shed from Plato &c. now I saie this your tenet of there all presence against this defi­nition diuide; an indiuiduall bodie from it self, it diuides Christ ac Paris from Christ in the Sacrament at Rome.

He hath (if you beleeue him) an infinite companie of reasons; [Page 460] but, least he trouble the Reader, or him­selfe, (lucidum interuallum,) with ran­ging them all against vs, he picks out the stoutest, (his Thersites, Achilles I should haue said,) and thrusting him into the field, bids vs take notice of him. Sure, it is a goodlie reason. Lim­mes it hath, some; but it wāts sinewes. like therefore to be some tough chā ­pion. Hath it the forme and shape of a good Argument? no: but it hath a head, the maior proposition. O qua­le caput! sed cerebrum where? non ha­bet.

The maior might haue in it a good sence; and hath so, when others vse it: when it is vnderstood of intrinse­call indiuision: but extrinsecall, is not that which doth constitute; or the want of it that which takes awaye, an indiuiduum: now the Minister vnder­stands it of this later, this extrinsecall indiuision, as will presentlie appeare by his discourse. Thus the Maior. The Minor is of no great weight neither; for it stands vpon his breath. NowMirths words. I [Page 461] saie this your tenet against this definition diuides an indiuiduall bodie from it self, it it diuides Christ at Paris from Christ in the Sacramēt at Rome. You saie so well. Your Conclusion? let the Reader him­self make it if he can. Supprimit Ora­tor—

But is there no proppe for the Mi­nor? if you cease to saie it, what shall become of it then? yes; wee shall haue something to supporte it.

For, there being distance & diuersitie of place, it cannot be the same numericall bodie.

Did I not tell before, that he meant extrinsecall indiuision? Place, is extrinsecall to a bodie. whether you be in Oxford or Odiham, you be the same indiuiduum still, though the pla­ce be distinct. Oxford is not Odiham; but M, Waferer in Odiham is the same Master Waferer that was at Oxford. the Minister is the Master of Art; is he not Master Mirth? And a Master of Art might haue knowne further, that superuenient vbications destroie [Page 462] not that indiuiduation which essen­tiallie they suppose. Your substantiall indiuiduation, that whereby you are substantiallie distinct from other men, (which is no accident of Master Wa­ferer, nor can be remooued from him as much as in your mind, without ta­king him away too;) that substantiall indiuiduation, is essentiallie presuppo­sed by euerie particular intrinsecall v­bicatiō receaued in you, as an accidēt in it's subiect, and is not changed by it, by the superuenient vbication: if it were, the same thing could not bee as much as successiuelie in seuerall places, as oft as you changed places so oft you should be an other man. One borne, another be caried to Church to be Christned, a third brought home to suck the mother, and (which yet would trouble you worse) another should take the benefice, which was giuen you; because you tooke the de­gree, which an other (by the name of Waferer too)I will not sweare that. deserued.

I praie what other diuision [Page 463] can there be of materiall substances, but by bounds of place?

Poore man! and what If I should come into your place and you into mine, should I then be you, and you be that indiuiduum which I am? this were as easie, as it is a strange transubstantiation. But I know you will denie it to be possible; least by this meanes you be vnawares made a Papist. I thought, (this it is not to be so wise as you,) that your neighbour and you were substantiallie distingui­shed, that his substāce was not yours, nor your substance his. by something which is in you substantiall, you are di­stinguished from a stock; and by some­thing which is in you substantiall, you are di­stinguished from an asse; and by something which is in you substantiall, you are distinguished from your neighbour. you will not denie this, what these are Called, euerie Punie can tell you.

T's an infallible axio­me that one numericall substance can [Page 474] haue but one manner of Mirth I hope can di­stin­guish betwixt an acci­dentall presen­tialitie, and, a substan­tiall sub­sistence. subsisting.

If you meane naturallie, this axiome is nothing to purpose heere, nihil ad rhombum. wee talke of that which God hath supernaturallie effe­cted. If you meane supernaturallie, it is a meere begging of the Question, to call that an axiome, which no man yet euer auouched; and your aduersaries do denie. Where did you euer reade (vnles it were in some of your pufel­lowes lying pamphlets,) that the sa­me indiuiduall substance could not haue supernaturallie diuers accidentall manners of being? or, that an indiui­duall nature could not haue an other manner of subsisting, then naturallie it hath? The humanitie of our Sauiour hath another manner of subsisting then ours; it subsisteth in the Word. is this naturall, or supernaturall? and ac­cidentallie wee shall be changed, when this corruptible shall haue put on incorruption, and this mortall haue put on immortalitie. is not this likewise a­boue nature? or is the state of a glo­rious [Page 465] bodie, naturall to the bodie, or impossible, that Master Waferers A­xiome forsooth, may stand and in the sence wherein it were to serue his tur­ne. One numericall substance can haue but one manner of subsisting.

Though place and quantitie be not in the essence of a bodie, yet it is a contradiction in it's existence to be with­out either, and consequentlie to create Christ such a bodie in the Eucharist which is not indiuiduall is a meere contradictorie fiction.

I doubt I shall be thought a foole for disputing with such an one as you are. Master Mirth, who told you that the bodie which is in the Eucharist is not indiuiduall? who spake of such a bodie? who told you that it had not there quātitie? or that it was no where? or do you dreame? if you did not, and that the matter were not impertinent to this argument, I might hap to aske you touching tho­se your imaginations, how you proue it a contradiction for a bodie to be [Page 466] without quantitie, or, a bodie hauing quantitie to be without a place? I learned once from Aristotle that, quan­titie is not substance, nor substance quan­titie: which being supposed, (and the thing is certaine in it self,) you will haue much adoe to inferre a contra­diction out of these two propositiōs, Substantia est. Quantitas non est. or these other; Quantitas est. Substantia non est. Contradiction being affirmatio, and negatio eiusdem de eodem and secundum idem. you cannot Master Waferer. much lesse can you proue it is a con­tradiction for a bodie to be without a place. Locus is4. A­rist. 4. Phys. t. 41. continentis terminus immobilis primus: as the Philosopher de­fines it. who tels you likewise that(b) vniuersum non est in loco. the vttermost heauē or bodie, whateuer it be, is not properlie in a place. No other bodie, doth containe it; if it did, this were not vttermost. Yet wee saie not, that our Sauiours bodie is no where; or that it is not in the Church; or that it hath not quantitie, or that it is not in­diuiduall. [Page 467] these are, aegri somnia, they be your dreames Master Mirth, who vnderstand not this mightie argument which you tooke out of your Master Featlie: in whom I will go see (for I cannot learne of you) what the mea­ning of it is. ⁷

[Page 468]He proposeth it against Master Wood; and will needs proue the bo­die, if it hath diuers Sacramentall presēces (such as wee beleeue it hath,) is therby diuided in se, in itself, so that it is no more one and the same, but diuers bodies, this he striues to con­clude out of the distinction of the Sa­cramentall presences,Featlie pag. 134. & seqq. wherof one is at Rome for example, and another is at Paris. But he striues in vaine; for, the Dualitie is, of presencies; not of bodies; there are two presences in one, and the same bodie; and these two pre­sencies [Page 469] which are accidentes, separa­ble from the forsaid bodie, relie vpon it as their subiect, and presuppose it in being euerie moment wherein them­selues be, so farre they are from de­stroying it. Neither of them, is the substantiall indiuidualitie of the bo­die; for, the bodie was before, and will be the same after, when they be not at all, how then could it be con­cluded that two of them be two sub­stantiall indiuidualities? they neither are substantiall indiuidualities; (which is as easie to be proued as it is easie to proue that your vbication in this pla­ce where you are, which you may be without when you will, is not that whereby you are substantiallie di­stinct from other mē;) nor out of their pluralitie doth there ensue a plurali­tie in the bodie their subiect. for, ac­cidēts take not away their proper sub­iect, so to be, without any; but are in it: and these presences (which we spea­ke of) are accidents, not of a bodie in common, what euer bodie; but, of [Page 470] this indiuiduall bodie of our Sauiour Ie­sus Christ.

Featlie, pag. 140 This way failing your Doctor, he takes another, to proue against Master Wood, a substantiall dualitie (in the bodie) out of the motion of it; for if the same bodie be vnder two seuerall dimensions, it might be (he thinks) the terminus à quo and the terminus ad quem of the same direct motion, & be moued from it self; which is (saith he) a contradiction. But, neither can he bring about his intent this waie. That which is the subiect of locall motion, or the thing which properlie is moued, when the Priest (for example) takes an hoaste out of the pixe, are the dimē ­sions of bread: which dimensions haue localitie or situall extension, and are in loco in a place, whose definition you heard, before out of the Philosopher, the terminus à quo of which motion is not our Sauiours bodie, but the pixe where it was: and the terminus ad quem is the communicants mouth wherein he puts it. Our Sauiours bodie which [Page 471] is in those dimensions, is not in loco, per se; but per accidens: that is to saie, though that accident place, which is terminus continentis &c. doth not affect in in it self, yet is it in the dimensions of bread which dimensions are so af­fected. And, as it is per accidens in loco, so is it locallie moued per accidens, not per se.

The Sacrament is not locus the place of the bodie, properly speaking neither is it (the bodie) commensura­ted to the place of the species. The bodie is not there after the manner of a bodie, extended situallie; but rather according to the manner of a Spirit: though not altogether that way nei­ther, but another more vndetermined and supernaturall way, whereof the Philosopher wanting faith had no knowledge. The Soule Aristotle saith is in loco per accidens. 4. Phys. t. 45. and his Commentator there, Anima est in loco quia sublectum eius quod est corpus, est in loco. And the Soule is moued per accidens, because the bodie or the part [Page 470] [...] [Page 471] [...] [Page 472] wherein it is, vnited; is moued: this motion being nothing els but a suc­cessiue comparison to place. Motis nobis necessarium est & quae in nobis sunt om­nia, simul moueri, saies Aristotle 2. Topic. loco 24. and 4. Phys. t. 31. Motum autem aliud mouetur per se, & aliud mo­uetur per accidens. & illud quod mo­uetur per accidens, aliud est quod potest moueri per se, verbi gratia membra homi­nis & clauus in naui; & aliud non potest, sed semper mouetur per accidēs, verbi gra­tia albedo, & cognitio; ista enim non mu­tant sua loca, nisi quia illa in quibus sunt transferuntur.

The connexion or vnion of the Soule vnto the bodie (disposed) wee know by nature; and by reason of this connexion it comes to passe that mouing the bodie vnto a place, the soule consequentlie is also there. The connexiō of the bodie of our Sauiour with the species, is reuealed and made by the forme of consecration which is practicall, This in the shape of bread is my bodie. And the Councels ack­nowledge [Page 473] it when they say it is con­tained in the species; sub speciebus panis & vini veraciter continetur, Conc. Later. sub In­nocent. 3, c. fir­miter. §. vna est Conc. Trid. Sess. 13. c. 1. & 3, so the La­teran Councell: and the Councell of Trent, in the same tenour, In sanctissi­mo Eucharistiae Sacramento continetur verè, realiter, & substantialiter, corpus &c. and sub singulis cuiusque speciei par­tibus separatione facta totus Christus con­tinetur. So that a double relation is vn­derstood there, one of the bodie to the species: another of the species to the bodie; which remaine (so that no for­ce in nature can dissolue or separate them) whilst the species remaine vn­corrupted, and this by vertue and power of consecration and of the di­uine omnipotence. This for the an est of this vnion or connexion; the mo­dus of it in particular sainct Thomas saith is ineffabilis. It sufficeth to know there is such a connexion: by which it comes to passe that mouing the spe­cies to a place, the bodie of our Sa­uiour is also there: for, the species and the bodie, cannot be separated or di­uorced. [Page 474] And, as it is there, in place, in the sence aboue specified namelie; per accidens; so is it moued, per accidens.

It is further to be noted that when a thing, one in it self, is multiplex secun­dum esse, (I take the word heere in a great latitude,) it may be moued, and not moued, secundum diuersa. The Son­ne of God, our blessed Sauiour, who is in himself one, vnum Ens, was moued according to his humane forme,Vado ad Patrem, quia Pa­ter ma­ior me est. Ioa. 14. and according to his diuine forme he was immoueable. Your soule which is but one, may be moued in your arme, and vnmoued in your breast. and your bo­die may be moued according to one accidentall forme, as qualitie; though it be not at the same time moued ac­cording to another,VVere this in English he that is no Scholler could not vn­derstand it. suppose quantitie. Cum aliquid est vnum subiecto saith our Doctour S. Thomas, & multiplex se­cundum esse, nihil prohibet secundum ali­quid moueri, & secundum aliquid immo­bile permanere: sicut corpori est aliud esse album, & aliud esse magnum, vnde potest moueri secundum albedinem, & permanere [Page 475] immobile secundum magnitudinem. 3. p. qu. 76. a. 6. And in the same place answe­ring an Obiection which was made to proue that our Sauiours bodie is in the Sacrament mobiliter, quia nobis motis mouentur ea omnia quae sunt in no­bis, as before was said out of Aristotle, he answers, Dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de motu per accidens, quo ad mo­tum nostri mouentur ea quae in nobis sunt: aliter tamen ea quae per se possunt esse in loco, sicut corpora; & aliter ea quae per se non possunt esse in loco, sicut formae, & spirituales substantiae. Ad quem modum potest reduci, quod dicimus Christum mo­ueri per accidens secundum esse quod ha­bet in hoc Sacramento, in quo non est si­cut in loco.

Out of these words I take an in­stance to declare the solution which I gaue to your Argument whereby you would proue that if our Sauiours bodie were in seuerall dimensions sacramētally, it might be moued frō it self & so be substātiallie diuided in it self. The Answer is that, diuision in it [Page 476] self, followes not out of that motus per accidens. My Soule whilst I write, is moued per accidens, from it self, but yet remaines one. It were ridiculous to think that I cannot moue my fingers without diuiding an indiuisible, and destroying that immortall thing on which the motion it self dependeth. As for the termini, à quo, and ad quem, they be those that be the termini of the motus per se. When your bodie is in London (in your Chamber) per se, your soule is there, in eodem loco, (your chamber,) per accidēs: the place is one; but the manner of being in it, is diuer­se. Per se, and per accidens, distinguish the manner. Whē your bodie is in mo­tion thither (to your chamber) per se, your soule is moued thitherwards too, to the same terminus ad quem, (your chamber,) per accidens.

Suppose you be sitting in your stu­die, at your table, holding your right hand on the one end, and your left hand on the other end. When you moue your hands to the middle of [Page 477] the table, and put them there toge­ther, the termini a quibus in these two motions be not your soule, which is, and was, in either hand; but the two ends of the table where your hands were, be the termini from whence you moued them, and the terminus ad quem is not your soule which is in your hands now being together, but the middest of the table is the terminus ad quem. You must now keepe your hāds there together still, for feare least at parting them againe you diuide your soule (substantiallie) into two, by mo­uing it from it self, whilst you moue the right hand wherein it is, all, from the left wherein it is likewise all, or, put of your too melancholie imagi­nation of a contradiction to ensue in case a thing should per accidēs be mo­ued from it self; or be in two dimen­sions whereof one is locallie moued from the other. Of distance, or resting it is the same. Whilst your hands or ar­mes do moue, one from the other; your breast and other parts, may rest; [Page 478] and the soule in the right hand is nee­rer to the (same) soule in the left whē they be ioyned, then is theOf it self and by it self it cānot be distāt from it self. soule in the feete. Neerer, how? per accidē; that is, it is in a part that is neerer. moued, how? per accidens; that is, it is in a part of dimension which is moued. resteth how? per accidens; that is, it is in a part that doth rest. Of it self it is not the subiect of these corporall accidents or affections, as I told you before.

Applie this to the bodie, existing according to the manner of a spirit, (& after a more eleuated high manner thē that of the soule, & more incontracted, more indetermined, more independent of locall affections) in seuerall dimen­sions; some testing, some moued; some neerer, some farther of: and when any man offers to conclude a contradi­ction,Some learned Deuines haue thought it probable that an angel can be naturallie in two pla­ces at once; as in two seuerall assumed bodies: and you will haue much adoe to demonstrate against them. Celarent. looke neere, whether there be affirmatio and negatio eiusdem de eodem and secundum idem, according to the [Page 479] same dimension; and you will mile at their ignorance who by their wits do striue to put Gods omnipotencie to the non-p [...]us.

The next tedious busines is about this proposition This is my bodie, wherein that substantiall change which is aimed at is attributed to the power of that practicall proposition.

That the proposition is practicall, was the tenet of the first of those witnesses which your Doctor cited as for himself, & in those words which he cited, Acceptum parem corpus suum illum (not illud, as in Featlies mar­gine) fecit (how so?) Hoc est corpus meū dicendo. if by saying those words, Hoc est corpus meū, he made it his bodie, tho­se words were practicall. the like mā ­ner of speach and more expresse too, you shall find in otherPer o­rationem Verbi Dei ab ip [...]o Eu­charistiā That factum [...]ibum [...] illius carnem & sanguinem esse edect su­mus. S. Iustin. Apol. 2. Qui est à terra panis percipiens vocationem Dei, iam non est communis panis, sed Eu­charistia ex duabus rebus constans, terrena, & coelesti. S Iren. l. 4 c. 34 Benedictione etiam natura ipsa mutatur. S. Ambros. de myst. init. c. 9. Quòd si tantum valuit humaná benedictio (de miraculis loquitur, per Moysen, alios­que patratis) quid dicemus de ipsa consecratione Di­uina, vbi verba ipsa Domini Saluatoris operantur? Ibidem. Vide eundem l. 4. de Sacram. c. 5. Panis per Verbum Dei & orationem sanctificatur; non quia comeditur eo progre­diens vt verbi corpus euadat, sed statim per Verbum in corpus mutatur, vt dictum est à Verbo, Hoc est corpus meum. S. Greg. Nyssen Orat, Catech c. 37. Vox illa (hoc est corpus meum) semel quidem dicta est, sed per omnes mensas Ecclesiae vsque ad hodiernum diem, & vsque ad eius aduentum Sacrificio praestat firmitatem. S. Chry­sost. de Prod. Iudae. vide eundem Hom. 2 In 2. ad Tim. Panis noster & calix certa consecrations mysticus fit nobis, non nascitur. S. Aug. l. 20. cont. Faust. c. 13. Absit vt de his quicquam sinistrum loquar, qui Apostolico gradui succedentes, Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt. S. Hier. epist. ad Heliod. Transformatur arcanis verbis panis iste per mysticam benedictionem, & accessionem Spiritus S in carnem Domini. Theophilact in c 6 Ioan. Virtute Spiritus-S per Verbum Christi, fit sanguis Domini, Paschal. lib. de Corp. Dom. c. 12. Per eius virtutem, & prolatum ab eo Verbum, quae videntur tam sanctificata sunt, vt cunctum carnis sensum excedunt. I sich. l. 6. in Leuit. c. 22. Auncients, whom you will not, I suppose, (yet I haue cause to feare the contrarie, but you should not I am sure) offer to controule.

[Page 480]That which was aimed at, or dis­puted of, was not the change, but the Read presence, as you haue beene oft [Page 481] put in mind, though it be true also that those words do serue to proue there is a change of substance. For, that which was vnder them before consecration was bread;S Cyril. Hier. and that which is vnder them after consecra­tion is not bread (to vse the words of an auncient Father) but as the words import, the bodie of our Sauiour: Whe­refore doubtles there is a change. and our Sauiours words, the words of Consecration, were (in their kind) the cause of it; though not the chief or principall. The principall cause was not the forme of consecratiō,Serm. de Coe­na. but his omnipotencie, as Antiquitie before told you: Panis iste non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia Verbi factus est caro.

Now because you complaine that the matter of this Argument which your Doctour vrged, is tedious (you are wearied as it seemes with answe­ring of distinctions,) I will in few words tēder you the summe of it, and of the Relations, in it. The proposition or [Page 482] enunciation is this, Hoc est Corpus meum. in which enunciation there is theSee the Pre­face. subiect, the attribute, and the note of identitie or copula. The subiect is Hoc; the Attribute, Corpus meum; the copula, est. About this Enunciation and these three partes of it, your Doctour in his Relation moues (what expreslie what tacitelie,) six doubts, which S. E. doth resolue in his Notes. The first; what kind of signification the subiect hath? the Answer is, that, if that word onlie be considered, the signification of it confused and vndetermined, so that vn­till the rest of the proposition comes, your vnderstanding is vncertaine what substance in particular it doth point at. The second, whether it be ne­cessarie that the thing which it points at and designes according to the in­tention of the speaker, (which inten­tion is more vnfolded in the words following,) be then existent when that word is vttered? He answers, No [...] Falsum est in pronomine, aduerbiove de­monstrandi requiri rem praesentem. Non [Page 483] enim est perpetuum; saith your greatLi. 10. de Eu­ch. c. 18. Chamier, prouing it with examples out of Scripture. The third, whether in the copula there be a figure, The answer is the same that was giuen be­fore when the question was of the place in S. Augustine, that according to the substance (you know what a kind of verbe it is) of the thing signi­fied, which is identitie, there is no fi­gure. and this (the identitie) is the principall. If further, your regard that which it doth consignifie (so L [...]gici [...]ns vse to speake) there were no inconue­nience to admit ampliation, or im­proprietie; howbeit it seemes not be necessarie, as S. E. told you in his No­tes. The fourth, whether this proposi­tion be meerlie speculatiue. It was answered that it isSupra pag. 419 & seq. not. The fift, in what, this proposition is verified. The answer is that, both the proposition, and all the parts of it, be verified in the effect. The sixt, when it is veri­fied? The answer is, that Veritie is the adequation of two, the proposi­tion [Page 484] and the obiect; whereof one is the subiect, Distin­gue de tempo­re seu instanti quo oratio significat, vel de tempore seu in­stanti pro quo oratio significat: aliud est enim quando quod oratio consignificat, & aliud est quando per ora­tionem consignificatum: vt patet dicendo, Petrus cru­cifixus est. quando enim oratio ista significat, tunc est cúm profertur: sed quando consignificatum est tem­pus praetetitum. Significatio autem orationis non est nisi oratio sit integra integritate essentiali, quoniam oratio non essentialiter integra, non est oratio. Caiet. 3. p q. 78. a. 5. Et quia consignificare praesupponit signi­ficare, vt pote adiacens illi, ideo oratio sicut non sig­nificat ita nec consignificat nisi in termino suae prola­tionis. Nec est hoc solum verum de tota oratione, sed & de partibus vt integrant totam. Et de copula quidem declaratur dupliciter; tum ex eo quod ly est, significat compositionem, quam sine extremis non est intelligere non enim potest intelligi compositio prior his quae componuntur; tum quia experimur quod huius oratio­nis, lignum est album, postquam prolatae sunt primae di­ctiones, scil. lignum est, antequam proferaturly album, ly est, non significat compositionem ligni cum albo, quod conuincitur si ponamus orationem sistere, &c. Ibidem. De subiecto autem dupliciter etiam idem mani­festatur in proposito, tum quia talia sunt subiecta qua­lia permittuntur a praedicatis, & propterea ante praedica­ta non habent suppositionem suam; tum quia clarè per­spicimus quod dictis istis duabus dictionibus, homo est, vt formetur propositio de tertio adiacente, nullus in­tellectus habetur tam subiecti quam copulae. sed va­riabitur Vtriusque sensus iuxta varietatem praedicati, vt patet formando duas propositiones, quarum vna sit, homo est albus; & altera, homo est species, clarè e­nim in his liquet & subiectum & copulam praedicatum expectare; ita quòd varietas praedicati varietatem in­ducit & in tota oratione, & in subiecto, & copulâ. Ibi­dem. the other the terminus of the [Page 495] Relation of conformitie, which rela­tion seemes to be among those that be called rationis, the terminus or ob­iect of this conformitie is then onlie when the effect is existent: the relatiō it self is when it is conceaued. The subiect of the relation is the propositiō, to which the vnderstanding doth ap­plie the forsaid relation; which pro­position was then when it was vtte­red, and after that manner as suc­cessiue thinges vse to be, or haue existence.

There is no such created vertue inherent (as you suppose) in the pronunciation of this proposition, it is rather declaratiue of what was past then effectiue of ought which was not; your [Page 496] verie A. B. C. of Logick will teach you no other definition, or vse of a pro­positiō then to be, an indicatiue congruous perfect &c.

You will pardon me for not writing out at leingth your long lōg definitiō. out of which whilst you conclude that no proposition is pra­cticall, you giue waie for me to infer­re, you not to be reasonable; because that is not in the definition of animal. Some propositions be practicall Ma­ster Waferer; but all be not. some sciē ­ces be practicall; but all be not. the genus doth abstract. To saie that the words be not illatiue of anie effect in their kind, but declaratiue of what was past, and meerelie speculatiue; is a begging of the Question: and a con­tradiction to those words which your DoctorPanem corpus suum fe­cit dicen­do. before stood vpon. And, if words may not be practicall, how co­mes it that your bread is a Sacrament? do you make the Sacrament without consecrating the matter, or do you consecrating without words? The forme [Page 487] of Baptisme, is it meerelie speculatiue? doth it onlie declare what was donne without it? That Sacramēts do cause grace, is your owne tenet; and things actiue, are so, by their formes. Quicun­que Sacramenta dixerunt nihil efficere, si­ue ij Messaliani fuere, siue Armeni, siue Anabaptistae, siue alio quocunque nomi­ne, cum ijs profitemur nihil habere com­mune. saies your Master Chamiere, ci­ting the Hugonots Confession. Li. 2. de Sacr, c. 2 and though you haue not read so farre perchance in him, you should haue knowne at least what yourSacra­ments ordai­ned by Christ be not onlie badges or to­kens of Christiā mens profes­sion, but rather they be certaine sure witnesses and effectuall sig­nes of grace &c. Art. 25. owne article, teach in this point. You had examples in the efficacie of other words (whether the instance be ma­de in propositions, or speaches which be not propositions, it imports not) Lazarus come foorth. which was the Royall Cyrill Caten. commaund of him whom all creatures obaie; and they were effica­cious too. the words (I saie) were effi­cacious, [Page 488] not the omnipotencie onlie, which was principall; but the words were efficacious in their kind. Dixit & factum est. S. E. did little think it would be necessarie to put a Scholler in mind that according to the Philosopher, Propositions, some be practick, facti­uae, so his interpreter turnes the word (lib. de motu Animalium, cap. 4) some speculatiue: that Science is diuided by speculatiue and practicke: and that De­uines do consider in God, not onlie speculatiue knowledge, but practick also.Psal 32. Sap 7. Heb. 1. Verbo Dei Coeli firmatisunt. Dixit & facta sunt. Omnium artifex sapientia. Portans omnia verbo virtutis suae.

What kind of vertue those words haue, whether Physicall or onlie Mo­rall, the Schoolmen may dispute with­out preiudice to the generall consent in matters defined, or vniuersallie re­ceaued.

That prettie kind of So­phistrie which perswades me to heere out the proposition operatiue before the conformitie betweene the subiect and the [Page 489] predicate can be graunted (as supposing the period of it to finish the substantiall change) besides that it is s [...]ender and boyish it is also impertinent, because it plaies vpō a string allreadie broken, attributing that change, which is, to the pronunciation of this proposition, which I haue allrea­die refuted.

Ex tripode; pedanticallie, as all the rest. Can you iudge of the cō ­formitie or difformitie betwixt the subiect and the predicate, before you know what it is? or do you know what I would saie before you heere me speake? Mirth is a— is this true or false? Your conscience belike, tels you what the predicate is to be. S. E. cannot perswade you, what can your owne Master do? Longè consultius Sco­tus, (saies he;Cha­mier l. 10. de Euch. c. 20.) Conceptus qui causatur per orationem prolatam non habetur per eam nisi in vltimo instanti prolationis o­rationis. Recte. Certum est enim nunquam posse totum obtineri nisi ex omnibus simul partibus. Quia autem oratio successiuè per­ficitur, non possunt omnes eius partes si­mul [Page 490] haberi, nisi in instanti eius postremo; ideoque nec ipsa tota. and I think you will not saie that you know the con­formitie, before you conceaue the proposition.

But it is impertinent, why so? because it plaies vpon a string allreadie broken, at­tributing that change, which is, to the pronunciation of the proposition. Were this the string, still he might (to keepe your metaphore) plaie on; for it holds as you perceaued in your last para­graff. But you mistake; the string which drawes a man to heare out the whole proposition before he knowes or graunts the truth of it, or the con­formitie betweene the subiect & the predicate, is the light of reason, or a­bilitie to iudge: which string, if you haue allreadie broken, you were best for your credit pleade, that it was high set. Nullum magnum ingenium siue mixtura dementiae.

Let S. E. flourish it as he will, our Doctour iustlie laies tantalogie to his Lordships charge, which blow his [Page 491] Champion seeking to ward, laies himself and the weaknes of his cause to an easie censure.

If identitie of the thing si­gnified by the subiect and by the at­tribute of a proposition, though the manner of signifying and conceauing be groundedlie or cum fundamento di­uers, suffice to note it of tautologie; then is it tautolegie to saie, pointing at Featlie, this is a man, a liuing creature, a substance, and the sence will be, this is Featlie, Featlie, Featlie. For there is idē ­titie of the thing signified by the sub­iect and the thing signified by those attributes; man, liuing creature, substance: all these being reallie identified to the subiect, which is Featlie. And if the speach be nugatorie, and the same cō ­ceit bread by the subiect & by euerie one of these attributes, the whole speach may be resolued by subordinating still the same word to the same conceit: Ea quae in voce, sunt earum quae in anima passionum, notae.

Whether in such propositions, the [Page 492] attributes be superiour predicamentall degrees, or be differences, or be meta­physicall properties, it matters not: so there be reall identitie betwixt the thing signified by the subiect and the thing signified by the attribute, wher­of S. E. gaue examples. God is wise, iust omnipotent, eternall. Omnipotens est ae­ternus, aeternus est omnipotens. Reade his discourse againe: and obserue in him these words,Confer. p. 923 9. This must be graunted (that identicall propositions, all, haue the vi­ce of tautologie) if the difference of for­malities be not to be regarded in speach: & if the distinction of a double identicall proposition be now to be reiected.

simple, simple, simple, simple, simple, simple.

The truth is so; simple, verie simple: and the professors of truth, should be so, simple. The word is ho­norable among Christians: though filled with bitternes as it comes out of the mouth of Heresie, which (it self euer doubling) thinks there is a fault plaine dealing.

[Page 493]Wee tell our mind openlie; wee do not lap our cause vp in folds, as you, (sonnes of the old Serpent,) do: telling vs, your tenet in this point is incompre­hensible, and yet easie: graunting and strait denying againe, a reall presence: and then, though no man can tell cer­tainlie what you saie, wee must be­leeue you: and if wee do not wee be simple, simple. It is an old trace, this. he that shewd it you, taught it others. Si bona fide quaeras, concreto vultu, Tertull. sus­penso supercilio, Altum est, aiunt. Si subti­liter tentes, per ambiguitates bilingues, communem fidem adfirmant. siscire te sub­ostendas, negant quic quid agnoscunt. Si comminus certes, tuam simplicitatem sua caede dispergunt. Simplices notamur apud illos, vt hoc tantum, non etiam sapientes: quasi statim deficere cogatur à simplicita­te sapientia, Domino vtramque iungente, Esto prudentes vt serpentes, & sim­plices vt columbae. Aut si nos propterea [...]nsipientes quia simplices, num ergo & illi propterea non simplices quia sapientes? Nocentissimi autem qui non simplices, si­cut [Page 494] stultissimi qui non sapientes. Et tamén malim in eam partem, meliori sumi vitio. Si fortè praestat minus sapere quam peius, errare quàm fallere.—Facilius simplicitas sola Deum & agnoscere poterit & osten­dere; prudentia sola concutere potius & prodere. Abscon dat itaque se serpens, quantum potest, totamque prudentiam in latebrarum ambagibus torque at, altè habi­tet, in coeca detrudatur, per anfractus se­riem suam euoluat, tortuosé procedat nec semel totus lucifuga bestia: Nostrae colum­bae domus simplex, etiam in aeditis semper, & apertis, & ad lucem. Aske them in good earnest, they with a contracted counte­nance and eye-browes drawne vp, say, t'is a mysterie. trie them cunninglie and with double-tougued ambiguities they professe the common tenet. Take on you to know, and they denie whatsoeuer they (inward­lie) approue. combat with them, and with their whiffling they spred abroad & disperse your simplicitie. (simple, simple, simple, simple.) They call vs simple, onlie so; to note vs as vnwise: as if wisedome could not consist with simplicitie, where­as [Page 495] our Lord doth combine them; be wise as serpents and simple as doues. Or, if wee therefore must be thought fooles be­cause wee be simple, must wee needes think them wise for that they be not simple? Su­re, those do most harme that want simpli­citie, as those be most sottish that haue no kind of prudence. and yet I had rather be defectiue in this kind, then want simplici­tie: for he that hath but little wit is better then a start foole: and it is lesse hurtfull to mistake ones self, then to deceaue or bring others into errour. Simplicitie alone may more easilie acknowledge & showe God; prudence alone may moue rather,Dei fa­cies ex­pectat in sim­plicitate quaeren­tes, vt docet ipsa So­phia, nō quidem Valentini sed Salomonis. Ibidem. In summa, Christum columba demonstrare solita est. Serpens ve [...]ò tentare. Illa & à primordio diuinae pacis praeco. Ille à primordio diuine imaginis praedo. Ita facilius simplicitas sola &c. Ibidem.& betray. Wherefore let the snake hide him­self what he can, let him wreath and winde all his prudence within the tur­nings of his lurking holes, let the light-ab­horring beast dwell deepe within the [Page 496] ground, be tumbled into blind circuites, vnfold and open those muolutions of his crinkling continuation, crawle writhin­glie, and not all at once. The house of our doue is simple, euer in places discouered, and open, and to the light.

Doctor Smith in confirma­tion of his discourse laies downe a rule, & giues two instances which I will sift in order. His rule runnes thus, subiectes are such as their attributes permitte them to be. Rather saie I é contrà, Predicates are such as their subiects permit them to be: For wee neuer take that preposterous course to enquire whether a subiect agree to the predicate but whether the predica­te agree with the subiect.

Semper Leontini iuxta pocu­la. Still you teach Master Mirth, you be Doctour of the Chaire. Doctor Smith, he saith Subiectes are such &c. & other Deuines too saie the same, and Logick doth admit it for a Rule in the matter of Suppositions. But I, (who are you?) saie the contrarie let Logicians ta­ke it as they will, I saie Predicates are [Page 497] such as their subiects permit them to be. That Subiects beare swaie, the Pu­ritan thinks, is better Logick. Ipse di­xit.

But yet, since you stand vpon termes let vs examine you. Do you know what is Suppositio terminorum, & how many kinds of suppositiōs there bee? if you do not, the Punies of your Hou­se will be ashamed of such a Graduate: if you do, then tell me before them, whether the predicate do not deter­mine the supposition of the subiect in these propositions or speaches fol­lowing, Homo est vox, homo est species, homo est animal, homo currit, homo est mortuus. It were to much honour to you to be posed in Diuinitie, els I would aske whether there also, the same Rule be not currant. Deus est tri­nus, Deus generat, Deus procedit, Deus est immortalis. is it not the predicate which determines the acception or supposition of the word Deus, which word of it self is indifferent to stand for the first or the second or the third [Page 498] person; or for two, or for all three? and sometimes in propositions it stāds for the first, sometimes for the second; sometimes for the third. I might aske you further of words aequiuocall in themselues, whether they draw their attributes to determination, or their attributes determine them? but the thinges are allreadie knowne to Pu­nies.

In the reason which, you bring, you discouer more your ignorance, for by it appeares manifestlie that in this discourse you do not distinguish the things, from the names: and Questions appertaining to the thinges, (as why the passion is in the subiect? why co­lour is in a mixt bodie? which Que­stiō belonges to naturall Philosophie;) from the Questions appertaining to the termes, (of a proposition:) as why the attribute determines the significa­tion or acceptiō of the subiect? which Question belongs to Logick.

The flower of Sophistrie being dropt downe out of your subtile vn­derstanding, [Page 499] you fall next a sifting of instances: but the breaking of the string made a hole it seemes in your () for see; the first comes out en­tire.

As for your instances they will not hold triall, the first is this, as when I saie this is a crosse, and make it withall, the word this, doth suppose for the Crosse &c. what of this? Christ was not about to make him another bodie when he said. This is my bodie, for then Christ should haue had two bodies.

Did I not tell you that it came out entire? and, by that which comes with it, me thinkes the cracke is wider then before.

Your second instance in taceo (as supposing for silence when the word is vttered) Aquinas reiects it. 3. p. q. 78. a. 5.

He hath much there in that Article, against you: as, 1. that the proposition is practicall, such as doth not presuppose the thing it signifies, but make it; non praesupponit rem signi­ficatam, [Page 500] sed eam facit. 2. that hoc, doth not signifie bread, but contentum sub his speciebus 3. that it is hereticall to saie the bodie of our Sauiour is in the Sa­crament onlie sicut in signo and not se­cundum veritatem. with many other things. But against vs, there is no­thing. That^a. taceo signifies as my Lord said it did, Sainct Thomas de­nies not. neither doth he denie that the proposition is to be vnderstood secundum vltimum instans, as then to haue it's effect, which effect is the thing signified: yea he doth affirme it directlie; oportet intelligere praedictam locutionem secundum vltimum instans pro­lationis verborum. and in the precedent Article, he saith in vltimo instanti pro­lationis verba consequuntur virtutem cō ­uersiuam; wherby the same is also ma­nifest.

[Page 501]The proposition, Corpus meum est corpus meum, was true before and was not made true by vertue of con­secration; but it was not true before that our Sauiours bodie was in the shape of bread, or had Sacramentall exi­stence. Per hanc formam fit vt corpus Christi sit in hoc Sacramento secundum [...]eritatem. S. Thom. Ibidem. and though this proposition Corpus meum est cor­pus meum be identicall according to the manner; yet the propositiō which wee speake of, is not; as you were told oft enough in the Relation; where you may reade still your Doctors Pre­dicament, [Page 502] which will stand, vntill he graunts the distinction of a two fold identicall proposition, one for matter onlie, another for manner too. where­fore no more of that.

Put case I should graunt you such power in those wordes (this is my bodie) to transubstantiate the bread, may I not challeng the same force in them to change the accidents as well as the sub­stance, since they were likewise in his hand when he pronounced them?

No. you cannot, as will ap­pear, if you consider them well. this (in the exteriours shape of bread) is my bo [...]. will you haue is to be in that shape, and yet the shape not to be; and our Sauiours intention being to insti­tute a Sacrament, the exteriour species which immediatlie doth occurre vn­to the sense, was to remaine. The Fa­thers also note, that, to take away the S. Cy­rill. A­lex. Ep. ad Ca­los. Theophilac. in Mat. 26.5. Ambros. l. 4 de Sacram. c. 4 Haimo in Pass. Christi sec Mar. Lanfranc. lib. de Corpo. S. Bernard. Serm. de Coena Dom. horrour of eating mans flesh, and [Page 503] drinking blood in their owne shapes, they be couered in the formes of bread and wine, which vsuallie men receaue. you haue S. Thomas in your hands, it seemes; in him you may find more of this q. 75. a. 5.

Moreouer, transubstantiation being a succession of substances vnder the same accidentall formes; you destroy the notion of it, if you take the same for­mes away. they must remaine the sa­me. And that it is indeed so, that still there is the exteriour shape of bread, you knowe by sence: but whether vn­der them there be bread or flesh, the sence is not able to certifie; you know that it enters not so farre. Some hi­gher power must iudge of it; and an vnderstanding well disposed (as being readier to beleeue God, then to relie on you, or on this foolish dotage that God can do no more then man is able of himself to know,) beleeues it is our Sa­uiours bodie; since God affirmes it But see! the Puritan is in his ruffe.

Me thinks Master S. E. you [Page 504] close this Section verie saucilie and sillilie. For Doctor Featlie vrging you that iden­ticall propositions (such as your discourse makes this) proue nothing, to trie wether they can proue anie thing, askes this Que­stion: If I point to Christs bodie in Heauen at the right hand of his Father and saie, This, See abo­ue pag. 35. or that bodie of Christ, is his bodie; will it hence follow than bread or any thing els is substantiallie turned (into Christs bodie?) you forsooth answer him thus, No, but something els it seemes is (turned;) how els could your mouth vtter such an impertinent discourse? It would haue argued you of more Schollership & iudgment either to haue beene silent or els to haue answered him how meere identicall propositions can proue any thing.

Quantulacunque adeo est oc­casio, sufficit irae.

Was it not euident that the propo­sition was meerelie speculatiue; as much, as if I, pointing at you, should saie this is Waferer: and, this face is Mirths owne face? and that it did sup­pose [Page 505] allreadie in being, all that it im­ported? and therefore was impertinēt­ie paralleled with this other which is not meerelie speculatiue, nor supposeth [...]n being that which it importes; but, both inferre it. Our Sauiours bodie Master Waferer, was not in the for­me of bread before consecration; by consecration it was there SainctNon erat cor­pus Christi ante cō ­secratio­nem: sed post cō ­secratio­nem di­co tibi quod iam est corpus Christi. ipse dixit & factum est S. Amb. l. 4. de Sacr. c. 4. ex pa­ [...]e fit corpus. Ibidem. vides quam operatorius sit sermo Christi &c. Ibidem. Ambrose he tels you so directlie. so [...]oSuprà pag 480. Should a lay man say ouer a peice of bread Hoc est corpus [...] the proposition would be false; wherefore it is not like Featlies. should a Priest with intention to consecrate, pronounce them, they would be true. others.

That propositions which for mat­ter are identicall, may serue to prooue or inferre, you might haue knowne being Master of Art, and he (Featlie) being Doctor in Diuinitie, without further teaching; which, (had any beene thought necessarie,) was not alltogether wanting on the part of S. E. whom you reprehend for not tea­ching [Page 508] it. Did you runne ouer withou [...] reading; or reading, not vnderstand those words in him pag. 94. For mat­ter, a proposition may be identicall, and prooue too; and such are All those (heere are infinite) which define the subiect (will you haue instāce for your easie [...] learning of his mind?) as this, A man is a reasonable creature. And he that de­nies it can proue anie thing, shewes him [...]self ignorant in the principles of Science and knowes not what a demonstration is. So hee. and so I, do tell you now a­gaine. Your Doctor (it is like) lookes higher, and would haue an instance in a matter more eleuated. Be it so God is eternall. will you haue a pro­position to proue it? take this, God is immutable. you can make the Syllogis­me your self, I suppose. Whatever thing is immutable is eternall, &c. Will you haue a proposition to proue that God [Page 507] is immutable? take this, Deus est actus pu­rus. dispose it in forme of a Syllogisme: Omnis actus purus est immutabilis; Deus est actus purus, &c. will you haue ano­ther to proue that God is actus purus? take this, Deus est suum esse. Dispose it. It is easie to demonstrate, in this mā ­ner, that God hath vnderstanding; that he is wise; that he is free; that he is mercifull, Iust, Omnipotent; &c. ta­king still to make the proofe good, such propositions as are identicall for matter. And this likewise, S. E. did in­sinuate vnto you pag. 92. wherefore there was no cause to tax him with either want of Schollership in the point, (yet a point, which neither you, nor your Master did vnder­stand,) or ingenuitie. But this is not all.

Immediatlie after, you cite an o­ther passage out of him, Which so wrought vpon your choller, that you terme him cup-valiant; and; the beere is in his head; and, he stumbles; and if his owne weaknes condemnes him not, [Page 508] you'l spare him. Your mercie, sure, is great. if this be to spare, what will become of those you do not spare? And this too, after you haue taxed him with want of Schollership and inge­nuitie; adding that he concludes the Section saucilie, and (one blow more, before you spare him,) sillilie. I forbea­re to transcribe the rest,

But, that none els vpon the like oc­casion, incurre your high displeasure, I will heere register the fault in black characters; for it deserues them bet­ter, then the redde you giue it. It is in his Notes vpon the seuenth argument, where he defends out of S. Lukes Gos­pell, that at the last supper there were two cups; the legall, and the Sacra­mentall; interpreting S. Mathewes words (I will drink no more of this fruite of the vine,) of the legall cup. which interpretation the Doctor impugnes. Doctor Featlie.Pag. 111.should I take: a cup, and [Page 509] after I had drunck of it, saie I will drinck no more of this, you would vnderstand me of that which I drank last. The Answer of S. E. Did I see the whole action I should iudge according to that I sawe, no doubt. and S. Mathew seeing our Sauiours action did conceaue it will enough. But should one or two tell me that Doctor Featlie at the table hauing drunk beare & wine, said he would drink no more of this beere, I had no reason to think he meant wine, though wine were last mentioned before. Now by the relatiō of S. Mathew & S. Luke, it ap­peare, that our Sauiour drank of two se­uerall cups, and that he called the one of them the fruite of the vine; the other his blood, &, his testamēt. Thus S. E. Where it will be as hard to find a fault a­gainst manners any waie, (were it that he did owe dutie to your Do­ctor) as to find in scirpo nodum, Et tua cum v­deas ocu­lis mala lippusin­unctis cur— if I be not much deceaued.

But, suppose a fault. What incen­sed your vpright zeale (which he had not meddled with,) to flie on him so furiouslie? what distemper of your [Page 510] stomack made you belch our such bit­ternes vpon his Notes? what humor is it that makes your inke, to staine, mens names, and honour? men, that offended not your Innocencie, whe­reof they neither spake, nor thought, nor heard.

You can teare with your mouthes the credit of whole multitudes of graue learned men; Deuines, Bishops, Councels,Sepul­chrum patens est guttur eorum. If the Reader euer heard Puritan Sermon he knowes what stuffe those things be made of Popes, Church and all. v­nicuique sepulchro sufficit vnum funus; & clauditur: gutturi vestro honorum funera minime sufficiunt; & adhuc patet. you be still readie to deuour vs. but your sel­ues must not be told, not of your faults. Wee must not, against your bi­ting defend our good name. Why? be­cause you, still, are Innocent. After all your inuectiues, and calumnies when with your bitternes against vs you haue scandalized your whole pa­rish; you can wipe your mouth, and saie, I haue donne no wickednes.

What you do must be though [Page 511] well donne, all. Men must adore your errours with the title of truth. the bit­ter speaches that drop from your mouth must be esteemed a sacred kind of vrbanitie. and when you dis­pute absurdlie, wee must not as much ar smile. O no. that were against the religion due to your, more then sa­cred, worth. You are holie, no pro­phane thing may come within your circuite: much lesse touch you. Your fame is holie, your actions holie, your writings holie, and your lies and leeres, all, holie. O the holines of these holie ones so the puritie of these Puritans! o the candor of these sepul­chers! you must not presse to neere, nor speake much of them, neither; for your breath may staine their white.

Hark! one cries out, Recede à me, noli me tangere, stand a farre of, keepe aloof, touch me not, (why so, faire pi­cture, will your colours come of ea­silie?)Ita ex Isaiae 65. legit S. Aug. Hom. 23. ex Hom, 50. Eo­dem modo legunt Sep. tuag. apud S. Hier. quoniam mundus sum; for I am cleane: quia sanctior sum te, En­glish bible. Pagnin. for I am [Page 512] holier thē thou art. Are you so? c'rie you mercie.I am not as other men are Phari­saeus, Luk. 18.11. Your Holines, I hope, will par­don those who before did no so much reflect on the delicacie of a Puritans reputation, which is so tender (I per­ceaue now) that it scarce endures a man to reflect on it. and since it is so nice, the best counsell I can giue you, (pure Images of Sanctitie,) is this, that you forbeare challenging, and comming to answer distinctions; for you may chance to meete with some who will not put their hats of, to Masters of Art, as soone as they come in sight; especiallie in the di­stance, wee are now. S. E sure will not, if he be as you stile him, (let me change your harsh language,) deux fois tres-simple.