Transubstantiation exploded: OR AN ENCOUNTER WITH RICHARD the titulary Bishop of Chalcedon concerning Christ his presence at his holy Table. Faithfully related in a Letter sent to D. Smith the Sorbonist, styled by the Pope Ordinary of England and Scotland. By DANIEL FEATLEY D. D.  
Whereunto is annexed a public and solemn disputation held at Paris with Christopher Bagshaw D. in Theology, and Rector of Ave Marry College.  JOB 31. 35. Mine adversary hath written a book against me, surely I will take it upon my shoulders and bind it as a crown to me. Facundus Hermianensis pro def. trium capt. p. 404. Potest Sacramentum adoptionis adoptio nuncupari, sicut Sacramentum corporis & sanguinis eius quod est in pane & poculo consecrato corpus eius & sanguinem dicimus, non quod propriè corpus eius sit panis & poculum sanguis sed quod in se mysterium corporis eius sanguinisque contineant. 
LONDON. Printed by G M. for Nicolas Bourne, at the South entrance of the Royal Exchange. 1638.   

TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THOMAS Lord Coventree, Baron of Alesborough, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England, and one of his Majesty's most Honourable Privi●… Council, etc.  
Right Honourable,  
YOur Lordship's courteous acceptance of the greater 
The Grand Sacrilege of the Church of Rome.  Work, emboldeneth me to present this Appendix thereof to your Honour: the lesser it is, the lesser trespass it will make upon the public service of the State and your Lordship's most precious hours: and I hope it will prove like Diomedes in Homer, 
●…ly.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,   
Perpusillas quidem pugnax tamen, for I laboured therein what I could 〈◊〉 express the Character which Lipsius 
Lip. pref. in Sen.  gives of Seneca's writings, copiam in brevitate, & vehementiam in facilitate. The Subject I handle is mos●… noble and divine, The holy Sacrament of the blessed body and blood of our dearest Redeemer, and it is to be lamented even with tears o●… blood, that what he ordained for the surest tie of unity, and strongest bond of amity, is through the malice of Satan, and heretical pravity turned into a bill of divorce, or rather fireball of contention among Christians at this day. For my Antagonist D. Smith, he is a man of greatest note among all our English Romanists, as famous with them, as ever was the Nymph, of whom 
Ovid. Ep.  the Poet writeth, 
Tu quoque si de te totus contenderit orbis,   
Nomen ab aeternâ posteritate feres. For it is he about whom the Sorbonists and Secular Priests on the one side, and the jacobines, jesuits, Benedictines on the other, have of late published so many virulent Pamphlets 
Tincta Lycambeo spicula fell madent.   
It is he for whose apprehension two Proclamations were not many years since 〈◊〉 forth. It is he upon whom for his extraordinary parts, and well deserving of the See of Rome, Pope Urbane the ●…ght hath conferred the high, but empty title of Ordinary of all England and Scotland. It is he whose a●…rie Bishopric of Chalcedon hath so much troubled this and our neighbour Land. With whom I could have wished that some of higher rank and place had entered into the lists. But being challenged by him into this field, lying by the Waters of strife, I could not decline the combat. Which I now undertake with more confidence, by how much he showeth many ways apparent diffidence of his cause, for in his frontispiece he makes mention of my book entitled The Grand Sacrilege o●… 
Printed by Felix Kingston, An 1630.  the Church of Rome, in taking a●… way the sacred cup from the Laity detected and convinced by the ev●… dence of holy Scripture, and test●… money of all ages, as if he meant to refute the whole work: yet from the first page to the last, he questioneth not a sy●… lable, nor disableth any one testimo●… therein, 
Egregiam vero laudem & spol●… ampla   
A doughty piece of service, never 〈◊〉 approach any thing near to the mai●… Fort and citadel, but sit down before a small out-work (a relation of●… Conference 25. years ago, consisting 〈◊〉 a few pages) in the battery whereof, 〈◊〉 showeth himself not only 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉   
For he carefully shuneth the point 〈◊〉 question, and falleth upon a more plausible tenet. Whereas to gain or confirm a Romish Proselyte, which was th●… occasion of his Conference with me, h●… should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have propugned ●…e Trent doctrine of Transubslantiati●…n, he carefully declineth that rock, and putteth in at the fair harbour of the real presence, which in a Catholic sense all Protestants admit, and the Lutherans in as flat a manner as he. In ●…e despairing to make good his tenet by argument, he turneth argumento●…m tela into maledictorum aculeos: he leaveth the Schools, and flieth to the theatre, and there setteth a nameless and shameless Poet to play upon my name with Anagrams, and my Treatise with Sarcasmes. Whereunto I 
Epig. gr●…. l. 〈◊〉. c. 3.  think fit to return no other answer then the words of Mars in the Greek Epigram, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉   
But because I speak to him in every paragraph in the ensuing letter I will say no more of him here; but now I apply myself to your good Lordship to whom I owe the dedication of a fa●… greater and better work than this, 〈◊〉 this alone I have now ready for 〈◊〉 press, and I held myself bound take the advantage of the first opportunity to testify in public my thankfulness to your Lordship for your Honours many undeserved favours. An●… if the argument be well scanned, will not seem improper to Dedica●… the Work to the Lord Keeper of th●… great Seal, for the Scriptures are th●… instruments and deeds of our sa●…vation, and the Sacraments are t●… seals annexed thereunto: the grea●… whereof our Romis●… adversaries hav●… audaciously and impiously violated b●… breaking off half of it, and putting false and counterfeit stamp upon 〈◊〉 With these misdemeanours (as I conceive) of a high nature I charge them and if I fail in my proofs, I refus●… not to suffer, pro falso clamore The Lord make your Honour and 〈◊〉 that shall vouchsafe to peruse and ●…amine this work, like Angels of ●…ht, to discern between good and ●…vill, truth and falsehood, and more●…ver crown your Lordship with his ●…ncipall blessings here, and bless 〈◊〉 with an everlasting crowne●…eafter ●…eafter.  
Your Lordship's most humbly and affectionately devoted, DA: FEATLEY.   

A Table of the special Contents.  

PARAG 1. Of the empty and aye●…e title of Bishop of Chalced on, 〈◊〉  
PARAG. 2. Of the cold entertainment which English and 〈◊〉 Priests find beyond the Sea, how well soever deservi●… the See of Rome, p. 8.  
PARAG. 3. What a kind of Religion Popery is, pag. 11.  
PARAG 4. The issue of diverse disputations in France, and how Romanists have had always the worst in confere●… with Protestants, pag. 16.  
PARAG. 5. Of the absurd title in the frontispiece of Edward Stratfor●… pamphlet, and how lamely and imperfectly both he his Lord and Fisher and Weston have answered fo●… treatises set out by the Author, pag, 25.  
PARAG. 6. Of the novelty of Popery, and the true occasion o●… Author his conference with D. Smith at Paris. pag. 30  
PARAG 7. Of the Conditions of this Conference, and how they 〈◊〉 kept on both sides p. 34.  
PARAG 8. The state of the question is truly set down, five p●… wherein we differ touching the Real presence are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 41.  
PARAG. 9 Twelve passages out of Tertullian against Transubstant on vindicated, & all objections out of him for the ca●… p. esence answered, p. 57  
PAR. 10. Thirty three allegations out of S. Au●… against Tra●… st●…tion vindicated, and all objections made by the ver●…ie out of him answered, p 78.  
PAR. 11. Twelve testimonies out of Origen against Transubstant on vindicated, & all objections out of him answered, p. 〈◊〉  
PAR. 12. ●…hteene places out of Gratian (the Father of the Cano●…ists) against Transubstant●…n vindicated, and objecti●…ns out of him answered, p. ●…38.  
PAR. 13. ●…at the words of the Institution This is my Body, are to be taken in a tropical and figurative sense, is proved, 1. By testimony of Scripture. 2. By authority of Fathers, namely. justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, Athanasius, Cyrillus Hierosolomitanus, Am●…rosius, Epiphanius, Hieronymus, ●…yrillus Alexandrinus, Au●…stinus, Chrysostomus, Theodoretus, Gaudentius, Issidorus, Oecumenius, and Arnoldus Carmotensis. 3. By the confe●… on of our Adversaries, Gerson, Gardiner, Bellarmine. 4. By force of reason, p. ●…54.  
PAR. 14. ●…at in the words of the institution of the cup, this cup is the New Testament in my blood, there are diverse figures is proved by unavoidable consequences, and the confess●… on of our Learned Adversaries, Salmeron, Baradius and jansenius, p. 190.  
PARAG. 15. That the words of our Saviour, Matth. 26. 29. I will drink no more of this fruit of the vine, are meant of the Evangelicall cup, or Sacrament, is proved against D. Smith and S. E. by the testimony of Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, Cyprian, Austin Chrysostome, Druthmarus, the Author of the book de Ecclesiasticis dogmatibus, jansenius, Maldonat, the counsel of Worms and Pope Innocentius: and D. Smith and his Chaplains evasions refuted, pag. 198.  
PARAG. 16. Of the Bishop's Chaplain and Champion S. E his cowardly Tergiversation, base Adulation, shameless Calumniation, and senseless Scurrility. pag. 209.  
PAR. 17. A serious exhortation to D. Smith otherwise Bishop of Cha●… cedon to return home to his dearest mother the Church of England, and famous Nurse the University of Oxford, p. 229.    

Perlegi hunc librum, Cui Titu●… est [An encounter with Richa●… the titulary B. of Chalcedo●… etc.] in quo nihil reperio sanae 〈◊〉 ctrinae, aut bonis moribus contrariu●… quo minus cum utilitate publicâ i●… primatur, ita tamen, ut si non in●… 5. menses proximé sequentes ty●… mandetur, haec licentia sit omn●… irrita.  
Ex Aedibus Lambethan. Octob. 28. 1637. Reverendissimo in Christo Pa●… & Dom. D. Arch. Cant●… Sacellanus Domestic●… GULIEL. BRABANT   

Errata.  
Page 11. in marg. read Binium p. 41 line 14●… Cha●… p. 42. l. 20. r. implicita. p. 47. in marg r. exhiberi. p. 57 l 10. 〈◊〉 fiddle r. reprobate. p. 60. in marg. r. sic. p. 63. in marg. r. ad●… and l 25. r. you construe. p. 65. in marg r. Cordis loco. p 66. marg. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. & l 13. r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 77. in marg. r prophet. 94: l. 25. r. consecrat. p. 117. l. 22. deal that. p. 118. in mar●… p●…nitus quantitas auferat●…r. p 123 l. 13. r. invisible. p. 189. l. Sacramental. p 194. l. 26 r is without. p. 283. in marg. r. 〈◊〉 p. ●…0 in marg. r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   

TO RICHARD SMITH Dr. of the Sorbone entitled by the Pope B. of Chalcedon and Ordinary of England and Scotland, D. F. wisheth a better 

1. Title.  
2. Cause.  
3. Advocate.    

PAR. 1.  
Of the empty and airy title of Bishop of Chalcedon.  
NO men Omen. The style wherewith the Pope graceth you, seems to me ominous and to bode you a mere titulary●…gnity ●…gnity and a blind Diocese. For I read in 
a Strabo geograph l. 7. p 221. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  Strabo and 
b Plin. nat. l. 6. cap. 32. Chalcedon Procerastis antea dicta dein Comp●…sa postea ●…corum opp●…dum quod locum eligere nescissent.  Pliny that the inhab●… tants of Chalcedon were by the Orac●… of Apollo anciently termed blind me●… because they could not see to build the●… City upon the more commodious si●… of the shore. And I 
c Concil. Chalced. act. 7 & Binius nota in council. Tom. 2. 〈◊〉. 409. Cum Imperator instaret 〈◊〉 Chalcedon nomine ●…enus Metropolis 〈◊〉 consequ●…retur citra pr●…iudicium N comed●…e 〈◊〉 c●…ilij act. 7 communi consensu admiserunt.  find that at th●… instance of the Emperor Marcian●… the Fathers in the fourth general cou●… cell advanced this City to the title of Metropolitan See: yet without th●… privileges belonging thereunto, ju●… as his Holiness sent to you from Ro●… the shadow of a Mitre without the su●… stance, and conferred on you the title 〈◊〉 Ordinary of all England and Scotla●… without any revenue to maintain and support your Port and State. Whe●… at notwithstanding the 
d Pr●…es: gener●… & 〈◊〉 regiminis congregat. 〈◊〉, Benedictinorum.  Benedictine●… 
e H●… ma●… 〈◊〉 spongia Nicolao Richardij ordinis Sancti dominici d●… 〈◊〉. ●…aropoli 1631. Eccles. angli●…an: querimon: apologet: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Jacobines and 
f A modest discussion by Nicolas Smith, approved john Floyd Iesui●…, printed at Roven, Anno. 1630. apolog. Danielis a Ie●…  Jesuits so bark a●… bawl in print, that not only Engla●… and Ireland, but also France and Ro●… herself rings of them. And althoug●… the most celebri●…us University of Pa●… hath let fly two fierce 
g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 Paris 1●…. P●…us A●…relius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sorb. 〈◊〉. Paris 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 to ●…ake these curs, and the 
h Epist. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Paris 1631.  Arch-Bi●…ops and Bishops of France have laid 〈◊〉 them amain with their crozure ●…ves, and the faculty of 
i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ●…log. Paris 〈◊〉. 1631.  Sorbon with ●…r battone, yet they will not be quiet. 〈◊〉 strange thing to hear those who ●…ast so much of Catholic unity to ●…ndie the terms of Schismatic and ●…eretike so familiarly one to the other, 〈◊〉 Sorbonists to the Jesuits, and the ●…suites by back-racket again to the ●…orbonists: and yet a stranger to see ●…erius revived in Ignatius Loyolae, and puritan buds to sprout out of a Jesuits stock. Geneva was wont to be branded for denying the necessity of confirmation by a Bishop, or of a Bishop at all in the Church, but now S. 
k Censur●…. Sorb de 〈◊〉: 〈◊〉. p. 42. & de Hierar. & ●…p, p 48 49 〈◊〉 chris●…te 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab Episcopo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per●… s●…t christiani & legi divinae satisfit licet nulli sint Episcopi in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Anglia.  Omers hath justified Geneva. Thus 
l Schism 〈◊〉 card 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●…mentis ingenij postquam in unum extremum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ner●… 〈◊〉 rationem sese a praeterito cri●…e 〈◊〉 op●… 〈◊〉 putarunt si se aed 〈◊〉 extremum conferrent & 〈◊〉 papa●… 〈◊〉.  errors run in a ring, and though diametrally opposite at first, yet meet at the last in the Centre. In the mean while, what doth Monsieur Le-Pape? eitherlike 
m Sw●…t. in vita Neron.  Nero he singeth a Poem of his o●… making to his Thearbo, when he see●… dangerous fire kindled within the wa●… of Rome, or like Gallio Deputy in 〈◊〉 Acts, Chap. 18. Ver. 15. he account●… these controversies (which yet to●… not only all Bishop's Mitres, but 〈◊〉 Triple-crowne also) to be questions words and names and will be no judge such matters, and letteth the Monk take 
* The Archbishop of Paris. See qu●…rimonia Eccles. angl. v. 17.  Sosthenes and other chief R●… lers of the Romish Synagogues and be●… them before his judgement seat and 〈◊〉 r for none of these things. N●… certes his Holiness is doubly to bla●… First, to reward your eminent pa●… both natural and moral, improved 〈◊〉 learning and travel, and emplo●… wholly to the advancement of the Pa●… cie, with no better a guerdon then 〈◊〉 empty title of a hungry 
n Praeses Benedictin: F. Clemens p. 175. Ep scopu●… titularis 〈◊〉 Gr●…a non nisi impropriè & valdè pr●…ter na●…ram potest 〈◊〉 caput corporis nostri in Anglia. Horat. Graeculus ●…suriens in coelum 〈◊〉, ibit.  Greek 〈◊〉 shoprick. Next when he saw his 
o Exemplar 〈◊〉 Vrbani octavi per quod Episcop●…lis authori●…, Richardo Chal●…edonēsi demandatur. D●… Rom●… sub annulo 〈◊〉, 4 Februarij ●…25.  Br●… come short of his intendment, and yo●… hopes: not to enlarge it out of the p●… nitude of his papal power, and tak●… short course with your mutinous Mo●… who not only resist but openly i●… pugneit, and your jurisdiction found●… thereon.  
First upon the matter he grants you ●…othing and afterwards he maketh not ●…ood that his nothing. 
Perdis & infaeli●… ipsum nihil— 
juvenal satire: 〈◊〉 infaeli●… ips●…m nihil.   Not to question his Holiness interest ●…n the Bishopric of Chalcedon subor●…inate to the Greek Patriarch, and at ●…is day in captivity with her native ●…ishop under the grand Signior: I would fain know what this title of Bishop of Chalcedon importeth you? What are the revenues of this new ●…rected See, transported out of Bythinia into England by miracle, as our Lady's picture and Chapel were out of Palestine 
Hi●…re. de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 d●… L●…tto  to Lauretto? what is the circuit of your Diocese? what commendams hold you with it? what benefices have you in your gift to prefer your Chaplain and Champion S. E. unto? where is your Episcopal Palace situated? where stands the Mother-Church? on which side of it is your Consistory built? where keep you your Cou●…t? surely no where, except in Nido 
o See 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of S E. his pamphlet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sig●…e 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉. And ●…ill n●… 〈◊〉 ●…ou. 〈◊〉 ●…phlet ●…e 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 th●… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 her bones.  〈◊〉, the nest of the Phoenix at the sign whereof your book was printed. I received it from a good band, ●…hat all your receipts from Chalcedon will not buy you a true Chalcedo●… 
A precious stone mentioned in the Apoc. 2●… 19 the third a Cal●…edonie, the f●…rth an Emerald.  Wherefore as the Cardinal of Sa●… Susanne when diverse Romish Prie●… repaired unto him the 19 of Octob●… 1624. desiring his Grace in the na●… of their Chapter to further what 〈◊〉 could a motion they then made to hi●… admonished them to mend their peti●… on, and instead of nomine capituli s●… in the name of their Chapter to wri●… nomine cleri Anglicani, in the name●… the English Clergy: for your Chap●… saith he is a 
p ●…ra. Clemens de mand●…to re●…m: 〈◊〉. p●…es, gen●… muit 〈◊〉 nomine c●…ert Anglicani: nam c●…pitulum chimaericum●…st ●…st.  Chimaera: so I wou●… advise you to stick to your title Archpriest over the seculars in E●… land, nam Episcopatus vester Chalce●… nensi●… chimaericus est, for your 〈◊〉 shoprick of Chalcedon is a chimaera●…●…re ●…ion. As for your other t●… of Ordinary of England and Scotlan●… I cannot skill of it: the Engl●… 
2 Pr●…pos. Benedicit. Chalced●… ens●… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●…abet 〈◊〉 ●…m n●…c 〈◊〉 nec de●… 〈◊〉 Angli●… & 〈◊〉 regna, &c p. 31. & p 83. iam 〈◊〉 Sco●…s cum risu ●…anc Ordinarij praetensam authoritat●…m reiecisse.  Monks seriously dispute you out●… it, and the Scottish Priests saw●… jeer at you for it. As for us, who y●… know have abjured the Pope's pow●… both Ecclesiastical and Temporal whether Urbane the eight intent to r●… duce the Kingdoms of England a●… Scotland into one Diocese, & make y●… Bishop of it, or into one Parish, and make you Pastor of it, we account his 
Vid. Poem V●…b 8. 〈◊〉.  design therein none other then the work of his poetical fancy, and have no more faith in his Brief then in Ovid's Metamorphosis: 
In nova fert animus mutatas dicere formas Regna.   
Our Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Ordinaries, and Pastors in both these Kingdoms possessing all the Sees, and enjoying peaceably under our most Gracious Sovereign, the entire rights thereof, will ease your seven 
r 〈◊〉 Loemelij 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apostolic●….  Vicars and Bithynian collector of his pains. As for the Recusants' charity, it goeth another way, they are no less Recusants to your authority, then to our laws: for albeit your great Pan at Rome hath committed the greatest 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  part, if not all his spotted sheep to your Pastoral charge: yet they yield you little or no profit, because they are sheared to your hands: especially by the jesuits whom Reverardentius ap●…ly 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉.  termeth in this respect equi●…es aurei velleris, Knights of the golden fl●…ece.   

PAR. 2.  
Of the cold entertainment which Engli●… and Irish Priests find beyond the Sea, how well soever deserving of the See of Rome.  
WHen Hannibal saw the hea●… of his brother Asdrubal hel●… upon a spear at the command of Cla●…dius Nero, he said, video fatum Carth●… ginis, I see the destiny of Carthage, 〈◊〉 me thinks I see in you fatum Angloru●… & Hibernorum, the fate of our Engli●… and Irish Papists, which is at this pray sent, and hath ever been to yield mo●… to the Roman See, and to receive lea●… from her. Pope Urbane the third, fo●… 
Ca●…bden hist. ef●…. Elizab. ad annum 40.  all the gold which by one trick or othe●… he got out of Ireland, sent in old time●… Coronet of Peacock's feathers to Ioh●… the son of Henry the second, wh●… was designed Lord of Ireland: an●… in our memory, Clement the eight mo●… bountifully rewarded the Earl of Tyrone, for exhausting his patrimony upon the Irish rebels, with store of indulgences and a Phoenix plume. Wh●… ever deserved better of the Romis●… faith and See, than johannes Roffensis, Allin, Stapleton, Sanders, W. Reynolds, Harding, and yourself? yet what hath been done to any of you for all that you have done and suffered in the Pope's quarrel? To one of you a Cardinal's hat was sent indeed, but never came on the party his head, which was cut off by Henry the eight, to an other a Cardinal's hat was given, but with so thin lining, (I mean, means to support his estate) that he was commonly called the starveling Cardinal. The third was made professor of a petty University, scarce so good as one of our free Schools in England. The fourth, whose tongue was so full of adders poison against his Sovereign and Country, before he died felt his tongue cleaving to the roof of his mouth, being starved to death in Ireland. The fifth was nominated to a poor Vicarage under value: on a sixth his Holiness bestowed a prebend of Gaunt, or to speak more properly a gaunt prebend. And you for weighing so steadyly both religions (the Reformed and the Romish) in a 
s A 〈◊〉 printed by D. Smith, 〈◊〉 th●… prudentia●…l balance.  prudential balance, he hath placed in a pendulous Bishopric adjoining to 
t Martial epig. l. 1. aere pendentia Mausolea.  Mausolus his Sepulchre in the air. For your so accuratly and learnedly maintaining all the Romish tenets, he hath at last made you 
u So the Italians call in de●…ision a titular Bishop.  nullatenensem a hold. nought. When Saint 
x Mat. 17. 4.  Peter spoke of making Tabernacles in the air, the 
y Luke 9 33  Evangelist saith, he knew not what he said: and now when his pretended successor, Pope Urbane the eight foundeth Episcopal Sees, and Cathedral Churches, and Ecclesiastical Courts in the air, may we not be bold to say that he doth he knows not what, and deserveth the title of sapientum octanus.  
It is not for nothing that he assumeth to himself the name of Urbane, or the facetious who requiteth his best servants and chiefest favourites with jests and riddles- For read my riddle what's this? the Supervisour of a See unseen a Bishopric of Chalcedon in Brittany, an extraordinary Ordinary, a Diocesan of particulars universals, Romish Catholics, English Romanists, and Superior t●… all the irregular regulars in Engla●… and Scotland.   

PAR 3.  
What a kind of Religion Popery is.  
HOw be it were the cause you maintain good, the fortune you sustain could in no sort prejudice you, either in your conscience, or your credit. For to follow Christ naked is an honour and an ornament to a Christian: and Solomon hath left this for one of his divine essays, that the 
*a 〈◊〉 9▪ 〈◊〉.  race is not to the swiftest, nor the battle to the strongest, nor yet bread to the wise, nor riches to men of understanding, nor favour to men of skill, nor the greatest preferment to the 
b 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  worthiest. The golden bishopric of Carthage fell to the lot of leaden 
c Council a●…. rica●… in subscript sub Bo●…ace 〈◊〉 Celesti●… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p●…●…55.  Aurelius, and little Hippo to great St. Austin, of whom we may truly say concerning Hippo, as it was said of 
d 〈◊〉. m●… 〈◊〉 ●…x Euripid●…s q●…am E●…pides ex. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Euripides concerning his familiarity with Archelaus, that Hippo was better known by S. Austin then St. Austin by Hippo. Let it not seem strange that men of meaner worth set the best leg forward, and outstrip their betters now adays: when in the ancient and better times of the Church Damasus the scholar was advanced to the first See, and 
e Hieren ad Damasum papam epist. 143, 144, 145 146, etc.  jeromie his Master (to whom even after he was Pope he expounded many difficult places of Scripture) ended his days in his Cell at Bethlem. And Gregory Nazianzen the learnedest of all the Greek fathers and surnamed the divine in the sharing of preferments in Capadocia could get but the poorest and most incommodious Bishopric in all that province: about which he expostulates with Saint Basil. A rich stone is of no less worth when it is locked up in a 
Epist. 31.  wicker kasket, then when 'tis set in a Bishop's mitre. The wise Historian observed that the statues of 
f Tacit: annal: eo praefulgebant quod non visebantur.  Brutus and Cassius were the more glorious and illustrious, because they were not brought out with other Images in a solemn procession at the funeral of Germanicus. And in like manner men of excellent endowments when they are neglected in states, are by so much the more inwardly reverenced by how much they receive the less outward honour, and advancement. Cato was in the right who said he had rather men should question why he had no statue or monument erected unto him, then why he had. For certainly men honour them more who ask why such and such men are not preferred, than they who inquire why such men are preferred, or what worth is in them correspondent to the titles they bear. But what's this to your either advancement or disesteem in the See of Rome; Saint Cyprian teacheth us that if a man suffer death in an erroneous belief, being fallen away from the truth, his suffering is not corona fidei but paenaperfidiae, not a crown of faith, but a punishment of his perfidiousness. It is just that they who wrong their native soil should be disrespected in foreign countries. Had you continued in the university of Oxford, you might have been not only according to your name, faber a Smith, but even Aurifaber a goldsmith to form many precious vessels for God's Sanctuary, whereas now since your revolt from your Religion, and departure out of this kingdom you have turned silver-smith, like those in the Acts that 
Acts. 19 14.  made shrines for Diana, they for Diana of Ephesus, you of Rome, or rather, like Alexander, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Coppersmith. Aeneas when he left Troy, carried his Father, and his gods out with him: 〈◊〉 you when you forsook your countr●… left your mother and your religion a●… behind you, and you have ever sin●… spent all your time in maintaining a●… propagating by your tongue and pen●… a Religion, which is where it diff●… from us, nothing else but a cento 〈◊〉 
g See the book of the 3. confirmities Whitaker. Cont 2. de not. eccle. q. 5. C. 7. Rivet summa. cont. q. 1.  hotchpotch of divers heresies and superstitions. A religion which loosene●… and dissolveth all bonds of vows, a●… religious obligations by papal dispe●… sation, or jesuitical aequivocation: 〈◊〉 religion which sacrilegiously robbe●… God of his honour, Christ of his praerogatives, and Princes of their sovereignty. A religion which blasphemous●… derogateth from the sufficiency o●… Scripture, impiously mutilateth both the ten Commandments, (cutting ou●… the second) and the Sacrament (taking the cup from the laity:) praesumptuously addeth to the Apostles creed as many more new Articles, Idolatrously worshippeth Images, pictures, shrines, relics, the Cross, and the consecrated wafer, superstitiously halloweth cream, spittle, medals, and beads, etc. A religion whose last resolution of faith is into the Pope, who hath been oftentimes an heretic and sometimes a necromancer. A religion which warranteth subjects to take arms against their 
h Bellar. l. 〈◊〉 de Rome po●…. c. 7. Sipri●… cipos conentur ●…vertere pop●…lum a sule possunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 privari suo daminio, et non licet christianis solerare regem infidelem 〈◊〉 hereticum. vid. Bulla●… Pauli cons. Hon. 8. 〈◊〉 Pij. 5. cont. Eliza, et l Card. Alani cuitit An admonition to the nobility of England & jeland concerning the present warr●… made for the execution of his holiness' sentence against & Elizabeth. Clement. 8. his Bull and letters to Tyron Set down at large in my L. Carew his book tit. pacata: Hiber. l 3. c. 18.  Sovereign, canonizeth 
i 〈◊〉 the Jesuits chatechisme Apolog. Garneti Amphitheatrum honoris et lit. Card. Commensis ad Parreum perduellionis reum et ca●…al. mar●…y. Jesuit. c●…messig. et nom. excus. lutes.  parri●…des, and crowneth traitors with the garlands of martyrs. A religion which dispenseth with incestuous marriages and sins against nature, sets a rate upon all 
k Taxa Camere Apostol wess. cont indulg.  crimes and draweth a revenue from the sinks of all impurity (stews and brothels) a tribute far worse than that of Vespasian ex lotio. Had I contested with you in our meeting at Paris about any of these no less unexcusable than unsufferable impieties of your Romish pseudocatholike faith, into what an agony should I have put you; when conferring rather then disputing with you according to the laws prescribed by the company calmly and peaceably about one of the most plausible tenets of your Trent Creed, in which you make most show of Fathers and brag of Scriptures, you were foiled in every argument: and driven t●… much perplexity and miserable esc●… patories, as I will presently make it appear after I have acquainted the reader with the issue of other former conferences in France, which occasioned this with you.   

PAR. 4.  
The issue of diverse disputations in France, and how the Romanists have had always the worst in conferences with Protestants.  
Upon the sad news of the death of Henry the fourth, whom Ravaliach ran into the side with a stiletto in Paris, near the Church of Saint Innocents', right over against the house, whose sign was the flever de lies his own arms: Sir Thomas edmond's being sent with all speed into France to be liedger Ambassador for his Majesty of Great Britain, left order with D. King than Vicechancellor of Oxford (afterwards Lord Bishop of London) to provide him a Chaplain; who with much importunity drew me green from the Universiry, after my first solemn 
a The rehearsal Sermon, Anno 16●…0.  exercise in Saint mary's, to this employment in France. Where I was no sooner arrived, but I heard of diverse English Priests resident there, who not only set upon our English Gentlemen that traveled into those parts, and fixed some of them in the wrong, who before were unsettled in the right: but put the Ambassadors Chaplains also oftentimes to some trouble. These were D. Stanhurst, D. Wright, D. Bagshau, D. Stevens, D. Smith the elder, D. Champney, M. Reyner, M. Meridith, and others, with whom I declined all manner of contestation in point of Religion for a great while, not upon any distrust of the cause, neither any fear lest they should gain upon the truth, or unsettle me or any other in any ground of our most Orthodox belief. For blessed be God, as in former times, so in our age we see the promise of our Saviour daily fulfilled in diverse of the reformed Religion, who have been 
b See Acts and Monuments of the Church. Cri●…pin in Mar●…rolog. Histoire Des Vaud.  convented before your Inquisitours, 
c Luke 〈◊〉 15.  I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist. And as o●… of the mouth of women and 
d Mat. 21. 16. Psal. 8. 2.  childre●… he hath perfected praise, so in publi●… disputations between the learned Doctors on both sides, he hath ev●… 
e Mat. 12. 20.  brought forth judgement on our si●… unto victory. Witness the solem●… disputation in the Synod of Basil between the 
f Orthwinus Gratius in fascic rer. expetend. & sug.  Huzzites and your Prelates and Doctors, in the year of o●… Lord, 1438. Wherein johannes Rok●… zanus the Taborite, and Petrus P●… must our Country man, so worth●… acquitted themselves in the defer●… of the Bohemian Articles, that they r●… gained from that Synod the free use●… the holy cup in the Sacrament for t●… Laity. Witness the disputation between Martin Luther, and Eckius 〈◊〉 at Lipsia by the Appointment of Du●… George of Saxony, Anno 15●…9. 〈◊〉 which I may say as the Orator speaketh of 
g Cic: orat●…r Marcelli pugna ad Nolam populus Romanus primò se erexit postea multae res prosperae cosecutae sunt.  Marcellus his battle wit●… Hannibal at Nola, it gave the first li●… to the reformed party in Germany, an●… after it the affairs of religion went 〈◊〉 most prosperously. Witness the disputation at Zurick, appointed by the Bishop of Constance, between Faber S●…apulensis, and Zuinglius, Anno 1523. at which the Champion for the Romish party was so daunted, that after a flourish, he said in that great assembly, that the cognition and determination of differences in religion pertained to a general council which was near at hand, and that he would confute the doctrine of his adversary by writing, dispute he would no longer: the issue was the Senate of Zuricke presently proclaimed reformation. Witness the disputation's a●… Baden, Anno 1525. between Oecolampadius and Eckius, where Eckius sat down by the loss, and the Church gained all the reformed Pagi of Helvetia. Witness the disputation at Berne in Anno 1527. between Conradus Treyerus an Augustin Friar, and Martin Bucer. This disputation held 19 days, the issue whereof was a pillar erected by the Senate at Berne: in which they wrote in golden letters the day and year of their reformation. To come nearer home; Witness the disputation begun a●… Westminster by the commandment of Queen 
h Humfred in vit●… jewel. ●…ox Acts & Monuments. Tom. 3. p. 〈◊〉  Elizabeth, Anno 1559. between D. Story Bishop of Chichester, D. Cocks, M. Whitehead, M. Grindol, M. Horn, D. Sands, M. Gest, M. Elmer, M. jewel on the one side for the Protestants, and the Bishops of Winchester, Litchfield, Chester, Carlisle, Lincoln, D. Cole, D. Harpsfield, D. Langdale, D. Chedsey on the other side, in which after the Protestants had given the charge, the Popish party presently sounded a retreat, and upon frivolous pretences broke up the conference, witness the Epistle of 
i Gerson Archiepisc. Prag: neque rursus in disputando apud tales, etc. ullus unquam 〈◊〉 fini●…; scandalizabitur populus denique talis protervitas incidit in illud poetae aegrescitque medendo l. de punit: haere●…. non est publicè disputandum cum ●…aeretico praese●…tim pertinaci. Sunt enim haeretici in disputando disertissimi & sciunt optimè disput ationum retia tendere. Huiu●… rei exemplum nobis praeluit publica disputati●… cum Luthero Litsia habita.  Gerson to the Archbishop of Prague, in which he dissuadeth him from putting the matter of Religion to a Trial in disputation, because by such a course taken with the Huzzites, the noble forerunners of our protestant faith, the people would be scandalised, and the wound given already to the Church, would be made worse by the cure. And lastly, witness the determination of ᵏ Alfonsus a Castro, we ought not saith he publicly to dispute with an heretic, especially if he be pertinacious, for heretics are most nimble in disputation, and very skilful to spread nets of arguments, as we have an example in the public disputation with Luther at Lipsia.  
I had no reason therefore to doubt our arguments or cause which like 
P●…rtas Caesare●… & fortunam 〈◊〉. Eras. Apoth.  Caesar hath ever been victorious. Yet partly because I had not as then spent so much time in the study of controversies, as I thought requisite for him who was to encounter with veterani milites, old soldiers of the Pope's train band: partly because I knew whatsoever my performance might be, the major part of the spectators addicted to the Romish party, would do me no right in the relation; I carefully avoided all conflicts with them, till by a wile I was drawn into the lists with Christopher Bagshan D. D. sometimes fellow of Baily College in Oxford, and afterwards Principal of Gloster-Hall. This D. I met at M. Alexander's a Scottish Papist his house at a dinner, to which my Lord Ambassadors Secretary, M. Woodford and myself were invited. At the last service, M. Alexander blew the coal, and D. Bagshan presently took fire: and immediately after dinner we fell 〈◊〉 it with great vehemency for man●… hours. What this conference wroug●… with others there present, I cannot say but sure I am, it left many scruples 〈◊〉 M. Alexander's mind. From that ho●… he began to question the Romish Religion in which he was borne and bre●… and diverse times after he repaired to m●… to instruct him more fully in the doctrine of the reformed Churches, a●… when he lay upon his death bed, he ea●… nestly desired those about him to se●… for me with all speed: but they bei●… zealous in the Romish Religion, a●… conceiving that my conference wi●… him would set him further of from t●… same, fulfilled not his last desire, but in stead of me, brought to him a Popis●… Priest, who finding him drawing on 〈◊〉 his end, offered to administer to hi●… their Sacrament of extreme unction which he refused to receive from him This a servant of his with weeping eyes after his burial related at my Lord Ambassadors house. My nex●… conflict was with D. Stevens, occasioned by an English Gentlewoman, wh●… falling into want, and being relieve●… 〈◊〉 his means, was easily drawn by ●…m to hear their Lent Sermons; and at Easter, the Papists who had contributed to her necessities, made full account that then she would communicate with them, and renounce our Church. But that she might not be thought to be drawn to them for temporal respects, and that D. Stevens might have the honour to win her from us by disputation, he and she both by themselves and their friends, importuned me to give them a meeting at M. Porie his Chamber in the Fauxburg of Saint Germans. I fought at the first what I could to put it off, because I had an inkling that this conference was sought for, only to give some colour to her intended revolt from us: yet being deeply adjured by her, as I tendered the good of a soul bought with Christ's blood, and being directly challenged in the end by D. Stevens, I met at the time and place appointed. Where the Doctor made an eloquent speech, embroidered with all variety of learning, wherewith many there present were much taken, but when he came to dispute, and was tied to propound his arguments in a syllogistical form, and so propounding the●… received some unexpected answers, 〈◊〉 quite lost himself, being derided 〈◊〉 some, and pitied by others in reg●… of his great age. At the next meeti●… which was far more solemn, 〈◊〉 Lord Clifford and diverse other perso●… of great quality being present, D. S●…vens gave way to D. Bagshau to disp●… for him; who first answered, and af●… opposed in the question by the audit●… proposed, and by us stated; the sum●… of which disputation was taken 〈◊〉 M. Arscot and M. Ashley there prese●… and by M. M. P. sent over to his Gr●… 
See the relation thereof in the end of this Treatise.  of Canterbury. The Gentlewo●… after these conferences gave less ho●… to the Papists then before, whereup●… their charity waxing cold towards h●… the next news I heard of her was t●… she was cast in prison for debt, wh●… I visiting her, found her constant in 〈◊〉 truth, and firmly resolved by Go●… grace never to enthrall her soul to R●…mish Idolatry and superstition, to 〈◊〉 deem her body from that miserab●… captivity, being committed to a clo●… and nasty prison in a strange Count●… among those that hated her with a pe●… f●…ct hatred for the constant love she●…●…re to the truth.   

PAR. 5.  
Of the absurd title in the frontispiece of Edward Stratford his pamphlet, and how lamely and imperfectly both he and his Lord and Fisher and Weston have answered former treatises set out by the Author.  
ABout this time you came to Paris and understanding what had passed between me and your pew-fellows for reasons best known to yourself, you dealt with M. john Fourd by M. Knevet his half brother to draw us together to a friendly conference, which soon after your arrival he also effected as your Chaplain S. E. relateth, in his introduction to your conference, to which he hath prefixed an absurd title viz The conference mentioned by D. F. in the end of his Sacrilege, frontispicium sine front. Is the sacrilege which I detect and convict your church of by the joint testimony of all ages, my sacrilege? can he make this goo●… by his Douai logic? suum cuique, giv●… every man his own, the book is min●… the sacrilege is yours. He that de●… fendeth or excuseth any heresy 〈◊〉 crime in an other, I grant makes it 〈◊〉 own, and what the great Lawyer Ulpi●… spoke of parricide, may be said as tru●… of sacrilege, the justification of so fow●… an act, intitleth the patron thereof●… the crime itself, and taints him 〈◊〉 deep or deeper then if he had co●…mitted the very act. In which consid●…ration if M. Everard or your Chaplai●… S. E. or any other drunk with 〈◊〉 Whores 
a Apoc. 17. 4  cup shall be so hardy as i●… reply to that book of mine to mai●… ta'en or excuse your sacrilege in tak●… away the cup from the laity, his rep●… may be justly termed his sacriledg●… But contrariwise to term a boo●… written ex professo against sacriledg●… the authors sacrilege, hath neith●… colour of truth nor relish of wit, 〈◊〉 what can be more absurd then to tear●… Mithridates his confection against po●… son, Methridates his poison? or Por●… Latro his invective against conspira●… Portius his conspiracy? or 〈◊〉 Emperor's Law against adultery, the 
Lex Iu●… de Adulter●… vid. Bullarium Ro. Pontif. L●…th. 10. 1. contra Execrabil●… bullam. Anti christi.  Emperor's adultery? or the Pope's bull ●…gainst simony, the Pope's simony? or Luther his declamation against Pope Leo his execrable bull, Luther his bull? ●…piphanius hath written a special book ●…gainst all heresies, Acontius against ●…athans stratagems, The Bishop of ●…uresme against the grand imposture of ●…e Roman church, Reynold against the ●…dolatrie thereof, Stapleton against the 7. deadly sins, will he call the first, ●…piphanius his heresies, the 2. Acontius ●…is stratagems, the 3. The Bishop of Du●…sme his grand imposture, the 4. Doctor Reynolds his Idolatry, the last Stapleton ●…is 7. deadly sins. Let his frontispiece ●…hen blush for shame, and by his own ●…eason take sacrilege to himself, and ●…all it his sacrilege, because it is his ●…tle: and let him cite the title of my book true as it is, The grand sacrilege ●…f the Church of Rome, that he may have at least one true quotation in all his book.  
In my book (which he so nicknameth) a great beam is discovered in the eye of the Roman church: in the ●…elation of the conference appendent thereunto a mote in your eye. Why doth he so earnestly endeavour to take out the mote out of your eye, and leave the beam in his mother's eye the church of Rome, is your credit dearer to him then his catholic belief? or thought he●… himself sufficiently provided to encounter the small skiff attending on the great vessel, not the great vessel itself? If he and the rest of you so much slighten my endeavours against your Trent Faith, that you think them not worthy the taking notice off, why do you put forth answers to part of them? if you esteem them fit to be looked after, and put to the test of examination, why do you not answer them entirely? but to halves, or not so much as to halves, scarce to the tenth part, some of you like birds peck at the blossoms of my words, other at the bark of my praefaces, or praeambles, none of you yet hath pierced into the heart or pith of any polemical treatise written by me. Your stout champion 
b In a pamphlet entitled the repair of honour. Imprinted at ●…uges, An: 1●…4.  D. Weston bravely chargeth my Epistle to the 
A reply to D Featlies' answer to M. ●…rs 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 An. 〈◊〉  reader and presently repairs to his fort for fear of gunshot. M. john Fisher the Jesuit advanceth a little further, he shapeth some kind of answer to a piece of my preamble to the Romish Fisher caught and held in his ●…owne net, and there sitteth down panting for breath, now this 9 years: and your Chaplain after two years, since the book of the grand sacrilege was printed, falleth most valiantly upon the appendix consisting of a few leaves, leaving the main treatise untouched; wherein a jury is impanaled of all ages, condemning your Romish Synagoguo of a crime of a high nature, a crimson sin the robbing God's people of their Redeemers blood contained as we say mystically, as you believe literally and properly in the chalice. Every argument in it against you is confirmed by the prime writers of your own ●…de: every objection of yours against ●…s is solved out of your own C●…assick divines, who are brought upon the theatre like Roman fencers playing their 
d p. 〈◊〉 & seq.  prizes, and dangerously wounding one the other. Out of compassion to whom, if not for the love of the cause, he should have drawn his weapon if he durst. I have heard from the mouths of two Roman Priests that that treatise is as a thorn in your eyes: yet your Chaplain dares not pluck at it for fear of pricking his fingers: but under your relation, tanquam sub Ajacis clypio, under Ajax buckler hides himself presently after he hath flung a dart of Calumny at a Conference of mine signed and subscribed by two witnesses, both named by him, and acknowledged to be present at that disputation in Paris, Anno 1612.   

PAR. 6.  
Of the novelty of Popery, and the true occasion of the Author his conference with D. Smith at Paris.  
AFter I have repelled his darts, I will encounter your relation, in both which the Greek proverb is verified, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, never a barrel better herring. In his 
Eras. Adag.  introduction, from p. 3. to the 11. he relates the occasion of this conference, partly defectively, partly injuriously and falsely.  
1. His narration is defective, in that he relates, pa 8. That M. Knevet was put in mind that he was mistaken in the matter of Religion, and that before Luther, all known Churches did believe that which he saw there in France openly professed, but he omitteth what was replied thereunto, that this was a stale allegation confuted a 1000 times by Protestants, he omitteth also what was retorted (viz.) that no known Church in the world before the late Council at Trent, which began in the year of our Lord, 1545. and ended in the year 1563. believed those 12. now articles added to the Apostles Creed, 
a ●…lla Pij 4 Pontif. anno, 5. A. D. 1564. Haee est catholica fides extra quam nemo salwa essa potest quam in prasenti pr●…or, &c p. 441.  by Pius 4. to be de fide and to be assented unto by all men under pain of damnation. That the Primitive Church worshipped no Images, knew no private masses, or half communions, or prayers in an unknown tongue nor Church treasury of superabundant satisfactions, nor Pope's indulgences for the release of souls out of Purgatory, nor any of that dross which he saw in your Church mingled with the gold of the Sanctuary: that a man would have been laughed out of his skin, who would in those days have given any credit to that which he & I both saw in Paris openly professed, and painted too, viz. Saint Denys holding his head in his hand, and our Lady saying over the rosary with a great pair of beads about her neck, Saint Genoviefue Patroness of Paris, carried in solemn procession about the streets, and public supplications made to her for rain, or the host carried in state in the street under a Canopy, and the people kneeling before it in the dirt, or Christ eating the Paschall Lamb larded after the French fashion, or an Ass kneeling down to the Sacrament, or Bees building a Chapel and the like legendary fopperies.  
2. It is false and injurious in that he saith, p. 8. that I thought myself alone hard enough for the whole Church of Rome, and p. 10. that I presuming of victory made the matter known both to the English and to the French. Me thinks you should have taught your Chaplain better than to put his dreams in print for my thoughts, and to presume what were my presumptions, neither had I any such thought, ●…either presumed upon any such thing; for although I know myself to be ignorant of many things which I ought to know: yet I dare boldly profess with Origen, Ignorantiam meam non ignoro, I am not ignorant of my ignorance, neither have I been shy to make so much known to all men, in most of my disputations, using this premonition, that if the auditory should not be satisfied in my arguments or answers, that they ought to impute it to the weakness of the advocate, not of the cause, and this or the like conclusion, that if they heard any thing that gave them contentment, they were to ascribe it to the goodness of the cause which I maintained, which will be able to defend itself not only against the Pope's chair but also against hell gates.  
But I need not wipe off the aspersion of self confidence cast upon me, p. 10. he himself doth it, p. 12. saying that I called M. Moulines a famous French Preacher to the Conference, whereas it was appointed, that the Conference should be betwixt us two only. If I thought myself hard enough for the whole Church of Rome, what need I call in Peter Moulines to assist me, against one Doctor only of the Church of Rome? Here certainly your Lordship's Chaplain was forgetful of special precept in his art, oportet mendacem esse memorem, he that will v●… lies, and desireth not to be taken in them aught to have a good memory, lest 〈◊〉 contradict himself, for lies are contrary, not only to the truth, but oftentimes to themselves also.   

PAR. 7.  
Of the Conditions of this Conference, and how they were kept on both sides.  
HAving done with your servant for the present, and given him his arrant, I come now to confer with yourself, or rather to hear your reference and rehearsal of our Conference, two and twenty years ago, September 4. Whereof I may truly say, as Scaliger doth of Baronius his Annals, (facit annales non scribit) he makes Annals or Chronicles, he writes them not: so verily you rather make a new Conference betwixt me and you, then relate the old. For you devise conditions, cast my arguments into a new mould, piece out your own answers, invert the order, and fairly dissemble those replies that touched you to the quick, wherefore I entreat the Reader to take notice that the Protestant relation of the Conference printed 1630. was taken out of the authentical notes of both parties, and confirmed and subscribed by two that were present at the disputation, and confessed to have been so by yourself, p. 9 but this narration of yours is penned by yourself, and published 2●…. years after, and hath no attestation at all unto it. Yet because you shall know that I am ready to answer, not only to all that you did then say, but to all that you can say in the propounded question, I will trace you, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and where you stumble help you up.  
First, you charge me with the breach of I know not what condition, by making the Conference more public than it should have been. The two noters make mention but of three conditions or laws made by the company, and assented unto by us before we exchanged any word, which were these. 1. That we should dispute calmly and peaceably. 2. That all impertinent discourses should be avoided. 3. That M. Featly at this time should only oppose, and D. Smith only answer. The fourth law which you mention concerning the private carriage of this Conference was so privately enacted, that I never heard of it till now, the other three I kept punctually through the whole Conference, but you violated, at the first entrance you had scarce spoken three words before you transgressed the third law, whereat I took exception and offence, not because I was affrighted at the very sight of your tenets, as your Chaplain S. E. would scare his simple Reader, though your Transubstantiation be an ugly Monster, nor for that I was nettled at the proposal of your objections against our tenet: for they were but blind nettles, as we term them, that sting not at all; but partly because I could little hope for any fair proceedings from him, who stumbled at the threshold, and broke his own promise before he infringed any argument of mine, partly and especially, because you brandished your sword furiously against me, when you knew I was engaged by promise, and bound by the law at that time not to use my Buckler. I saw my condition like his in 
a Floresta Hispan: l. fac●….  Floresta, who seeing a dog run at him, and stooping down to take up a stone to fling at him, and finding it so fast in the ground that he could not move it, cried out, A vengeance on this country where dogs are let loose and stones are tied. Your tiphenie wherewith you cover this scar in your reputation from the custom of Oxford (for the respondent to confirm his Thesis) is too transparent and netlike. For what was the custom of Oxford in this kind to us in Paris, who had by joint consent set down an other order to be held in this disputation? Neither did you (si meminisse jnvat) at that time insist upon any such Oxford custom, nor intimated so much, that you took any degrees of Schools there: for than I should in the first place have charged you with the Articles of Religion you subscribed unto, and the oaths you took at your presentation: to all which you bid adieu when you w●… first bound for Rome. 
— Vent is & verba, & vela dedisti  
Vola queror reditu verba carere fide.  As for the short warning (where you complain) to prepare for th●… meeting, you allege it but for fashion For who knoweth not that you were professor many years in Spain, a●… in your written Works had befo●… this elabourately handled this question Besides, for aught I know you we●… acquainted with the day of our disputation as soon as it was set: this I am sure of, that excepting only the goodness of the cause, you had all advantages of me. First of years, for I was but Tyro, you veteranus miles, I the●… but a pusney in these studies, you a Doctor in your faculty, of so loud 〈◊〉 fame that your name rung before this in England, France and Spain, insomuch, that as you yourself reported M. Knevet said of me that I was to young to deal with you. Secondly of books, for I brought but a few with me to Paris, nor had access (being known an opposite to your Religion) to any of your Libraries. Whereas you beside your own, had the command of the Library of Sorbone, and others in the City and University. Thirdly of assistance, for I was alone and had none to advise withal: you conversed daily with the Sorbone Doctors of your society, the acutest disputants of this age. Yet whatsoever garland now your Chaplain platteth for you, at that time you were far from triumphing. For you doubted your own answers, and like bears whelps often licked them to bring them to some form, and when at the end of the Conference I had read them all unto you written from your own mouth; a friend of yours snatched the paper away, and never would 〈◊〉 ver it, but in lieu thereof you tendered me a paper of answers written with your own hand, with such additions and limitations, as your after thoughts suggested: in which notwithstanding fairly you yielded the cause, saying, ego agnosco quod in his verbis, hoc est corpus meum, est figura: that is, I acknowledge that there is a figure in these words, or that these words are to be taken figuratively. If so, than they make no more for the Transubstantiation of Bread into Christ's Body, than the like figurative words, I am the door, I am the vine, I am the way, make for the Transubstantiation of Christ's Body or person into a vine door or way. Wherefore I cannot but commend your ingenuity in choosing that sentence of Saint Austin for your posy in the frontispiece of your relation, facile est ut quisque Augustinum vincat, quanto magis ut vicisse videatur, aut si non videatur, vicisse dicatur, it is an easy thing to get the better of Austin, how much more to seem to get the better, or if not to seem yet to be so reported, if you neither had the worse, nor seemed to have, nor were reported to have the worst in this Conference, how doth this posy fit your relation, but if either, indeed you were foiled, or in appearance, or at least in report, discordant ultima primis, the first words agree not with the last, that you got the field, and bare away the prize.   

PAR. 8.  
The state of the question is truly set down, five points wherein we differ touching the Real presence are touched.  
THe praeludium is passed concerning the occasion and conditions: I come now to the encounter itself concerning your Real presence by Transubstantiation. For which those of your Church contend, tanquam pro aris & focis, and well may you so do, for it furnisheth your ara and your focus too. 
a justitut. l. 4. c. 17. quia Satan have exposit●… veritatem per turbulentos spiratus hodi●… quoque molilius quibuscunque potest calumnijs & probris foedare nec in ullam al●…am rem maiori conatu incumbit accuratius eam tueri & asserere opere pretium est.  Calvin truly observeth that Satan by his instruments laboureth nothing more than to suppress the truth in this point of controversy: and in regard of the infinite Volumes written on both sides. 
b Chamierus de Euch. l 10. c. 1. quaestio de real praesentia est animosissima, prolixissima, intricatissima sed & nobilissima.  Chamerus rightly termeth it the most intricate and perplexed, as also the most noble question of all other between the Roman and the reformed Churches. It much importeth therefore both parties, that 〈◊〉 be rightly stated and solidly handled that which you say in the explicatio●… of the state of the question is very brief, much like lightning in t●… night, that rather skareth a man the●… showeth him the way in the dark●… That which your Chaplain added is large and clear enough, but like false fire held out by Pirates in t●… night to draw Mariners into dange●… You say p. 17. that the Conference 〈◊〉 to be not of Transubstantiation, but of 〈◊〉 Real presence only, which by order 〈◊〉 disputation ought to be first. Yet b●… your favour these questions are not 〈◊〉 distinct and severed as you imply, 〈◊〉 rather like the wheels in 
c Ezek 1. 16 And their work was as it were a wheel in the midst of a wheel.  Ezekie●… vision, rota in rota implicit, one in th●… other. You believe no Real prese●… otherways then by Transubstantiatio●… your 
d Concil. Trid. Sess. 13. c. 1. Doce●… Sancta Synodus in almo Sanctae Eucharistiae Sacramento post panis & vini consecrationem Christum verum Deum atque hominem verè realiter & substantialiter subspecie illarum re●… sensibilium contineri.  Council of Trent in that Ca none wherein it defines your Real presence involveth Transubstantiation, th●… Synod teacheth that in the Sacrament●… the holy Eucharist, Christ God and M●… is truly really and substantially co●…teined under the form or accidents 〈◊〉 the sensible creatures of Bread and ●…ine. If the substance of Christ's flesh ●…e there under the resemblances or ●…cidents of Bread and Wine, the substance then of Bread and Wine must be gone, and Christ his Body and Blood ●…cceed in the room of them, and ●…hat's this but a paraphrase of Transubstantiation? take that away, and we shall soon join 
e Andre●… Episcopu●… Wint. Resp. ad apolog. Bellar. c. 1. p. 11. Nobis autem vobiscum do obiecto convenit, de modo l●… omnis est, pr●…sentiam credim●… nec minus quam vos ver●…m, de modo praesentiae nil temerè de●…imus, addo nec anxie inquirimu●….  issue with you, for 〈◊〉 agree with you in the object, we differ ●…out the manner, we believe as true a ●…esence as you, touching the manner of ●…is presence we define nothing rashly, nor ●…quire curiously no more then in Bap●…sme after what manner Christ his blood ●…asheth us, no more then in the mystery ●…f the Incarnation how and after what ●…anner the humane nature is united to the divine in one person.  
Your Chaplain S. E. (that I may repay him back some of his own coin) p. 23. being conscious of the weakness of his cause thought the very sight of our tenet as it appears in the Protestants relation, p. 288, 289. would overthrow his utterly, and therefore conceals my distinctions of presence and real, which are the keys with several wards, without whi●… this question cannot be opened: 〈◊〉 as ᶠ Weston writes that his head ak●… in reading D: Reynolds his books o●… the Idolatry of the Church of Rom●…. So your crazy Chaplain, 
g Conference by S. E being to tell the state of the question he puts down a discourse to make the simple Reader giddy,  p. 2●… complaineth that my discourse upo●… the state of the question made his he●… giddy. For a while he stands amaze like the Goat, after he hath tasted t●… herb Eringium, and after when he comes to himself, either ignorantly o●… wilfully mistaketh his way. The S●… cramentarians, saith he, for whom D. Featly disputed against our tenet, 〈◊〉 that the Body and Blood of our Saviour be not in the Eucharist truly accordi●… to the verity and substance of the thing signified by those names, but that the Eucharist is a sign and figure of them 〈◊〉 For proof whereof he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shreds and snips of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Peter Martyr, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●…ght, Perkins, Zuinglius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Calvin, taken from your 
h Conference of Catholic & Protestant doctrine, c. 10.  shopboard. If it be no disparagement for him, yet certainly it cannot but be a great blemish in you to understand no better the Doctrine of the Protestants, we impug●…e the Sacramentarians as well as you. ●…our Chaplain might have learned as ●…uch out of the 
i Ancilla Piet●…. p. 83.  Handmaid to Devotion. Let no heretical Harpy pluck from thee thy heavenly dish or meat, as Celeno did Aeneas ' s. Beware of two sorts of heretics especially, which seek to ●…guile thee in the Sacrament, or rather of it, viz. 

Sacramentaries.  
Papists.   The one denying the sign, the other the thing signified. The one offereth thee a shadow without the body, the other the ●…ody without the shadow, and consequently neither of them giveth thee the true Sacrament, to whose nature and essence both ●…re requisite. The Sacramentaries 〈◊〉 rob thee of the jewel, the Papists of the casket. As Christ at his Passion was crucified between two thiefs: so the Sacrament of his Passion is fallen among two thiefs likewise, the Sacramentaries who take away the substance of Christ body, and you Transubstantiators, who take away the substance of the elements. We take part with neither of you, but indite you both of felonious Sacrilege. But because you are a Bishop in title at least, I refer you to be instructed in th●… point by a Reverend 
k Lancelot Winton: answer to the 18. C. of the first book of Cardinal Peron.  Bishop of o●… Church. It is well known saith h●… whither he (naming there the pri●… patron of the Sacramentarians) leane●… that to make this point straight he bo●… it too far the other way, to avoid est i●… the Church of Rome's sense, he fell to b●… all for significat and nothing for est 〈◊〉 all, and whatsoever went further th●… significat he took to savour of the carnall presence, for which if the Cardin●… mystic him, so do we. And so, he d●… not well●… against his own knowledge 〈◊〉 charge his opinion upon us. Neither do you, who if you have read your sel●… the 
l Conference of Catholic & Protestant doctrine. C. 10.  passages which you coat out o●… jewel, Cartwright, Martyr, Muscul●… Perkins, Beza, Calvin, etc. and took●… them not up upon trust; cannot be know that they are meant of the outward element, which is not ind●… Christ's Body as jewel, not properly 〈◊〉 Body as Martyr, not the very Body, a●… Musculus, but only a sign, as Cartwright, a figure as Beza, or at the most a seal as Perkins is alleged b●… you to call it. None of them affirm that in the Eucharist or holy Sacrame●… ●…selfe an empty figure or a bare sign ●…exhibited. Let 
m jewel▪ apolog. c. 138 d x. Pa●… & vinum dicimus esse sacra & 〈◊〉 mysteria corporis & sanguinis Christi & illis Christum ipsum verum panem eternae vitae sic nobis praesentem exhiberi ut eius corpus sanguinemque per sidem verè sumamus etc. 4. d. x.  jewel, 
n Calvin I●… stitut. l 4. c. 17. Sect. 19 His absurditatibus sublatis quicquid ad exprimendam veram sub●…antialemque corporis & sanguinis Domini communicationem quae sub sacr●… c●…ne symbolis sidelibus exhibetur, libenter recipio atque ita ut no●… imaginatione du●…xat ac mentis intelligentiâ percipere, sed ut re ipsá fr●… in alimentum vitae eternae i●…telligatur. Sec. 11. dico duabus rebus constare s●…crum caenae mysterium corporeis signis & spirituali veritate quae per symbol●… ipsa figuratur, simul & exhibetur, & Sec. 10. Spiritus verè unit qu●… loci●… dis●…cta sunt, a symboli exhibitione rem ipsam exhibere rite colligim●…s & ●…ccepto corporis symbolo non minus corpus etiam ipsum nobis dari certò con●…imus.  Calvin●…d ●…d Perkins speak for the rest. We ●…firme that the Bread and Wine are the holy and heavenly mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ, and that by them Christ himself being the true Bread of ●…ternall life, is so presently given unto us as that by faith we verily receive his Body and Blood. And a little after we abase not the Lords Supper, or teach that it is but a cold ceremony only, as ●…any falsely slander us, (you and S. E. for ●…ample) For we affirm that Christ ●…oth truly and presently give himself wholly in his Sacraments, in Baptism, that we may put him on, and in his Supper, that we may eat him by faith, and spirit, and may have everlasting life by his Cross and Blood: and we say not that this is done slightly or coldly, but effectually and truly. Calvin, Taking away these absurdities (he speaketh of Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation▪ whatsoever may be said to express t●… communication of the true and substantial Body and Blood of the Lord whi●… are exhibited to the faithful under t●… holy Symbols of the Supper, I willingly admit, and that in such sort, that the participation may be understood not 〈◊〉 imagination only, and apprehension 〈◊〉 the mind, but a real fruition to neur●… the body and soul to eternal life, and again, I say that the holy mystery of the Supper consists of two things, bodily signs and the spiritual truth, which is both figured and exhibited by the signs. For the Spirit truly uniteth those things which are severed in place. From the exhibition of the sign we rightly, infer the thing signified by it to be exhibited to us, and when we receive the sign we are confident that we receive the Body itself, 
o Reformed Catholic 10. point. p. 590.  Perkins is as full: we hold and believe a presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament and that no feigned but a true and real presence.  

1. In respect of the sign by Sacramental relation.  
2. In respect of the Communicants to whose believing heart he is also really present.   
Thus you hear we stand all for a real presence, and that so universally, that 
p Riv●… summa co●…. q. ●…8. p. 34. Nemo nostrum cred●… eum intelle●…isse tantum sig●… vel solam gratiam, eumque nihil nobis voluisse largi●… aliud, qu●… qua●… verè hic p●…nis qu●…t s●…um corporis Christ●… dona●… corporibus nostris, tam ver●… etiam d●…tur animabus nosiris corpus Christi  Andrew Rivet saith peremptorily, none of us believeth that Christ giveth unto us only a sign of his Body, or only grace, because as truly as the Bread which is the sign of Christ's body is given to our bodies so truly is the Body of Christ given unto our souls.  
The difference between us is about  

1. The means.  
2. The meaning of eating Christ.   

The means 

We say is by faith 
q Artic. 28. Only after a heavenly and spiritual manner the body of Christ is received, and the means whereby it is taken in the Supper, is faith.  mystically,  
You by the mouth and properly.    
The meaning 

You say is a carnal.  
We say is a spiritual manducation.     
Desire you a greater light, because it seems your eyes are dim: thus then conceive of the doctrine of the reformed Churches  
1. Christ is said to be present in holy Scriptures four manner of ways.  

1. Divinely.  
2. Spiritually.  
3. Sacramentally.  
4. Carnally or corporally.   
According to the first kind or manner, he is present in all 
r jer. 23. 24. Psal. 139. 7. Whether shall I sly from thy presence? & Amos 9 2, 3.  places, Can any man hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him, saith the Lord, do not I fill heaven and earth.  
According to the second, he is present in the hearts of true 
s Ephes' 3. 17.  believers, I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord jesus Christ, that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith.  
According to the third, he is present in the Sacrament both mystically or relatively, and 
t 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17.  effectually also. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? the bread that we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.  
According to the fourth, he was present 
u john 1 〈◊〉  in judea and the confines, in the days of his flesh, And the Word was ●…ade flesh and dwelled amongst us, but is 
Acts 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉.  now in heaven.  
2. As the word presence, so also the word really is diversely taken, sometimes  

1. As it is opposed to that which is feigned and imaginary, and importeth as much as truly.  
2. As it is opposed to that which is merely figurative and barely representative, and importeth as much as effectually.  
3. As it is opposed to that which is spiritual, and importeth as much as corporally or materially.   
Conclusion the first.  
1. We believe Christ to be present divinely, and that after a special manner at his table, spiritually in the hearts of the Communicants, Sacramentally in the elements: but not corporally, either with them by Consubstantiation, or in the 
w Ame●…as Bell. Enervat. Tom. 3. l. 4. c. x p. 95. Corpus Christi substantialiter non continetur in eodem spati●… quo panis & vinum conti●…bantur.  place of them by Transubstantiation.  
Conclusion the second.  
The presence of Christ in the Sacrament is real in the two former acceptions of real but not in the last, 〈◊〉 he is 
x Calvin l. 4. Institut. c. 17. Sec. 11. Per symbola panis & vini Christus verè nobis exhibetur adeoque corpus & sang●…s eius.  truly there present, and 
y jewel Apolog p. 2. c. 14. d. 1. We say not that this is done slightly or coldly, but effectually and truly. For though we do not touch the Body of Christ with teeth and mouth, yet we hold him fast and eat him by faith, by understanding, and by spirit  eff●…ctually though not carnally or loc●… And that this is the general doctrin●… the reformed Churches, and co sequently that all your discourse p. 25 26, 28, 47, 51. and through your who●… book generally against empty types bare signs, void figures, excluding the verity, is u●…terly void and of none effect and a mere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and fighti●… with your own shadow: I proo●… by undeniable and impeachable evidences extant in the book inti●…uled, Harmony of confessions: and I will compass you in both with such a cloud 〈◊〉 witnesses that you shall see no way to get out.  
The 
z Articles of Religion reprinted by ●…s Majesty, special command, 〈◊〉. Artic. 2●….  English as it well deserveth shall have the first place. The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the lov●… that Christians ought to have among themselves one to the other, but rather 〈◊〉 is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death, in so much that to such a rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ, and likewise the Cup of blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.  
The rest shall follow as they are martialled by the compiler of that work.  
The 
a Harmoni●… confess ad Sect. ●…4. p. 190. Intùs fid●…les oper●… Christ's per Spirit●… Sanctura percipiune etiam car●… & san●…nem Domini & pas●…untur his in 〈◊〉 aternam, 〈◊〉 p. 110, qui ●…oris 〈◊〉 side Sacra mentum percipit, idem ille non signum dun taxat percip●… sed 〈◊〉 ipsâ qu●…s s●…itur.  Helvetian. The faithful receive that which is given them by the Minister of the Lord, and they eat of the Lords Bread, and drink of the Lords Cup, and at the same time inwardly through the help of Christ by the Spirit, they receive the flesh and blood of the Lord; he that outwardly (being a true believer) receives the Sacrament, he receives not the sign only, but enjoyeth also the thing signified.  
The confession of 
b Confess. Basilart●…. 〈◊〉. In ●…nd Domini cum pane & 〈◊〉 Domini verum corpus & verus sanguis Christi per ●…inistrum 〈◊〉 pr●…figuratur & offertur.  Basil. Bread and Wine remain in the Lord's Supper, in which together with the Bread and the Wine, the true Body and Blood of Christ is prefigured and exhibited.  
The 
c Art. 37 qui ad Sacram mensam 〈◊〉 puram fidem tanquam vas quoddam afferunt, credimus verè recipere 〈◊〉 ibi signa tes●…ficantur, nempe corpus & sanguinem jesu Christi nominus esse cibum & potum animae quam panis & vinum sunt co●…ris cibus.  French. We believe that those who bring to the Lords Table pure faith as it were a vessel, do truly receive that which there the signs testify, for the Boand Blood of jesus Christ are no less 〈◊〉 meat and drink of the soul, than br●… and wine are the food of the body.  
The 
d Art. 35. Quam verè accipimus & tenemus manibus nostris hoc sacramemtum illudque ore comedimus, tam verè etiam nos fide recipere verum corpus & verum sanguinem Christi.  Belgic confession. Chr●… instituted Bread and Wine, earthly a●… visible creatures, for a Sacrament of 〈◊〉 Body and Blood: whereby he testifet●… that as truly as we receive and hold 〈◊〉 our hands this Sacrament, and eat 〈◊〉 with our mouths, whereby this our life 〈◊〉 maintained; so truly by faith, which 〈◊〉 as the hand and mouth of the soul, we receive the true Body and Blood of Christ our only Saviour, in our souls, to holy and nourish spiritual life in them.  
The 
e Confess. Aug. Art. 10 In caena Domini corpus & sanguis Christi verè adsunt & distribu●…tur 〈◊〉 s●… cum 〈◊〉 & vino v●… exhiben●…r.  Augustan. In the Lord's Supper the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present and distributed to the Communicants, or as we read in a later edition they are truly exhibited with the brea●… and wine.  
The 
f S●…. Confess c. 18. Art. 14. Falso ab adversarijs iactatur non nisi merum panè merumque vinum in nosiris caenis administrari.  Suevick. The most holy Supper of our Lord is by us most devoutly, and with singular reverence ministered and taken, whereby your sacred Majesty may understand, how falsely our adversaries charge us, that we change Christ's words and corrupt them with man's glosses, and that nothing is ministered in our Supper●… but bare bread and mere wine.  
By all which it appears, as how falsely your Lordship and S. E. relate our tenet: so how no less blasphemously then slanderously 
g 〈◊〉 cont. 〈◊〉.  Noris compareth the Protestants Supper to Heliogabalus his feasts: he should rather have compared your private Masses to them. For as that Emperor invited his servants to a banquet, where he ate all himself, and they only looked on: so you invite the people to your Mass and bid them eat and drink, rehearsing the words of our Saviour (Take eat, this is my body, and drink you all of this, etc.) yet you eat all and drink all yourselves. As the Priests under the Law among the Jews had their panes propositionis, their show-bread, which the people ●…ever touched: so you, though under the Gospel, have panem propositionis, shewbread, and always vinum propositionis, shew-wine, for the people very seldom eat of the bread, but never drink drop of the consecrated cup.  
Me thinks I hear you say, if we both acknowledge Christ's Body and Blood to be thus really present in the Sacrament, as hath been showed, how fell we out? why may we not be good friends? wherein stand we yet at od●… about this Sacrament and Christ's presence there?  
In five points:  
First, You teach there remains n●… the substance of Bread and Wine after consecration: we teach that they remain.  
Secondly, You believe that Christ's body is contained under the superficies or accidents of bread: and taketh up the room of the substance of the element, this is no part of our belief.  
Thirdly, You hold that the host or Sacrament is to be adored cultu latri●…, the worship proper unto God: we believe that though honour and reverence (which Saint Cyrill and Saint Chrysostome call for) is due to the Sacrament, and that with all due 
h Lancelot Winton: answer to Cardinal Peron. Sect. 4. The Sacrament is with all due respect to be handled and received, but no divine adoration may be used to the symbols.  respect and a most humble gesture it ought to be handled and received, yet no divine adoration may be used to it. To yield that to any creature is Idolatry.  
Fourthly, You aver that Christ's very body is eaten with the mouth: we cannot brook such a gross and caper●…aiticall conceit.  
Fiftly, You profess (and I know not whether you believe it) that infidels, yea some of you also, that rats and mice may eat Christ's very body: we abhor that blasphemy. For though it might fall out through some negligence that a rat or a mouse, or who is worse than either, an infidel may sometimes seize on the Sacramental bread: yet we say Christ's Body and Blood are out of their reach, their unhallowed hands or mouths cannot come near it.   

PAR. 9  
Twelve passages out of Tertullian against Transubstantiation vindicated, and all objections out of him for the carnal presence answered.  
THis was or should have been the 
a S E 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Rodus, our stand, now let us measure the leap, of which you have made seven jumps. Thus I took my rise. That doctrine which h●… no foundation in the Word of God is repugnant to the doctrine of the true ancient Church, and overthro●… eth the principles of right reason, i●… plying palpable absurdities and apparent contradictions is to be rejected a erroneous and heretical: but the doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning Christ's bodily presence in the Sacrament is such, Ergo it is to be disclaimed as erroneous and heretical.  
The Major or first proposition had his pass from you, nor can it be impeache●… by any who rightly understandeth the terms, and seriously weigheth the consequence. For divine faith must be built upon a divine and unmooveable foundation, which can be no other than God's Word. And sith we on both sides acknowledge that the Church in which the Primitive Fathers lived and died, was the true Church, they who gainsay the faith thereof, are to be ranged with heretics. Lastly, that metaphysical principle is of undoubted verity, verum vero non opponitur, truth never opposeth truth. That doctrine therefore which destroyeth the principles of reason, and quencheth the sparkles of divine light kindled in our souls by God, cannot but be from the Prince of darkness.  
The Minor or assumption hath three branches as you see on the first: whereof I insisted in that conference. My prosyllogismes which you and S. E. both omit were these. First, if there be any ground in Scripture for your carnal presence in the Sacrament, it is either in the words of 
b Mat. 〈◊〉. 26. This is my Body.  institution, or on those john the 6. 53. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. For upon these both the Bishops in that Lateran, and Trent Council, and all the learned on your side build their faith especially in this point. But neither the one nor the other Text are any sure ground for it, Ergo you have none. The Major in this prosyllogisme being assented unto by you, I proceeded to the confirmation of the Minor in this wise. If the words of institution, Mat. 26. and the other alleged out of john the 6. are to be taken figuratively, and not in the proper sense nothing can be concluded from them for the bodily presence or carnal eating Christ with the mouth. But the words above alleged in both places are to be construed figuratively, and not in the proper sense, Ergo nothing can be concluded from them for the bodily p●…esence of Christ in the Sacrament, or carnal eating of him with the mouth. The Major in this second Syllogism being likewise evident to all men of learning, who know that to argue from a figurative sense to the proper is a fallacy in Logic, and a dangerous error in Divinity: against which Saint 
c Aust. l. 31 de doct. christ c. 5. In principio cavendum est ne figuratam locutionem ad literam accipias, cum enim figuratè dictum sit accipitur tam quam propriè dictum sit, carnaliter sapitur.  Austin giveth us a special caution, I undertook the proof of the Minor both by unavoidable testimonies of ancient Fathers, and pregnant argumen●…s drawn from the circumstances of those Texts. And first because with the ancient is wisdom, job 12. 12. let the ancient speak, Tertullian, Origen, Austin, Prosper, etc. 
d Acceptum panem & distributum Discipulis, corpus suum illum fecit, bcc est corpus meum dicendo, id est figura corpo●…is mei, figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatu esset corpus.  Tertullian in his fourth book against Martion, the 40. Chapter, the bread taken and distributed to his Disciples he made his body saying, this is my body, that is a figure of my body. Now a figure it had not or should not have been, unless his body had been a body of truth or a true body, for avoid or empty thing, such as a phantasm is, is not capable of a real figure. Tertullian his argument in this 40. Chap. against Martion, who taught that Christ had no true body but an imaginary or fantastical standeth thus.  
That body whereof bread is a figure must needs be a true body.  
But the Body of Christ is such a Body whereof bread is a figure, Christ himself sa●…ing, when he took bread in his hand, This is my Body, that is a figure of my Body. Therefore Christ's Body is a true Body.  
If Christ made not bread a figure of his Body, but turned it into his own Body, as you teach, how could Tertullian out of those words of our Saviour, prove against Martion that bread was a figure of Christ's Body? Again, if the meaning of the words of institution (This is my Body) be, this bread is a figure of my Body as Tertullians' id est enforceth, then are the words of the institution metonymically or figuratively to be taken. A fair evidence for the truth is this testimony of Tertullian which so puzzles our adversaries, th●… they turn them every way, yet cann●… avoid or impeach it.  
Fisher falls fowl upon this ancie●… 
Rossens. cont. Oecolamp.  and most learned Father, disabling h●… testimony in regard of his taint o●… Montanisme.  
But neither was Tertullian slipped in●… that heresy when he wrote these books, neither did the heresy of Montanisme concern the Sacrament, neither was ever this passage 
e Bellar. de Sacra bucha l. 2. c. 7. Quam●… i●… fuerit Mon tanista in extrema aetate suâ, tamen a nullo veterum Pa●…rum reprehenditur hoc nomine quod ●…rraverit circa Sacramentum Dominici corporis.  excepted against by any of the Ancients, nor the Father himself branded for any error about the Lords Supper.  
Steven Gardiner giveth a more respective answer, that Tertullian spoke these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in heat of opposition to his adversary, not deliberately and doctrinally.  
But he that readeth these books against Martion, which the author so esteemed that he translated them into verse; will find in them strength of reason, not violence of passion. These words sparkle not with anger, but give a clear light to the words of the insti●…tion: and the like are found in him ●…ls where and in other of the Fathers, when they wrote in coolest temper in their Epistles, Commentaries on Scriptures, Homilies, and Treatises of piety, the places are quoted particularly by 
f Desentia ad Gardinerum de Euchar●… par●… 1. Ob. 161.  Peter Martyr. 
Verius ergo  
Et magis ingenuè Peribomius.  Well fare honest 
g Rhenanus in tract. de Monogam. 〈◊〉 hîc ●…ertulliani error verba sacra●… caenae figuratè exponentis in Berengarij personâ re●…tatus est.  Rhenanus who ingeniously confesseth, that Tertullian favoured our figurative interpretation, for which your Church condemned Berengarius.  
But you like not so well of this plain dealing, you have been better instructed by the Belgic 
h Index ex purge. Belgic anno 1571. Cum in catholicis vateribus aliis plurimos seramus errores & extenuemus excogitato commento per saepè negemus & commod●…s iis sensi●… affi●…gamus cum opponuntur in disputationibus aut in conflictionibus cum adversari●….  inquisitors to devise some shift and feign a commodious sense to the testimonies of the Fathers, and blanche their words with ingenious glosses when they are obj●…cted against you in disputation or conflicts with us. Therefore after 
i i A●…tat in Tertul l. cou●…. Marcionem 4. c. 40. ●…otae 662.  Pammelius, 
k Bel●… de sacrament Eucha l. 2. c. 7.  Bellarmine, and 
l Perone resp. ad Plesseum. p. 9 0.  Perone construe, Tertullian thus: This, which was once an old figure of my body is now my body; for he doth not refer those words, id est figura corporis mei to corpus meum: but to hoc.  
For this your strange forced and incongruous interpretation, you produce first a parallel place to this out of the book adversus 
m Prax. c. 29 Dicendo Christus mortuus, id est unctus.  Praxean, Christ is dead that is anointed, where the words id est are referred to the subject (Christus) not to the attribute (Mortuus.) Secondly out of the words he made bread his own body, since say you Tertullian saith, that our Saviour taking bread made it his body, he was not so forgetful as immediately to add that the Eucharist is a mere figure of his body: this reason you backed with a third, that Tertullian presently after the foresaid words saith, figura autem non fuisset, it had not been a figure, etc. by which words he shows that he speaketh of the figure which was before our Saviour said, This is my Body. Lastly, you much insisted upon the words veterem figuram, an old figure, and those that follow in the same place, but why calleth he bread his body? and not a Pepon or Melone rather? which Martion had in place of a heart, not understanding 
Or inst●…d of his heart, Cor Christi loco.  that it was an old figure of the body of Christ.  
Though the water be never so clear, it is an easy matter by stirring the bottom with a stick to trouble it, and make it all muddy, stay but a while till it settle, and you shall see the stream run clearly, and the silver w●… seek for in the bottom bearing the Image of Christ's Body. Tertullian here proves the reality of Christ's Body by the reality of the figure thereof bread. Bread he proves to be the figure of his body, both out of the Gospel of Saint Matthew in the first place, and afterwards out of the Prophecy of jeremy, where the Jews conspiring against the Prophet, said, Come let us cast wood on his bread, that is, the cross on his body. The illightner therefore of antiquities declared sufficiently what he would have bread then to signify, calling his body bread. Mark I beseech you, Tertullian sets the Texts of Matthew and jeremy like glasses, to cast a mutual light one upon the other. In jeremy Christ's Body is called bread, in Saint Matthew, bread is called his Body, both by a like figure: but I subsume Christ's body is not called bread in jeremy, because it was transsubstantiated into bread as you must needs confess, therefore neither in Saint Matthew is bread called Christ's body, because bread was transubstantiated into it. 
n In Dialogo 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Theodoret harps upon the like strings tuned together, Our Saviour, saith he, changed names and attributed to his body the name of the symbol, or sign thereof, and to the symbol or sign the name of his body, he that called bread his body, calle●… himself bread: in both which speeches there is according to both these Fathers, a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a trope or turning of speech, no 
Theod. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  change of nature.  
The sparks fly up in the smoke before the fire breaks into a flame, afterwards they vanish away: such your objections appear to be after the blazing (if I may so speak) of Tertullians' meaning, by the precedent elucidations of this place.  
The first taken out of his book 
Object. 1  against Praxeas, thus vanisheth to nothing, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one swallow makes not a summer, nor one heteroclyt overthrows a general rule in grammar. You and your Chaplain talk of 
o 〈◊〉. 3●…. Neither did he say any thing to the places wherein Tertullian had in like●… sort inverted the order.  places in the plural number, as if such a Transposition were usual in Tertullian, name you but one other passage in all Tertullian where the like hyperbaton or dislocation is used, 
Et Phillida solus habeto  There is in this passage I grant a Metathesis or transposition of the words, id est unctus, which should have been placed before mortuus not after: but yet that place of Tertullian is not like 
Sol 1.  this as you interpret it: for there id est must of necessity be referred to the subject Christus, and cannot be referred to the predicate mortuus: because the word mortuus doth not signify anointed, as Christus doth: but in this place id est may well be referred to the predicatum corpus, as 
p Art 13. Cited by S. 〈◊〉.  Ruardus Tapperus, and Gardinerus, and Renanus, and all other Papists referred them, before this new crochet was found out by Pammelius, or Peron. Again, in those words Christ 
Sol 2.  is dead that is anointed, the sense is made good by a mere inversion thus, Christ that is the anointed is dead, whereas besides an inversion you add the words quod erat vetus: (non nunc est) which words if you should add to the other place, saying Christus mortuus est, id est is qui erat unctus est mortuus, you would make the speech blasphemous, insinuating that Christ was the Lords anointed but is not, as you make Tertullian say bread which was a legal figure, but now is not, is Christ's body.  
But to put this passage of Tertullian 
Sol. 3.  out of all peradventure, the words (id est) that is to say, must needs be referred to that term in the proposition which was obscure, and needed some explication. But that was not the subject (hoc) for Christ by taking the bread in his hand and pointing to it sufficiently, showed what he meant by (hoc) all the doubt that could be made was of the predicate body, what that term signified, or in what sort it agreed to the subject (hoc) the id est therefore of necessity is to be applied to the obscure predicate (corpus) not to the subject (hoc) which was then when Christ uttered those words evident ad oculum.  
Your second objection melteth of itself, since Tertullian (say you) affirms 
Object. 2  that our Saviour made bread his body, he was not so forgetful as immediately to add, that the Eucharist is a mere figure of his body: neither do we 
Sol. 1.  say so, as I have proved at large in the former Paragraph. It was not forgetfulness in Tertullian to add this gloss, 
Sol. 2.  id est figura corporis mei, but mindfulness and cautelous wisdom maturely to remove a block, at which his Reader was like to stumble. When he had said before corpus suum ipsum fecit, he made bread his body, a man might have thought that he did it so by Consubstantiation, or by Transubstantiation: to prevent which mistakes, he adds that Christ did it by Sacramental consecration, saying, This is my Body, that is, a figure of my body.  
Your third objection is an idle criticism, 
Object. 3  as if there were great difference between esset and fuisset, for your Candour, look but upon Lily his grammar, 
Sol. 1.  and you shall find that eram and fueram, and ero and fuero, and essem and fuissem are indifferently used as Synonimons. Yet if you will have (fuisset) in 
Sol. 2.  these words (figura autem non fuisset) not to be rational, but temporal, nor to construed it should not be, but it had not been, you must howsoever refer it to that which goeth before, acceptum panem & distributum, not to that which follows six lines after, veterem figuram corporis Christi dicentis per jeremiam, the apparent sense than is, Christ by saying This is my body, made the bread then a figure, or Sacrament of his body, which it had not been if he had not then, when he spoke so, a true body, but only an imagnarie, as the fantastical heretic Martion surmised.  
Your fourth & fifth reasons are answered 
Resp. ad 4. & 5. Object.  already. Tertullian as it is evidently deduced from the passage you cote, and another parallel unto it, l. 3. cont. Martion. c. 19 (So God hath revealed in the Gospel, calling bread his body, that hence now thou mayst understand, that he hath given the figure of bread to his body, whose body the Prophet long before figured in bread) taught that bread had been a legal figure, and was also an evangelical sign or Sacrament of Christ's Body. But why Christ made choice rather of bread then of a Melone, as Tertullian speaketh, or any other solid thing to be the Symbol or Sacrament of his body, as also why he rather chose wine then any other liquour to be the emblem and memorial of his blood, we can assign certainly no other reason then his mere will. Tertullian his guess is but probable, that Christ in the institution of the Sacrament in the forms of bread and wine had an eye to the Prophecy of jeremy, or jacob. But 
I●…r. 11. 1●…. Gen. 49. 〈◊〉.  be it probable or necessary, it matters not, seeing it is confessed on all hands, that bread is a figure of Christ's body, though not now a Legal Type, yet an Evangelicall. Being both, it makes the stronger for this gloss of Tertullian, this bread is my body, that is, a figure of 
P. 44. Object. 6  my body.  
But here S. E. helps you at a dead lift, alleging a testimony out of 
q De resurrect. carnis. c. 8. Caro abluitur ut anima emac●…letur, caro ●…gitur ut anima consecret●…r, caro corpore & sanguine Christi ves●…itur ut & anima do Deo saginetur. Eras. glori●… tur Adag. ut Pelei●…s in Machar●….  Tertullians' book the resurrectione carnis, for the carnal presence of Christ in the Sacrament. The words of Tertullian are these, The flesh is washed that the soul may be cleansed, the flesh feeds upon the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may be fatted by God. Of this place of Tertullian he is as proud as P●…lius in the proverb was of his sword, not observing that the point of it lieth against himself: for if he expound these words according to the rule of the Fathers, the signs have usually the names of the thing signified, by them then he confirms our figurative interpretation, understanding by the body of Christ the Symbol or sign thereof, upon which our flesh seeds, when we receive the Sacrament: but if he understand the words of Tertullian properly as if our very flesh or stomach turned Christ's Body into corporal nourishment, and so really fed upon it to fatten or cheer our souls, he makes Tertullian blaspheme, and he gives the lie to his Lord yourself who page 65. in express terms affirm, that in the Fucharist there is no violence offered to Christ his flesh in itself, nor is it eaten to the end our bodies may thereby be nourished. To affirm that the substance of our mortal body is nourished, or increased by the flesh of Christ taken in the Sacrament, is to make the Eucharist cibum ventris non mentis, the food of the belly, not of the soul, than which gross conceit nothing can be more absurd in the judgement of your own Cardinal 
r Bellar l. 2. de Sacra Eucharist. c. 4. Non intelligunt patres cum hoc dicunt Eucharistiâ nutriri vel augeri mortalem substantiam corporis nostri, sic enim facerent Eucharistiam cibum ventru non mentis, quo nihil absurdius fingi potest.  Bellarmine. Tertullian disclaims this carnal fancy in the very words alleged by your Chaplain, ut anima saginetur, the flesh saith the Father feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ, that the soul may be fatted, the soul not the body. If he demand how can the soul be satisfied or fatted by the bread in the Sacrament, if it be not turned into Christ's Body? I answer out of the former words of Tertullian, even as the soul is cleansed in Baptism by washing the body with water, though that water be not turned into Christ's blood.  
You have heard that 
s Ter. de resurrett. carnis. c. 37. ex materia dicti dirigendus est sensu●… nam quia durum & intolerabile existimaverum sermonem eius, quasi verè carnem suam illis edendam determinasset, premisit spiritus est qui vivificat. Arg. 1 ex Tertul. pro Protest. doctr joh. 6. 53.  Tertullian doth not so much as lisp in your language, hear now how loud he speaks in ours. The sense of the word (saith he) is to be taken from the matter, for because they thought his speech hard and intolerable (unless ye eate the flesh of the Son of man, etc.) as if he had appointed his flesh truly and in very deed to be eaten of them, he premised it is the Spirit which quickeneth, and a little after, appointing his Word to be the quickener, because his Word is spirit and life, he called the same his flesh, for the Word was made flesh, therefore to be desired with an appetite, to give and maintain life in us, to be eaten by 
t Ter. ib. Devorandus auditu ruminandus intellectu, side digerendus.  hearing, to be chewed by understanding, to be digested by believing. These words are so plain, that you cannot mistake the meaning of them, and if you should go about to draw them to any carnal sense or eating Christ with the mouth, he will check you in the words following, where he saith, that Christ used an 
u Ter ib. Carnem suam panem c●…elestem pronunciarat arguens usque quaque per allegoriam necessariorum pabulorum. Arg. 2 ex Tertul.  allegory in this place: now an allegory is a figure in which an other thing is to be understood, diverse from that which the words import taken in the usual and proper sense.  
Doubtless he who held the bread at the Lords Table to be a representation of Christ's body, and the wine a memorial of his blood, believed not that the bread was turned into his body, or the wine into his blood: for no picture is the life itself, no memorial is of a thing present but absent.  
But 
w Ter. advers Marcionem l. 1. c. 14. Nec reprobavit panem Creatoris quo ips●…m corpus suum representat.  Tertullian called bread that whereby Christ represented his own body, taking the word represent in the same sense which Saint 
x Ber. Ser. 6. in vigiliâ nat. Dom. Videtur quotidie nascidun fideliter representamus cius nativitatem.  Bernar doth. As Christ after a sort is sacrificed every day when we show forth his death, so he seemeth to be borne whilst we faithfully represent his birth. As the figure, sign, or that whereby any thing is represented or set before the eye, is not the thing itself: so neither a monument or a memorial of our friend is our friend: the wine therefore which 
y Ter. l. de anima cap. 17. saporem vini quod 〈◊〉 sanguinis sui memoriam consecravit.  Tertullian saith Christ consecrated for a memorial of his blood, cannot be his very blood.  
The same Father in his book of the 
Arg. 3. ex Tertul.  flesh of Christ smiled at the heretics, who imagined Christ to have flesh hard without 
z ●…b. de carne Christi. c. 5. Sine ossibu●…duram, sine muscul●…s solidam, sine sanguine cruemam.  bones, solid without muscles, bloody without blood, etc. They saith he that fancy such a Christ as this, that deceiveth and deludeth all men's eyes, and senses, and touchings, should not bring him from heaven, but fetch him rather from some jugglers 
a Ib●… Ecce fallit & decipi●… omm●… oculos, omn●… sensus, omnium accessus & contactus, ergo iam Christum non de coelo deferre de bueras, sed 〈◊〉 aliquo circula●…orio ca●…. Arg. 4. ex Tertul.  box. I trow he meant not your Popish Pix, yet sure such a flesh it encloseth, hard (if it be so) without bones, solid without muscles, and bloody without blood, for you say Christ's blood is there, and sh●…d too, and yet tear me your Mass an unbloody sacrifice. I take you to be so ingenuous that you would not belie your senses, I am sure you will confess that you see nothing in the pyx but the whiteness of bread, in the Chalice but the redness of wine, no flesh or blood colour in either. You taste nothing but bread in the one, and the sapour of wine in the other, you touch no soft flesh with your hand, nor quarry blood with your lips, or tongue. But I infer out of 
b Ter. l de amma c. 17. Non licet nobis in dubium sensus istos revocare, ne & in Christo de fide eorum deliberetur, ne fort●… dicatur quod falso Satanam prospectarit de coelo praecipitatum, etc.  Tertullian, You must not question the truth of your senses, lest thereby you weaken the sinews of our faith, lest peradventure the heretics take advantage thereupon, to say that it was not true that Christ saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven, that it is not true that he heard a voice from heaven, but the sense was deceived. Were not the senses competent judges of their proper objects, even in the case we are now putting, viz. the discerning Christ's true body; Christ would never have 
c Luke 24. 39  appealed to them as he doth. Behold my hands and my feet, that is, I myself, handle me and see, for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have.  
I have given a touch hitherto, but 
Arg. 〈◊〉 ex Tertul.  upon sing●…e testimonies as it were single strings: now in the close, listen to a chord. So Christ hath revealed unto us, calling 
d Ter. ad. Iud●…s c. 〈◊〉. Sic Christus revelavit panem corpus suum ●…ppellans, cuius retro corpus in pane Prophetis siguravit.  bread his body, whose body the Prophet prefigured in bread. Christ is our bread, because Christ is our life, and life is our bread, I am, saith he, the bread of life: as also because his body is 
e Tum quod corpus 〈◊〉 in pane c●…setur, hoc est corpus me●…m, it aque petendo pa●… quotidimum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Christ●… 〈◊〉 a corpo●… eius.  accounted for bread, taking the bread (he said) this is my body, when therefore we pray for our daily bread, we desire to continue in Christ and never to be severed from his body. And against 
f Ter. l. 3. c. 19 Pa●…m carpus suum appellans ut hinc eum intelligas corpor●… sui siguram pani dedisse. Et s●…q. l. 4. c 4●…. cont. Marcionem. Cur autem panem corpus suum appellat & non magis peponem, qu●…m Marcion cordis loco habuit, non intelligens veterem fuisse illam siguram corporis Christi.  Martion, So God revealed in your Gospel, calling bread his body. And again, why doth he call bread his body, etc. But I assume bread cannot be Christ's body in the proper sense; because desperate substances cannot properly be predicated one of the other, therefore when Christ spoke these words, This is my Body, which Tertullian constantly and perpetually silleth up thus, this bread is my body, he used a Metonymy, called signatum pro signo, or figuratum pro figura, which quite overthroweth your carnal presence, and beateth you out of your strongest fort, the words of Christ's holy institution which you would have to be taken according to the letter. Thus you see Tertullian is clearly against you, and you are foiled in the first argument.   

PAR. 10.  
Thirty three allegations out of S. Austin against Transubstantiation vindicated, and all objections made by the adversary out of him answered.  
SO are you also in the second which you propound amiss. Saint Austin in his third book, de doctrina Christiana saith that speech of our Saviour, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, john the 6. etc. is figurative, therefore the other, this is my body, is so too, Quem recitas meus est o Fidentine libellus Sed malè dum recitas incipit esse tuus. The argument was mine, but by your misreporting it and mis-applying the consequent to the antecedent, you make it yours. Thus I connected this argument to the former: there are two Texts in the Gospel, upon which you rely, either principally, or only for your carnal presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament under the forms of bread and wine. The former, Mat. 26. 26. I have proved out of Tertullian, yields your doctrine no support, and you are driven in effect to confess as much, subscribing with your own hand, Ego agnosco quod in his verbis (hoc est corpus meum) est figura, I acknowledge the words of Institution to be figurative. Now I will prove that in like manner the words of our Saviour, john 6. 53. are to be taken in a figurative and improper sense, and consequently that the proper eating Christ's flesh with the mouth, cannot be inferred from them.  
For proof of the antecedent, I produced in the first place a passage out of Saint 
a Si autem flagitium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 facinus videtur 〈◊〉 bear, aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam v●…tare figurata est. Nisi manducaveritis carnem filij hominis, & sanguinem biberitis non habelitis vitam 〈◊〉 vobu, facinus vel flaginum videtur i●…bere; Figura est ergo pracipien●… Passioni Domini esse communicandum, & suaviter atque utiliter recondendum in memoria quod pro nobis caro cius crucifixa, & vulnerata sit.  Augustine's third book, de doctrinâ Christianâ, cap. 16. But if that Scripture seem to command a sin, or an horrible wickedness, or to forbid any thing that is good and profitable, the speech is figurative: for example, (when he saith) unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you, he seemeth to command a sin or horrible wickedness; there is a figure therefore (in the words) commanding us to communicate with the Lord his Passion, and sweetly & profitably to lay it up in our memory, That his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. Here said I three things are very remarkable to the point now in question.  
1. That Saint Austin maketh choice of these words of our Saviour, as of a most known instance of a figurative speech.  
2. That he not only affirmeth it to be a figurative speech, but confirmeth it also by a strong argument, figura est, Ergo it is therefore a figure.  
3. That he showeth what figure it is, end expoundeth the meaning of our Saviour in this figurative speech, conformably to the doctrine of the Protestants, and contrary to all Romish glosses upon it.  
To this allegation you answered, partly by glancing at Saint Augustine's argument, partly by glozing upon his conlusion. First said you, it is not a horrible thing to eat man's flesh, unless it be eaten in the proper shape, for it appears in Mumme that man's flesh may be eaten without horror, when it is not eaten in the proper shape. Secondly, you distinguished of a figurative speech according to the thing eaten, and according to the manner of eating it, and said that the speech of Christ, john 6. according to Saint Austin was figurative, according to the manner of eating, to wit in the proper form, but that it was proper according to the matter (viz.) the substance of Christ's flesh.  
1. Against your first answer to Saint Augustine's antecedent, I reply. 
1. That whereas you pretend Saint Austin to be for you, you should not have disabled his argument, but have defended it rather. Now you evidently overthrow it. For if it be not a horrible thing to eat man's flesh, though under an other shape, Saint Augustine's Ergo therefore, our Saviour's speech concerning eating his flesh must needs be figurative, is a plain non sequitur.  
2. Saint 
b Cyril ad object. Theod. in expos. a●…ath 11. Num hominis comeftionem hoc Sacramentum pronuncias?  Cyril maketh good this argument of Saint Augustine's, choking his adversary with this interrogatory. Dost thou pronounce the Sacrament to be a man eating, and dost thou irreligiously urge the minds of the faithful to gross and carnal imaginations? You would have instructed Saint Cyril to have interrogated more warily, dost thou pronounce the Sacrament to be the eating of a man in his proper shape? Otherwise to eat a man under an other shape (you would have whispered him in the ear) is a school delicacy, no carnal and gross imagination.  
3. I affirm that it is an horrible thing to eat man's flesh, and drink his blood though in an other shape; for it is not the disregard of the countenance of man, or the disfiguring his shape, which makes anthropophagy or man eating so horrible a sin: but the making the flesh of one man the food of another, and the belly a sepulchre. This I make appear by four instances.  
1. Suppose at Rome or Venice on the day of your carnivals', when many murders are committed by men in disguised habits, that one of the maskers or mummers slain, should be boiled or roasted, and served in at table, in the habit of a whiffler, or masquer, were it not a horrible wickedness think you to eat of this man's flesh, his head for example though with a vizard upon it, and so I return you a mummer for your mum.  
2. If according to justins' story, or Ovid's fiction, the members of a son were baked in a pie, in the likeness of venison, with the proportion of a Deer printed on the crust, were it not a horrible wickedness for a Father to eat wittingly of his son's flesh, though under another shape.  
3. What though a man's body in some fight were so mangled, and battered, that it had lost all humane shape, would you warrant an Indian to eat this man's flesh, or excuse him from an horrible crime if he should eat it, because it was not in propriâ specie?  
4. Did you live among the lycanthropy, men in the shape of wolves, or meet with witches who delude the senses, and take upon them the shape of a pig, or coney, or goat, would you preach it for good doctrine, that a man might eat wittingly the flesh of any of these while it remained sub alienâ specie. As,  
For the argument you take not from any topic place, but from the Apothecary's shop, I mean your instance in Mumme, I wish you some better drug of theirs, I mean some strong confection of Helleborum to purge your brain. For our question is not of the medicinal use of man's flesh, altered by art, but whether it be not a fin, and that a horrible one, to eat with the mouth and teeth the flesh of a known man, nay of the Son of God.   
2. Against your second answer to Saint Augustine's conclusion, I replied 
1. That Saint Austin by figura, meant such a figure as excludes the native and proper sense of the words. His words are immediately going before those I cited, si autem hoc jam propriè sonat nulla putetur figurata locutio, if it be taken in the proper sense let it be accounted no figure.  
2. Saint Austin speaks of such a speech which can in no wise be taken properly, such a speech, to wit, where a virtue is forbidden, or a vice commanded, and in this very Chapter he instanceth in Romans the 12. 20. Thou shalt heap coals of fire upon thine enemy's head. In which words, because the Apostle seemed to command an evil act, Saint Austin infers, ne igitur dubitaveris figuratè dictum, Doubt not therefore but that it is spoken by a figure. If a speech commanding a sin, or forbidding a virtue, might be taken in the proper sense, hence it would follow, that it should be lawful to sin, because expressly commanded by God, and sinful to exercise some act of piety, or charity because forbidden by him. And here your Lordship touched the second time at Hercules Columna Non plus.  
3. Whereas you say that Saint Austin by sigura meant a figure mixed of a sigurative and proper speech, dato & non concesso, supposing for a while that there might be such a figure; I desire you to observe that Saint Austin speaks here of no such figure, but of a speech merely figurative. For he declares that the meaning of the figure is, that we ought to partake of Christ's sufferings, and remember his 
c Figura praecipiens Passioni Domini esse communicandum & suaviter ae utiliter recondendum in memoriâ quod pro nobis caro cius crucifixa & vulnerata sit.  death. Now to compassionate Christ, or to partake with him in his sufferings, or remember his death, is not to eat his flesh in any proper sense at all.  
4. Of one simple categorical proposition, there can be but one true sense. And this sense cannot be figurative and proper, but either the one, or the other for proper and figurative are proper and improper, borrowed and not borrowed, which cannot be affirmed de eodem.   
I conclude with Saint 
d Austin l. 3 do doc. Christ. c. 5. In principio cavendum est ne figuratam locutionem ad literam accipias, ad hoc enim pertiue●… quod ait Apostolus, litera occidit spiritus autem vivificat. Cum enim figuratè dictum sit accipitur tanquam propriè dictum sit, carnaliter sapitur, neque ulla mors animae congruemiùs appellatur.  Austin his own words. The first thing that you must beware is this, that you take not a figurative speech according to the letter, to that belongeth the Apostles admonition, the letter killeth, the spirit quickeneth. For when we take that which is flguratively spoken as if it were proporly spoken, it is a carnal sense, neither is any thing more rightly termed the death of the soul than it.  
Here S. E. puts a great deal of varnish upon a rotten post, he tells us of a mingled colour, and a garment of motley, and distinguisheth of a mere figure, and of a figure which hath the truth joined with it; in fine he allegeth what Tapper, and Allen, Suarez, Gordon, and Pittigarus have confessed upon the rack of our arguments concerning a figure in the words of the institution.  
But one sad shower of rain will wash away all this his varnish.  
1. To his demand, Why not a mixed figure, as well as a mixed colour. I answer, because the opposition betwixt colours is inter contrarios terminos, contrary terms which admit a medium, but the opposition between figurative and proper, is between contradictory terms which admit of no medium. Wherefore although there may be a mixed colour of white and black, and a mixed temper of hot and cold, and a mixed sauce of sweet and sour, and a twilight between day and night, because these are mediate contraries: yet there cannot be a mixed element, or a mixed truth, or a mixed figure; because simple and compound, true and false, proper and figurative (that is improper) stand upon flat terms of contradiction.  
2. His distinction of a figure which is a mere figure, and of a figure which is not a mere figure but hath the verity joined with it, wherewith he goes about to solder the bracks and flaws in your leaden discourse, is altogether impertinent. For the question between me and you, was of tropes, not of types, of verbal figures, not real: of rhetorical, such as Metaphors and Metonymies and the like are, not of physical or natural figures, if speech be of the latter kind of figures, I deny not but that such a difference among them may be observed. Some of them are mere figures and representations, as Philip's picture or image, some are more, as Alexander, Philip his son. Sacraments are according to this acception of figures, not mere figures, nor bare signs, as is showed at large in the former Paragraph, for they do not only signify, but also really exhibit, and are effectual means to convey unto us those spiritual blessings and graces whereof they are signs and symbols. But if the speech be of figures in words or sentences, such as all grammatical and rhetorical figures are, I say that all such figures are mere figures, every Metaphor is a mere Metaphor, every metonomy a mere metonomy, every Allegory a mere Allegory, every Irony a mere Irony, every Solecism a mere Solecism, neither can any instance be given to the contrary.  
But because S. E. hath felt M. Waferer his feriler for his error in Rhetoric, I leave him to con better his Susenbrotus, and I return to your Lordship, who persuade yourself that Saint Austin favoureth your carnal presence, because he saith, We receive with faithful heart 
l. 〈◊〉. con. adv●…rs. leg. c. 9  and mouth, the Mediator of God and Man, the Man Christ jesus giving us 
In Psal 33.  his body to be eaten and his blood to be drunk; and again, he bore himself in 
l. 9 conf. c. 13  his own hands, when commending his body, he said, This is my Body; and again, she only desired to be remembered at thine Altar, whence she knew the holy host was dispensed, whereby the hand writing against us is canceled; and yet 
Tract. 59 in johan.  again, The Disciples and judas ate both: they bread the Lord, he the bread of the Lord against the Lord; and yet again, Christ suffered judas that devil 
Epsti. 162.  and thief, to receive amongst the innocent 
Serm. ad Neophy. hic accipite in pane quod pependit in cruse, hic accipite in chalice quod manavit de Christi la●…re.  Disciples the price of our redemption; and lastly, here receive you that in the bread which hung upon the Cross, here receive you that in the cup which flowed out of Christ's side.  
To all which allegations, though I might shape one answer out of Saint 
a Epist. ad. Bonifacium. Si Sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum Sacramenta sum non haberent, omnino Sacramenta non essent, ex hac autem similitudino plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipium. Et quest. S●…p. Levit. 57 Solet res quae significat cius rei nomine quam significat nuncupari, hinc quod dictum est, Petra era; Christus, etc.  I Augustine's own words, That in regard of the similitude between the sign: and the things signified, it is usual in Sacramental speeches, to attribute the name of the thing signified to the sign: So the Lamb is called the Passeover, Circumcision the Covenant, the Rock Christ, the Bread his Body, and the Wine his Blood and price of our Redemption. With this one brush reached unto me by Saint Austin, I might whiten all the walls you point unto: yet partly out of respect to yourself, but especially to S. Austin, I will take special notice of every place and passage above mentioned.  
Your first allegation is like a leaden 
Rep. ad 1.  sword, it boweth either way; for as you bow it towards you by urging that Saint Austin must needs speak of corporal and proper eating, because he addeth the words with the mouth: so I may as easily bow it the contrary way by arguing that he must needs speak of spiritual eating, because he addeth with a faithful heart. As the mouth cannot receive Christ spiritually, so neither can the heart receive Christ corporally. Saint Austin therefore as he speaks there of a double organ, the heart and the mouth '; so he speaketh also of a double eating, Spiritually and Sacramentally, and the meaning of the whole sentence is this, we receive with a faithful heart spiritually, and with the mouth Sacramentally, the Body and Blood of the Mediator betwixt God and Man, the Man Christ Jesus.  
Your second allegation is like Sir 
Rep. ad 〈◊〉  Philip Sidneys' emblem which was the word hope, written in large golden characters, but dashed through with a pen. When Saint Austin uttered these words, a man may be carried in another man's hands, but no man is carried in his 
* S. Aug. Ser. 33. de v●…rb Dom. Panem quem Dominus gestavit in manibus. It was not then his very body, but the Sacrament thereof which he carried in his hands.  own hands: we find not how it can be understood of David, but we find how it may be understood of Christ, for he carried his Body in his own hands, when he said, This is my body: he gave you great hope that he was strong for your carnal presence, but when 
b Convio. 2. in Psal. 33. Accepit in manus suas quod norunt fideles, & ipse se portabat quodammodo. cum diceret hoc est corpus meum.  afterwards resuming his former words, he thus glosseth upon them, when he commended his Body and Blood he took into his hands that which the faithful know, and he carried himself after a sort when he said, This is my Body. He dasheth all your hope, for he expoundeth quodammodo as Gratian teacheth you out of his 23. Ep. ad Bonifac. non rei veritate, sed significante mysterio, not in the truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery, the 3. consect. dist. 2.  
Your third allegation hurteth us not 
Rep. ad 3.  at all, for we acknowledge both as Altar and an Host in the Father's sense●… to wit, mystical or representative, in memory of that one most proper Host and sacrifice offered once for all upon the Cross for the crossing of the hand writing against us, though we cannot allow of your Mass, Altar and Host, wherein Christ existing on earth, and covered with the forms of Bread and Wine, is said in his very substance by you, not Saint Austin to be offered up to God his Father.  
Your fourth allegation out of the 59 tract upon john, is like Dido her 
Rep. ad 4.  sword, wherewith she ran herself 
Rep. ad 4.  through, 
Non hos quaesitum munus in usus  For if the other Apostles who brought Faith and Repentance with them, received bread, the Lord, but Judas who brought neither, received panem Domini only, not panem Dominum, not bread which was the Lord, two things hereupon necessarily ensue. First, that none can receive Christ the Lord, or panem Dominum without faith. Secondly, that bread is not turned into Christ's body, for then judas could not receive panem Domini, but he must needs have riceived panem Dominum.  
Your fifth allegation out of the 162. Epist. of Saint Austin is already answered, 
Rep, ad 5.  that Saint Austin called the wine which judas received, Christ's blood and the price of our redemption; because it was the Sacrament thereof, so he expoundeth himself in the words following, 
a Sacramentum corporis & sanguinis sui ipso non exclus●… comr●…uniter omnibus dedit. Rep. ad 6.  He gave the Sacrament of his Body and Blood in common to all his Disciples, not excluding Judas.  
Your sixth and last allegation is like a piece of coin, full weight, but of counterfeit mettle: the Sermon ad Neophytos is not Saint Augustine's as your Parisians note, neither are there in it any such words as you quote.  
By this time you perceive that your few allegations out of Saint Austin are partly forged, partly forced, and yet come not home to your carnal presence by Transubstantiation, whereas on the contrary, the testimonies we produce out of Saint Austin are very many, and those most undoubted, free, clear, and pregnant, for the doctrine of our 
b Artic. of Religion. 28.  Church concerning the body of Christ given taken and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner, by faith, I reduce them all to six heads.  

1. The conveniency between the Sacraments of the Old and New Testament.  
2. The difference between the sign and the thing signified.  
3. The figurative sense of Christ's words.  
4. The true Communicants at Christ's Table.  
5. The necessary dependence of accidents on their subjects.  
6. The limitation of Christ's humane body to one place at once.   
Touching the first. 
If the Fathers under the 
(viz.) ●…he conveniency between the Sacraments of the Old and New Testaments.  Law, and we under the Gospel in the Sacrament, receive the same thing in truth, and substance; it followeth that we receive not Christ's flesh with the mouth after a carnal manner, but only by faith after a spiritual: for before Christ's Incarnation, the Fathers could no otherwise receive it.  
But the Fathers under the Law in their Sacraments, and we under the Gospel in ours receive the same thing in truth and substance, as Saint 
a De utilitate penit, Eundem cibum spiritualem manducaverunt, quid est eundem nisi quod eum quem etiam nos.  Austin teacheth, they did eat the same spiritual meat. What is the same? the self same with us. And in his 26 
b In signi●… diversa sunt sed in requae significatur paria sunt: audi Apostolum, omnes eandem escam spiritalem manducaverunt, spiritalem uti●… eandem, nam corporalem alter an●….  Treatise upon the 6. of Saint john, Manna signified this bread, their Sacraments and ours were diverse in the signs; but equal in the thing signified: hear the Apostle, I would not (saith he) have you ignorant how that all our Fathers were under the cloud, and al●… passed through the Sea, an●… did all eat the same spiritual meat; Mark the sa●… spiritual meat. For the●… ate not the same corpor●… meat, they ate Mann●… we eat another thing; b●… they ate the same spiritu●… meat which we eat, and they all drank the same spiritual drink, they 
c Aliud illi, aliud no●…sed specie visibili, quod tamen hoc idem significare●… virtu●… spiritals.  drank one thing, and we another, according to outward appearance or in visible form, which yet signified the self same thing in spiritual virtue. How did they drink the same spiritual drink? He telleth, they drank of the spiritual Rock which followed them, which Rock was Christ.  
Ergo according to Saint Austin we eat not Christ's flesh in the Sacrament with the mouth, after a carnal manner, but only by faith after a spiritual.   
Touching the second. 
No sign, Sacrament, figure, or memorial of Christ's 
(viz.) The difference between the sign and the thing signified.  body and blood is his very body and blood: for signum & signatum, the sign, and the thing signified, the type and the truth are relatively opposed; and therefore no more can the one be the other, than the Father be the Son, or the Master the Servant, or the Prince the Subject, or the Husband the Wife; in so much that Saint 
a Chrys. Homil. gen. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Chrysostome concludeth, that Melchizedeck could not be a Type of Christ if all things incident to the truth, that is, Christ himself, were found in him. And Saint 
b Austin de consecrat. dist. 2. cap. Hoc. est.  Austin apparently distinguisheth between Sacramentum and rem Sacramenti, and affirmeth that every sign signifieth something else then itself. And that it is a miserable 
c De doct. Chris. l. 3. c. 5. Miserabilis animae servitus est signa pro rebus accipere  servitude of the soul to tak●… 
c Con. Maximin. l. 2. c. 22 Sacramenta quoniam signa sunt rer●…m aliud ex●…stant, a●…iud significant.  the signs for the thing themselves. For the sign of truths are one thing 〈◊〉 themselves, and signify an●…ther. They are visib●… 
d August. de Catech●…. rudibus. Si●…nacula visi bili●… sed re●… invisibiles in iis honorantur.  Seales but things invisible are honoured in them.  
But that which we take at the Lords Table is a 
e Aug●…n Psal 98. Sacramentum aliquod ●…obis comm●… davi spiritualiter intellectum ut visicab●… vos.  Mystery, a 
f Detrin l. 3. c 4 Pos●…t tamen significando praedicare D●…minum jesum Christum aliter per 〈◊〉 guam suam aliter per Epistolam, aliter per Sacramentum corpor●… 〈◊〉 sanguinis eius.  Sacrament, a 
g Contra Adimantum c. 12. Non dubitavit dicere Hoc est corpus m●… vid. in fr. cum daret signum corporis sui.  Sign, a 
h Aug in Psal. 3. Eum (judam) adhibuit ad convivi●…m in quo cor poris & sanguinis sui figuram Discipulis commendavit & tradid●….  Figure, a 
i Contra Faust. l. 20. c. 21. Garo Domini promissa fuit nobis in 〈◊〉 Testamento in similitudine victimarum, in cr●…cere ipsa suit exhibit●…, ●…s Sacramento autem celebratur per memoriam.  Memorial of Christ's Body and Blood.  
Ergo that which we receive in the Lord's Supper, is not the very Body and Blood of Christ after your sense.   
Touching the third. 
If the words which our 
(viz.) The sig●…e sense of Christ's w●….  Saviour spoke concerning the eating of his flesh, and drinking his blood, recorded by the four Evangelists, and Saint Paul, are to be taken Sacramentally, Spiritually and Figuratively, and not in the proper sense which the letter carrieth, nothing can be from them concluded for the eating the very flesh of Christ with the mouth, for so to eat the flesh of Christ, is to eat it corporally, not Sacramentally, carnally, not spiritually; properly, not figuratively▪ whereas to believe in Christ's Incarnation, to be partaker of the benefits of his Passion, to abide in him, and to be preserved in body and soul to eternal life (which are the interpretations Saint Austin giveth) is not to eat Christ flesh properly, but only in an allegorical sense.  
But the words which our Saviour spoke concerning the eating of his flesh, in the judgement of Sai●… Austin, are to be taken Sacramentally, Spiritually▪ and figuratively. For the words which our Saviour spoke of this argument, are either the words of the institution related by the three Evangelists, and Saint Paul; or they are set down by Saint john, Chap. 6. The former Saint Austin affirmeth to b●… 〈◊〉 sp●…lly●…d ●…d Sacramentally, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 book against 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 12 and in his Commentary upon the 98. Psalm, and in his 23. Epist. to Boniface, and in his 33. Sermon upon the words of ou●… Lord: the latter he expoundeth in like sort figurative●…y, in his 3. book the doct. Christi, c. 16. in his 2. Sermon of the words of the Apostle, and in his 33. Sermon de verbis Dom. And in his 25. and 26. Tractats upon Saint john. All these passages are well known to the Learned, and although you cast a mist before some of them, yet it will easily be dispelled, and the beams of truth in this holy Father's Writings discover themselves so clearly, that they will dazzle all your eyes. What words can be more conspicuous than those of this 
a Austin c●…nt. Adim●… c. 12. Dominus non dubita●… it dicere, Hoc est corpus meum cum daret signum corporis sui.  Father. I coul●… interpret that precept of not eating blood figuratively, understanding by blood that which it figureth, for our Lord doubted not to say, This is my Body, when he gave the sign of his body. Here the antecedents possem dicere 
I might say the precept is figurative He made no scruple to say, This is my body, when he gave the sign thereof.  hoc praeceptum in figurâ positum esse, and the words non dubitavit, clearly demonstrate Saint Augustine's meaning to be: that though it might seem harsh to call the bread which is a sign of Christ's body, his body, as the blood of a beast slain the soul, yet by a figure Christ made no scruple so to term it. Doubtless the blood of any beast slain is neither properly the soul of that beast, nor a sign of a soul present in it: no more by Saint Augustine's comparing (these Texts together) is bread Christ's body, nor a sign of his body present in it, but only a Sacrament and memorial thereof. The next passage is as 
b In Psal. 98. Spiritaliter intelligite quod loc●…us sum: non hoc cor▪ pus quod videtis man du●…aturi est is, & bibit●…ri illum s●…guinem quem s●…suri sunt q●… me crucisige●…t, Sacramenti●… 〈◊〉 quod ●…obis commen●… 〈◊〉 spirit●…ter int●…ctum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  clear. You are not to eat that body which you see, nor to drink that blood which they will shed who crucify me, I have commended unto you a certain Sacrament (or mystery) which being spiritually understood will quicken you. And although it ought to be celebrated visibly, yet it oug●…t to be understood invisib●…. Put the parts of the sentence together, and the meaning of the whole will be evidently this, that which you are to eat, and drink, is not my very body which you now see, and the Jews shall pierce, and crucify but a visible Sacrament thereof. Which yet received with faith in my bloody death, through the power of the Spirit shall quicken you. If there could be any obscurity in this passage it is cleared in the 
c Epist. 23. ad Bonif. Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum Sacramentum corporis Christi, corp●…s Christi est, Sacrament●… sanguinis Christi, sanguis Christi est, ita Sacramentum fidei ●…des est, si enim Sacramenta quan●…am similitudinem earum rerum quarum Sacramenta sunt non haberent, omnino Sacramenta non essent.  next. When Easter is near (saith he) we say tomorrow or the day following Christ suffered, whereas he suffered but once, and that many years ago: so we say on the Lord's day, this day the Lor●… rose, whereas many yeare●… are past since he rose, why is no man so foolish as 〈◊〉 charge us with a lie in s●… speaking, but because we●… call these days according 〈◊〉 the similitude of those days in which these things were done, and say th●…s is such a day, which is not that day, but in the revolution of time is like unto it, and that is said to be done that day, by reason of the celebration or mystery of the Sacrament, which was not done that day but long before. Was not Christ once offered in himself? and yet in the Sacrament he is not only offered at Easter, but every day, neither doth he lie who being asked shall answer that he is offered. For if Sacraments had not a resemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments, they should not be Sacraments at all. Now in regard of this resemblance, for the most part they take the name of the things themselves. As therefore the Sacrament of Christ's body after a sort is Christ's body, the Sacrament of his blood is his blood: so the Sacrament of faith (he means there Baptsime) is faith. But I assume Good-Friday last passed was not the very day of Christ's Passion, nor the last Lord's day, the day of his Resurrection, nor the celebration of the Sacrament the very offering of Christ on the Cross, nor Baptism the very habit or doctrine of faith, but so termed only by a figure, to wit, a Metonymy, therefore neither is that of which Christ said, This is my Body, his body in propriety of speech; but only so termed by a figure, because it is the Sacrament, and resemblance of his body. For all these speeches Saint Austin in this Epistle makes to be like. I know not what can be more plain, except the words of the same 
a Serm. 33. de verbis Dom. caenam manibus suis ●…onsecratam Discipulis dedit, sed nos 〈◊〉 illo convivio non discubiamus, & tamen ip●…m caenam 〈◊〉 quotidie ●…anducamus  Father, Christ gave the Supper, consecrated with his own hands to his Disciples, we sat not together with him in that banquet, and yet we eat daily the self same Supper by faith. Eating by faith is not eating by the mouth, for faith is of things 
Heb. 11. 1.  not seen, what we eat with the mouth, is seen. You have heard what Saint Austin conceived of the words of the institution, and that his judgement was the same of the words of Christ, john the 6. It appears by these passages 
b Tract. 250 in Chap. 6. john. Us quid paras deutum & ventrem 〈◊〉 crede & manducasti.  ensuing. Why dost thou prepare thy teeth and thy belly, believe and thou hast eaten. To 
c Tract 26. in john. Qu●… manducat carnem meam, & bibit ●…cum sang●…mem in me manet: hoc est ergo manducare illam escam. & illum bibere potum, in Christo man●…e, & illuns man●…tem in se habere. ibid. Qui manducat intus non soris, qui maducat in cord, non qui premit dentibus.  eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood, is to abide in Christ, and to have Christ abiding in himself; and again, Christ speaketh of him who eats inwardly, not outwardly, he that feeds on him in the heart, not he which presseth him with his teeth. Prepare not therefore (saith he) thy 
d Ser●…. 33. de ver. D●…m. Noli parare fauces sed cor, inde commendata est ista cana, ecce credimus in Christum quem side ●…ccipimus.  chaps but thy heart. I omit the testimony out of the third book de doct. Christ. c. 16. figura est ergo, etc. because it hath been before fully discussed and I conclude out of all these joint allegations, like many stars i●… the same constellation.  
Ergo the words which our Saviour spoke concerning the eating of his fles●… in the words of the institution, and in the 6. of Ioh●… conclude nothing for the eating the very flesh o●… Christ corporally with the mouth.   
Touching the fourth. 
If none are true Communicants 
(viz) The true Communicants at Christ's Table.  at the Lord Table but true beleeve●… certainly the Bread and Wine are not turned into the very body and blood of Christ. Were they so▪ wicked men, hypocrites, and reprobates, who are sometimes present at the Lords Table, and receive the sacred Symbols with their mouth, must needs also eat Christ's very body; unless our Adversaries will feign a second Transubstantiation of Christ's body back again into bread, as soon as ever a wicked hand, lip, or tooth toucheth it: which as yet no Papist hath been so hardy as once to opine. For than they know we will come upon them with a new demand, by what operatory words of Christ is this second Transubstantiation wrought?  
But none are true Communicants at the Lords Table, or eat his very body but believers, who are also members of his body, in Saint 
a Aug. 〈◊〉 Civis. Dei. l. 21. c, 25. Non dicendum est e●… manducare corpus Christi qui non est in corpore Christi, & soli Catholici qui non solum Sacramento sed 〈◊〉 ipsâ manducaver●… corpus Christi, in ipso scilicet ●…ius corpore constit●…i.  Augustine's judgement, They are only Catholics and such who are set, or incorporated into Christ's body: who eat his body, not Sacramentally only, but in truth. For we must not say that he eats Christ's body who is not in his body. The wicked are in no sort to be said to eat Christ's body, because they are not members of his body, Christ himself when he saith, he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him, thereby showeth, what is truly and not 
b Ostendit quid sit non Sacramento tenus sed re verâ corpus Christi manducare.  Sacramentally only to eat Christ's body and drink his blood, and that no man eateth his body or drinketh his blood that abideth not in Christ, and Christ in him. And again he saith, he that 
c In Scent▪ 139. Qui discordat a Christo nec carnem ejus manducat nec sanguinem bibit, etiamsi tantae rei Sacramentum ad iudicium suae praesumptionis quotidiè indifferentur accipiat.  disagreeth from Christ, neither eateth his flesh nor drinketh his blood, though to his own condemnation, for his presumption he daily receive ind●…tly the Sacrament of so great a thing. He beats again upon the 
d De verb. Aposb Ser. 〈◊〉. Illud bibere quid est nisi viv●… manduca v●…am, bibe ●…isam, habebis ●…itam: 〈◊〉 autem ho●… eri●… id est vita ●…nicuique er●… corpus & sanguis Christi, si quod i●… Sacrament●… visibilitar 〈◊〉, in ipsâ verita●… spiritalite●… manduc●… spiritaliter bibatur.  same point, To eat Christ's body is to be refreshed, and so to be refreshed, that it never faileth whence thou art refreshed, to drink that (Christ's blood) what is it but to live? eat life, drink life, and thou shalt have life: but then, or upon this condition the Body and Blood of Christ shall be life to every one, if that which is eaten visibly in the Sacrament, be spiritually eaten and drunk in the truth itself. And the 
e Tract. 26. in joh. Hui●… rei Sacramentum id est unitatis corporis & sang●…inis Christi de mens●… dominicâ sismitur quibusdam ad vitam quibusdam ad exitium, res verò ipsa cujus Sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium qui cunque erit ejus particeps fuerit. ibid. Per hoc qui non manet in Christo, & in quo non manet Christus procul dubio non manducat spiritaliter carnem eius, nec bibit eius sanguinem, licet carnaliter, & visi●… litter premat dentibus Sacramentum corporis & sanguinis Christi.  Sacrament hereof that is of the unity of Christ's Body and Blood is taken at the Lords Table, by some to life, by others to destruction, but the thing itself whereof it is a Sacrament, (that 〈◊〉 Christ's body) is received by every one to life, and by none to destruction, whosoever is partaker thereof. For after Christ had said, he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life, he presently addeth, and I will raise him up at the last day. And a little after he expoundeth what it is to eat his body and drink his blood, Saying, he that eats my flesh and drinks my blood, abides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I in him; this is therefore to eat that fle●… and drink that drink for a man to abide in Christ, and to have Christ abiding 〈◊〉 him: and consequently, 〈◊〉 that abideth not in Christ nor Christ in him, withot doubt doth not eat his flesh, nor drink his blood spiritually, though carnally and visibly with his teeth he crusheth the Sacrament of Christ's body. I forbear to press here our allegation out of the 59 Tract upon john, concerning judas eating panem Domini, and not panem Dominum, (the bread of the Lord, not bread the Lord) because I have retorted it before upon S. E. and out of all these places I conclude.  
Ergo the Bread and Wine according to Saint Austin, after consecration are not the very body and blood of Christ. The Syllogism which hath been proposed at large, with frequent testimonies out of Saint Austin to confirm the Assumption, may be thus contracted.  

No wicked men, or reprobates eat Christ's body.  
Some wicked men and reprobates eat the bread after the consecration,  
Ergo the bread after the consecration is not Christ's body.    
Touching the fist. 
(viz.) The necessary dependence of accidents in their subjects  
Whosoever holdeth the doctrine of Transubstantiation believeth that accidents may subsist without their subjects. For Transubstantiation as your Church defineth, is a mutation or turning of the whole substance of bread into the whole substance of Christ's body, and the whole substance of the wine into the substance of Christ's blood, the accidents of bread and wine still remaining (viz.) The whiteness, thickness, roundness, and taste of the bread, the thinness, moisture, colour, and relish of the wine with the quantity of both. Their own subject being gone, where stick or inhere these accidents? in the air? or Christ's body? you cannot say either. For every accidental form denominateth the subject in which it is inherent, according to that axiom of Logic, quicquid in est in dicitur de. But neither Christ his body, nor the air is denominated by these accidents; neither the air nor Christ's body hath the colour, quantity, figure, or taste of bread or wine. Neither the air, nor Christ's body is white or round like a wafer, etc. It remaineth therefore that according to your tenet that these accidents remain in no subject.  
But Saint 
a Aug●…. de d●…m catig. 〈◊〉 est in sub●…ie in quod in a●…ro est, non 〈◊〉 pars quedum, neque sine eo in quo in●… potest unq●…m esse & post, 〈◊〉 est in subiec●… quod sine subjecto esse non potest.  Austin believed not that accidents can subfist without their subjects. For he defineth an accident to be that which is in a subject, not as a part thereof neither can it ever be without the subject: he 
b Epist. 57 Si moles ipsa corporis quantacunque vel qua●…tulacunque sit penitus auf●…ratur, qualitates esus 〈◊〉 erit, ubi 〈◊〉  expressly affirmeth, if the quantity or bulk of a body, be it bigger or lesser, be taken away, the qualities cannot have any subsistence. And in his 
c l. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 13. 〈◊〉 in subiecto est 〈◊〉 sub●… iect●… epsum non manet, manner non potest, & cui posse fieri videatur, ut id quod in subjecto est maneat ipso intereunte subjecto▪ monstrosum enim & a veritase alienissimum est ut id quod non esset nisi in ipso esset, etiam cum ip sum non fueris poss●… esse.  Soliloquies he hooteth at the contrary assertion as most absurd and monstrous. Who would deem it possible (saith he) that that which is in a subject should remain when the subject is taken away? it is a monstrous thing, and most repugnant to reason, that that which hath no being but in a subject, should yet be when the subject is not. That which you adore as a miracle, Saint Austin blesseth himself from as from a monster, and indeed it is a monstrous thing, and prodigious to hear of quantity and nothing big, or little: of whiteness in the Sacrament, and nothing white, thickness, and nothing thick; redness and nothing red; moisture, and nothing moist: it goeth beyond all the fictions in Ovid his Metamorphosis, to turn accidents into substance, and substance into accidents: to talk of mere accidents broken, eaten, digested and voided: to tell us of accidents putrified, and growing finwood, and mouldy and breeding vermin: of accidents frozen and congealed: nay of accidents not only subsisting by themselves, but also supporting substance, as when dirt sticks to the Sacrament through negligence, it having fallen to the ground; or when poison hath been put into it, wherewith 
d 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 ●…ip. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 Ignat us 〈◊〉 compe●…. hist.  Victor the third, and Henry the fourth of Luxenburg took their bane. It will not serve your turn here to fly to a miracle as 
e Eras adag. Homer. nube.  Homer when he is at a stand doth to a cloud. For S. 
f De Trinit. l. 3. c. 10. Honorem tanquam religiosa possunt habere, stuporem tanquam mira non possunt. As holy things the Sacraments are to be reverenced, not to be wondered at as things miraculous.  Austin ex professo denies the Sacraments to be miraculous. The Sacraments which are known of men, and administered by men, may have reverence as holy things, not admiration: we cannot be astonished at them, as at miracles. But your doctrine of Transubstantiation cannot be maintained without more miracles, than there are letters in the words of consecration, from whence I conclude,  
Ergo Saint Austin believed not the doctrine of Transubstantiation.   
Touching the sixth. 
Whosoever teacheth 
(viz.) The limitation of Christ's humane body to one place at once.  that Christ's body is confined to a certain place, and there is after the manner of other bodies with distinction of parts, overthroweth the doctrine of Transubstantiation. For your doctrine of Transubstantiation putteth Christ's body upon a Million of Altars at once, and teacheth that it is whole in the whole, and whole in every part of the host being there as invisible, so also indivisible.  
But Saint Austin teacheth that Christ's body is confined to one place at once; and is there after the manner of other bodies, with distinction of parts, or as the Logicians speak, parte extra partem. First in general he lays down this 
a l. de praedic, quant, lacus circundat quodcunque corpus.  rule; place compasseth every body, and 
b Epist. ad Volusia. Quantumcunque sit corpus sive quam tulumcunque corpuscul●… loci occupas spatiis cundemque locum sic implet 〈◊〉 nulla ejus parte ●…t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  how great or small soever a body be, it takes up some space of place: and so fills that place that it is whole in no one part of it. And take away saith he the spaces of places from bodies, and they will be no where, and because they will be no where, they will not be at all: and in the same 
c Ibid. loca suis molibus tenent ut distantibus spat iis simul esse non possunt.  Epistle, bodies so possess places with their bulk, that they cannot be●… together in distant spaces And 
d Nam ita distantibus partibus, quae simul esse non possunt quoniam suae quaeque spatia locorum tenent mineres minora, & maiora maiores, no●… potest esse in singulis quibusque partibus tota vel tanta: sed amplior est quamtitas in amplioribus partibus, brevior in brevioribus, & in nulla parte tanta quanta per torum  because the severa parts of them hold severa spaces of places, the less parts lesser, and the great greater, it cannot be who●… in each part: but there is larger quantity in large parts, and a shorter in t●… shorter, and in no part is th●… quantity so great as it through the whole. An in particular concerning Christ's body he affirmeth that the condition of a tr●… body requireth, that sin●… his Ascension it be placed is some 
e Ibid. Vbique torum praesentem esse non dubites tanquam Deum, & in loco aliquo coeli propter veri corporis modum.  certain place of th●… heaven, and that one one●… at once. Till the end of th●… world, the Lord is above and yet his truth is here wi●… us, for our Lord's body in which he rose from the dead must be in one 
f Aug. citat, a Great de co secrat. dist. 〈◊〉 c. 1 quidem Corpus eni●… Domini in quo resurrexit in 〈◊〉 loco esse oportet, ●…ritas autem eius ubique diffusa est.  place, his truth is every where. The 
g Aust. in Evangel. john. Tract. 50. Patoperes semper habebitis cobiscum, me autem non semper habebitis, accipiunt & hoc boni, sed non sint solliciti, loquebatu●… enim de praesentia corporis siti. N●… secundu●… maiostatem, si●…, secundu●… providentiam, secundum ineffabilem & invisibilem gratiaus impletur quod ab eo dictum est, ecce ego vobiscum sum usque in consummationem seculi. Christus etiam absens praesens est: abi●… & hic est: & redijt & no●… non deseruit, corpus enim suum intulit c●…, maiestatem non abstulit mundo.  poor you have always with you, but me you shall not have always: Let good men receive this saying without fear. For he spoke this of the presence of his body. For according to his providence, according to his unspeakable and visible grace, that is fulfilled which was spoken by him, Behold I am with you to the end of the world. Christ being absent yet is present, he is gone, and yet he is here, he is returned, and yet hath not forsaken us, for his body he hath brought into heaven, his Majesty he hath not taken from the world.  
Neither will your common answer hold water, that Christ's body naturally is but in one place, yet by miracle it may be, and is in so many thousand places at once, as the Sacrament is celebrated: for 1. We 
Excep. 1.  ought not to argue from the power of God to his will, but on the contrary, from his will to his power, whatsoever he will do he can do: but he can do many things which he never will. Prove that he will put his body in a 1000 places at once, and we will never contest with you about his power. 2. I before 
2.  showed you out of Saint Austin, that the Sacraments are to be reverenced as holy things, not to be admired as strange and marvellous: signs they are of grace, which are properly called mysteries; not signa potentiae, which are properly called miracles. The effect indeed of this Sacrament in the souls of the faithful, as also of the other is supernatural: yet as the Water in Baptism is not by miracle turned into Christ's blood: 
3.  so neither is the bread in the Lord's Supper by miracle turned into his body. 3. Saint Austin in this 50. Tract upon john, useth an argument like to that of the Angel, Mat. 286. He is not here for he is risen, Christ 
h Idem secundum carnem quam verbum assumpsit, etc. non semper habebitis vobiscum, quare, quia secundu●… corporis praesentiam quadraginta doebas conversatua est cum Discipulis suis & iis deducentibus ascendit in coelum & non est hic.  according to his flesh is not now with us, because he is ascended into heaven, which reason, if it hath any force at all, must imply and presuppose that Christ's body at the same time could not be in heaven, and upon earth. 4. This Father in his 20 book against 
i l. 20. c. 11. secundum praesentia●… corporalem simul & in sole & l●…â & cruse esse non possit.  Faustus the Manichees, concludeth not only that Christ's body was not in more places at once, but that it could not be. The Dilemma there he useth against them is this. When you Manichees believe that Christ was at once in the Sun, the Moon and the Cross, whether mean you according to his spiritual presence as God, or according to his corporal presence as man: if you speak of his spiritual presence, according to that he could not suffer those things; if of his corporal presence, according to it he could not be at once in the Sun, in the Moon and in the Crosse. Certainly if in Saint Augustine's judgement Christ's Body could not be in three places at once, it can much less be in three millions of places where Masses are said at the same hour, I conclude therefore this argument and this Chapter.  
Ergo Saint Austin overthroweth your carnal presence of Christ in the Sacrament by Transubstautiation.    

PAR. II.  
Twelve testimonies out of Origen against Transubstantiation vindicated, and all objections out of him answered.  
THe next ancient Doctor I claimed at the Conference for the doctrine of the reformed Churches, concerning the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, was 
a Orig in Leu. Hom. 〈◊〉. p. 141. S●… secundum literam sequaris he iy●…m quod dictum est nisi manducaveritis carnem meam & bibe●…itis sanguinem 〈◊〉 occidit hee litera.  Origen, who in his seventh Homily upon Leviticus, repeating those words of our Saviour, unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you, saith of them, if ye follow the letter, that letter killeth. To this allegation you answer; That Origen speaks according to the capernaitical letter, that is, according to the literal sense wherein the Capernaits did understand those words, who as Saint 
b In Psal. 4. & 98. etc. 6. john.  Austin and 
c De caena Dom.  Cyprian say, thought our Saviour would have cut off some pieces from his body and given them to eat, or that they were to eat it boiled or roasted.  
But 1. You should have observed that Origen saith not, if you follow the 
Rep. 1.  conceits of the Capernaits, but if you follow the letter of Christ, that is the sense, which the letter of his words carry. Now there is never a word, letter, or syllable in Christ's speech, which signifieth, or importeth boiling or roasting, cutting or mangling. These are but accidents to the eating of flesh, flesh may be eaten, and that in the most proper acception of the phrase, though it be neither boiled, or roasted, nor mangled. Whosoever takes flesh raw, or roasted, whole or cut, into his mouth, cheweth it with his teeth, and after conveigheth it into his stomach: truly and properly eateth that flesh. Thus you do in the Sacrament, if Pope Nicolas prescribe not a wrong form of recantation to Berengarius, yet extant in your Canon Law: ay 
d Grat. de consecrat. dist. 3. Ego Berengarius credo corpus Domini sonsual●…ter 〈◊〉 in veritate manibus sacerdotis tractars', frangi & fidelium dentibus atteri.  Berengarius do believe the body of our Lord jesus Christ to be sensually or sensibly and in truth handled by the hands of the Priest, broken and champt or torn in pieces by the teeth of the faithful.  
2. You should have cast back your eye to the precedent words of Origen, which make it evidently appear, that he listened not to your jews harp, nor took the tune from the Cap●…naits strain: but that his meaning was, that we ought to take the words of our Saviour in a spiritual and figurative sense, and not in the carnal and proper. For having related the words of those Jews in Saint john, how shall this man give us his flesh to eat? he turneth to his Christian auditors, saying, But you if you are Children of the Church, if you are instructed in the mysteries of the Gospel, if the Word which was made flesh dwell among you, acknowledge these things to be true which we say, because they are the words of the Lord. Acknowledge that there are 
e Ib. agnoscite, quia figurae sunt quae in divinis voluminibus scriptae sunt, & ideo tanquam spirituales & non tanquam carnales, examinate & intelligito quae dicuntur, si enim quasi carnales ista suscipitis laedant vos & non alunt, est enim & in Evangelio littera quae occidit.  figures in the Scriptures, and examine and understand those things that are spoken as spiritual men not as carnal, for if you take these things as carnal, they will hurt you and not nourish you: for there is a letter that killeth in the Gospel as well as in the Law, there is a letter in the Gospel which killeth him that understandeth it not spiritually, and then follow the words above alleged. For if thou follow the letter in these words, unless ye eat my flesh and drink my blood, the letter killeth.  
Thus having freed this passage, I might proceed to the examination of your next Section, yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as before I have done in Tertullian and Saint Austin, so I will now clear other places in this Father's Works, and prove him to be a thorough man for us every where. I will follow the order of his books in the edition at Basil, that you may speedily with a wet finger turn to every cotation.  
First, cast I pray you a look to his ninth 
f Hom. 9 in Leu. Non haereas in sanguine carnis, sed disce potius sanguinem verbi, & audi ipsum tibi dicentem, hic sanguis mens est qui pro vobu effunditur in remissionem peccatorum.  Homily; Thou who art come to Christ the true Priest, who by his blood hath reconciled thee to his Father, stick not in the blood of the flesh, but learn rather the blood of the Word, and hear him saying to thee, This is my blood which is shed for you for the remission of sins. He who is instructed in the mystery of the Sacraments, knoweth both the flesh and blood of the Word of God. You who press the letter and urge the carnal eating of the flesh of Christ with the mouth, stick in the blood of the flesh, but we who feed on Christ by faith, receive the blood of the Word, and eat the flesh and blood of the Word of God in our heart according to Origens' wholesome advice.  
Secondly, in his 16 Homily upon 
g Bibere dicimur sanguinem Christi nonsolum Sacra●…●…ritu, sed & cum sermones eius 〈◊〉 pi●…us in quibus vita consistit.  Numbers, there is a passage parallel to this, Who can eat flesh and drink blood? he answereth, the Christian people, the faithful hear these words, and embrace them, unless ye eat my flesh and drink my blood ye have no life in you, because my flesh is meat indeed, He that spoke this was wounded for our sins, and we are said to drink his blood, not only in the rite of the Sacrament, (when we drink of the consecrated cup) but also when we receive his sayings, in which life consisteth, as himself saith, 
I. b. quis est iste populus qui in usu habet sanguinem bibe●…e, populus fidelis, populus Christianus audit has, complectit eum qui dicit nisi manducaveritis carnem filij hominis.  the words which I have spoken unto you are spirit and life, and a little after he concludeth, thou therefore art the true people of Israel, which knowest how to eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Word of God. In this passage, with one blow he cuts off both your carnal manducation, and your half communion, the people as you hear drink of the blood of Christ both in the Sacrament and out of it, but how? with the mouth? nay but by faith, therefore he saith, not that all Christian people drink it, but populus fidelis, the people that hath faith in his words, and by receiving his sayings drink his blood, both at the communion and at other times in hearing and reading the Word.  
Thirdly, he is constant in this his figurative and spiritual interpretation of the words of our Saviour in the 6. of john, for in his 23 Homily upon the book of 
h Hom. in Num. c. 28. Hom. 23. judaei carnali sensu comedunt carnis Agni, nos autem comedamus carnem verbi Dei, ipse en●…m dixit nisi comederitis carnes meas non hab●…bitis vitam in vobis, hoc quod modo loqu mur carne●… sunt 〈◊〉 Dei.  Numbers, he harpeth upon the same string, Christ our Passeoveris offered for us, let the jews in a carnal sense eat the flesh of a Lamb, but let us eat the flesh of the Word of God, for he saith unless ye eat my flesh ye have no life in you, this that 〈◊〉 now speak is the flesh of the Word of God. If you can eat words with your mouth, and chew them with your teeth, you may in Origens' judgemen eat the flesh of Christ with your mouth: but if you cannot do that, then according to our English proverbial speech, eat your own words, and retract your gross and carnal assertion.  
Fourthly, I press you with a most material and considerable passage in 
i In Mat. c. 15. Ille cibu●… q●… sanctificatur per verbism Dei perque obsecrationem, juxta id quod habet materiale in ventrens abit, & in secessum eijcitur, caeterum iuxta precationem quae ills accessit Prop●…ne fidei fit utilis, efficiens ut perspicax siat animus spect●… ad id 〈◊〉 ●…ile est: nec mat●…a panis, sed super illum dictus 〈◊〉 est 〈◊〉 prode●… non indignè Domino comedenti illum. E●… h●…c qui●… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 symbolicoque corpo●…e Multa porro & de ipso verb●… 〈◊〉 q●…d factum est c●…ro verusque cibu●… qu●…m qui cum ede●…it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in aeternum quem nullus malus potest edere.  Origen concerning the matter of bread, which he calleth the typical and symbolical body of Christ, and saith, it goeth into the belly and is cast out in the draught; but for Christ himself, and his flesh, he saith, that it is the true meat, which whosoever eats shall live for ever, which no wicked man can eat. I am sure wicked men can and do eat of the bread after consecration: it is not then in Origens' judgement Christ's flesh. I pray also resolve me what is that S. Origen calls the matter of bread which he terms Christ's typical and symbolical body, and saith it goeth into the belly, etc. you dare not say Christ's body. For it is blasphemy in the highest degree, to say that his glorified body passeth through the guts and is cast out into the draught: Substance of bread you say there is none, and to call accidents a body and the matter or material part of bread, is as absurd in speech as it is in sense, that a man can void tastes, and colours, and figures without substance.  
Fiftly, I allege against you in the same Commentary upon Saint Matthew, his interpretation of the words of the 
k In Mat. Tract. 35. Edite, ●…oc est corpus meum, panis iste quem Deus verbum corpus suum esse fatetur, verbum est nutritorium animarum, & potus iste quem Deus verbum sanguinem suu●… fatetur verbum est ●…tans & ●…nebrians ●…orda biben●…um.  institution, which can no way stand with your doctrine of Transubstantiation, Take eat saith he, This is my body, the bread which God the Word saith to be his body, is the Word which nourisheth the soul, the Word which proceeds from God's mouth by which man liveth, bread, the heavenly bread which is set upon that Table, of which it is written. Thou hast prepared a table before me. And the drink which God the Word calls his blood, is the Word making glad the hearts of the drinkers. Mark I beseech you, he saith that Christ calleth bread his body, which he could not but by a trope or figure, sith bread and his body are substantiae disparatae, substances of diverse kinds, which cannot in truth and propriety of speech one be called the other. Secondly, he saith that this bread is the food of souls, and this drink refresheth and maketh glad the hearts of them that drink: it is the food of souls, not bodies, and the drink of the heart, not of the mouth, if we believe this Father.  
Sixtly, I retort your own allegation against you, out of the fifth 
l In diverse, loc. Evangal. Home 5▪ Intrat & nunc Domi●… sub ●…ectum credemium dupl●…ci figur●… ve●…more, etc.  Homily. The Lord (saith he) even now comes under the roof of Believers two manner of ways: The one when thou entertainest into thy house the Governors or Pastors of the Church, for by them the Lord enters into thy house, and by them thou becommest his Host. The other manner is, when thou takest that holy and uncorrupted banquet, when thou dost enjoy the bread and cup of life, eatest and drinkest the body and blood of our Lord, than our Lord doth enter under thy roof, wherefore humbling thyself imitate the Centurion, and say, Lord I am not worthy that thou come under my roof. Observe I pray you as before, that the faithful enjoy the cup of life as well as the bread, whereof you utterly deprive them, and that by roof he means the heart which entertains Christ, not the mouth. That which S. E. addeth (suppose the soul be wicked, this Author saith Christ goeth In) he adds of his own, Origen saith no such thing, that Christ e●…ters into the soul or heart of a wicked man, but all that he saith is this, where he enters in unworthily, he enters in to the condemnation of him that receives, that is, where the party unworthily eats of that bread, and drinks of that cup: for in that bread Christ entereth in his typical and symbolical body, as he calls it before, not in his true and natural, which he proved unto us there, no wicked man can eat.  
Seventhly, I conclude this Section with a testimony out of the last book of 
m De Christ. Home dial. 3. Si ut obloquuntur isti carne destitutus erat & exanguis, cuiusmodi carnis, cujus corporis & qualis tandem sanguinis signa & magines ●…anem & ●…oculum mi●…istravit? ●…ussitque per ●…a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 re●…ovate.  Origen, If as these men cavil or upbraid us Christ was destitute of flesh, and without blood, of what flesh, of what body, and of what blood did be administer the bread and the cup as signs and images, commanding his Disciples by them to renew the memory of himself. Hear you how brief he speaks, how fully in the language of the reformed Churches, bread and the cup are not the very body and blood of Christ by Transubstantiation, but signs, images, and memorials thereof by representation. And if now you are cast as your conscience will tell you, you are by several verdicts of Origen, thank yourself who would needs refer the matter to him among others, and be tried by the bench of antiquity, whereby you are clearly overthrown as you will be in your own Court by your own feed judge Gratian, your great Canonist, of whom in the next Paragraph.   

PAR. 12.  
Eighteen places out of Gratian (the Father of the Canonists) against Transubstantiation vindicated, and objections out of him answered.  
GRatian de consecratione distinctione, 2. capite, hoc est quod dicimus, saith, as the 
a Sicut ergo coelestis panis qui Christi caro est, suo modo vocatur corpus Christi, cum revera sit Sacramentum corporis Christi, illius viz. quod visibile, quod palpabile, mortale in cruc●… positum est, vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus fit, Christi Passio, mors, crucifixio non r●…i veritate sed significante mysterio: sic Sacramentum fidei (quod Boptismus intellignur) fides est.  heavenly bread which is Christ's flesh, is after a sort called the body of Christ, wh●…n as in truth it is the Sacrament of the body of Christ, I mean of that which being visible, palpable, mortal, was put upon the Cross, and that immolation of the flesh which is done by the hands of the Priest, is called the Passion, death and crucifixion, not in the verity of the thing, but in a signifying mystery: so the Sacrament of faith (Baptism) is faith. The 
b Coeleste Sacramentum quod verè representat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi, sed impropriè, unde dicitur suo modo sed non rei veritate, sed significante mysterio, ut sit sensus vocatur Christi corpus, idest significatur.  gloss addeth the heavenly Sacrament which truly doth represent the flesh of Christ, is called the body of Christ but improperly; wherefore it is said in a sort but not in the truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery. This testimony of Gratian is like a great torch throughly lightened, which a strong blast of wind bloweth not out, but maketh it blaze the brighter. Three puffs you and your Chaplain have at it. First, you say Gratian is no authentical Author with you, much less the gloss. Secondly, you say his words are meant of the accidents which are a Sacrament only of Christ's body. Thirdly, your Chaplain addeth, that the flesh of Christ on the Altar is a Sacrament of Christ's visible and palpable body upon the Cross, you say the less to the purpose by saying so much, and your answers interfere on the other. For if Gratian be no authentical Author with you, why doc you strain your wits to make his words reach home to the truth? why do you contradict one the other to make Gratian agree to himself? the truth is, you have a Wolf by the ears, you can neither safely hold him, nor let him go. For if you reject Gratian'ss authority, all the Canonists like so many Hornets will be about your ears: if you admit him, you lose your cause, for than you must confess, that after consecration, that which remaineth on the Altar is not indeed Christ's body, but a Sacrament thereof, which is no otherwise called Christ's body, than your oblation in the Mass is called the crucifying of Christ, and that I am sure you will say and swear too is not in the truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery. To examine your answers severally.  
First, you impeach Gratian'ss credit, telling us, that with you he is no authentical Author: What you mean by authentical I know not, a classical Author sure he is with you, who prefer him before Dionysius, Exiguus, Isidorus, Cresconius, Burchardus, Ivo, and all other compilers of ancient decrees, and read him publicly in your 
c Bellar. de Scriptor. Ecelesiast ad annum 1140 Ipse solus obtinuit u●… publicè in Gymnasijs praelegeretur & multorum doctissimorum virorum Commentarijs illustrareu●….  Schools. What esteem Aristotle is in with Philosophers, Hypocrates with Physicians, Euclides with Geomatrician, johannes de sacro Bosco with Astronomers, Ptolomey with Cosmographers, Peter Lombard with School Divines, justinian with civil Lawyers, the same in Gratian with Canonists. And if before he were not an authentical Author with you, yet since the year 1580. in which by the authority of Gregory the fourteenth, he was revised and purged, he must needs be authentical with you. Howsoever it stands with Gratian (because it may be your Diocese of Chalcedon is not governed by the Canon Law) this testimony out of him is as a threefold cable, which though you and your Chaplain tug never so hard at, you will never be able to break, for Gratian quoteth this out of the Sentences of Saint Austin, gathered by his Scholar Saint Prosper. Gratian is but the relater and approver, S. Prosper or rather 
Vid. titulum decret. Aug. in lib. Sentet. Prosper.  Saint Austin is the Author thereof, and is not Saint Austin with you an authentical Author?  
Secondly, upon better advise you admit of the authority of this testimony, and shape a kind of answer unto it, that when Gratian out of Saint Austin denies the bread to be Christ's body, he meaneth the accidents of bread, which are Sacramentum tantum, the Sacrament only, and not in truth the body of Christ. This answer cannot stand: for the accidents of bread are not panis, much less coelestis panis, heavenly bread, or coeleste Sacramentum, a heavenly Sacrament, and lest of all Christ's flesh, therefore the former words cannot be meant of the accidents, but of the consecrated host. What S. E. adds to piece out your answer, that the accidents may be so called in regard of their reference to our Saviour's body which they cover; which reference is founded upon an heavenly action, to wit, consecration, is unworthy the refutation, for he beg●… that which he ought to prove, that the accidents of bread cover our Saviour's body: this we deny, and I have disproved it in the former Section. Besides, he seemeth to be ignorant of your Church tenet, which is, that the words of consecration work upon the substance of bread, and turn it into Christ's body not upon the accidents.  
Thirdly, the last answer which you or your Chaplain give, is worst of all, (viz.) that the body of Christ on the Altar is a Sacrament of Christ's visible and palpable body which hung on the Cross for this is not only an absurd and senseless, but also an heretical and blasphemous solution. 'Tis absurd to make the same body num●…ro to be a Sacrament of itself, 'tis all one as to say that the disease is the symptom of itself, or the Ivy bush is a sign of itself, or the face is the picture of itself, or the substance is the shadow of itself. A Sacrament as your Schools out of Saint Austin define, is a visible sign of an invisible grace, how then I pray you can the flesh of Christ in the Sacrament (which you teach to be covered under the form of bread and so to be invisible) be a Sacrament of the visible flesh of Christ on the Cross, visible things may be signs and Sacraments of invisible, but it is a thing impossible, that an invisible thing should be the Sacramental sign of a visible. I would forgive your Chaplain the absurdity and senselessness of his answer, if there were not implied heresy in it against the fundamental Article of our Creed.  
'Tis flat heresy to affirm that Christ had more than one individual humane body: but if the body of Christ really and substantially and carnally present on the Altar, is a Sacrament of his own body, then on the Cross, or now at the right hand of his Father, than he must have two bodies, one visible and palpable on the Cross, when he suffered, and now in heaven, and an other at this very instant invisible, insensible, and impalpable on the Altar.  
Thus having made good our fort in Gratian, I might pass to the next Section: yet because your Armour-bearer S. E. will not yield us this fort, but having produced some passages out of Gratian, and the Gloss against us leaveth it to the Reader to judge with 
P. 119, 120.  what conscience I cited them for our opinion. I will out of this one distinction in Gratian, produce so many pregnant testimonies for us, that any indifferent Reader will marvel with what face you can deny him to be ours. For the Gloss which you reject with such scorn, all that I will say shall be this, that although he lived in times of thickest darkness, even in the midnight of Popery: yet he saw a glimmering of the truth in this point, as appeareth by his note upon cap. ego Berengarius, unless saith he thou dost understand the words of Berengarius in a good and sound or wholesome sense, (in which according to a form prescribed him by Pope Nicolas, he confesseth Christ's body to be eaten in the Sacrament with the mouth & torn with the 
a Nisi sa●… intellig●… verb●… Berengarij in maiore●… i●…cidis heraes●… quam ips●… habuit.  teeth) thou wilt fall into a worse heresy than his. And upon cap. 
b Coeleste Sacr●… qu●…d est in Altari impropriè dicitur corpus Christi, sicu●… Baptismus impropri●… dicitur side●….  hoc est, The heavenly Sacrament which is upon the Altar, is improperly said to be Christ's body. And upon cap. utrum sub 
c Christu●… fas vorare dentibus no●… est distinctione, ego Berengarius contr●… sed i●…i hyperbol●…è locu●… est & veritatem excessit  figura, It is unlawful to devour Christ with the teeth, so saith Gratian here, but a little above in the Chapter beginning, I Berengarius, the contrary is affirmed, but there he speaketh hyperbolically and exceedeth the truth: I grant you that in his notes upon some other Chapters he seemeth to favour your Transubstantiation, and contradict himself, and so appeareth like the Glossae dissectae, though in a far 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  other sense divided from himself.  
But as for Gratian on whose Text he Commenteth, who lived in times not altogether so corrupt, he saw the truth of this point concerning the spiritual eating of Christ in the Sacrament by faith, and not with the mouth so clearly, ac si solis radio descripta esset, as if it had been described before him with a beam of the Sun. For to let pass the cap. per acta, in which by a decree of 
d Peract●… consecratione o●…nes communicent qui noluerint Ecclesiasticis carere liminibus.  Calixtus, he cashiereth your private Masses. And the cap. 
e Divisio unius & eiusdem mysterij sine grandi sacrilegio non potest perve●…ire.  Comperimus, in which by a decree of Pope Gelasius, he brandeth your half communion with the crime of Grandsacriledge.  
1. In the Chapter Tribus, Pope Clemens gives charge to the Priest, Deacon, and Minister, to keep with fear and trembling the relics of the fragments of Christ's body, what meaneth he I pray you by fragments, he cannot mean the fragments of accidents, for accidents have no fragments or relics, neither can he mean any broken parts of Christ's very body, for himself teacheth out of Austin. c. 
f Nec quand●… manducamus par●…es de ipso ●…us.  qui, that when we eat we make not parts of Christ's body, but receive it integerrimè, most entirely, c. 
g Omnes aequ●…liter corpus Christi integerr●… 〈◊〉.  Quid sit: It remains therefore, that by fragments, relics, or remains, he understandeth broken pieces of bread, and if so, the substance of bread remaineth in the judgement of Pope Clemens, not only after the consecration but also after the Communion. 
Cum ad reverendii Altare cibis spiritualibus satiandus ascendis, sacr●… Dei tui corpu●… & sangui●… side respice, ment conti●…ge, cordis man●… susci●… & maxim●… totum ha●…stu interioris hominis assume.   
2. In the Chapter Quia corpus, he allegeth out of Eusebius Emissenus, these words, When thou goest up to the dreadful or venerable Altar, to be satisfied with spiritual meats by faith, regard, honour, and admire the holy body and blood of thy God, touch it in thy mind, take it with the hand of thy heart, drink it by the draught of the inward man. What need he to have said, look upon him with the eye of faith, touch him with thy mind, and with the hand of thy heart, and draught of the inward man, but to 
Vt quid p●… ras de●… & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, creed & m●…ducasti, qui credit in au●… manducat 〈◊〉. (Vid.) capu●… cred●…re. Credere in Christum hoc est manducar●… p●… vivum.  exclude your carnal eating and drinking him with the hand and mouth of the outward man.  
3. In the Chapter Vt Quid out of Saint Augustine's book, de remedio penitentiae, he quoteth these words, Why dost thou prepare thy tooth and thy belly? believe and thou hast eaten, he that believeth in him eateth him: if the tooth and belly have nothing to do in eating Christ's flesh, how do you affirm that he is eaten with the mouth.  
4. In the Chapter prima quidem out 
Vide supra in P. 11.  of Saint Austin his Comment upon the fourth Psalm, he repeateth those two testimonies which before I produced in Paragraph the eleaventh. The first is a strong evidence against the carnal interpretation of Christ's words, the latter against the supposed existence of Christ's body in more places at once. The former is this, spiritually understand what I have spoken, you shall not eat this body which you see, nor drink that blood which they who crucify me shall shed; I have commended a kind of Sacrament or mystery unto you, which being spiritually understood will quicken you. The latter is, the body of Christ in which he rose must be in one place, his truth or divinity is every where.  
5. In the Chapter Non, he mentioneth 
Non iste panis est qui vadit in corpus, sed panis vitae ●…rnae qui ●…imae sub●…antiam 〈◊〉.  out of Saint Ambrose, a sentence which directly excludes your eating Christ with the mouth, it is not this bread which goeth into the body, but the bread of eternal life which supporteth the substance of the soul.  
6. In the Chapter Qui manducat he expoundeth out of S. Austin, the phrase of eating and drinking Christ after this manner, he that eateth and drinketh Christ, eateth & drinketh life, to 
h Ill●… 〈◊〉 ●…re ●…st resici, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est ●…vere, quod 〈◊〉 Sacr●… visibiliter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉  eat him is to be fed or refreshed, to drink him is to live, that which is visibly taken in the Sacrament, is in the truth spiritually eaten and drunk, if in the truth he is eaten spiritually, hen not corporally or orally, for a Spirit hath no flesh and bones, and consequently no mouth and teeth. In the same Chapter he addeth, that which is 
i .  seen and our eyes tell us is bread and the cup, but that which faith being to be instructed requireth is the bread, is Christ's body, the cup is his blood, but bread can no way be Christ's body properly as I have demonstrated before, Austin therefore and Gratian stand for a trope or figure in the words of the institution.  
7. In the Chapter Qui discordat 
Qui discord●… 〈◊〉 non manducat carne●… eius nec 〈◊〉 sanguin●… eius.  out of the same Austin, he debars all wicked men from tasting the heavenly food of Christ's flesh. He who disagreeth (saith he) from Christ, eateth not his flesh, nor drinketh his blood, though he daily receive the Sacrament of so great a thing to his condemnation and perdition. But he who is at distance with Christ, may and doth sometime eat of that which is in the Pix after consecration: it is not therefore the flesh of Christ which no wicked tooth or mouth can touch, but the Sacrament thereof only which is set on your Altar.  
8. In the Chapter Panis est & cap. Revera, he diggeth much o'er out of Saint Ambrose his books de Sacramentis, whereof I will try a little at this present. If there be such force in the word of the Lord jesus that thereby that began to be which was not before, how much more operatory or effectual is it, that things 
k c. panis. ut sint quae eran●… & in ●…iuà commu●…ur.  may be what they were and yet turned into an other thing, that they may be what they were in substance, and changed into another thing in significancy and supernatural efficacy. Christ saith, This is my 
l C. revera. ante benedictionem alia species nominatur, post consecrationem corpus signatur.  body, before the blessing of heavenly words, an other kind is named, after consecration the body is signed or signified, he termeth the cup his blood, before consecration 'tis called another thing, after 
m Ante consecrationem aliud dicitur, post consecrationem sanguis Christi nuncupatur.  consecration it is called Christ's blood. Why? because the Wine is turned into Christ's blood? no, but because it is a Sacrament of Christ's blood, and beareth the similitude thereof, so saith Ambrose in express words, as thou 
n C. panis: sicut morti●… similitudinem sumpsisti ita etiam san guinis similitudinem bibis.  takest the similitude of Christ's death, so thou drinkest the similitude of his blood.  
9 In the Chapter Iteratur he brings in Pope Pascasius transubstantiating, if I may so speak, your external, visible, and proper sacrifice of the Mass into a significative and mystical. 
o Quiae q●…otidie labimur, quotidis Christ●… mis●…cè pro 〈◊〉 bis i●…●…la tur.  Because (saith he) we offend daily, Christ daily is offered for us mystically, and his Passion is delivered to us in a mystery.  
10. In the Chapter De hac out of 
De hac quidem hostia quae in Christi commemoratione mirabilt●…r fit ed●…re licet: de illa vero quam Christus in Aracru●… i●… ob●…lit secundum se nulli edere lices.  Hierom upon Leviticus, he determineth, that it is lawful for us to eat of that Host which is offered in memorial of Christ: but that it is lawful for no man to eat of that Host in itself which Christ offered upon the Altar of the Crosse. Whereof no other good construction can be made then this, that we may eat of the bread broken on the Lord's Table, whereby Christ's sacrifice upon the Cross is represented, but not of the very body of Christ itself which was offered upon the Crosse. We may eat with the mouth Christ's flesh in Symbolo, but not in se or secundumse, we may eat it in the sign or Sacrament thereof, but not properly and orally in itself. What you allege for yourself out of Gratian, maketh very much against you, the 
P. 111.  words are, The sacrifice of the Church doth consist of two things, the visible form of elements, and the invisible flesh of Christ, both of a Sacrament, and re Sacramenti, as the person of Christ doth consist of God and man. To this distinction we fully subscribe, that the Lords Supper or Sacrament consists of a visible part, to wit, the outward elements offered to our bodily senses, and of an invisible or heavenly part, the flesh and blood of Christ exhibited by the Spirit to the eye of our faith, but you cannot allow of this distinction of parts: For you have no elements at all. For accidents without substance are no elements, and besides accidents you have nothing in your Sacrament but Christ's flesh, which is the res Sacramenti. Moreover if the Sacrament consist of the elements and Christ's body, as Christ's person consisteth of his humane and divine nature (as Gratian out of Saint Austin affirmeth) then is not the substance of the element turned into the substance of Christ's body, but both remain entire, as the humane nature of Christ is not turned into the divine but remaineth entire.  
What your Chaplain urgeth out of 
〈◊〉 days Confere●… with Musk●… p. 〈◊〉.  Gratian for himself, I have answered else where.   

PAR. 13.  
That the words of the institution, This is my Body, are to be taken in a tropical and figurative sense, is proved, 1. By testimony of Scripture. 2. By authority of Fathers, namely, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, Athanasius, Cyrillus Hierosolomitanus, Ambrose, Epiphanius, Hieronymus, Cyrillus Alexandrinus, Augustinus, Chrysostomus, Theodoretus, Gaudentius, Issidorus, Oecumenius, and Arnoldus Carmotensis. 3. By the confession of our adversaries, Gerson, Gardiner, Bellarmine. 4. By force of reason.  
NOw I will ascend from the troubled brook to the spring, from the Canon Law to the divine, from Gratian to the Author of all grace, Christ Jesus himself, whose words This is my Body, you lay as the ground whereon you build both your carnal presence and Transubstantiation, and the sacrifice of the Mass, and the adoration of the Host. But it will bear none of them, nay rather as ground shaken by an earthquake, it will utterly overthrow them all, as may appear by this Syllogism.  

If in this sentence This is my Body, the meaning be this Bread is my Body, the speech cannot be proper, but must of necessity be figurative or tropical.  
But in this sentence, This is my Body, the meaning is, This Bread is my Body.  
Ergo this speech cannot be proper, but must of necessity be figurative and tropical: and if so, down falls Transubstantiation built upon it, and carnal presence built upon Transubstantiation, and the oblation and adoration of the Host built upon the carnal presence.   
In this Syllogism the consequence 
L. 3. de Eu●…har. c. 19 Non potest ●…eri ut vera fit propositio ●…n qua subiectum supponit pro pa●… & praedi●…atum pro corpore Christi, panis 〈◊〉 & corpus Christi sunt res diversissime, & post. si louse; affirmare disparatum de disparato, louse bit eodem ●…ure affirmare de nihilo aliquid, de ●…ce tenebras, etc.  of the Major is so evident, that Cardinal Bellarmine affirmeth, that it is impossible that bread should be called Christ's Body otherways then by a figure, for bread and Christ's Body are things most diverse, and if disparate substances, such as bread and Christ's body are, might be affirmed one of the other, by the same reason we might affirm something to be nothing, light to be darkness, and darkness to be light, etc. Bread is a substance inanimate, Christ's Body is animate, bread of the figure of a loaf, or wafer, Christ's Body of the figure of a man: bread inorganical or without organs or members, Christ's Body Organical: bread made of wheat flower, Christ's Body of Virgin's blood: bread therefore in propriety of speech, can no more be Christ's Body, than Christ himself a Vine, or a Door, or a Way, or a Rock, all which speeches our Adversaries themselves confess to be tropical and figurative.  
The Minor or Assumption is proved four manner of ways.  

1. By testimony of Scripture.  
2. By the authority of Fathers,  
3. Confession of our Adversaries.  
4. Force of reason.   
1. The Text is plain, Christ took bread, and blesse●…, and broke, and said, This is my Body, what he took, he blessed, ●…e brake, he gave of that he said, This is my Body. But he took, he blessed, he broke, he gave bread, of bread therefore he said, This is my Body. When he said Hoe or This, he pointed to something, not to mere accidents as you 
a Bel. l. 3. de Euch. c. 19 Hoc non supponit pro accidente sed pro substantia.  confess, for than he would have said hac not hoc, these not this, nor pointed he to his own body sitting at Table, for neither did the Apostles, nor could they doubt whether the body sitting at Table were his body; neither were there any coherence in the words, take this bread, break and eat in remembrance of me, for this is my body which you see sitting at table with you. He pointed therefore to the substance of bread, when he said hoc This, and consequently the meaning of his words are, This bread is my Body.  
2. You take an oath to expound Scriptures, juxta unanimem consensum Patrum, according to the unanimous consent of Fathers, and therefore unless you will incur the censure of perjury, you must allow of this interpretation of Christ's words, This is my Body, that is, This bread is my Body, for so they 
Anno 105. Apolog. 2. p 98. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Anno. 180. l. 4. cont Har. c. 57 eius conditionis quae est secundum nos accipens panem suum corpus esse confitebatur Anno 190. Paedagog. l. 2. c. 3. Benedixit vinum c●… dixit accip●…e hic est sanguis, etc.  are expounded by  

1. justin Martyr. The sanctified food which nourisheth our flesh and our blood, by the change thereof into our nature, we are taught to be the flesh and blood of him that was incarnate for us, jesus Christ.  
2. Irenaeus. How did the Lord rightly if an other were his Father, taking bread of this condition that is usual amongst us confess it to be his body.  
3. Clemens Alexandrinus. He blessed wine when he said, take drink this is my blood.  
4. Tertullian. So Christ 
Anno 210. l. 4. cont. Marc. c. 40. panem corpus suum appellans. Anno 230. in Mat. Tract. 35. Panis quem Deus verb●… corpus suum esse fatetur. Anno 250. Epist. 63. vinum fuisse quod sanguinem suum dixit. Anno 340. i●… 1 Cor. 11. Quid est panis Christi corpus. Anno 365. Cyrill Hiros Catec. mist. 4▪ Christus de pane affirmat hoc est corpus me●… Anno 390. l 4 da sacrā●… c. 5. Panem fractum tra didit Discipulis dic●… accipite ho●… Anno 390. ad Hedib. q▪ Nos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 panem quim fregis Dominus deditque Discipulis s●…is esse corp●… Domini ipso dico●…te hoc est corpus meum.  taught us, calling bread his Body.  
5. Origen. Christ confesseth the bread to be his body.  
6. Cyprian. It was wine which Christ said to be his blood, & Epist. 76. Panem corpus suum vocat.  
7. Athanasius. What is the bread, Christ's body.  
8. Cyrill. Christ said of the bread. This is my Body.  
9 Ambrose. He delivered broken bread to his Disciples, saying, This is my Body.  
10. Saint Hierom. Let us hear that the bread which Christ broke and gave to his Disciples is his body as himself saith.   
to salve his credit, nay his faith.  
First, in this answer you contradict the Tenet of your Church and yourself. For if by hoc or this as the Fathers teach, we are to understand hic panis, this bread, and the sense of the whole is, this bread is my body, and bread here stands not for bread in substance, but in appearance only, or in the exterior form, or that which is made of bread as your Chaplain hath 
P. 1●….  it, than the words of institution are not taken in the proper sense, but are absolutely and simply figurative, which yourself denies, and Fisher the Jesuit 
P. 72, 73.  of Transubstantiation, Sess. 2. and 
b l. 〈◊〉. 9 Propriè non figuratè explicanda sun●… illa verba ho●… est corpus meum.  Bellarmine of the Sacrament of the Eucharist (the words this is my body ought to be taken and expounded properly, not figuratively) and Alfonsus a Castro, and Sanctesius, and Salmoron, and Costorus, and Gardinerus, and Tonstallus, and Panegyrolla, and Roffensis, and Suares, and Uasques, and other Papists named and confuted by 
c l. 10. de Eucha c. 15.  Chamierus.  
Secondly, this your interpretation no better agreeth with the Father's words, than a wet mould doth with running mettle which makes it fly back with a great force, for instance, justin Martyr in the words above cited by bread or food, understandeth that whereby as he saith our bodies are nourished, quae mutata nutrit carnes nostras, but that is not bread turned into Christ's body; for Christ's body is no meat for the belly, nor is it turned into our flesh. Irenaeus speaketh of bread, ejus conditionis quae secundum nos, of bread that is usual among us, l. 4. c. 57 c. 34. of bread, qui est c terra, which is taken from the earth, such is not super-substantiall bread, or transubstantiated into Christ's body. Clemens by wine understandeth wine allegorically termed Christ's blood, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but that is not wine really turned into Christ's blood, for that is Christ's blood in propriety of speech, not by a Metaphor or Allegory. Tertullian as you expound him 
Epist. 57 Corpus suum p●…nim vocat d●… mul●…m granorum ad●…tione congestum & sanguinem suum vinum appellas de botris ai●…, aci●…is pl●…rimis expressum.  speaketh of bread which was vetus figura, an ancient figure of Christ's body, but that could not be bread transubstantiated into his body, for before his Incarnation he had no body into which bread could be then turned. Cyprian speaketh of bread made of many corns or grains, and of wine pressed out of many grapes. Ambrose speaketh of bread broken, but super-substantiall bread or turned into Christ's body is not broken bread. Saint Hierome likewise speaks of broken bread, and consequently not of the heavenly bread which is Christ's flesh. Epiphanius speaks of that which is of a round figure and without sense, and such is bakers bread, but not that bread which Christ said, john the 6. He would give us, to wit, his flesh for the life of the world. Gaudentius speaks of bread consecrated, before he gave it or said, This is my Body; but it was not according unto your doctrine turned into Christ's body before the words this 
Chrysost. in 1 Cor. Hom. 24. Quemadmodum panis ex multis granis ●…itur. Aug. in joh. Tract. 26. Dominus noster Iesus Christus corpus & sanguinem suum in ejs rebus comme●…davit quae in unu●… aliquid rediguntur ex ●…ultis.  is my body are uttered, neither ●…oth the Priest consecreate Christ's body but the bread, for consecrare is ex communi sacrum facere, of a thing common before, to make a thing Sacred or a Sacrament. Saint Chrysostome and Saint Austin both speak of terrestrial bread, or as you call it bakers bread, not of transubstantiated or celestial bread, for both of them observe in the bread and in the wine a representation of Christ's mystical body which is one consisting of many members, as a loaf of bread is ●…c, yet made of the flower of many ●…res or corns, and the cup of wine is one ●…ough made of the juice of many grapes. ●…int Isidore speaketh of bread which ●…engtheneth the body, and therefore of ●…ead in substance and not in appea●…nce only, Lastly, Arnoldus Carmo●…nsis 
Arnol. de Card●…nal. Chris op. de ●…nct. 〈◊〉 significa●… & significaia ijsdem vocab●…olis censeren●…r.  whom you mistake, for Saint ●…yprian saith, not that bread is called ●…hrists flesh because it is turned into it, ●…t because the thing signifying and ●…ing signified are called by the same ●…ames.  
Now to the shreds of sententes of Fathers which your Chaplain takes from your bulk, I will return as short answers in the order as he hath laid them. Irenaeus saith, that the bread 
〈◊〉 con ●…re. c. 34.  in the Eucharist is not common bread, so say we also, for it is consecrated to a holy and heavenly use. Tertullian 
〈◊〉. co●…g. M●…rc. c. 〈◊〉.  saith, that he made the bread his own ●…ody, that is, as he expoundeth it himself in the same place, the 
d Dicendo hoc est corpu●… me●…, idest sigura corgoris m●….  figure of his ●…ne body. Saint Hierom Epist. ad He dib. q. 2. saith, the bread came down f●…om heaven, but he meaneth Christ himself, not the Sacramental bread. for that came not down from heav●… but was made of wheat growing up●… the earth. Saint Austin as you quo●… 
De verb. Dom. Ser. 28.  but indeed Ambrose 15. de Sacram. c. speaketh of super-substantiall bread, 〈◊〉 thereby he meaneth Christ's flesh or th●… heavenly Manna, not that bread 〈◊〉 eat in the Sacrament with the mouth as he admonisheth in the next word●… it is not the bread which goeth in the body, but the bread of eternal 〈◊〉 which supporteth the substance of 〈◊〉 soul, with whom Saint Austin himself acordeth, Ser. 29. de verb. Do●… Thy Shepherd and thy giver of life is th●… 
Pastor & vitae, dator cibus & panis aeternus, disce, & doce, vive & pasca. quid tibi sufficit cui Deus non suffi cit.  meat and eternal bread, learn and teach, live and feed, what is sufficien●… for thee if thy God be not. 
a In anchorato.  Epiphanius saith, that he who believed not th●… bread to be as our Saviour said (his body) falleth from salvation; 'tis true he that believeth not the bread to be our Saviour's body, as our Saviour said it to be his body endangereth his salvation, for he questioneth the truth of our Lord, but Epiphanius saith, not that Christ's words are to be take literally, nay in that very place he●… proveth the contrary: for the brea●… 〈◊〉 round and without sense, but our Lord 
Hoc enim est rotundae sigisrae & insensibile, Dominum vero nostrum novimus totum sensiti●…um, totum sensum totum Deum. Cyril cattch. mistag. 4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catech. mistag 3. Panis postinvo-cationem n●…●…st amplius, panis communis sicut unguentum post invocationem non est amplius unguentum commune sed chrism●… Descrip. eccles. ad an●…. 250.  〈◊〉 know is wholly sensitive or rather all sense. Saint Cyrill saith, that which seems bread, is not bread, but Christ's body, but he in the words going before, and in his Catech. plainly showeth his own meaning, Come not therefore as unto simple bread and wine, or ●…are bread and wine. The bread after the calling upon of the Holy Ghost, is no more common bread, as the ointment after benediction is no more common ointment but chrism. Yet oil after benediction still retaineth the substance of oil, and so doth the bread after consecrasion the substance of bread. The Author Decaen. Dom. who is so much in your Books, that we find him almost in every Section; is not the blessed Martyr Saint Cyprian, as Bellarmine proveth by many arguments, but a far later Writer by name Arnoldus Carmotensis, as the Epistle Dedicatory to Pope Adrian, who sat Anno 1154. extant in Allsoules Library in Oxford testifieth: but be he Cyprian or Arnoldus who wrote the Treatises de cardinalibus Christi operibus, he is no friend to your carnal presence, or Transubstantiation, for in the Chapter cited by you, he hath these words, we whet not our teeth to eat, but by 
Non dentes ad mordendum accuimus, sed fide sincerâ panem sanctum frangimus & partimur.  sincere faith we break the holy bread. And in the words immediately following those words which you allege, he saith, that Christ poureth his divine Essence into the Sacrament, even as in Christ under the humane nature the divinity lay hid, therefore according to this Author, there remaineth the substance of bread, together with Christ's Body Sacramentally united, as in Christ, the humane and the divine nature remain united hypostatically. And moreover, that when he saith the bread is changed, not in shape, but in nature, and by the Omnipotency of the Word made flesh, that he speaketh of a Sacramental change and not substantial, and that by nature he meaneth the natural and common use, not the essence of bread, appeareth by his own words a little before in this 
Immortalitatis alimonia datur a communibus cibis differens corporalis substantiae retinens spectem.  Tract of the Supper of the Lord. That although the immortal food delivered in the Eucharist differ from common meat, yet it retaineth the kind of corporal substance. And in the Treatise following, Our Lord, 
De unct. Chrism. 〈◊〉 dit noster Dominus 〈◊〉 mensâ in qud ultimum cum Apostolis participa 〈◊〉 convivium proprljs ma●…bus panem & vinum, in cruse vero manibus militum corpus tradidit vulnerandum, etc.  saith he, at the Table in his last Supper, gave bread and wine with his own hands, and on the Cross he gave up his body to be wounded by the hands of the Soldiers, (pray take special notice that he gave bread at the Table, and his body on the Cross, not his body at the Table, no more than bread at the Cross) that he might expound to the Nations, how diverse names or kinds are reduced to the same essence, and the things signifying and signified are called by the same names. If Cyril would be coming in as your Chaplain speaketh with his Conversion, and Nyssen with his Transmutation, and Theophylact with his Transelementation, they shall be met with and repaid all three in their own coin. 
a Epist. ad Colosyrium convertens ea in veritatam propri●… carnis.  Cyril who in his Epistle to Colosyrius (if it be his, whereof Vasques doubteth in his 180. Disputation, upon the 3. part of Thomas his sums) saith, the bread and wine are changed into the verity of Christ's flesh: in his second book upon john Chap. 42. saith, that the waters of Baptism are by the operation of the Holy 
b Spiritus Sancti operatione ad divinam aquae reformantur naturam.  Ghost changed into a divine nature. 
c Orat. Catec. c. 37. pan●… in carnim. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nazianz. Orat. 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Nyssen who saith that bread is transmuted into Christ body, saith in the same Oration, that Christ's humane nature is transmuted into a divine excellency. And Gregory Nazienzes, saith, that by Baptism we are transmuted into Christ. Theophylact who upon the 6. of john saith, the bread is transelementated into Christ's body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith that we are transelementated into Christ. You see therefore that neither Cyrils' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor Nyssen●… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor Theopylact's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 come home to your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they import no more than a spiritual 〈◊〉 Sacramental change. Were they 〈◊〉 be taken in the most proper sense for a substantial change: yet would they not help you a whit, for in the conversion of water into wine, or the transmutation of one element into another, the forms and accidents are changed: but the common matter remaineth the same, whereas in your Transubstantiation the whole matter and substance perisheth, and the accident●… onel●… remain.  
Thirdly, I prove that the pronoun (hoc) this standeth for hic panis by confession of our learned Adversaries▪ 
d Cont Flori●…. l. 4 Dicendum est quod hoc demonstrat substantiam panu.  Gerson, we must say that the pronoun (hoc) demonstrateth the substance of bread. 
e De diabol. Sophu. Christus a●… evidentur, hoc est corpus meum, demonstrans panem.  Gardiner, Christ saith plainly This is my Body, pointing to bread. 
f De Sacr. Euch. l. 3. c. 19 Dominus accepit pann●…, bevedixit, & dedie Discipul●…, & de eo ait, hoc est corpus meum.  Bellarmine, The Lord took bread, blessed it, and gave it to his Disciples, and of it said, This is my Body.  
Fourthly, I prove it by force of reason, when this Pronoune hoc is uttered it must signify something then existent, but that could not be Christ's body under the accidents of bread, for your 
g Bellar. l. 1. del●… hoc 11. Aquinas p. 3 q 78 art▪ 5 In ulumo instant in quo profertur vox ultima ponitur conversio panis in Corpus Christi.  selves teach, that the bread is not turned into Christ's body till the last instant, in which the whole proposition is uttered: it remaineth therefore that the pronoun hoc stands for haec accidentia (which ye all disclaim) or hic panis, this bread as than unaltered. Hereunto you answer, that hoc doth signify and suppose, not for that instant in which it is uttered, but for the end of the proposition, when the praedicatum is in being, as when I say this is a cross and make it withal, the word this doth suppose for the cross, not which is when the word (this) is uttered, but which is within the whole time that I speak, so when I say taceo, I do not signify that I speak not while I am uttering this word, but that I am silent when I have done uttering. So saith your Chaplain in these operative speeches 
P. 135.  of our Saviour, Lazarus come forth, young man arise, the words Lazarus and young man, did not signify persons existent then precisely when they were uttered, but when the speeches were complete.  
If Sophistry were the science of salvation, these knack and quirks of wit 
Refut.  might be in high esteem, whereas they no more befit Divinity then it would become grave Cato to cut many a cross-caper. I might justly remand you & your Chaplain to the disputations in parvis, where such cummin as this is tithed, or rather such gnats streigned by puneys in Logic: yet because you shall not say that I let pass any apex or title in your book, I will examine all these your instances. To which I reply, first in general, that you beg what you ought to prove and use a base fallacy in all this di●…●…d petitio principij: you take it for granted, that these words of our Saviour (This is my Body) are practical in your sense, that is, work a substantial and miraculous change, which we deny, and you will never be able to make good proof of.  
For first, bare words as they are words, have no operative power, much less a virtue to work miracles, which cannot be effected without the employment of the divine Omnipotency.  
Secondly, words that are practical, that is used by God or men as instruments to produce any effect of this nature, are imperative or uttered in the imperative mood, as Be thou clean, receive thy sight, Lazarus come forth, young man arise, sile obmutesce and the like, not in the indicative, as This is my Body, This is my Blood.  
Thirdly, the words of themselves can no more prove the bread to be turned into Christ's Body then the accidents. For certain it is, and con●…sed on all sides, that when he uttered these words, This is my Body, he pointed to that which he held in his hands, which was a substance clothed with the accidents, colour, quantity, taste and the like.  
But yourselves confess, that by virtue of these words This is my Body, the accidents are not turned into Christ's Body: therefore neither can it be proved, that by virtue of these words, Th●… is my Body the substance of bread is turned into Christ's Body.  
In particular to your first instance in a Cross, which at the same instant you make, and say this is a Crosse. I answer, first that if you could prove Christ had a purpose to make his Body in your sense, as you have to make a Cross, when you say this is a Cross, and make it withal, this instance of yours were considerable, but till you prove the former, 'tis nothing to the purpose. Secondly, either you have made the Cross with your fingers before, or at the instant when you say (this:) or else your speech, this is a Cross, if it be true, is figurative, the present tense est being taken pro proximè futuro, that is, for the time immediately ensuing upon the uttering of your words.  
To your second instance, in the word taceo, I hold my peace. I answer, that if you will make a proposition of it, you must resolve it into ego sum tacens, I am silent, and then the subject (ay) is in being when this word (ay) is uttered, and likewise the praedicatum silent is in being as soon as the word is uttered. Howbeit in ordinary and vulgar speech taceo is taken for jam nunc tacebo, I hold my peace, tha●… is, I will utter not a word more.  
To your third instance in Lazarus and the young man. I answer, that either Christ by a Metonymy, partis pro toto, called Lazarus his soul, or his body by the name of the whole Lazarus, or if Christ's speech be proper, that both Lazarus and the young man, at that very instant when Christ called them were persons existent, their souls being returned to their bodies. For though the one came not forth out of his grave, nor the other arose till after our Saviour's speech was complete and ended, yet I say, and you shall never be able to disproove it, that at the same moment when Christ called Lazarus, Lazarus was in being, and so likewise the young man and the damsel. In a proposition every part or word is vox significativa, as soon as it is uttered, as you may learn out of Aristotle's book the interpretatione, 
C. 〈◊〉, 2, 3.  and S. 
* Quot verba sunt tot signa, signum nisi aliquid significat non potest esse signum.  Austin his Dialogue with Adeodatus, therefore as sore as this Pronoune hoc is uttered, it must then signify something then being. A proposition is a complexum, like to a heap, or a number of three grains, whereof though the number be not complete till the actual adding of the third grain, yet hath every grain his existence when it is first laid: if the parts of the proposition signified not the parts of our conception, the whole could not signify the whole, that which is in speech a proposition, is in the understanding a composition, and the simple●… must needs be presupposed existent, before we can actually compound them. If this will not satisfy you, I leave yo●… to Cardinal Bellarmine and the Trent Catechism and Solmeron to be better informed in this point both of Grammar and Divinity.  

a In Mat. 26. Profectò propositio non est vera nisi postquam factus est circulus. Sed oratio accipitur pro vera qua id quod futurum est accipitur pro iam facto per tropum, new iuxta proprietatem sermonis.  Solmeron affirmeth with a profectò and full asseveration, that the speech of him who in drawing a circle doth say this is a circle, cannot without trope or figure be judged true.  
The Fathers of the 
b Catech. Tried, Huius vocis ho●… ea vis est ut rei praesentis substantiam demonstret.  Council of Trent in a Catechism, set forth by the commandment of Pope Pius the fifth, affirm directly against you and your Chaplain, that such is the force of this word hoc, that it demonstrateth the substance of a thing present.  
Cardinal 
c Bel. l. 〈◊〉. de Sacra Euch c. 〈◊〉. In propositionibus quae significant id quod ●…unc fit cum dicitur, pronomina demonstrativa non demonstrant 〈◊〉 quod est, sed id quod erit, etc.  Bellarmine taketh you also to task, relates your opinion and professedly refuteth it. Some Catholics saith he answer, that in such propositions which signify that which is then done when it is spoken, the demonstrative pronouns do not demonstrate that which is, but that which will be, and they give these examples, as if one drawing a line or circle, saith, this is a line, this is a circle, as also the pronoun ought to be expounded in those words of Christ, john the 15. This is my commandment. You cannot but say that this is your very opinion, and the grounds you lay down for it. Now observe I pray you how punctually the, Cardinal answers them: 
d Etsi pronomen demonstra●…ivum demonstret rem fu●…ram, quand●… n●…hil est praesens quod demonstretur, ut in exemplis allatis: tam●… si q●… digito aliquid ostendit dum pronomen effert valde absurdum videtur dicere p●…onomine illo non demonstrari rem praesentem. Atqui Domi●… accep●… 〈◊〉 nem & illum porrigens, a●… accipite edite hoc est corpus me●…, videtur igitur demonstravisse panem, & sane in illis verbis bibite ex hoc 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 durum est non demonstrare id quod erat, sed id tantum quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Although saith he, the pronoun demonstrative demonstrate a thing future when there is nothing present which may be demonstrated by it as in the former ●…xamples: Yet if a man should point to something with his finger when he uttereth the pronoun hoc or this, it seems to be very absurd to say that the pronoun this doth not demonstrate something present. But our Lord took bread, and reaching it, said, Take eat this is my Body: he seems therefore to have demonstrated bread, neither is it any thing against 〈◊〉 which they allege for themselves, that a proposition doth not signify till t●… end of the proposition, when the whole is uttered, for though that be true of a preposition which is a kind of Oration, yet the demonstrative pronouns presently signify some certain thing even before the other words follow, & verily 'tis exceeding harsh to say that in these words, Drink ye all of this, the pronoun this doth not demonstrate the thing which then was, b●… only that which should be afterwards.  
Lastly, whether hoc signify as soon as it is uttered, or after the whole proposition is pronounced, I demand of you what it signifieth, not these 
e Bellar. de Sac. Euch. 〈◊〉 1. c. 11. Thomas di●…it pronomen hoc non demonstrare accidentia, quasi esset sensus hoc id est hee accidentia sunt Corpus Christi; id enim v●… absurdissi●…um esset.  accidents, for the accidents are not Christ's Body. Aquinas, 
f Vid 〈◊〉. de E●…char. l. 10. 19  Suarez, and Bellarmine, not only reject that Exposition, but also brand it with the name of a most absurd conceit. Of the same judgement are 
g Soto in quare. Sent. dis. 9 q. 2.  Sot●… and 
h jans. concord. eva●…g. c. 13●…, hoc est demonstrativum substantia.  jansenius. If the pronoun hoc demonstrate not accidents it must demonstrate the substance; either of bread then or Christ's Body, if the substance of bread, then is there in the words necessarily a Tropology; if of Christ's Body, than you make of them a Tautology or battology. And here again you stick in the mud, and though your Chaplain labour with might and main to pull you out of it, yet he plucks you not out, but you draw him in, and both are swallowed up in the same quagmire. For if this your interpretation be admitted, this body of mine is my body, these absurdities will necessarily ensue upon it.  

First, that these words are not consecratory.  
Secondl●…, that they are not at all 〈◊〉.  
Thirdly, that they are not argumentative or 〈◊〉.  
Fourthly, that they are mere identical and ●…ugatorie.   
1. Consecratory words are such, whereby something which before was common is made sacred, according to the words of Saint Austin, accedit verbum ad elementum & fit Sacramentum. But if the meaning of these words, This is my Body be this body of mine is my body, nothing by them of common is made sacred. For Christ's body was never common, but always most sacred, and by your explication hoc this hath no reference to bread but to Christ's body.  
2. You teach generally that these words of the institution are not contemplative, but practic and operatory, that is, they effect what they signify, and indeed upon this hinge hang●… all your doctrine of Transubstantiation and carnal presence: but glozing the words with your paraphrase, viz. This body is my body, you break down this hinge. For all words which are operatory, or practice, produce something by their prolation, which was not before: but Christ's body was his body before the prolation of these words; therefore by the prolation of these words it is not made. If you answer as your Chaplain doth, that Christ by these words made not indeed his body, yet thereby he made his body to be under the shape of bread: you quite overthrow your doctrine of Transubstantiation. For the putting a body which was existent before, in a place or under a shape where it was not before, as for example, a candle under a bushel, or a picture under a curtain, or a face under a mask, is a translocation, or transposition, or alteration of habit, or whatsoever rather then a Transubstantiation. This your acute Schoolmen well saw, Aureolus, Vasques, and Suarez, and therefore contend for a new production of Christ's body in the Sacrament. For a mere succeeding of it in the place of bread, or union thereof with the accidents, or bringing it to, and placing it on the Lord's Table will not infer a Transubstantiation, their reasons are good. 
a In 4. Se●…. dist. 11 q. 1. Cum preci●… unum succadit alteri, 〈◊〉 est verum dicere quod illud cui succeditur acc●…dat & convertatur in illud quod succedit, i●… e converso succedens accedit ad illud cui' s●…dit, illud 〈◊〉 transi●… in aliud quod desini●… antequam perv●…niat 〈◊〉 illud.  Aureolus thus argues, when one thing precisely succeeds another, it is not true to say that that thing to which another succeedeth doth come, and is converted into that which succeedeth: that thing doth not pass into another which ceaseth to be before it come to that other; as for example, we say not that the Sea or a river passeth into another, which is dried up before it can come to it: as you say the substance of bread is abolished before the substance of Christ's body succeed. 
b In 3. Thom, disp. 1●…. c. 3. Unto cum illu qu●…unque mod●… fiat non potest non esse accidentaria  Vasques thus impugne●… your assertion, if Christ's body be 〈◊〉 produced de novo but only united and applied to the Sacramental signs to which it was not before, this union, by whats●…ver means it be wrought is only accidental, and consequently cannot make 〈◊〉 substantial conversion. 
c In 3. Thom. disp. 52. Sect. 4. Per sol●…m actionem ad●…uctivam rev non explicatur vera conver●… substantialis & Trāsubstantiati●… sed solùm translocatio quaedam: quando una substantia solum s●…dit in loco 〈◊〉 no●… potest prepri●… dici ●…a conv●…i in altan.  Suarez drive●… this nail to the head, by a mere addictive action (whereby Christ's body 〈◊〉 brought to be under the shape of bread) the true nature of Transubstantiation is not unfolded, such an adduction importeth only a translocation and not a substantial conversion, when one substance only succeeds in the place of another, the one cannot properly be said to be converted into the other. For how absurd were it to say that D Bishop were transubstantiated into D. Smith, because D. Smith succeeds him in the See of Chalcedon: or that when your four Lecturers at the Sorbon one after another read in the same pew, that at every new Lecture there is a new Transubstantiation, and by name that D. 〈◊〉 who 〈◊〉 at seven a clock, is transubstantiated into D. Filsac, who takes his room and reads at nine a clock.  
3. By this your Exposition you cut yourself in the hams, and enervat●… your main argument for Transubstantiation. For as I told you in the Conference, the bare affirming Christ's body to be his body, proves not that any thing is turned into it. If Christ were now coming in the clouds, and any pointing to the cloud should say this or there is Christ's body, could any from thence conclude the conversion of the cloud into his body. Every proposition which is of use in argumentation, and can afford or minister a reason to prove any thing, must consist of one or more of the 4 praedicata topica, or at least one of the quinque praedicabilia, as every young Sophister can inform you: but in this proposition This is my Body, as you exp●…und it, this my body is my body, there is none of the 4 praedicata topica, or quinque praedicabilia. For the predicate herein is neither genus, nor species, nor differentia, nor proprium, nor accidents of the subject, but the self same with it re and ratione.  
4. Hence it followeth, that the proposition is merely identical and neugatorie, which to affirm of any of the words of the word of life especially of these whereby he instituted a most divine Sacrament were blasphemy, this fearful consequence thus I infer upon your interpretation. 
Every proposition in which the subject and predicate are the same, not only quoad suppositum, but also quoad significationem, is merely identical and nugatory: In this propoposition God is wise, the subject and the predicate are the same, quoad suppositum, but not quoad significationem, for the subjectum Deus signifieth God's Essence in general, the predicate wise signifieth but one Attribute in particular: which though in regard of the simplicity of the divine Essence, it be all one with God himself; yet is it distinguished from God quoad nostrum modum concipiendi, according to our apprehension. Likewise in this proposition, Petrus est Apostolus, Peter is an Apostle, or a man is a living creature, the praedicatum and subjectum are the same, quoad suppositum, for Peter is that Apostle, and that Apostle is Peter, a man is that living creature, and that living creature is a man: yet they differ, quoad significationem, for the subject signifieth the person of Peter, the predicate his office, and in the other proposition the subject signifieth the compositum, the predicate an essential part only; and so in all other instances your Chaplain brings: neither can any one instance be brought of a proposition which is not merely neugatorie, in which the praedicatum and subjectu●… are not distinct quo ad significationem.  
But according to yo●… exposition in this proposisition, This is my Body, the subject this and the predicate body are the same, not only quoad suppositum, but also quoad significationem, not only quoad rem, but also quoad modum; for i●… it idem numero, which is maximè idem is predica●… de eodem numero, the subject hoc standing for and signifying bread actually turned into Christ's Body, and the predicate Christ's Body made of bread.  
Ergo according to ●…our interpretation, the words of institution, contain 〈◊〉 proposition merely identical or nugatory.   
If I thought you had not already you full ●…ad. I could add more weight t●… my former replies, from the authority of your great Gamali●…ls, at whose feet you and your Chaplain were brought up, I mean Aquinas, Soto, Durand, and Bellarmine.  
Aquinas thus loads you. Some have said that the pronoun this is to be understood 
3. p q. 〈◊〉. 8. a●…. 5 Alij dixer●…, quod dictio hoc facit demonstr●…nem ad sensum, sed intelligit●… haec demonstratio 〈◊〉 pro illo instante locutionis qu●… profer●…ur hac dictio, sad pr●…●…imo instants loc●…tio is sicu●… cum aliq●…  not for the instant, in which the word is uttered, but for the last instant of the whole speech, as when I say tacco, I do not signify that I speak not while I am uttering this word, but that I am silent when I have done uttering of it, (is not this your own instance, p. 127.) But saith Aquinas this cannot stand, because according to this gloss, the sense of Christ's words should be my body is my body, which the above named speech doth not make to be so, because it was so before the uttering 
d ci●… tacco, etc. Sed hoc star●… no●… posest, quia secundum hoc huiu●… locutionis hic esset sensus, corp●… means est corp●… meum, quod praedicta locutio non facit, quia hoc fuit ante prolati●…em ●…n de nec hoc praedicta locutio significat.  of these words.  
Soto thus presseth you. This opinion 
I●…s 4. Sent. dist. 1●… q. 1. ar●…. 〈◊〉. Sed ●…que ista ops̄n●… 〈◊〉 consona●…, ●…am ●…unc pronom●… demonstra. res corpus as sensum s●…●…eret quod corpus est, corpus, haec autem forma non est operativa, nec conversiva panis in corpus, quoniam ante etus prolationem id ipsum erat verum.  saith he, (which referreth the pronounc hoc to that which is accomplished a●…ter the pronunciation of the whole proposition, that is, to bread actually turned into Christ's Body) is not consonant to the truth, for the the pronoun should demonstrate Christ's body, and make this sense the body is the body. Now this form of speech is no way operative, nor doth it turn bread into Christ's body, because, before the uttering of them it was true that Christ's body was his body.  
Durand thus chargeth you. If the pronoun hoc points to Christ's Body, the proposition may be true, referring the 
Dist. 8. q. 2. Si singulariter demonstraret corpus Christi veritatem posset habere propositio, referendo demonstrationem ad ●…imum instans prolationis verborum, quia tunc corpus Christi est sub speciebus panis, & esset sensus, hoc, id est, corpus meum est corpus me●…, sed haec forma non congruit Sacramento; quia per Sacramentum non efficitur us corpus Christi sit corpus sed solum efficitur quod corpus Christi continea●…r in Sacramento.  pointing thereof to the last instant of the prolation of the words, because than Christ's body begins to be under the accidents of bread, and the sense may be, this that is my body, is my body, but this form of speech is not agreeable to the Sacrament, because this Sacrament doth not make Christ's body to be his body, but only makes it to be in the Sacrament or under the accidents of bread, now the proposition so understood as above is expressed, only implies that Christ's body is his body, and not that it is made by this Sacrament, which is against the nature of every Sacrament all form wherein that is effected, by the uttering of the words which they signify.  
Bellarmine thus clearly confutes 
De Sacr. Euch. l. x. c. xx. Verba Sacramenta lia secundum Catholicos non sunt speculativa sed practica, efficiunt enim quod significant, unde etiam operatoria dicuntur. At si pronomen demonstrat solum corpus, verba erunt speculativa non practica, semper enim v●…run est demonstrato Christi corpore dicero hoc est corpus Christi, five id dicatur a●…te consecrationem sive postea: sive a laico, sive a sac●…rdote, a●… verba Sacramentalia quia operatoria non sunt vera nisi dicau●…r ab illo qui est legitimus Minister, ●…eque sunt vera antequam Sacramentum effisiatur.  you, and cuts your throat as it were with a knife whet upon your own grindstone. Sacramenta words according to Catholics, are not speculative but practical, for they effect that which they signify, whence they are called operatory, but if the pronoun hoc demonstrate only the body, the words will be speculative not practical, for 'tis always true, pointing to Christ's body, to say this is the body of Christ, whether the words be spoken before Consecration or after, either by a Priest or a Say person, but the Sacrament all words, because they are operatory, or working words have not their force unless they be spoken by a lawful Minister, neither are they true before the Sacrament is administered.   

PAR. 14.  
That in the words of the institution of the cup. this cup is the New Testament i●… my blood, there are diverse figures is proved by unavoidable consequences, and the confession of our Learned Adversaries, Salmoron, Barradius and Jansenius.  
THe two kinds in the Lord's Supper, are like the eyes in our body which are moved by the same nerve optic: or double strings in an instrument which are tuned alike: 〈◊〉 comparative reason therefore drawn from the one to the other cannot but be of great force. The sixth argumen●… therefore in the Conference as you reckon was from thence drawn after this manner.  

The words used in the Consecration of the bread, are so to be expounded as the like in the consecration of the cup.  
But the words used in the Consecration of the cup, are to be expounded by a figure.  
Ergo the words used in the Consecration of the bread, are to ●…ee expounded by a figure.   
In this Syllogism, because you lay you●… batteries at both propositions, the Major and the Minor I will fortify them both, and first the Major It is a topi●…k axiom similium est id●…m judicium, like are to be judged by the like, and these are so like, that 
a I. 〈◊〉. de Sacr. Euch. c. 10. Add●… argumentum robustissi●… ex scriptura, Nam si hoc demonstraret 〈◊〉, ita etiamin consecratione vini hi●… sive hoc 〈◊〉 vin●….  Bellarmine himself draweth an argument from the one to the other. I will add saith he a most forcible argument. If the pronoun hoc used in the Consecration of the bread, demonstrateth bread, then also the same pronoun this used in the Consecration of the cup must needs demonsta●… wine, the validity of which consequence dependeth upon the correspondency between the words used in the institution of each kind, neither indeed can any reason be assigned why the words used in the one, may not as well admit of a figure as the words used in the other: both are dogmatic, both have a precept annexed unto them, both are words of a Testament, both Sacramental, and according to your doctrine alike operatory: never therefore exclaim against us for expounding the words used in the institution of the bread by one figure, when you expound the words used in the institution of the cup by two figures at least. Blame not us for interpreting This is my Body, tha●… is a sign or Sacrament of my body, when you yourselves interpret This cup is the New Testament, that is, this drink is 〈◊〉 sign or Sacrament of the New Testament: If you allege that Calix is expounded in the same place by funditur, and argue from thence, that because the blood of Christ and not wine is shed for us: therefore this cup must needs signify his blood: I answer, that the figure in paniss in like manner is expounded in the same place by frangitur, and 
1 Cor. 11. 24. This is my Body which is broken.  argue that because bread is broken in the Sacrament, and not Christ's body, therefore (this) must needs signify thi●… bread. If you reply that frangitur is ●…t for frangetur, I will say in like man●…er, that funditur is put for fundetur. ●…he Major being therefore put out of all doubt, let us examine the Minor, which was this. The words used in the Consecration of the cup, are to he expounded by one figure or more. For the words as they are recorded by Saint Luke, are these, This Cup is the New 
Luk. 22. 20.  Testament in my blood. Where we have a double figure: First, a metonomy, ●…ntinentis pro contento, the cup is taken for the thing contained in the cup. Secondly, signatum pro signo, the Testament for the Sign, Seal, or Sacrament of the New Testament. So saith Theophylact, 
In Luk. 〈◊〉. Sanguine suo novum Testamentu●… obsig●…vit.  alleged by you. In the Old Testament God's Covenant was confirmed by the blood of bruit beasts: but now, since the Word was made flesh. He sealed the New Testament with his own blood. So your Gorran, the blood of jesus 
Gor. in Luk. 22. Sanguis Christi est confirmatio novi Testamenti.  Christ is the confirmation of the New Testament, for a Testament is confirmed by the death of the Testator. Nay so your most accomplished Jesuits, Solmeron, 
Sol●…. jes. Tom 9 Tract. 15. Subest in his duplex metonymi●…, primò quia continens pon●…ur pro con●…, id est poculum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro ●…no ●…o quod vinum in ipso contine●…r Secundum est in eo quod 〈◊〉 in poculo foedus v●… Testamentum dicitur 〈◊〉, cum s●…us ●…ymbolum.  and Barradius, Solmeron pointeth to a double figure, saying, in these words we have a double figure, first, the cup being put for that which is contained in the 〈◊〉 Secondly, the Testament for a Symb●… thereof. Barradius though he expo●… the word Testament as you do for Legacy bequeathed by Christ's w●… yet he addeth expressly, that it is taken by a figure called Metony●… What say you here to this, 〈◊〉 word Testamentum is here taken p●… perly enough. For not only a man's 〈◊〉 ward will. but also his outward wri●… will in parchment, is commonly called T●… stamentum, because it is an authent●… 
Tom. 〈◊〉. l. 3. c. 〈◊〉. de iustit. Euch. T●…stamentum su●…ur pro legato Meto●…, conti●… Testamentum su ●…ur pro cote●…to leg●…o vel 〈◊〉, hoc sensu sangu●… Christi est Testa●… novum, id est leg●… 〈◊〉 novum & admira●…le.  sign of his will. I pray express y●… self a little farther, what mean y●… by properly enough? do you mea●… by an usual figure, or without a●… figure, if you mean by an usual figure, assent unto you, and it sufficeth for th●… strengthening of my argument: if 〈◊〉 mean without a figure, name me 〈◊〉 Author of note, Divine or Civil●… who before you affirmed that either Legacy bequeathed by will, or the p●… per and parchment in which the will●… written is in propriety of speech with●… any figure, either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek, Testamentum in Latin, or Will in 〈◊〉 glish. Not to take the advantage might against you, that the blood of Christ as you believe it to be in the ●…acrament cannot be an authentical ●…gne of Christ's will, because if we should grant it to be there really, in your sense: yet it is not there visibly, ●…nd therefore cannot be an authentical sign of it, like the paper or parchment ●…ou speak of, or as we teach the wine in the cup to be: I shall be much in●…ebted unto you if you can resolve me ●…ow the blood of Christ can be without any figure, his last Will and Testament, sith  
1. He made his Will at this his last Supper, but made not then his blood. 
●…igest. de test. Testamentum est volunt●… nostrae iust●… sententia de eo quod qui●… 〈◊〉 veli●…●…st mo●…em s●…m. Mat. 26. 28.   
2. His Will was his just determination or appointment of what he would have done after his death, his blood is no such thing.  
3. The Scripture speaks of blood of the Testament, hic est sanguis novi Testamenti, never of a Testament of blood.  
4. Blood is a su●…stantiall part of the Testator, and therefore not his Will or Testam●…nt.  
5. Every Will is either written or nuncupative, the blood of the Testator is neither.  
After you have blunted the edge of these weapons, see how you can rebate the point of 
a jan har. Evang p 91. Dicendum est certum esse hanc lacutionem, hic calix novum Testamentum est in me●… sanguine, non posse accipi in proprio senso, sed per tropum quendam. Sive enim Calix dicitur accipi pro vasculo potorio d●… quo bibeb●… Apostoli, sive pro sanguine Synecdochicè in ipso poculo contento, non potest consistere ut is illis verbis sit propria 〈◊〉: Ne●… enim dixerit propria locutio●… vas●…ulum illud potorium fuisse Testamentum, cum incertum sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex●… illud poculum, ●…c nov●… Testamentum 〈◊〉 esse o●…es testat●…r 〈◊〉, sed nec sang●…is in chalice 〈◊〉 potest propria loc●… dic●… Testamentum.  jansenius his dart●… which he lets fly level at you. These words saith he, cannot be taken properly, whether the cup be taken for the vessel used for drinking, or for the blood of Christ by a Synecdoche: for no man will say that the vessel in propriety of speech is Christ's Testament, sith the Scripture testifieth that Christ's Will is eternal, so i●… not that cup, which no man knoweth whether it be extant at this day or no, neither can the blood of Christ be properly said to be his Testament, for his Testament i●… one, not many, and Paul in the Epistle 〈◊〉 the Hebrews, teacheth out of Jeremy, that the Gospel is the New Testament, Christ's blood is not therefore properly the New Testament. Moreover in Matthew and Mark the blood is said to be the blo●… of the New Testament, it is not therefore the New Testament no more than the blood of Bullocks is the Old Testament. Lastly, the word cup cannot be taken for blood contained in the cup, as it is evident by that which is added in my blood. For the speech will not be congruous if thou say this blood is the New Testament in my blood: the cup therefore must be properly taken for the vessel, which undoubtedly in the proper signification is not the New Testament, wherefore of necessity we must confess that these words this cup is the New Testament in my blood, cannot be taken in the proper sense, but are spoken by a trope or figure.   

PAR. 15.  
That the words of our Saviour, Matth▪ 26. 29. I will drink no more of this fruit of the vine, are meant of the Evangelicall cup, or Sacrament, is proved against D Smith and S. E. by the testimony of Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, Cyprian, Austin, Chrysostome, Druthmarus, the Author of the book de Ecclesiasticis dogmatibus, Jansenius, Maldonat, the Council of Worms and Pope Innocentius: and D. Smith and his Chaplains evasions refuted.  
THe last argument prosecuted in the Conference, was taken out of th●… 26. of Saint Matthew, ver. 29. wher●… Christ himself not only after the blessing of the cup, but also after he had ministered the Communion, saith, will drink no more of this fruit of the vine. Doubtless Christ who institute●… the Sacrament, and immediately before consecrated the cup, ver. 28. best knew what it was; wine or blood, and he resolves us that it was the fruit of the vine, and that we all know is wine, not blood, whence I framed this Syllogism.  

No blood is in propriety of speech the fruit of the vine.  
That which Christ and his Apostles drank in the consecrated Chalice was the fruit of the vine.  
Ergo it was not blood.   
For this blow you have a double ward; the first is, that Christ called his 
〈◊〉  blood the fruit of the vine, because it was such in appearance, the 〈◊〉 of wine remaining after the 〈◊〉 thereof was tur●…ed into Christ's blood. Put the question but to your own conscience, and I dare say it will tell you 
R●…fut.  that this your answer is a mere shift and evasion. For why should not Christ who is the truth, rather call that he drank according to that which it was in substance and truth, then that which it was as you teach only in appearance, who ever heard accidents without substance, quantity or quality, moisture or redness called the fruit of the vine? did Christ drink mere accidents in the cup? or do you at this day in the consecrated Chalice? if so, your Priests could never be at any time overseen or become lightheaded in drinking never so much of the consecrated cup. For it is a thing never heard of, that mere accidents should send up a fume, much less overcome the brain and cause drunkenness in any man, and I hope you will not fly to a miracle, and say that your Priests brains are intoxec●…ted by miracle, in case he take a dram to much of the wine he hath consecrated. Your own Schoolmen put the case, that a Priest may sometimes forget himself by drinking too deep even in the holy cup. But I press not this so much as that you in this your answer forget that we are about the Sacrament, where you will by no means allow of any such figure as excludeth the verity of the thing, otherways if you take a liberty to expound these words by a figure, and say, that Christ by a trope here called that which was his blood, wine, you shall never debar us of the liberty of expounding the former verse by the like figure, and saying, that Christ called by a trope that which was in truth wine, his blood. 'Tis hard to say, and more than you can prove, that Christ ever drank his own blood upon earth: 
a Mal. in Mat 26. 〈◊〉 c●…o ness erat bib●…rus sanguine●… suum nec verè nec metaphoricè, vinum arste●… metaphoric●… bibiturus erat. Ego inquit dispono vobis ut edatis & bibat●… super mensam me am in reg●…o m●…o, ergo non de sang●…e suo s●… de vino dixit, non bibam amodo de hoc genimine vitis. Evas. 2.  Christ neither drank his blood properly nor metaphorically, but wine he was to drink in heaven metaphorically as himself said, Luke the 22. 29, 30. I appoint unto you a kingdom, that you may eat & drink at my table in my kingdom, therefore Christ spoke not of his blood, but of wine, when he said, I will drink no more of this fruit of the vine till I drink it new in heaven, thus your own Maldonate.  
Yet you have another ward you say, p. 162, 163, 164. that there is a Legal cup, and an Eucharistical, both mentioned in Saint Luke, and that these words were spoken of the legal or common cup, as Saint Jerome, Saint Bede, Saint Theophylact expound.  
This ward will not bear off the 
Refut.  blow which comes with such a weight, that it drives your weapon to your head, for  
1. 'Tis evident to any man that wilfully shuts not his eyes, that this in the 29. ver. hath reference to this in the 28. ver, drink ye all of this, for this is my blood, but I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, these words immediately follow the other, and of necessity have relation to them: neither can they have relation to any other cup then the Eucharistical here, and in Saint Mark, because they make mention but of one cup, and that cup whereof Christ said, drink ye all of this, for this is my blood of the New Testament. This reason alone convinced the conscience of your Learned B. 
b Harm. Evang. Afferunt quidam Catholici haec verba non esse dicta a Domino post calicem sacrum, sed post priorem, cuius meminit Lucas, at id non patitur ordo Evang: cum enim Mattheus & Marcus nullius alterius mentionem seccrint praeterquam sacri, quando dicitur ex hoc genimine vitis, nullus alius calix intelligi potest ab iis demonstratus, quam cuius ipsi meminerunt.  jansenius who thus writeth upon this verse, Some Catholics saith he, affirm that these words were not spoken of the Lord after he had drunk of the consecrated cup, but after the former, whereof mention is made in Saint Luke. But the order of the Evangelists will not suffer it. For sith Matthew and Mark make mention of no other cup then the consecrated, when it is said by them, of this fruit of the vine, no other cup can be conceived 〈◊〉 be pointed to or demonstrated by them, the●… that cup whereof they make mention. Of the same mind is Titelmanus, whose opinion Barradius the Jesuit relateth and defendeth in his 3. Book of the Eucharist, c. 5.  
2. The Authors alleged by you to the contrary do not weaken the sinews of my argument, for neither Jerome, nor Bede, nor Theophylact deny these words to be spoken of the consecrated cup, though they allegorise upon them.  
3. By following Bellarmine, you and your Chaplain are fallen into a fowl flow, either you must say you took up your quotations upon trust, or else confess you are a falsificator. For none of these Fathers alleged by you, either in words or by consequence say that you put upon them, to wit, that the words mentioned in Saint Matthew are to be understood of the Legal or common cup, Saint 
c Cum Iude●… credideri●…e & adduxer●…●…os Pater a●… fidem, tuned●… vino corll bi●… Dommus, ●…i nea transpl●… tata est po●… pulus Israel i●…per jeremiam Dominus sequitu●… dicit ●…g se Domin●…●…e quaquar●… 〈◊〉 ha●… vined off bib●…srum nisi in regno Patris, regnum Patris fidem intell●… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Jerome, and 
d Vitis est plebs judaica, etc.  Bede, and 
e Non delecta●…or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 populi.  Anselm have no distinction of two cups, but leaving after their manner the literal sense, expound allegorically the vine to be the people of the Jews, and the fruit of the vine to be either their belief or their legal observances and ceremonies. Theophylact indeed makes mention of two cups, but saith not that the words alleged by me out of Saint Matthew are to be referred to the legal or common cup mentioned in Saint Luke.  
4. You are cast by your own witnesses, for Jerome, Bede, and Theophylact, refer these words to the blood of Christ, and consequently to the Eucharistical cup as 
f In Mat. c. 26. v. 29. jerom in comment. Beda, Euthymius & Theophylactus hoc loco ad sanguinem Christi referunt. In Mat. Tract. 25. Potus iste quem Deus verbum sanguinem suum fatetur, est generatio vita verae, & est sanguis uvae illius quae missi in torcular passionis protu●…t potum ●…nc. Paedag l. 2. c. 2. p 116. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Maldonate confesseth, wherein they do but write after the Copy of the Ancient Fathers. 
1. Origen. That drink which Christ confessed to be his blood, is the fruit of the true vine, and is the blood of that grape which being put into the winepress of his Passion brought forth this drink, we cannot alone either eat of this bread or drink of this fruit of the true vine.  
2. Clemens Alexandrinus. Christ showed that it was wine which was blessed, saying, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine.  
3. Cyprian. Alleging the words of Saint Matthew, I will drink no more of this 
Ep●…t. 6●…. Qua in par●… in●…us call ●…em 〈◊〉 suisse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●…inus. ●…lit, 〈◊〉 vi●…●…sse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●…guinem suum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  fruit of the vine, addeth, where we find that the cup was mingled which the L●…d offered, and that it was wine which he called his blood.  
4. Epiphanius fights against the Encratites with the same 
Come Her. l 〈◊〉. h●…s. 〈◊〉. I●… hoc a recto salvatorio sermone vedargu●…ur, quia dicu●… non bibam da fruct●… vitis h●….  weapon wherewith Saint Cyprian foiled the Aquarij. Their Sacraments saith he which are administered in water only, not wine, are no Sacraments, wherefore they are reproved by our Saviour's own words, saying, I will not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine.  
5. Saint Chrysostome makes the like use of these words of our Saviour against the heretics in his time, why did he not say water but wine? to pluck up by the routs another wicked heresy, for seeing that there are some who in the Sacrament use water, he showeth that when the Lord delivered the Sacrament, he delivered wine 
In Mat. Ho●…il. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Lucas non narrat historiam suo ordine, sed per anticipationem narrat id quod suo loco Ma●…theus & Marcus narrarunt & quest. Evang. l. 1. c. 42.  of the fruit of the vine, saith he, now the vine certainly produceth wine not water.  
6. S. Austin in his 3 book of the consent of the Evangelists. c. 1. and elsewhere professedly handleth the point of difference between you and me, whether Christ spoke these words of the Sacrament after the consecration of the cup, or before, and resolveth it thus, that he spoke them after the consecration of the cup, as Saint Matthew and Saint Mark place his words, and whereas you object out of Saint Luke, that they were spoken before, he answereth that S. Luke by anticipation related that which Matthew and Mark relate in their proper place. Which his answer is so pertinent and so full for us, that 
a Bellar. l. 1. de Eucha. c 11. Augustinus non perpendit hunc locum diligenter.  Bellarmine puts a s●…ur upon this most Learned Father for it, saying, he did not well weigh the place. I think the Cardinal rather did not balance his own words with judgement, in censuring so rashly 
Gardiner a●… obiect●…. no●… bibam amodò de fruct●… vitis d●…e novum hibero in reguo Dei, regnum Dei licclesi●… est, in qua quotidie bibie sangui●… suum Christus per sanctos suos, tanquam caput in membris ex Eucheri●… In Mat. c. 2●… v. 29 Vitis judea vinum Patriarcha●… & Prophet●… 〈◊〉, etc. sive simpli●…iter ab illa hora caenae non b●… bis vinum que●…sque immortalis factus est & incorruptibi●… lis post resur rectionem. Aut. de ecc●… dog. c. ●…5 & Concil. Wor●… c. 2. Vinum fuit in redemptionis nostrae mysterio, cum dixit non bibam de hoc geni●…ine 〈◊〉.  the prime of all the Latin Doctors.  
7. Eucherius Commenting upon these words, till I drink new wine with you in the kingdom of my Father, saith, the kingdom of God is the Church, in which Christ daily drinketh his blood by his Saints, as the head in the members.  
8. Christianus Druthmarus after he had allegorized upon these words a while, falleth upon the literal interpretation, saying, that from the hour of the Supper he drank no wine till he was made immortal and incorruptible.  
9 The Author de Eccles. dogmat. and the Council of Worms say categorically and expressly, that wine was in the mystery of our redemption, when Christ said I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine.  
10. Innocentius Bishop of Rome, a great stickler for your carnal presence, and the Godfather if I may so speak of Transubstantiation, who christened it in the Council of Lateran, yet in the exposition of this place dissenteth from you, and consenteth with all the Ancient Fathers, Greek and Latin 
〈◊〉. 4. dr my●…t. missae. c. 27. quod autem vinum in chalice consecraverat pa●… ex eo ●…od ipse subiunxit, non biba●… amodò de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  above alleged, saying, it is manifest Christ consecrated wine in the cup by those words which he added, I will not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine.   
Yea but your Chaplain S. E. wisely admonisheth me, that the Council of Worms and Innocentius, howsoever in the exposition of this place, they join with us yet that they were through Papists. The stronger say I their testimony against you, and a greater presumption of the evidence of truth on our sides which extorteth such a confession from our greatest opposites.   

PAR. 16.  
Of the Bishop's Chaplain and Champion S. E. his cowardly Tergiversation, base Adulation, shameless Calumniation, and senseless Scurrility.  
BY this time you see cause enough why in the forefront of my letter, I wish you a better cause: I am now in the third and last place to assign you the reasons why I wish you a better Advocate.  
These are in sum four, viz. S. E. his  

1. Cowardly Tergiversation.  
2. Base Adulation.  
3. Shameless Calumniation.  
4. Childish subsannation and senseless Scurrility.   

a not hist. 2. c. 44. In Olympia por●…icus fui●… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ita ●…nstructa ut ●…icam ad 〈◊〉 mul●…s 〈◊〉, ●…icta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ●…u sepiupla  Plynie writeth that in the porch of 
1. Tergiversa●…ion.  Olympia the same voice is seven times repeated by an Echo, such is the relation of S. E. wherein for answer to my seven arguments in seven Sections, he returns your voice, and reiterates your dist●…ctions and evasions seven times at least, I am persuaded that he hath by this time got your answers by heart, he hath conned them over so often. It should seem that at Douai they profess an eighth liberal Science called battology. As for perfecting your Lordship's answers where they were lank and defective he seemeth to have made scruple of conscience thereof, least being but your second he should go before you in any thing. Wherein he shows 
●…iadorus Si●…lus. l. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  himself as good a servant to your Lordship, as the ancient blacke-moores showed themselves subjects to their Prince, who if he were maimed in any part of his body, they maimed themselves in that part, because they thought it unseemly that any subject should be a more proper man or complete then his King. Among many instances of his halting together with you in your lame answers, I note three which are most notorious and obvious to every vulgar eye.  
1. In answer to my first argument to prove the words of institution to be tr●…picall or figurative out of Tertullian, y●… p. 28, 29. & seq. either ignorantly or wilfully mistake a type for a trope, and a real figure, such as were the legal rites for a figure in words or rhetorical ornament of speech and tell us of a mere figure, and of a figure which hath verity joined with it, as when a King in triumph showeth how he did behave himself in the war. S. E. runs away with this error, through many Pages and Sections, and when he is out of breath, p. 57 leaves the Reader to subsume, that if the distinction be not good of a figure and a mere figure, that either the Son of God whom the Scripture calleth the figure of his Father's substance is a mere figure void of being, God without divinity, or that he is a mere fiction, and again, p. 58. A sign, image, or figure, is not necessarily void of being, as you conceive a shadow to be. Sacraments are signs and have some being, man is an image of God, yet a substance, the Son of God according to Saint Paul is the figure of his Father's 
Heb. 1. 3.  substance (he should say image of his person) but not an empty figure, unless that be empty which hath in it a a whole infinity of perfection. Quid ad Rombum? what's this to my argument, ego disputo de aliis ille respondet de 
Eras. Adag.  cepis, I dispute of tropes, he answers of types, I dispute of words, he answers of things: I dispute of Metaphors or Metonomies, he answers of images and Sacraments. Is Christ I pray you a trope? is man a figure in Rhetoric? are the Sacraments Metonomies? is a King acting his own triumphs a Metaphor or an Allegory? if you are ashamed to say so, be then ashamed of your and your Chaplains shifting evasions in your answer to my first argument.  
When in answer to my second argument taken out of Saint Augustine's third 
2.  book, de doctrina Christiana, you said that the speech of our Saviour, john the 
P. 67.  6. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, you have no life in you, is according to Saint Augustine mixed of a proper and a figurative speech, and I replied upon you, that it is most certain that Saint Austin in that place by figurate locutio, meant such a one as could in no 
Ibid. de dec. Chris l. 3. c. 16. Si hoc iam propri●… sonat, nulla putetur figurata locutio.  sense be proper, for S. Augustine's words are, if this now be taken in the proper sense, let it be accounted no figurative speech. Besides he speaketh of such a speech wherein an horrible wickedness is commanded or a virtuous action prohibited, which can in no sense be true in the proper acception of the words: Otherwise it should be lawful to sin because expressly commanded, and sinful to do well, because forbidden. To this reply he rejoins negry quidem.  
When in refutation of your answer 
3.  to my argument, drawn from the pronoun this in the words of the institution, whereby you will have understood this bread transubstantiated into my body: I inferred this consequence thereupon, that the words of Consecration make nothing for Transubstantiation 
P. 300.  or any thing else. For a proposition that is merely identical, quoad significatum proves nothing at all. I may truly say, pointing to Christ's body in heaven at the right hand of his Father, this or that body of Christ is his body, and will it hence follow, that bread or any thing else is substantially turned into Christ's body? your Chaplain answers no, but something else, how else could your mouth utter such an impertinent discourse, with which words he concludes the fifth Section. And thus as when Philip of Macedon walked in state, Clisophus his flatterer comes in strutting after him, and when afterwards Philip's thigh was run through so that he halted downright, in comes Clisophus limping after him in the like manner: so where you are confident in your answer, S. E. is peremptory, where you are profuse, he is redundant, where you are imperfect, he is defective, where you are lame, he halteth downright.  
The best is, what he is faulty in his 
2. Adulation.  answers, he mends in his encomiums, and where he is defective in Argumentation, he supplies it to the full with flattery 
Numero 179. Cato obieci●… Fulvio. Nobiliori quod milites per ambition●…m donaret coronis, levissimis de cansis, nempe quia vallum curavissent, 〈◊〉 ●…um strenue fodissem, quis inquit Cato v●…dit quenquam donari coro●…d cum oppidum no●… esset captum, au●… incensa hostium castra Gellius ●…tic. l. 5●…  and Adulation. Erodius in his book de jure Armorum, teacheth that none by the law of the Romanesmight have a military garland given him, but upon some noble exploit done by him, as scaling the walls of a City, or firing the enemy's Tents, or the like. And therefore w●… read in Aulus Gellius, that Marc●… Cato that Roman Worthy, framed a bill of indictment against Fulvius Nobilior, for rewarding his soldiers with garlands upon light occasions, and for mean services, as for looking to their fence, for digging a well strenuously. A like bill of indictement I might put in against S. E. for crowning you with a garland for doing no noble exploit at all, but only holding up your buckler most valiantly. I refer myself for proof hereof to his own words wherewith he endeth 
P, 19●…  his Pamphlet, I should say his pageant. So my Lord (saith he) though he were not permitted once to put an argument, nor so much as to show the grounds of our tenet; using the buckler only, and never suffered for to draw the sword, got the field, and bore away the prize. A noble prize no doubt 
Egregiam verò laudem & spolia ampla refertis tuque puerque tuus.   
A remarkable victory, and rich spoils, 
Eras. Adag▪ Sa m●…cida spolia sine sanguine & sud●….  like those at Salmacis gotten without shedding a drop of blood or sweat. If C●…esiphon had met with no better an Advocate before the Judges, that sat in Ar●…opaous at Athens, he had certainly lost his Crown, the best flower whereof was 
* Demost. ●…rat. de co●…ena.  Demosthenes his eloquence: yet as he ends, so he begins this his Panegyric rather than Apology: as his last, so his first dishes after the French manner, are larded with your praises in such a fulsome manner, that I wonder your Lordship's stomach could brook them. This Conference being short, I presently read it over, and liked so well some fragments 
P. 3.  of my Lords answers which the Minister hath imparted, that I desired to see the whole: but could not then get a copy. Having lighted now at length on a Latin one, and liking it exceeding well, 
P. 4.  I thought good to translate it, and impart it to others by the print. And could the Reader have been a spectator, and seen 
P. 189.  this action in the life, he would have acknowledged what M. Knevet hereupon did confess, that M. Featley was too young for D. Smith. He is many ways to weak to undertake so great a wit, so ready in answer, so strong in argument, so conversant in Scripture, Fathers, Divines, Much less (what ever out-recuidance makes him think of his ability) is he able to over-match an understanding so full of light, so ample, so vigorous, excellently furnished with all variety of learning Davus ne ●…oquitur an herus, who is the speaker you, or your servant? if S. E. be your Chaplain as his every where exhibiting unto you more than ordinary reverence should imply; I will be bold to tell him that he is sometimes very saucy with you, to spend his judgement upon your answers in such sort as he doth. It may be the Bishops 
P. 3, 4.  of Chalcedons Chaplains use such familiarity with their Lords: but assuredly the Chaplains to the Ordinaries of England know better their distance. But if as we know that Matheus Tortus is Cardinal Bellarmine, and Doleman is Father Parsons, and Marcus Antonius Constantius is Steven Gardiner, so S. E. is Smithus Episcopus, than I am sorry to see a Reverend Prelate so endeared to the Pope, and Cardinal Brandinus to be driven to this exigent, for want of a Herald to blazon his own arms and trumpet out his own titles and praises. Yet I marvel not at it, because Chalcedon is very remote, and far from good neighbours. Howsoever, whether it be he or you, Edward Stratford, or Episcopus Smithus, it mattereth not much, domesticum testimonium is of little force in this case, it will add no more to you than it can detract from me. For love looketh through that end of the perspective glass, which maketh the object seem bigger: but hatred through that end which maketh it seem less than in truth it is. Be it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, self flattery, or servile flattery, I pass by it, but I cannot so lightly pass the shameless slanders which I find in this pamphlet cast by S. E. upon the dead and the living.  
That you may be a Chevalter de gloire and a renowned conqueror, M Knevet 
3. Calumniation  must be your prize and die at Venice a Proselyte. For so S. E. your Herald proclaims to the world. M. Knevet upon the Ministers poor carriage in the 
P. 191.  dispute and Tergiversation, afterwards when he should have answered, disliked the Protestants cause (which he saw their Champion could not make good with argument in the presence of a Scholar, not durst face to face appear to defend it) and soon afterwards was reconciled to the Church, and at Venice died a Catholic. In this whole passage there is not a word true in your sense, but only that M. Knevet died at Venice, if he were reconciled to your Romish Church, and died a Papist, name me the Priest who reconciled him, and on his death bed annealed him, and after his death buried him with your Romish rites, and bring some good proof and testimony hereof, to clear your Chaplain from the fowl imputation of belying the dead. Verily of all fowl we most hate and detest the crows, and of all beasts the 
A kind of Foxes in Barbary.  jackalls, because the one digs up the graves, and devoureth the flesh, the other picketh out the eyes of the dead. Haddit M. Knevet after he left France and traveled into Italy, when he was out of hearing the divine harp of Orpheus, I mean the preaching of the Gospel, been enchanted with your Siren song●…, I should have more grieved then marveiled at it: he being a young Gentleman of a facile and affable disposition, and not deeply learned. But the truth is, he was constant in the truth of his Religion to his last breath, and as the Lord Knevet and other of his alliance, and M. Russell and other of his acquaintance at Venice can testify, he crowned his other good parts and graces with perseverance in the Orthodox faith to the end. Howbeit because Venice is far off, and M. Knevet being dead cannot speak for himself, your Knight of the post S. E. thought he might securely by an officious lie, tending so much to your reputation, and credit of the Catholic cause endear himself to your Lordship. For he knew well mortui non mordent & Nulli gravis est percussus Achilles. But certainly as he there forfeiteth his honesty, so he forfeited his wits also, when p. 23. with a forehead (made o●… the same brass whereof the images are he daily worshippeth) he affirms in print, that since our Conference at Paris in England itself twice to his knowledge I refused to meet your Lordship in dispute. For who will believe that your Lordship whom your very 
a Lib. praesid. Benedictinorum quem ●…es habent pr●… doctissimo prudentissi●…oq̄ magis●…o.  enemies acknowledge to be endued with a very great measure of wisdom, could be so careless of yourself as coming into England with faculties from the Pope, and thereby incurring the penalty of the laws, that touched not only your Mitre, but your head, to send two challenges to the Arch-Bishops Chaplain in house, to meet you at a disputation, especially after you heard that there were two Proclamations out for your apprehension. No Sir, 'tis well known, that when you were in England you played least in sight and concealed yourself not only from Protestants, but from those 
l p●…sid. Benedict p. 94 ●…n Anglia ad Episcop●…m & e●…s Vic●…vios difficillimus est accessus, ●…m ipsi se ca●…ssimè occ●…enr & p 124. nec potest ad●…i Chalcedonensis sine probabil●… per●…lo carceris, mor●…is, exilij, a●… gravis molestiae, & ta●…s ips●… quam Vicarij eiu●… m●… persecuti●… laten●….  who were most addicted to your Romish religion whereof they complain in print. In England say they it is a very hard matter to have access to the Bishop and his Vicars, because they most warily hide themselves, and again the Bishop of Chalcedon cannot be spoken withal without probable danger of imprisonment, death, banishment or grievous trouble, and as well himself as his Vicars lurk for fear of persecution.  
As for my declining a second meeting with you in France, which you upbraid me with, p. 180. usque 188. the indiffident Reader even by your own relation will perceive, that the fear and difference whi●…h hindered the second meeting was on your part, and not on mine, for as yourself relate, p. 184. I sent word by M. Knevet to you, that I would be ready to meet you the next week upon condition, a day might be allowed me to prosecute the rest of my arguments, and again, p. 186. hea●…ing of your purpose to leave Paris, on the Friday following I sent to you the Monday before word by M. Knevet, that I would meet with you upon Tuesday, on condition that I might have leave first to propose all the rest of my arguments which you refused to give way unto.  
You felt the smart of our weapons in the first conflict, in such sort, that you would not meet the second time, unless I put in good security that I would not so much as draw upon you or show you my weapons.  
Yea but say you 'tis evident I declined the conflict by my own words to 
P. 187.  one of my friends, whom I told that Catholics brought so many testimonies of Fathers, to prove the real presence, that there was need of many weeks to read them over. And over against the words many testimonies you quote in the Margin. Trait●…è du S. Sacrament 
P. 188. ●…rat P. Ma. ●…oel. In quo ●…on mod●…●…imen non ●…rebat sed ●…ix diserti ●…olescentis ●…haerebat ●…atio.  de l'Eucharistie, par l'illust●… Cardinal deu Perron. Paris 1622.  
I answer as Tully doth for Coelius, that there is little coherence, and much less verity in this objection: this calumny like a bubble dissolveth itself. 'Tis well known I never term you Catholics, but Papists, neither could the many testimonies alleged by Cardinal Perron for the r●…all presence deter me from a second encounter with you in the mo●…th of September, Anno 1612. for that book of Perron, as you yourself note, was printed in the year 1622. so that to make your relation true, I must needs have had some special revelation, that the above named Cardinal ten years, after would print a book of the Sacrament so fraught with Testimonies of the Fathers, that there needed many weeks to read them. Yet farther to convince you, that I feared not to supply the place of a Respondent in this very question, notwithstanding all that Bellarmine, and Perron, and Co●…ceus or Garetius allege out of the Fathers for your carnal presence: a few w●…ckes after our Conference, I encountered D. Bagshaw at Paris, and since M. ●…sher, and M. Musket. and D. Egleston, and M. Wood 
●…e t●…e Con 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 t●…e App●… dix 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 sher cau●… in his ow●… net.  in England, and answered all they could allege out of Scriptures or Fathers in this point. Neither hath any of them as yet impeached any of my answers extant in print now this 12. years. Which happiness I ascribe to the evidence of truth on our side, and not to any the least opinion of sufficiency in myself, who have ever studied that golden Text of the Apostle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
The greater wrong doth ●…our Gnatho offer me in facing down his Reader, 
P 10 & 190.  that in a challenge to Fisher the Jesuit I compare myself to a Lion and him to a butterfly, saying, 
Their strength with bulls let Lions try 
In tauro●… lybici rua●… l●…nes ne sint papiliovibus ●…olesti.  and not pursue the butterfly.  And he addeth in the Margin Featly of himself in his sacrilege. It seemeth to me that S. E. having learned out of Saint Austin that there is a threefold lie, 
l. de menda●….  

1. Officiosum an officious.  
2. Pernitiosum or malitiosum a malicious.  
3. jocosum and a merry lie or lie in jest.   He thought himself obliged to make use of all three in his master's service, his officious and malicious lies, we have heard before, now he puts his wits to it to frame a jocosum mendacium, to make himself and his Reader merry: but having no occasion of any such jest from any words of mine, he breaks not a jest upon me, but showeth himself absurd and ridicu●…ous. For the words I allege out of Marshal, are not spoken in the singular but in the plural number, nor of myself but others. If he hath not lost his sight together with his wit, he might have seen a relation in the Margin to a book of Fishers, set out in the year 1626. in which he takes upon him to refute a Treatise of the Visibility of the Church, put forth by George Abbot Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, and a Sermon of D Ushers Lord Archbishop of Armath, and a reply of D. White Lord Bishop of Elic. These Lions I wished in the Poet's phrase to fall upon the bulls, meaning the Pope's bulls, and not look after that silly butterfly, Fisher's sorry pamphlet entitled sundry relations, This S. E. knew well enough to be my meaning, but he was disposed to play with the Lion's paw, ex Vngue (saith 
P. 〈◊〉.  he) you may gather what a thing the Lion is: not minding what junius out of 
〈◊〉 ●…as. in embler●….  Aelian observeth, that if the Lion he any way distempered or diseased, he makes himself whole upon the Apc. To verify which emblem, what mops and mows doth he make, with what Apish imitation and ridiculous scurrility doth he sport his Reader, saying, that I brought 
P. 190.  my arguments written in paper, and urged them so (poorly) that M. Porie did prompt 
P. 141. & 142.  him diverse times. And hereafter Universities must all neglect art in speech, and read your predicament, which before times hath been Featleus homo animal vivens corpus substantia, thus in English, accorto your Logic, Featley, Featley, Featley, Featley, Featley, Featley, where you the supreme genus of your new predicament are in predication to be common to other animals, bodies and substances, for so the supreme genus must be. I could have answered these insulsos sales with a mycterisme, but because Solomon adviseth sometimes to answer a fool lest he b●…e too proud of his art or skill: let therefore S. E. your jester (I should say your Chaplain) tell me by what rule of Douai Logic doth this follow, M. F. disliketh D. Smith his exposition this is my body, that is, this bread transubstantiated into my body, is my body, because it implieth a mere Tautology, affirming idem numero de eodem numero, Ergo he overthroweth all the predicamental classes. In this proposition this my body is my body, the predication is neither generis de specie, nor speciei de individuo, nor accidentis de subjecto, but ejusdem rei numero de eadem numero: the subjectum and praedicatum are both idem re & ratione, and therefore such an identical proposition may be removed and cashiered out of Logic, without any disturbing of the predicamental ranks or files. And that he may farther know that I have climbed up Porphyry his predicamental tree as well as he, I will make in it a bower or two for him and his fellows to shade themselves under them.  
Vide arborem.  
Place this before folio 229.  
Vtram harum mavis accipe  

Μσορος  


Ed: St: 
 Jo: Hig: 
 Jo: Fl.  
Pithecus  
Simia 

Caudata  
absque cauda    
Brutum 

Ferum  
Cicur    
Animal 

Rationale  
Irrationale       

ρα●●ος  


Ed: St: 
 Io: Hig: 
 Io: Fl:  
Scurra  
Dicax 

Facetus  
Infacetus    
mendax 

Serius  
jocosus    
maledicus 

veriloquus  
falsiloquus        

PAR. 17.  
A serious exhortation to D. Smith otherwise Bishop of Chalcedon to return home to his dearest mother the Church of England, and famous Nurse the University of Oxford.  
THus leaving your Chaplain in a bad predicamen, I return to your 
Advers. D. m●…. 'tis sa ipso lic●… exitis & vit temporalis e cessis pro a lictis rog●…s Deum: ad immortali●… tem sub ip morte tra●… tur.  self: and let me be bold to speak to you in the words of the blessed Martyr Saint Cyprian, win the day in the edge of the evening, enter yet into the Lord's vineyard though at the eleventh hour. You were an ancient Doctor of Divinity, when I conferred with you at Paris 22. years ago, and therefore now you cannot in reason but think of the day of your dissolution, and in Religion also, of making your accounts ready, which you 
Luke 16. 2. Redd●… ratione vil●… tionis t●….  know ere long will be called for from you. How will you dare to appear before him who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, if you continue still perverting his Way, impugning his Truth, & thereby depriving yourself and others of his Life? O that I might be so happy as jason was, with my darts to open your aposteme and wound you into health, and by arguments to confute you into heaven. Take (I desire you) this occasion (of replying to my answers) to retrieve your former thoughts, and to examine upon what grounds you left both your dearest Mother the Church of England, and your famous Nurse the University of Oxford. Enter into a serious consideration what an ill change you have made of home for banishment, of security for danger, of allegiance for disloyalty, of truth for error, of Scripture doctrine for traditions and legendary fables, of Religion for Superstition, of the pure worship of God in Spirit for manifold Idolatry, of Jerusalem for Babylon, of Christ for Antichrist: and the Lord of his infinite mercy anoint your eyes with the eyesalve of the Spirit, that you may 
poc. 3. 18.  see your errors before you go hence and be no more seen.  
August 31. 1634. Yours as far as you are Christ's, D. F.    

The true Relation of a Disputation between M. Featley and D. Bagshaw, drawn out of the notes of M. Ashley, and M. Ezekiel Arscot, taken in the Conference at Paris, Anno Dom. 1612.  
MAster Featley demanding of D. Bagshaw whether he would join in prayer with him, and the other refusing, made a short prayer to himself, and after he had ended it, began the Disputation as followeth.  M. F. 
The Question we are to debate to give satisfaction to this Honourable 
a There were present, the L. Clifford, Sir Edward Summerset, and diverse other persons of grea●… quality bot●… English and French.  Assembly is, Whether the Body of Christ be truly, really, and substantially contained in the Sacrament under the forms of bread and wine, as the Council of Trent defineth. Which is a question of greatest importance: for if the Body of Christ be not there really and substantially, the Church of Rome which adoreth the Host, committeth Idolatry in the highest degree, by attributing 
* Divine honour or the highest degree of worship proper to God alone.  cultum latriae to a piece of bread. And that the Body of Christ is not there in such sort as the Council determineth, and the whole Church of Rome believeth, I will prove by necessary arguments drawn from the words of the institution, the doctrine and practice of the ancient Church, and the very principles of nature, and infallible grounds of Reason, Saint Paul fully setteth down the institution of the Sacrament. I have received of the Lord (saith he) that which I also 
1 Cor. 11. 23, 24, 25, 26.  have delivered unto you, to wit, that the Lord jesus in the night that he was betrayed, took bread. And when he had given 
24.  thanks, he broke it, and said, Take, eat: This is my Body, which is broken for you: this do ye in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when 
25.  he had supped, saying, this cup is the New Testament in my blood: this do as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye shall eat this breaed, and drink 
26.  this cup, ye show the Lords death till he come. In this faithful relation of the Apostle many things are very remarkable. First, our Saviour spoke to his Disciples in a known tongue: you to the Communicants in an unknown: Christ took bread and broke it: you break no bread at all. Christ after he had broken the bread, took the cup and gave it likewise to all the Communicants: you 
b Gratian de consecrat. dist. 2 cap. caperimus aut integra Sacramunta percipiant aut ab integris arceantur, quia divisio unius aiusdē●… m●…sterij sine grands sacrilegio non potest prov●…ire. Gelasius papa. Ver. 20.  sacrilegiously mutilate the Sacrament, and debar the Laity of the cup. Christ used no elevation at all, neither did his Disciples adore the Sacrament: you practise both. Lastly, Christ when he said eat and drink, truly reached the bread and cup to all which were present and thereby celebrated a Supper: you use the same words, eat and drink you all of this: and yet eat and drink all yourselves. And call you this inviting Gods people to a Supper where you eat up all and they feed nothing but their eyes?  D. Bagshaw. 
You promised to dispute (M. Featley) you do but discourse.  M. Featley. 
Thus I frame my argument. Christ in these words, This is my Body, 
1 Argu.  called bread his body (for he took bread, and broke it, and said, take, eat this pointing to the bread:) but bread cannot be called Christ's body properly, therefore you must needs acknowledge there is a figure in these words, and by consequence they make not for, much less make any Transubstantiation of bread into Christ's body.  D. B. 
I deny your Major. Christ in these words, This is my Body, calleth not bread his body.  M. F. 

c l▪ 3. contra Marcionem c. 19 sic Deus quoque in Evangelio vestro revelavit panem corpus suum appellans, 〈◊〉 hinc iam eum intelligas corporis sui si guram pani dedisse.  Tertullian saith he doth. So God revealed in your Gospel calling bread his body. 
d Theod. dial. mutabilis. p. 30. version Ge●…ani Pontificij edit. Basil. In mysteriorum traditione panem corpus suum appellavit. Et Servator nomina mutavit, & corpori quidem id quod erat symboli ac signi nomen imposuit, symbolo autem quod erat corporis.  Theodoret affirmeth the same in words most expressly Orth: In the delivering of the mysteries he called bread his body. And a little after. Our Saviour changed the names, imposing the name of the Sign or Symbol upon his body: and the name of his body upon the Sign or Symbol.  D. B. 
Tertullian speaketh of that which was bread in the old Law, but now is Christsbody. For in the words before he allegeth Jeremy, mittamus lignum in panem ejus, let us cast wood on his bread, Theodoret is not of great credit, because he favoured sometimes the heresy of Nestorius.  M. F. 
If Theodoret sometimes favoured any heresy, that can be no just exception against this passage of Theodoret, taken out of those books of his which have always been approved for Orthodoxal even by your own Church. Your answer to Tertullian neither satisfieth the place, nor avoideth my argument, for he proveth not only by the words of jeremy in the Old Testament, but of Christ's also in the Gospel, the bread was and is a figure of Christ's body. His argument standeth thus: Christ by the Prophet jeremy called his body bread 
e Tertul. l. 〈◊〉 c. 40 ex-Pounding the same words. Conijcia●… lignum in panem eius, id est, cr●… in corpus eius.  let us cast wood on his bread, that is, the Cross on his body. And in the Gospel's bread his body, Ergo bread was and is a true figure of his body. I insist not upon Tertullians' allegation out of jeremy, but upon his explication of the words of the institution in the 
f Dominus 〈◊〉 Evangelio panem corpus appellam.  Gospel. The Lord in the Gospel called bread his body. And to the like purpose he 
g Tertul. l. 4●… c. 20. accep●… panem, & distributum, corpus suum fecit; hoc est corpus meum dicen●…, id est sigura corporis mei, & seq. our panem corpus suum appellas?  speaketh. The bread taken and distributed unto his Disciples, he made it his body, saying, This is my body, that is, a figure of my body. A little after he propoundeth this question, why doth he call bread his body. Out of which places I thus argue against your answer. Tertullian saith that 
h Dominus in Evangelio.  Christ in the Gospel called the bread which he broke and distributed unto his Disciples, his body: and therefore he speaketh not of that which was bread in the old Law and you suppose to be Christ's body in the new, but of that which was very bread then, when he called it his body: But I infer that which is truly bread, cannot be properly called Christ's body, Ergo you must reject Tertullian, or admit of a figure.  D. B. 
Prove that bread cannot properly be called Christ's Body.  M. F. 
No disparata can be properly affirmed one of the other.  
Bread and Christ's body are disparata. Ergo  
The one of them cannot properly be affirmed one of the other.  D. B. 
Panis & corpus Christi are not disparata, because they are not sub eodem genere.  M. F. 
Nay for that very reason rather, they are disparata, because they are not sub eodem genere. The especial difference between Contraria and Disparata is, that contraria are sub eodem genere proximo, disparata may be sub diversis as homo & lapis, corpus Christi & panis, the one sub corpore animato, the other sub inanimato.  D. B. 
You ground your faith upon Scriptures not upon Fathers, therefore we expect other arguments from you then such as these.  M. F. 
But you ground your faith not upon Scriptures only, but upon the traditive doctrine of Fathers, and therefore we expect from you better answers then these to the Fathers. You bear the world in hand that all the Fathers are yours, and yet when it comes to the trial dare not stand to their authority, but fly to the Scriptures which give you no countenance at all, but rather check your errors.  D. B. 
Show me in Scripture, where Christ called bread his body, or else you do but trifle out the time.  M F 
In the 1 of Cor. 11. v. 24. This is my body which is broken for you.  D B. 
Conclude your proposition from these words.  M. F. 
Thus I infer i●….  
That Christ called his body which he said was then broken for us (this is my body which is broken)  
But that which was there broken was bread & nothing but bread.  
Ergo he called bread his body.  D. B. 
I deny your assumption, Christ's true body was then broken.  M. F. 
You mean I hope non rei veritate sed significante mysterio, not in the truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery, as your Canon law distinguisheth.  D. B. 
Significante mysterio that's significante mendacio.  M. F. 
What is every mystery a lie with you? doth not your speech rather deserve the name of significans mendacium, a signal untruth, than Saint Augustine's, cited by 
i Gra. de consect. dist. 2 cap. Immolatio carnis Christi quae sacerdotis manibus sit vocatur Christi passio, mors, crucifixio, non rei veritate sed significante mysterio.  Gratian? answer directly: say you Christ's body is truly and really broken in the proper acception of the word? if not so, than you must acknowledge a figure in the word frangitur: if you say that Christ's body is truly and really broken in the proper acception of the word, you gainsay the Scripture and go against your own belief.  D. B. 
Christ's body is truly broken, for he saith so, which is broken.  M. F. 
Christ's body was whole when he administered the Sacraments, therefore it was not broken.  D. B. 
It was whole in se, but broken sub speciebus.  M. F. 
That which is whole and entire sub speciebus is not broken sub speciebus. Christ's body according to the Canons of the Council of Trent is whole, sub speciebus and in qualibet parte specierum, and is entirely eaten of every Communicant, Ergo it is not broken sub speciebus.  D. B. 
Your Mayor is true, respectu ejusdem, not otherwise.  M. F. 
Whrt mean you by respectu ejusdem? ejusdem substantiae, or ejusdem accidentis?  D. B. 
I say Christ's body which is whole in se sub speciebus, is not broken in se sub speciebus, but alio respectu.  M. F. 
The species or accidents are not Christ's body, neither can they be broken truly and properly, especially being without a subject as you hold they are in the Sacrament: therefore if Christ's body be truly broken sub speciebus, as you affirm, it must needs be broken in s●…, and so your distinction stands you in no stead.  D. B. 
Be it broken in se, but sub speciebus.  M. F. 
Now you confound the members of your own distinction. I need not to contradict you, you contradict yourself fast enough. Answer this argument I pray directly.  
That which is whole in se sub speciebus is not broken in se sub speciebus at the same time.  
But the Body of Christ is whole in se sub speciebus, for whosoever receives the body of Christ sub speciebus, receives it wholly and entirely and cannot do otherwise, because Christ as your Church teacheth us, is totus in toto, and totus in qualibet parte hostis.  
Therefore Christ's body is not broken in se sub speciebus.  D. B. 
I deny your Major.  M. F. 
If the Major be false, the concontradictorie thereof must needs be true, which is this, that which is whole in se sub speciebus, is broken in se sub speciebus at one and the same time.  
Let this Proposition of M. D. Bagshawes be written. That which is whole in se sub speciebus, at one and the sell same time, is broken in se sub speciebus, a flat contradiction.  
After this proposition was taken in writing by M, Arscot, and M. Ashly, M. Featley proceeded to a new argument.  M. F. 
The words used in the consecration of the cup are figurative, therefore 
2 Argu.  no ground in them for your real presence of Christ's blood in the cup.  D. B. 
They are not figurative but proper.  M. F. 
These are the words. This cup is the New Testament in my blood, but these cannot be expounded but by a double figure: Ergo the words of the institution concerning the cup are figurative.  D. B. 
They are not the words of the institution.  M. F. 
S. Luke Chap. 22. v. 20. and Saint Paul relate them for the words of the Institution, will you disparage them as you did Gratian and S. Austin before?  D. B. 
S. Matthew and S. Mark have other words, hic est sanguis, etc. This is the blood of the New Testament.  M. F. 
Others in sound, not in sense. All Christians are bound under the pain of damnation to believe that all the Evangelists who were inspired by the Holy Ghost, have faithfully set down Christ's speeches and actions. S. Luke and Saint Paul affirm that Christ used these words, dare you impeach their authority?  D. B. 
Admit these be the words of the institution you gain not your figure.  M. F. 
Yes, a double one, one in Calix, another in Testamentum. We drink not properly the cup, neither is that which we drink in the cup properly Christ's Testament.  D. B. 
I deny both.  M. F. 
What? is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Calix properly that which we drink, write this proposition down also. Calix or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is properly that which we drink, a man drinks down a stone pot or silver chalice. How say you M. D. Stevens, is there not a Metonymy in Calix, to wit, continens pro contento? I take it you granted it on Saturday last, as did also D Smith in my disputation with him (D. Stevens ingenuously here confessed as much, and said he would maintain it.) I leave D. Stevens to confute you M. D. Bagshaw, touching the cup. I prove there is a figure in Testamentum. Either there is a figure in Testamentum, or that which is contained in the Chalice is propriè Testamentum, Christ's last will: but that which is contained in the Chalice is not propriè Testamentum, or Christ's will or Testament, Ergo there is a figure in the word Testamentum.  D. B. 
It is properly a Testament.  M. F. 
I prove the contrary: Christ made his Testament at his last Supper as you grant, but he made not then his blood, his blood therefore is not his Testament.  D. B. 
He made his blood at his last Supper.  M. F. 
Write this down also. Christ made his blood at his last Supper. Was not his blood made and in his veins before?  D. B. 
It was: but till then he made it not potable.  M. F. 
To make a thing potable, is not to make it blood. If his blood were his Testament which he made at his last Supper, it followeth that he made it then truly as he made his Testament truly. But to go on forward directly against your answer, Christ made not his blood potable at his last Supper.  
That he made potable (if he mad●… any thing potable at his last Supper) which he put in and poured out of the Chalice.  
But that was not his blood.  
Ergo he made not his blood potable at his last Supper.  D. B. 
It was his very blood.  M. F. 
His very blood therefore was then truly shed.  D. B. 
What of that?  M. F. 
Therefore your sacrifice of the Mass which your Church acknowledgeth to be incruentum unbloody is truly bloody.  D. B. 
How doth this follow?  M. F. 
Most clearly and evidently as you may see in this Syllogism.  
That sacrifice in which blood is truly shed, is truly blood.  
But in the sacrifice of the Mass (as you have already granted me) the blood of Christ is truly shed and poured out.  
Ergo your sacrifice of the Mass is truly a bloody sacrifice.  D. B. 
Your Major is not currant, unless you add thereunto externally.  M. F. 
As if a man could not truly bleed inwardly, my conclusion is not, the sacrifice of the Mass is a bloody sacrifice externally, or visibly, but truly, which is sufficiently inferred out of the premises without your addition. For certainly blood truly shed and sacrificed, makes a truly bloody sacrifice.  D. B. 
I told you before blood could not be truly shed unless it were externally shed.  M. F. 
And did not I also tell you of a vein bleeding inwardly.  D. B. 
Though the vein bleed inwardly, that is within the body, yet the blood cometh out of the vein.  M. F. 
And so must Christ's blood also if it be truly poured out: for fusio is motio, and effusio is extra fusio, therefore if Christ's blood be truly poured out, it must needs run out of his veins.  D. B. 
Every natural effusion is a motion, but this is a supernatural effusion.  M. F. 
Every effusion is essentially a motion, if it be a natural effusion, it is a natural motion, if a supernatural effusion a supernatural motion.  D. B. 
I admit of a supernatural motion.  M. F. 
Therefore you admit of a passing of Christ's blood from one place to another, which cannot be as long as it remains in his veins.  D. B. 
Why so? cannot Christ's blood be poured out of the cup, unless it stir out of his veins?  M. F. 
Not possibly, unless you will say the flesh and bones are poured out together with it, and by a consequence that you drink properly flesh and bones in the chalice which I thus demonstrate.  
All that is in the Chalice you truly and properly drink.  
But the veins, flesh, and bones of Christ you grant are in the Chalice, by saying that the blood is there in the veins.  
Ergo you drink properly flesh and bones.  D. B. 
These are gross and Capernaitical arguments, unworthy to be urged by Christians.  M. F. 
Sir, speak in your conscience, whither you think we come nearer to the Capernaits, who teach a spiritual eating of Christ by faith, according to those words of our Saviour, My words are spirit and life, or you who teach a carnal eating of him with the mouth and teeth? was not this the very error of the Capernaites?  D. B. 
Nothing less: for the Capernaites supposed Christ's flesh should have been cut and quartered and sold in the market.  M. F. 
This is your gross fancy of the Capernaits error, the Scripture chargeth them with no other error, but such as arose from the misconstruction of Christ's words, unless you eat my flesh, which they understood according to the letter that killeth, not according to the spirit which quickeneth. Now the letter of these words implieth no such thing as cutting or selling Christ's flesh in the shambles: only it importeth a real and proper eating, which consisteth in taking flesh into the mouth, chamming of it, and swallowing it down the throat into the stomach. All this you do, are you not then true Capernaites?  D. B. 
For shame leave these idle and foolish collections of yours.  M. F. 
I should easily return the like speeches upon you, but I fear to abuse the patience of this Honourable Assembly, through our impatience, I thought to have spared you, but since you have provoked me so far, I charge you with a speech of yours. This blood is blood in my blood, which you gave me at our last Conference for the true exposition of these words. This cup is the New Testament in my blood, are you not ashamed of such an absurd Commentary?  D. B. 
The congruity of this exposition I have maintained in writing, and I have long expected your reply.  M. F. 
You know who imposed silence upon us both, to whose authority I acknowledge myself obnoxious whilst I stay in Paris. But I leave these matters & come to my ar●…uments drawn from the testimonies of ancient Fathers.  D. B. 
I know what you will allege, a place of S. Austin de doctrina Christiana, and a sentence of Gelasius & Theodoret.  M. F. 
It should seem you remember these allegations the better, because you have been gravelled with them, as 
b Pli●…. n●…t. Hist. l. 8. Leo vulner●…us observatione mir●… percussorem ●…ovit. & in quantal●…bet ●…ultitudine ●…ppetit ●…um.  Pliny reporteth, that the Lion taketh especial notice of one that hath strooken him, and strangely findeth him out among a great throng of people.  M. F. 
Well what say you first to Saint Austin, me thinks he speaks home to the purpose in that very 
a 〈◊〉 Argu. 〈◊〉 Austin l. 3 〈◊〉 doct. ●…hrist. c. ●…6. 〈◊〉 praecep●…iva 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est ●…t s●…agittum ●…t facinus ●…ans aut ●…litatem 〈◊〉 benefi●…iam 〈◊〉, non est ●…urata, si ●…tem slagi●…m aut facinus videtur iubere aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam vetare figu●…a est. Nisi manducaveritis inqui●… carnem filij homin●… & sa●…guinem bibe●… non habebitis vitam in vobis. Faci●… vel slagitium vid●… i●…re: sigu●… est ergo praecipiens, passion●… Dominicae esse communicandum & suaviter 〈◊〉 ut●…liter recondendum i●… memoriâ quod pro nobis car●… 〈◊〉 crucifixa & ●…nerata si●….  place. If the speech command any good thing, or forbid any wickedness, the speech is not figurative, but if the Scripture seem to command a sin or an horrible wickedness, or forbid any thing that is good and profitable, the speech is figurative, for example, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, etc. the speech seems to command a sin or horrible wickedness, it is a figure therefore.  D. B. 
What if I should say with some of your own side that these words on which S. Austin commenteth, John the 6. appertain not to the Sacrament.  M. F. 
You should oppose Cardinal Bellarmine and others of your own side, you should demolish one of the strongest pillars of Transubstantiation, if not the doctrine itself of your carnal eating, for if those words of our Saviour john 6. (unless you eat my flesh, etc.) cannot be taken properly as S. Austin proveth by an invincible argument, it ensueth necessarily thereupon that the flesh of Christ cannot be properly eaten.  D. B. 
You cannot be ignorant of Bellarmine his answer to this place of S. Austin, and the other you bring out of 
b Theod. dia●… 2. Non rec●… dunt Sy●… b●… lafoy mys●… propriâ 〈◊〉 râ, remane●… enim in pri●… re substanti●… for●… & sigur●….  Theodoret and Gelasius, look in him for an answer.  M. F. 
We come not hither to hear Bellarmine's but D. Bagshaws' answers, if you approve of Bellarmine's answers, why are you ashamed to bring them to trial. If you approve them not, make us so much beholding unto you to acquaint us with your new and better anseers.  D. B. 
Bellarmine's works are every where to be had, what trouble you us with these stale objections.  M. F. 
Your manifold Tergiversations (M. D.) show that either you are ignorant of Bellarmine's answers, or you dare not avouch 
d Bellar. answer to the words of Theod. that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or substance is meant the accidents to the hiss of all his adversaries & blush of his own side, seeing Theod. in this very sentence distinguisheth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as substance from accidents, and he disputeth in this place against the ●…utychian heretics, who affirmed that Christ's body after the Resurrection, was turned into divinam naturam, according to the substance, his words are, ita corpus Domini post assumptionem in divinam mutatur substantiam, as saith the heretic, the elements of bread and wine are after consecration. Theodoret retort●… this simile upon him, thus, quae ipse tex●…isti retibus captus es▪ neque enim Symbola mystica post sanctificationem recedunt a suâ naturâ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  them. Answer me but directly to a place of Chrysostome, and I will press you with no more authorities at this time, the place of Chrysostome which seemeth to me of all others most pregnant, is found 
e Si ergo h●…c vasa sanctificata ad privatos usus transferre sic p●…riculosum est, in quibus non est verum corpus Christi sed mysterium ejus contine●…, quanto mag●… vasa corporis nostri quae sibi Deus ad habitaculum praeparavit, ●…on deb●…mus locum dare D. ab●…lo agendi in iis quod vuls  Homil. 11. in cap; 5. Matthei, there he maketh this inference. If it be so dangerous to convert sanctified vessels to private uses, in which there is not the body of Christ, but a mystery thereof is contained, how much more ought we not to give up our bodies which God hath fitted for an habitation for himself, to the devil to do in them what he list.  D. B. 
Chrysostome was not the author of these Homilies, but an Arian heretic, for he inveigheth against the Catholics under the name of Homoousiani.  M. F. 
Belike than your Church in her Breviaries, and your Popes in their 
a Vid. 6. Senens. l. 4. ●…b. Sanct.  decrees are foully mistaken, who frequently allege sentences out of these Homilies under the name of S. Chrysostome. It is true, there are some places corrupted by the Arians, whom this Author notwithstanding manifestly impugneth and refuteth, Homil. 28. & 45. but that this place should be inserted by Arians, there can be no colour or show, for as much as the Arians never were called in question for any error touching the Sacrament. Secondly, if it could be proved that Chrysostome was not the Author of these Homilies, yet in regard of the 
b It appeare●…h that 〈◊〉 flourishe●… about Chrysostome●… time, or shortly af●…er▪  antiquity of the Author, whosoever he was, you should vouchsafe him some answer.  D. B. 
I answer, that by non verum corpus he meaneth not visible, by not true, not visible.  M. F. 
Non verum corpus hoc est non visibile, a proper interpretation, as if nothing were true but that which is visible: or as if Christ had two bodies, one visible which Chrysostome called his true body, and another invisible which must needs be his false body sith you oppose it to his true.  D. B. 
I distinguish not so of Christ's bodies, but of diverse habitudes of one and the self same body, to wit, visibility and invisibility.  M. F. 
You say then that Christ's body is visible and invisible at the same time.  D. B. 
Why not?  M. F. 
And in the same place too? to wit, at the Table?  D. B. 
What of all this?  M. F. 
Nothing but this apparent contradiction. That one and the self same body at the self same time in the self same place, may be visible and invisible to the same persons.  D. B. 
This is no contradiction, because I say not that his body is visible and invisible respectu ejusdem.  M. F. 
Scis simulare cupressum, you know the story of the Painter who being good at portracting of a cypress tree, when one gave him money to draw & represent a shipwreck in a Table, asked if he would have a Cypress tree drawn in it: despairing to do aught else worth his ●…eward. This your distinction of respectu ejusdem is as fit to the purpose as a Cypress to a shipwreck, yet still it comes at a dead lift. Once more explicate yourself, what mean you by r●…spectu ejusdem?  D. B. 
Ejusdem habitudinis or modi existendi, the body of Christ as he sat at the Table was visible in itself, but invisible sub speciebus under the forms of bread and wine.  M. F. 
If the species cover Christ's body and hide it from sight, how say you that they are visible signs to represent Christ's body and set it before our eyes? visible signs you must needs make them, or you have none in your Sacrament, for the bread according to your doctrine remaineth not, and Christ's body is the thing signified, not therefore the sign. When Drusius in his defence against a nimble Jesuit that called him heretic, alleged that heresy must be in fundamentis fidei, in foundations of faith, the jesuit replied, that even that assertion of his was heresy. I may with far greater reason reply upon your distinction of extra species & sub speciebus, whereby you seek to avoid a contradiction, that even this very distinction of yours implieth a manifest contradiction, to wit, that the self same body the same time is sub speciebus & extra species, under the forms and without the forms, is within the forms of bread and wine and without. If Christ's body at the same time may be sub speciebus and extra species, it may be under the forms and not under the forms, sub speciebus and non sub speciebus. Is not this a contradiction?  D. B. 
No, because he is not sub speciebus and extra species in the same place.  M. F. 
Who ever required identitatem loci to make a contradiction? are not these propositions contradictory? Deus vivit, Deus non vivit, Angelus movet, Angelus non movet. Anima est in corpore, Anima non est in corpore: and yet in none of all these propositions there is any respect at all to place; The affirmation and negation ejusdem de eodem, ad idem secundum idem eodem 
a Arist. Elench.  tempore is a contradiction: but in these propositions, Christus est sub speciebus, Christus non est sub speciebus, the same thing, to wit, esse sub speciebus is affirmed and denied of the same thing, to wit, of Christ, secundum idem, viz. according to the same nature and part of him, to wit, his body ad idem, to wit, with a reference to the self same accidents numero. And lastly, in eodem tempore, to wit, at the instant after the prolation of these words, hoc est corpus meum, etc.  D. B. 
The respect to divers places is sufficient to salve the former propositions from contradiction. What urge you Aristotle in matter of faith above reason.  M. F. 
I urge not Aristotle for any matter of faith, but for a question of Logic touching the nature of contradictions, but because you so sleighten Aristotle's authority, I prove it by reason, that a body cannot be in diverse places, sub speciebus & extra species, under the forms and without the forms: it cannot at all be in diverse places, therefore not in such or such a manner.  D. B. 
How prove you that?  M. F. 
By this argument. 

One body cannot be divided and severed from itself.  
But if it be in the same time put in diverse places distant one from another, it must needs be severed and divided from itself.  
Ergo one and the self same body cannot be put in divers places at the self same time.    D. B. 
Divided and severed I grant you, respectu loci, non respectu substantiae, in respect of place not of substance.  M. F. 
If the place be severed, I cannot conceive but that the substance that is in those severed places must needs be severed.  D. B. 
This you are to prove.  M. F. 
Thus I prove it.  
Those things between which there is a great space or way, and many bodies and substances interposed; are really severed, and discontinued.  
But between the Hosts consecrated at Rome and Paris, there is a great space or way, and many bodies interposed.  
Ergo the Hosts consecrated at Rome and at Paris are really severed and discontinued bodies.  D. B. 
I deny your Syllogism.  M. F. 
Mark it once again, this is the Major. Those things between which, etc. But the Hosts consecrated at Rome and Paris, are those things between which, etc. Ergo, etc.  D. B. 
They are not those things between which many bodies are interposed.  M. F. 
Is it not a great way, and are there not many bodies interposed between this and Rome.  D. B. 
I grant you that, but I deny that the Hosts consecrated at Rome and Paris are things.  M. F. 
Between one thing therefore, and itself, many bodies may be interposed. But if diverse wafers consecrated by diverse Priests, in diverse places, be not diverse things, I know not what things you will call diverse. I perceive it will be to little purpose to reason with you by arguments drawn from reason, for you will make good any absurdity in reason by your faith. What answer you to the words of your own Mass which you say every day. 
4 Argu. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de tuis doni●… ac da●…is hostiam param & sacram qu●… propi●… ac sereno vul●… aspicere digneris & accepa haber●… sicut accepta habere dignatus es mun●…ra pueritui ●…usti Ab●…l; iube haec proferriper ma●…us sancti Angel●… tui i●… sublime altar tuum in conspectu divinae Maiestati●… tuae, &c per Christum Dominum nostrum per quem haec omnia semper bonacr●…as, sanctificas, be●…edicis.   M. F. 
After the Priest hath consecrated and elevated the Host, he saith. We offer unto thee O Lord of thy gifts, a pure and holy Host, upon which vouchsafe to look with a benign and propitious countenance, and to accept them, as thou didst vouchsafe to accept the gifts of thy child Abel the righteous: command that these things be carried by the hands of the holy Angel into thy high Altar, into the sight of thy divine Maj●…sty by jesus Christ our Lord, by whom thou dost always create, sanctify & bless these good things unto us.  D. B. 
What do you urge me with the Canon of the Mass?  M. F. 
You a Masse-Priest and not able to defend your own Mass, 
a Concil. Trid. ●…es 6, Can. 6. Si quis dixeri●… Ca●…one Missae errores conti●…eri 〈◊〉 sit.  are you not afraid of that thundering Canon? if any man say that the Canon of the Mass contains any errors in it let him be acoursed. I should think myself much disparaged, if I should refuse to maintain our own Church Liturgy: Let this be noted that M. D. will not answer to the words he readeth every day in the Mass: do you make as little reckoning of the customs of the ancient Church, as you did of the Canons and Constitutions of the present Church of Rome set down in the Mass.  D. B. 
What an idle thing is this in you to urge the customs of the Church, a moral argument in a theological controversy.  M. F. 
Your exception were plausible, if I purposed to urge a moral or civil custom. I make an inference upon religious customs of the ancient Church, whereby a man may as certainly gather what their opinion and judgement was touching this point, as by their words. Evagrius saith, that at Constantinople 
l. 4. Hist. 〈◊〉 Ecclesiast. cap. 5  they called children from the school and distributed the remainder of the Sacrament among them. Hesychius l. 2. in Levit. c. 8. speaketh yet of a more strange custom of casting it into the fire.  D. B. 
What collect you from these customs?  M. F. 
That they thought not the Sacrament to be Christ's very body, but only a mystery of it.  D. B. 
I see not any force in this consequence, conclude Syllogistically.  M. F. 


That which the ancients distributed to children, cast into the fire, they believed not to be the body of Christ farther than in a mystery.  
But the remainder of the Sacrament after the Communion they disposed of as above.  
Ergo they believed it not to be the very body of their Lord and Saviour farther than in a mystery.    D. B. 
I make doubt of your Major.  M. F. 
I marvel how you can make any doubt of it? for if they had believed, as you do the Sacrament to be the very body of Christ, by way of Transubstantiation: they had grievously sinned against their conscience in thus using or rather abusing the Lords body.  D. B. 
How prove you that?  M. F. 
It is a sin to give Christ's body to children that cannot discern it: a greater sin by far to cast it into the fire: I say to cast the remainder of the Sacrament into the fire, holding it to be the very body of Christ in your sense, otherwise holding it to be but the figure or Sacrament of Christ's body, they might burn it without sin, in imitation of the Israelites, who by the commandment of God burned the remainder of the Paschall Lamb, which was a figure of Christ.  D. B. 
You answer yourself, as you say the jews burned the remainder of the Paschall Lamb to prevent worse inconveniencies, so the ancient Church might cast Christ's body in the Sacrament into the fire in a reverence to it.  M. F. 
A strange kind of reverence to throw a man (especially alive) into the fire.  D. B. 
If the figure of Christ might be burnt in reverence, his body might with greater reverence.  M. F. 
I scarce believe (M. D.) that you think a man should do you a greater reverence, to cast you into the fire, then to burn your picture.  
I see by my watch, that the two hours allotted for me to dispute are near passed, and therefore I knit up the four arguments which I purposed to prosecute at large in three brief questions. 1. What doth the mouse eat that lighteth upon a piece of bread or drop of wine consecrated?  D. B. 
The form of bread returneth again by a miracle.  M. F. 
Peter Lombard propounding this doubt: quid ergo mus comedit? answereth, Deus novit, God knoweth. Aquinas resolveth it against you. 
a ●…e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  And so doth your church, saying, si mus corpus Domini comederit, if a mouse eat the body of Christ.  D. B. 
What tell you me of Aquinas?  M. F. 
I must be brief, that I may not defraud the Auditorio of your arguments. My second question is: what is that you call the consecrated Host? the 
6 Argu.  bread is not the Host, because it is not offered, the body of Christ is not the Host, and I trust you will not say the accidents are the Host.  D. B. 
Christ's body is the Host.  M. F. 
Christ's body is not offered, therefore it is not the Host.  D. B. 
It is offered.  M. F. 
That is offered which is consecrated: Christ's body is not consecrated: therefore it is not offered.  D. B. 
I deny your Major.  M. F. 
I had thought, you had held, that you offer a thing consecrated. What is consecrated, sith Christ's body is not?  D. B. 
The bread.  M. F. 
The bread remaineth not after consecration, and Christ's body you confess, is not consecrated by the Priest: therefore you have no consecrated Host.  D. B. 
The bread is consecrated to be offered, because it is consecrated to be made Christ's body, which is offered.  M. F. 
Your answer in a word to my 
7 Argu.  third demand. What becometh of Christ's body in the stomach? doth it remain there still? then you have Christ's body at this time within you. And what need you often receive his body, if you have it still within you? doth it go out of the stomach? when and which way? Is it turned into the substance of our body? or evaporeth into air? or is it altogether annihilated?  D. B. 
None of all these. But it ceaseth to be, as the soul in a part of the body that is cut off from the rest.  M. F. 
Chius ad Choum. I speak of a body, you answer of a soul. The soul of a man, because it is a spiritual substance, may in an instant invisibly disfuse itself through the whole body, and contract itself in like manner, when a part is cut off, or rather stay her influx into that part; but a body that hath parts of quantity and solidity of substance cannot penetrate another body, nor quit the former place, but by a true local motion, visible and divisible, and that in time.  D. B. 
Christ's body is more spiritual than our soul.  M. F. 
What, according to the substance? 
If Christ's body be more spiritual than our soul, it must needs be a Spirit.  for we speak not now of qualities or spiritual graces? Note this by the way. It savoureth of heresy. Let me be so much beholding to you, before I leave, to get of you a direct answer to this Syllogism.  
Every bodily substance truly existent in a place, that neither abideth in that place, nor removeth to another, nor is changed into something else, is truly annihilated or brought to nought or nothing.  
The body of Christ, according to your belief, was really existent in the stomach, and neither continueth there still, neither goeth out of the stomach, neither is converted into another substance or thing.  
Ergo it is there truly annihilated.  D. B. 
Thus you dispute: Christ's body is annihilated in the stomach. Ergo it is annihilated simpliciter, I deny your argument.  M. F. 
You deny your own argument not mine. I undertook not to prove that Christ's body is annihilated simpliciter, simply, but that it is annihilated in the stomach, which it seems you deny not, nor can, standing to your own grounds. Yet because you are so brief with me, thus I prove the argument.  
That which is made absolutely nothing in the stomach, cannot be something elsewhere.  
Christ's body as you grant is turned into nothing in the stomach.  
Ergo it cannot be something elsewhere.  D. B. 
Your Major is most false.  M. F. 
That which is made simply nothing, is yet something. Nothing is a contradiction, if this be not.  D. B. 
Respectu ejusdem, M. Featley. How often have I distinguished of diverse respects.  M. F. 
And how often have I resuted this frivolous distinction of yours; which was your first and now is your last.  
Inchoat, atque eadem finit oliva dapes.  
Here M. Featley being ca●…led off from farther objecting, D. Bagshaw opposeth as followeth.  D. B. 
Christ's body may be in more places at once. Ergo it is in the Sacrament.  M. F. 
I deny your argument.  D. B. 
This is the reason why you deny Christ's body to be in the Sacrament, because you suppose it cannot be in more places at once. Ergo if it may be in more places at once it may be in heaven and in the Sacrament.  M. F. 
This argument as little follows as the former. Ex particulari non fas est Syllogizare. Though this reason were not good, yet we have many other strong and invincible.  D. B. 
It is no wickedness to eat Christ's flesh in the Sacrament. Ergo your argument drawn from the impiety of eating Christ's flesh with the mouth is of no force.  M. F. 
S. Austin indeed allegeth this for a reason, to prove that Christ's words, unless you eat my flesh, joh. 6. cannot be meant properly, but figuratively, because it is an horrible wickedness to eat the flesh of a live man. I approve of this reason and will maintain it. Yet if you could overthrow it, it would not prove your argument: you know Aristotle distinguisheth inter argumenta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. These arguments of yours, if you could prove them, are but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they demonstrate not the conclusion of your faith, that Christ is really and corporally in the Sacrament. At the most they prove but that he might be in the Sacrament, for aught they bring to the contrary that insist upon the former reasons. Let us hear one Syllogism from you.  D. B. 
The words of Christ are literally to be taken, except you can bring some just exception against the literal exposition.  
But you can bring no just exception against the literal exposition.  
Ergo the words of the institution are literally to be understood, and by consequence the Sacrament is Christ's true body.  M. F. 
All the arguments I have hitherto used, are so many exceptions against the literal exposition. But to restrain you to some certain reasons, I say the words of the institution cannot be taken properly, because all the circumstances of the Text are against it: first, Christ took bread and broke it, & pointing to it, said, This is my body, and he added, do tlois in remembrance of me. And after he had given the cup, said, I will drink no more of this fruit of the vine. From all which circumstances many strong arguments may be drawn. Bread cannot properly be Christ's body. Christ's body cannot be given in remembr●…nce of itself. That which is the fruit of the vine is not properly Christ's blood. Moreover, Christ in these words, This is my body, instituted a Sacrament, and therefore this sacred form of speech is to be mystically and Sacramentally understood, answerable to the like used in the matter of Sacraments. Gen. 17. 10. This is my Covenant, speaking of Circumcision which was but a sign of the Covenant. Exod. 12. 11. It is the Lords Passeover, speaking of the Lamb, which was but a figure of the Passeover, 1 Cor. 10. The Rock was Christ, that is a figure of Christ. Luk. 22. this cup is the New Testament, that is, a sacred sign or memorial of the New Testament. The literal exposition of the words is repugnant to the Articles of our faith, clearly deduced from those words of our Saviour, joh 16. I leave the world and go to the Father, where it followeth immediately now thou speakest plainly, now thou usest no parable. It is said, Act. the 3. that the heavens must contain Christ, according to his humane nature, till his second coming. Now if Christ, according to●…is humane nature have lest the world, he is not in the world: if he be contained in the heavens, than he is not without the leavens upon the earth.  D. B. 
Thus I overthrew your reason. Christ's body was contained in heaven after his Ascension, and there he remains.  
And yet he was since that upon earth and stood by S. Paul, Acts 23. 11.  
Ergo your strongest argument hath no force at all.  M. F. 
First I answer to your Major, that many of our Divines and 
a Aquinas 3. p Summ. q. 57 art 6. no●… derogat dignitati Christi si ex aliqu●… dispensatione quandoque cor poraliter ad terram descend 〈◊〉 vel ut se ostenda●… omnibus sicut in iudicio, vel alicui specialiter sicut Paula & Lorinu●… con. in Act. c. 3. nihil absurdi est affirmar●… Christum ad exiguum 〈◊〉 p●… de coelo descendisle, solum enim ex hoc loco sequitur fi●… 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 Chris●… immorta●… s●… esse, neque 〈◊〉 ven●…um e coelo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 minibus 〈◊〉 versetur inter illos fa●…liarner.  yours also understand those words Act. 3. of the ordinary residence of Christ not denying that Christ if he pleased might extraordinarily and miraculously leave his place in heaven for a while, to do some great work upon earth: which as it breaketh the force of your argument, so it no way disableth mine; For if heaven be the place of Christ's ordinary residence, it followeth that he is not daily and ordinarily according to the substance of his body, upon earth, to wit, on the Altar as you believe, Secondly, I answer to your Minor, that S. Paul Act. 23. speaketh of a vision in the night, not of any real or corporal presence of Christ.  D. B. 
He saith, that the Lord stood by him, and spoke unto him, therefore it was no vision.  M. F. 
I deny your argument. S. Peter saith, Act. 10. that he saw heaven opened, certain vessel came down to him, and he heard a voice, saying to him, kill and eat. And this was done three times, the more to confirm him, and yet all this was but done in a 
b Lori●…us i●… c 23. Act. v. 11. Probabilis est sententia Carthusiani fuisse apparitionem imaginarium dor●…ienti factam ab Angels, ●…ec qui ex hac apparitione colligunt Christū●…sse in c●…lo & Sacramento firmiter argumentantur.  vision. Likewise we read in the book of Tobia, (which you receive for Canonical) that the Angel did eat and drink with 
c Tob. 12. 10. All these days I did appear unto you, but I did neither ●…ate nor drink.  Tobia, and yet all this was but done in a vision, nay the same word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 standing by me) is used by S. Luke Act. 16. 9 there stood a man of Macedonia and prayed him, etc. and yet he speaks of a vision in the night.  D. B. 
S. Luke saith, Act. 23. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is the very word S. Paul useth, Act. 22. 13. where he speaketh of Ananias coming unto him. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But Ananias truly stood by S. Paul, not in vision only. Ergo Christ likewise stood by him, and did not only appear so to do.  M. F. 
The same word in diverse places of Scripture may be diversely taken, according to the diversity of the matter and circumstances of the Text.  
Ananias was a man that could not otherwise present himself to S. Paul then by coming to him & visibly standing by him, Christ by his divine power might.  
Besides Ananias was not in heaven, but upon earth, & therefore he might stand by S. Paul visibly & locally, without any miracle or apparition. But Christ, as we are both agreed, was at this present in heaven, sitting at the right hand of the Father, & therefore could not otherwise be present with S. Paul, then in spirit, or by vision, which I am induced to believe the rather, because the Text saith, this was done in the night, the most proper time for a vision. The night following, the Lord stood by him, and said, etc.  D. B. 
This is petere principium, you suppose that which is in question, to wit, that Christ could not at the same time be really present in body in heaven and in earth.  M. F. 
I never heard that an answer could petere principium in dissolving an Argument. Petere principium in my understanding is to beg that to be granted to a man which he ought to prove. A respondent, as a respondent, is not to prove, but to hold and maintain his own grounds against contrary oppositions. The burden of proving lieth now upon you, M. Doctor, refel mine interpretations if you can, or make it appear by some other argument, that Christ since his Ascension hath been truly upon earth in body.  D. B. 
S. Paul truly saw him and heard him, Acts 9 22, ●…6. And that with his bodily senses. Otherwise he could not have been an eye witness of the Resurrection. Chap. 26. Ergo Christ since his Ascension hath been truly present in body, upon the earth.  M. F. 
The Argument followeth not S. Paul truly saw Christ, therefore Christ was truly upon earth.  D B. 
S. Paul being upon earth could not see Christ in heaven; Ergo if he truly saw Christ, he saw him upon earth, if he truly saw him upon earth, he was truly upon earth.  M. F. 
S. Paul being upon earth, might 
d Ambrose in Epist. ad Cor. 1 c. 15. Paulus Christum videt in coelo vocantem & apparuit Christus illi primum in coelo postea oranti in templo & Greg mor. in job l. 19 c. 5. O Paul in coelo iam jesum conspicis & in terra adh●…c hominem fugis Aug. in ep. 1. joh. tract. 10. I●…m non invenis loqui Christum in terra invenis ipse illum loqui de coelo Saul, Saul, & Isidorus Pel. l. 1. ep 409 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  see Christ in heaven, as well as S. Steven, Act. 7. v. 55, 56. Steven being full of the Holy Ghost looked steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and jesus standing at the right hand of God, and said, behold I see the heavens opened, & the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.  D. B. 
S. Stevens might be a vision. I prove my proposition. The senses of our body cannot apprehend an object so far distant, as is the heaven from the earth: therefore S. Paul being upon earth, could not see Christ in heaven with his bodily eyes.  M. F. 
Do we not see the Sun in the heaven, and it is said that the face of Christ in his transfiguration shone like the Sun: but my direct answer to your proposition is, that howsoever the eyes of S. Paul and S. Steven by the strength of nature could not apprehend Christ sitting at the hand of his Father in heaven, yet being miraculously enlightened & elevated as the Schools speak, by divine virtue, they might easily. here M. D. Bagshaw at the first undertook to prove, that sense elevated could not discern a thing so far off. But afterwards perceiving it to be a matter of too great difficulty to prove, took advantage of a Popish Gentleman's speech, that helped him out with a falsehood, saying, the proposition to be proved was not, that sense elevated could not apprehend an object so far off, but that S. Paul's senses were not elevated, which though it were an untruth, as many there present testified, yet M. Featley to gra●…fie M. D. Bagshaw left of his hold, and gave M. D. Bagshaw leave to prove the proposition he desired, to wit, that S. Paul's senses were not elevated, which he endeavoured to do after this manner.  D. B. 
S. Paul saw Christ, as the other Apostles, 〈◊〉 Cor. 15. v. 5, 6, 7, 8. He was seen of Cephas, and then of the twelve: after he was seen of more than 500 brethren at once: after that he was seen of ●…ames, then of all the Apostles, last of all he was seen also of me. But the other Apostles saw Christ with their senses not elevated. Ergo S. Paul saw him without any elevation of sense.  M. F. 
S. Paul though his senses were helped, saw him as truly as any of the other. A man by help of a perspective may discern an object farther off, yet sees as truly and more certainly then without the same.  D. B. 
The same word is used in all the former verses. Ergo S. Paul saw Christ altogether after the sa●… manner.  M. F. 
One and the self same word may be 〈◊〉 versly taken not only in diverse verses but in 〈◊〉 same verse, as for example, In mundo erat, & mundus per eum factus est, & mundus eum non cogno●… he was in the world, and the world was made 〈◊〉 him, and the world knew him not. Your own E●… positors take the word (mundus) here in athreef●… sense. But I need not make use of this observati●… For I take the word (seen) in all these places the same sense. S. Paul saw Christ sensibly and tr●… lie with his bodily eyes; both when he was up●… earth by the elevation of his senses, and without also as we may probably collect, when he was r●… in the third heaven.  D. B. 
That was not in body but in spirit.  M. F. 
That is more than you know or S. Pa●… either, for he saith he knows not whether it were 〈◊〉 the body, or out of the body: but I stand rather to 〈◊〉 former answer, which clearly dissolveth your argument.  D. B. 
I will retort your own argument upon yo●… The words Hic calix est novum testamentum 〈◊〉 meo sanguine, are not figuratively to be taken, fir●… there is no figure in (Calix) for calix or poculum signifieth that which is in the chalice without any figur●… as it is manifest by that verse of Virgil Pocula sunt liquidi fontes.  M. F. 
As if it were a strange thing for a Poet to use a common figure? doth not the same Poet that calls fontes pocula, 〈◊〉, sat pra●…abiberunt, the meadours have drunk enough by ●…gant Metaphor.  D. B. 
If Calix signify vinum, as you say, it followeth that you ●…e no new testament, and so consequently no religion.  M. F. 
This is a marvellous consequence: how infer you it?  D. B. 
Christ saith, as you expound his words, the wine is the 〈◊〉 testament, but that material wine doth not now remain: ●…refore you you have no new testament.  M F. 
What a woeful argument is this? what Protestant ever ●…d, that the Sacramental wine was properly Christ's Will 〈◊〉 Testament: the wine was a sign or memorial of his Te●…ment: which wine though it do not remain now the ●…e numero, yet the same remains inspecte: the bread which ●…st brake remaineth not the same numero. Will you here●…on infer that the Church hath now no Sacramental ●…ad?  D B. 
Here is a stir with figures. A figure in Calix and 〈◊〉 ●…ure in Testamentum. Allyour answers are figurative. One ●…ry fitly called you figure-●…ngers.  M. F. 
My figurative answers take away your proper arguments: and for your figure-flinging, you had need cast a fi●…re for your arguments, for they are all gone and vanished.  D. B. 
I see the company grow weary, I will therefore conclude ●…ith one argument, S Luke saith. 

That was shed for us, which is meant by Calix.  
But wine was not shed for us.  
Ergo by Calix he meant the true blood of Christ and not wine.    M F. 
Those words (which is shed for you) have a reference to ●…e word (blood) not to the word (cup) This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed, that is, which blood is shed 〈◊〉 you. S. Matthew and S. Mark who relate the same words, 〈◊〉 them to the blood of Christ, saying, This is the blood of ●…e New Testament which is shed for you.  D. B. 
●…he Greek construction will not bear it: for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the dative case, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the nominative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  M F. 
The construction is no harder than we find in 〈◊〉 john c. 1. 5, and elsewhere, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, f●… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and v. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Howsoever, it is far better to acknowledge a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or an enallage, then make an absurd tautology as you do, expounding Calix blood, and saying it is the New Testament in his blood; blood in blood, or as you mend th●… matter, glozing the words thus: This cup is the New Testament in my blood; that is, this blood is blood in my blood.  D. B 
This must needs be the meaning of the words, the latter words (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) cannot be referred in any tolerable construction to any other word than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here signifieth Christ's blood, which he saith, is the New Testament in his blood. And with these words he arose from his chair, and broke off the disputation.  M F. 
Although D. Bagshaw as it seemeth sitting upon thorns, would not stay to hear out M. F. full answer, ye●…  M. F. 
I held it fit for the satisfaction of those who desire to know the truth to add to his former answer First, that Saint Basil in moral reg. 21. c. 3. readeth the words in S. Luke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and not as they and we now read, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly, that admitting the words to be so read as our adversaries would have them, I say yet still these words (which is shed for you) must be referred to Christ's blood, as S. Matthew and S Mark refer them, and for the Grammatical construction we have the like, Apoc. 8. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
FINIS