A DISCHARGE OF Five Imputations of MISALLEGATIONS, falsely charged upon the (now) Bishop of DURESME, by an English Baron.  
SHOWING, That no solid or real Answer is to be expected, from the Romish Party, to his late Book (against their Mass) so greatly maligned by them.  
LONDON, Printed by M. F. for R. Milbourne at the sign of the Greyhound in Paul's Churchyard. 1633.   

TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE, the Lord Ar: Baron.  
RIght Honourable, (whom, for honour sake, in an Epistle reprehensive, I have not named in full syllables) I had no sooner heard that your Lordship had excepted against my Book, concerning the Mass, but I laboured both by my importunity of letters unto you, and solicitation of an Honourable friend, to be acquainted therewith, having first understood, that you had objected them to some Protestants, by way of Traducement; and then imparted them to a female tongue, which you knew to be as shrill and loud as Bow-bell, to convey it into the ears of others round about, in the vilest terms of Falsificator and Impostor. A pestilent air, which presently after was heard blustering at the Court: Whereunto I addressed my Answer, Satisfactory, as I thought. And about five weeks after I received a Reply from your Lordship closely sealed up, with diverse seals, for secrecy sake: But, behold a Miracle! the same Reply flieth out amain, the Seals (as it were the Doors) being shut, which dispersed abroad by the wings of Report, preoccupateth the ears and minds of the most of your Profession, within the County of Hampshire, to my great ignominy and reproach. All which your Obliquity of dealing I received from the intelligence of Persons without all Exception: Whereby I learn that your Aim was not your own Satisfaction (then pretended) but my defamation. So that your Lordship may not now be offended, to see your own private letters present themselves again unto you in public Print, and attended with this my Discharge and Answer unto them. For you were not to think, that when as you had placed the Candle upon the top of the Table, I should hide it under a bushel: but seeing that you would not pinion your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, flying words and voices, I have also given this my Answer liberty, to meet with them upon the same stage.  
Your Lordship's Exceptions are partly against my Allegations, and partly against my Style of writing; and you will be known to be the sole Author of both: but your Lordship will con me thanks, if for your credit-sake I attribute the Objections against my Allegations rather to some Romish Suggester than to yourself; when you shall perceive the manifold falsities of the Objections, from point to point. Nor will your known wisdom permit me to believe, that you would offer to challenge a Bishop, in matters of his own profession (unto whom you are pleased to ascribe more than ordinary Attributes of learning) and to impute such errors unto him with that Confidence, as to wish that another Bishop of the same profession might be Umpire between us; except you had first consulted with some Romish Priest; especially seeing that in your Reply you judge your own Romish writers not to be warrantable enough, which come forth without the Licence and Approbation of their Superiors. Howsoever, as well for your Satisfaction, as for mine own justification, I have returned unto your Lordship such a reasonable and Conscionable an Answer, which I dare permit to the Umpirage of any Romish Doctor, or Bishop, were it your Bishop of Bishops the Pope himself. Yet shall not either Popeship, Doctorship, or so much almost as any Scholarship be necessary in this case, wherein, as when any fellow is brought before a judge, or a justice, that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, deprehended in the manner, they need not be troubled with any further examination, than the view of the stolen stuff, which was taken upon him. In like manner (were the Author either yourself, or any other) your falsehood in objecting of Falsities will be so apparent, that the reader shall not need to busy his brains with any further Disquisition than the view and perusal of the words excepted against. In a word; These and all other like Accusations, used by M. Parsons, or any other, have been shown hitherto to have been as causeless, as if it had befallen spiritually to my Adversaries, as it happened corporally to the enemies of Lot, when they sought to assail him, but could not find the door.  
The other point of your Exceptions, touching the Bitterness of the Style, being a subject of humane Affection, rather than of Theological judgement, I shall not gainsay, although you shall challenge it to yourself; who hearing me, upon good proofs, condemning the Romish Mass of Superstition, Sacrilege, and Idolatry; pass by this in silence, & only quarrel the Denominations, in calling your Mass Superstitious, Sacrilegious, and Idolatrous. Now forsooth, o the Bitterness of the Style! But o violent Cavillation, may I say. Much like as if I had friendly admonished your Lo: for your safety sake, to avoid such a By-way, because it is haunted with thiefs; or to forbear to taste of such a Cup, which is infected with poison; or to refrain the next house, wherein is the pestilence; all this should be received without regret: notwithstanding you should take offence, that I should call the way Thievish, the Cup poisonable and the house Pestilent. All the rest of your Instances of Bitterness labour of one and the same fault, which is Impatience, not to suffer Errors and Vices to be arrayed with their suitable Attributes of erroneousness and Viciousness; as if you would deny the child his proper name. But Honey and any sweet thing seemeth Bitter to one in an ague, yet the cause is the distemper of the Party. Others spit out, as loathsome, that, which is Bitter in their mouths, although it would be never so Cordial at their hearts; and this disease is somewhat akin to a Frenzy. And that your Lordship should blame me for confuting Errors, and condemning faults in such bitter names, without which they could not be so much as named, much less confuted, or condemned; is a fault in itself, which I will not name, for fear you should accuse me of Bitterness. He that would indeed busy his pen in blotting out the Bitter Styles of outrageous Railers, may spend his life time in expunging whole Books of your own Romish writers; but especially in Gretzer the jesuit his defence of Bellarmine, and Stapleton his Counter-blast, both which have been studied by some, only to furnish themselves with store of salt, vinegar, and gall, for personal Invectives.  
As for myself, none ever more abhorred that Caninam eloquentiam, that is, Doggish eloquence; never did any (be it spoken without arrogance) insult less upon so great advantages; witness the same Book almost throughout; nor shall any unpartial Reader find in any of the Places, which your Lordship hath noted of Bitterness, any one Term, which may not be held medicinable, and which the matter itself did not compel me unto, who have had this Testimony from a Royal mouth, 
K. J.  that I used not to Flite: else should I not in my younger years have played the Ass, as it became me, when I sustained whole loads of reproachful and ignominious terms of Grasshopper, Lewd Lad, and very Ass, cast upon me by the old man M. Parsons, without any retaliation on my part, but rather glorying that I might be thought worthy the name of Ass, in that cause, wherein I did carry my Saviour Christ, by supporting and defending his Truth.  
So little cause had your Lordship, in any reason, to threaten me, with any unruly pen. But let come that Pen, when it will, and though it be drenched in bitterest waters of Mara, I am ready for it, and sure I am, that I shall be avenged of the Penman. But how? Didicit quis maledicere? & ego contemnere, as it is in Tacitus; yet only Contemning it, is but Heathenish; I shall encounter a rough and reviling speech with a Soft Answer, imitating Physicians, whose Aphorism it is, Calida curantur frigidis. Yet may this be but only natural, I will be a Christian, and practise the lesson of our Lord, & Master, who teacheth us to revenge others Cursings of us with our Blessings of them: even as I now do with your Lordship, notwithstanding the malignancy, which I have found, I desire of God to bless this my Answer unto you, that as it must be for Conviction, so it may be for your Conversion, that you with us may at length learn to serve God in Spirit and Truth, by jesus Christ. Amen.  
Your Lo: in all Christian affection, THO: DURESME.   

A SECOND ADVERTISEment to all Priests and Jesuits of the English Seminaries, wishing to them Grace, and Peace in Christ JESUS.  
THis Epistle (I confess) is somewhat large, yet so, that as it is much necessary, both for you to read, and for me to write, that you may know the Reasons, whereby I seek to persuade Others, that they are not to expect from you any Real and conscionable Answer to that Book of the Mass, by occasion whereof some of you have used so vile, vehement, and malignant detractions and calumniations against me. For, first, as that Painter in Pliny, who as soon as he had finished his Picture, in his opinion perfect, and to life, betook himself behind the Table, to hearken what fault any Spectator should find with it. I likewise after the publishing of that Book, convincent as I thought, stood attentive to understand what exception any Reader would take: and behold▪ as there a shoemaker intruding himself among other spectators, and noting the fashion of the Girdle in that Picture to be amiss, was answered by that Artist, Ne Suitor supra crepidam: even so hath one adventured to impute Misallegations to that Book, in such manner, as deserving to be dismissed by the Author in this sort, Ne Sciolus supra Captum: the exceptions being such, that it may well be said of them; The very repeating them is a refuting them, as some also have acknowledged. Yet hath this been of late, your only manner of answering, although it be indeed but a mere Tergiversation, that is, a shameful flying all the forces of confutation of your Romish Mass; as men in battle, seeking to evade, when they are in despair to invade.  
The experience which I have had hereof, heretofore, may be to me a ground of prophecy for the time hereafter, to wit, that no Real answer shall be had from any of you. And Real I call it, when Res cum re, Ratio cum ratione concertat, as Tully speaketh; but not that which is exercised only in Cavillation, about words and syllables. For were the exceptions now taken by your Objector never so true, yet notwithstanding, what then would become of his cause? but are they false? what then shall we think of his conscience? let these two be put to the trial. First, do you not know, that when two witnesses of Ten are disabled, yet the other Eight, remaining in the eye of Justice untouched, and untainted, must carry the cause? Suppose therefore that those few Exceptions, against my Allegations, were true, yet how should five, or, if it were fifty erroneous Citations prevail against two Thousand (for I conceive they are no fewer) other Testimonies therein faithfully alleged in the same Book? whereby your Ten Romish Transgressions against one command of Christ [DO THIS,] are abandoned; your many Romish Depravations of the sense of the Holy Ghost, in those words of Christ, [THIS IS MY BODY] are infringed; the Romish Novelty of your doctrine of Transubstantiation is discovered; your six Romish Contradictions, against the truth of the Bodily nature of Christ, are confuted; the Romish Capernaitical eating of Christ's flesh is exploded; and the Romish Sacrilegious Sacrifice, together with her Idolatrous worship in her Mass, is irrefutably condemned.  
As for false Imputations of falsehood, as they must needs be damnable to the Author, who accusing another in his own guilt, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, condemneth himself, 
Rom. 2. 1.  as the Apostle teacheth: so, to the party unjustly taxed, it cannot be but matter of advantage and estimation; for Brazen plates, fixed on gravestones, (you know) the more they are trod upon by men's dirty feet, the greater is their lustre, and brightness, as soon as the dust is but blown away. Semblably the more the Accusations be, which are unjustly charged upon any Adversary, the more shall his reputation flourish, as soon as the fraud & falsehood of the Accuser shall be detected; except it be among men that so stupefy their conscience, that they will not see even that which they see.  
Such a one, of your own order, some few months past, having only so much modesty, as to conceal his own name, dehorted a Knight by letters, from reading the Observations, which I had concerning the Mass, by putting him in mind of M. Parson's Book of Sober Reckoning, objecting Misallegations unto me: but suppressing all mention and memory of my Encounter, in answer unto him, by whom he was proved to be indeed but a Drunken Reckoner, yet not with wine, but with a far worse spirit of lying, as your own fellow- Priests will tell you, in the sequel of this discourse.  
Another reason may be, the Remembrance of those Books of Apologies, Appeal, Encounter, Causa Regia, which (notwithstanding many promises, or rather threatenings of Answering) have lain still upon your hands; beside the former book of the Romish Grand Imposture, which woundeth the very Head of Romish religion, concerning the Church, even as this other doth strike at the fat Belly thereof, your Romish Mass. So that this later Book may seem to be secure, till that be first assaulted, seeing that, by instinct of nature, every sensible creature is prone, above all parts of the body to defend the head.  
But principally am I confident, I shall have no other answer to this Book, except only either a Nihil dicit, or a Nihil ad rem, not because it is my book (For I alas, I am but the Collector, and Composer) but because it is yours, fight against your Romish Mass, with your own Principles, Conclusions, and Confessions; as also confronting you with your own Contradictions, Absurdities, Falsifications, and Perjuries, (Bis perit, qui armis suis perit) beside the evidences of Scriptures and Fathers, which are impreinable. All these are so many Barracadoes, to hinder all approach, against the Materials of that Book. I may not conceal from you a Riddle. It was but some few weeks since your foresaid Lord intimated unto me, that my Book of the Mass is to be answered, and that he thought he could take that Opponent off, for some time. My answer then was, that the days of my life could not be long, but whatsoever length of day's God should give me, I could not bestow it better than in defence of his Truth, and therefore desired his Lp to let the party whosoever take his course. Howbeit the dogtrick, which once M. Parsons played with me, would not suffer me to give saith to that Insinuation, who avouched in print, that my books of Apology were then in answering by a Doctor, at Gratz in Austria, assigning also the time when it was to be published; when as he, honest man, believed it not himself, but spoke it only by his Equivocating spirit of Mental Reservation (being a great Master in that black art himself) and thereby hath taught me how to expound the words of this Lord delivered unto me. The Book (saith he) will be answered (reserving in his mind) when yesterday shall be to morrow: &, a jesuit hath it in hand (sub-understanding to burn it;) and that he will go through it (bearing in his thought) with an all, or a needle: and, It will be a Book of some bigness (meaning) mathematical, and invisible. So that this your will be is but that old lesson, learned at Rome, from the Crow, which sitting on the Top of Tarpeys' hill, cried still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, expounded by that Poet, Est quia non potuit dicere, dixit Erit.  
I return to yourselves, lest that you may think this Discourse to be tedious, know then that the Lord, the Opponent, will tell you a merry Tale by the way; nor may you think this rejoinder unnecessary, seeing that the Lords Reply hath already inveigled Lords and Ladies so far, as to think his Exceptions answerless. But be you (Beloved) lovers of Truth, from what Organ soever it come, in whatsoever Apparel it shall appear. For, God is Truth. Thus writeth he, who promiseth unto you certain Additionalls to the now impugned Book of the Mass, of such requisite Explanations, Confutations, and Corroborations, as will dispossess, I hope, even the spirit of Prejudice itself, out of every intelligent and conscionable Reader, among you, as will shortly be published, if God permit. Our Lord Jesus preserve us All to the glory of his saving Grace.  
Still your Debtor, T. D.   

THE SUMMARY CONtents of this Discharge, concerning the Five Allegations excepted against.  

THe first false Exception is made by a fraudulent Omission of the Particle [&c.] which Particle evidently justifieth the Allegation. Num. 3.  
The second Exception is objected with a Triple falsity. 

I. It is objected that Suarez is produced alone, to hold A senseless body of Christ: whereas Suarez in the same place is alleged to affirm the same, with many Others. N. 49.  
II. Falsity is, in denying that Suarez is rightly alleged to say so, in respect of the Natural power of Christ: albeit the very same words, According to his natural power, be expressly alleged. N. 50.  
III. Falsity, by imposing that Contradiction on the B p: whereof he was but only the Relater, and the Church of Rome itself the proper Author. N. 52.    
The third false Exception is objected with a double Falsity. 

I. In making it an Exception against Misallegation, wherein there is no Exception at all.  
II. By confounding a Cause Ordinary, and Extraordinary, together. N. 53.    
The fourth false Exception is in objecting words, as alleged out of Bellar: which appear by a diverse and different Character not to have been cited out of Bellarm. N. 54.  
The fifth and last false Imputation of Misallegation, objected by two tricks of Falsity, against the evident words of that Allegation. Num. 57 Confuted from Bellarmine. N. 58.  
The five former false Exceptions retorted, for the justifying of the late Treatise against the Mass. N. 59   

The Contents of the Reply, made in defence of the Lords first Exception, concerning his fraud of concealing the Particle [&c.]  
Seven Evasions made for the avoiding of that his own ugly Blot of Falsehood; not without as many falsities, from Num. 3. to 13.   

The Contents, concerning eight Tropes and figures in the words of Christ his Institution.  
In the first part of Christ his speech, the word [THIS] is necessarily figurative. N. 17. and 43. II. The word, BREAK, spoken of Christ body, is necessarily figurative. Num. 34. And the word, EAT, Num. 32. 34. And the word, GIVEN. Num. 20. 21. and 22.  
In the second part of Christ's speech, the word, THIS, is necessarily figurative. Num. 11. 13. and 28. II. The word, CUP. Num. 10. 11. and 26. And the word, SHED. Num. 20. 22. 25, and 26. And the word, TESTAMENT, Num. 10. 12. 13. and 26. And the word, DRINK, spoken of Christ's blood in the Romish sense. Num. 35.   

The Contents touching other points, in confutation of the Reply.  
How the words [This is my body] are words of Consecration. Num. 11. and 24. That they are not Romishly Operative. N. 14.  
The Replyers absurd Reconciliation of the Contradictions of Romish Doctors, by answering, that they differ only in modo loquendi. Num. 36. 37. His merry Tale, Num. 38. and miserable intanglement, in the Application thereof. Num. 39  
The Theorem, Symbolica Theologia non est Argumentativa, how to be understood. N. 43.  
S. Augustine chosen Vmpier, by consent, to decide the question concerning the sense of Christ's speech, whether it be Figurative, or Literal. Num. 44. 45.  
That the Exceptions, taken against the Lo: Bishop, do much confirm the main cause thorough out his Book of the Mass. Num. 59   

The Contents of an Answer to a Romish Priest his late false Imputation of Misallegations; by objecting the Book of M. Parson's Sober Reckoning.  
M. Parsons his art of passing by material points, which made against the Romish Positions, and Practices. Num. 60. He was an elegant Penman. Num. 61. judged by Romish Priests, because of his false dealing, unworthy to accuse another of falsehood. Num. 62. His Ten apparently false Imputations of Misallegations. N. 63. His Grief before his death. N. 64. The Pope's Proviso, in behalf of Romish Clergy, making it almost impossible that any one shall be convicted of Crimes. N. 65.   

The Contents of the Lay Lords Exceptions to the Bitterness of Style; expressed in five Instances.  
In the first he unwittingly condemneth the Romish Church of Sacrilege and Idolatry. Num. 67. In the second he is more offended with the Appellations of vices, then with their viciousness. Num. 68 In the third he wresteth Metaphorical Terms to be Literal, that he might wring out of them some juice if Bitterness. Num. 69. In the fourth, duly examined, he rathor justifies his adversary. Num. 70. In the fifth he most odiously traduceth the Lo: Bishop, as if he had accused all Romish Professors to be guilty of Treason. Num. 74. The Lo: Bishops express Asseveration to the contrary. Num. 74. 75, unto Num. 81.   

Contents of other Points annexed.  
Examples of Mansuetude objected, and answered. Num. 71. 72. A distinction of Bitterness, Medecinall, and Vindicative. Num. 73. The Lo: Barons Accommodation to friendliness. Num. 82. But yet his threatening the mischief of an Unruly Pen. Num. 83. The Conclusion of all. Nnm. 84.   
FINIS.   

Faults escaped in some Copies.  
Pag. 16. lin. 5. read, Lords Suggest. p. 87. in marg. for Num. 20. read, 26. p. 179. marg. * lin. 2. read, Gavantius.  
Besides there are some Numbers omitted in the Margin, opposite to the Suggesters words: as, p. 118. add Num. 38. p. 161. add, N. 49. p. 175. add, N. 55. p. 205. add, Num. 61. p. 209. add, N. 63.   

A DISCHARGE OF the Five Imputations of MISALLEGATIONS charged upon the Lo: Bp. by an English Baron.  
As also of his Exceptions against the Style.  

The L. Baron his Entrance.  
RIGHT HONOURABLE. 
Num. 1.  I do affirm, that I am not satisfied neither in the bitterness of your style, nor in the certainty of your Allegations.  

The Lord B ps. Answer.  
AND I deny (Right Honourable) that you have taken any just exception to either of Both. But before I can proceed, I shall crave a double Courtesy of your Lordship, one is, that since our greatest contention will be about Figurative speeches of Christ, concerning his words of Institution of the Sacrament of his Body and Blood; I may have the liberty to use and practise a Figure called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by only altering your Method: satisfying, in the first place, your Exceptions against the Allegations; and, afterwards, to give you an account, for the Acerbity of the Style. Because every Reader (I suppose) will rather affect material discussions, than verbal skirmages; and more especially, for that it will much more concern me, to defend my Integrity, in citing my Authors, than to secure my Discretion, touching any Aberration in Style: for as much as every act of discretion dependeth upon seven several Circumstances, wherein the breach of any one is accounted a full forfeiting of that which we call Prudence, and discretion. In the second place, I entreat leave (in the first part of this Discharge) to leave your Lo pp:, that I may combat with your Suggestor, because I shall be constrained, sometime, to make him know himself. Thus much being obtained, let us Two go about our business, He to his Objections, and I to my Retorsions.    

The first part of this Discourse, which concerneth the Allegations.  

The Lord's Suggester.  
I Say, 
N. 2.  I am not satisfied with the Certainty of your Allegations.  

The Lord B ps. Answer.  
ANd I can say, it had been more for your credit, that you had been satisfied with the truth of those Allegations, than to prove yourself, by your false Criminations (as you must needs) so luckless a man, that you can have no greater Adversary than yourself.    

The first Principal Exception against the Allegations by the Lord's Suggester (in his Letters) as followeth.  
IN your Dedicatory Epistle you say that though your Adversaries will not allow any Trope to be in those words of Christ, 
N. 3.  Hoc est corpus meum, Yet (whether they will or no) they are forced to acknowledge in them six Tropes; which six Tropes, though in the same place you quote them not, yet (Pag. 87. & 88) you allege them to be (Bread) (Eat) (Given) (Shed) (Cup) (Testament:) which being all different words from those Four words of Christ, (Hoc est corpus meum) or (This is my Body) I am not satisfied, that any of those Authors, cited by your Lordship, have acknowledged any Trope in those Four words (This is my Body.)  

The Lord B ps. Answer, discovering the inexcusable Falsehood of this first Objection.  
IF I had said simply, as is here affirmed, that your Romish Doctors confessed six Tropes in those only Four words of Christ, [Hoc est corpus meum: This is my Body] I should have been less satisfied, than either you (my Lord) or yet any Romish Adversary, and assuredly I should have plainly be-assed myself for so gross a mistake▪ but so far was I from that error, that contrarily my words (as they are to be seen in the Dedicatory Epistle) were, that our Romish Adversaries confessed six Tropes in the words of Christ, Hoc est corpus meum, etc. that is, This is my Body, etc. or, And so forth; or, as if it had been said, in the words following. Now your Suggestor, that he might make me so absurdly false, as to have put the six confessed Tropes in the compass of these Four words, hath played me a fine trick of legerdemain, by concealing the Particle etc. whereby the words following are necessarily employed, and putting it up in his pocket. And for your Lordship, after your often reading of that etc. so distinctly set down, to connive at him in such a vile piece of Cunning (I had almost said Cozenage) truly it was not honourably done. As for example, your Lordship is Catechising your Son, saying, My Son, remember you get by heart the twelve Articles of your Creed, I believe in God the Father Almighty, etc. By and by your Suggester pulleth you by the sleeve, saying, O my Lord, you told your son of twelve Articles of the Apostles Creed; and now you affirm that all the twelve Articles are comprehended in these seven words; I believe in God the Father Almighty. So he, leaving out the etc. what would your Lordship say to such a stupid cavillation? would you endure it? Yet is this just parallel to his first Exception against me.  
It is a vulgar opinion to think that when one, being towards a journey, doth stumble upon the threshold in going out, it doth abode but some ill luck: even so, what can this his first imputation of falsehood, being so false, else prognosticate, but that he will be found as faithless in all the rest? Nevertheless, before I demostrate as much I shall desire no belief. But what now? albeit this his falsehood be thus transparent, that every Abcdarian Boy can see through it, by expounding the word, etc. yet notwithstanding, as if boldness and blindness had made a match or marriage together, he, under your Lordships own hand, made a Reply, seeking thereby to cover his former Falsehood with (as it were network) the multiplication of many other open Untruths.    

The Lords Suggestor his Reply, for covert of his former Falsehood.  
WHereas I had objected, 
N. 4.  that in your Dedicatory Epistle you show that our writers, denying any Trope to be in those Four words of Christ, (Hoc est corpus meum) are notwithstanding enforced to confess six Tropes in the same words; which you say is vertigo mera: your Answer is, that you expressly said, In the words of Christ, Hoc est corpus meum, etc. which (&c.) might have been a wall of brass to keep me from farther wandering, for that that Particle (etc.) did not only imply the words of Consecration (Hic Calix est Testamentum in sanguine meo) wherein the Jesuits have confessed two Tropes in one word (Testamentum) but also it met with Bellarmine's reasons, in defending the want of Tropes in the words of Institution (because, saith he, they are words of Precept, words of Doctrine, words of Testament:) who was therefore confuted in the words of Christ (Bread) (Break) (Given) (Shed) all Tropical, as is also confessed.  

The Lord Bps Answer, showing the Suggester his wilfulness in falsifying, in his first Exception; even from his own Confession.  
IT is true that I answered so, & that truly, proving thereby the Exception to have been as wilfully false as if he had professedly falsified: which furthermore appeareth thus; he saw, knew, and in his words in this place afterwards acknowledgeth, that I declared the six Tropes then specified to consist in these words, Brake, Given, Shed, Drink, Cup, Testament; all which follow after the particle, etc. And therefore could he not possibly conceive, that I meant they were comprehended in the Four words [This is my body] which go before the same etc. no more than a man can imagine his own occiput, or noddle, being the hinder part of his head, can be said to be his Nose, which standeth directly on his face. which yet is herein the more evident, because the word, etc. is, in its proper sense, as much as, In the words following▪ even as properly, as if it had been expressly delivered thus: There are six Tropes in the words of Christ his Institution [This is my body] and in the words following, Given for you, and the like. Therefore I say truly, that that particle etc. might have been unto my Opponent as a wall of brass, to keep him from wandering, except he himself had a front of steel, as it seemeth he had, when he durst make any Reply, in defence, of this his shameless falsity. But let us hear what he can say.      


The Lords Suggestor his first Evasion.  
TO this I reply, 
N. 5.  that no Catholic ever held, that there was no Trope in Christ's words (Hoc est corpus meum) with the addition of (etc.)  

The Lo: Bps Answer.  
CAll you this a Reply? As much as to say, No Catholic ever held that there was no Trope in that Parable, The Sower went out to sow his seed, with an etc. Therefore, in this sentence of Christ, there was no other Trope implied in the word etc. as namely, wayside, stony, and thorny ground, & the like. If your Suggester have no better skill to avoid his first foul blot of falsehood, his game is desperate. Let me pose him; either he, in his first Exception against that sentence, knew that etc. to imply other words following, or else he held that it did not refer the Reader to the other words following in the speech of Christ. If he held that the etc. did imply the words following, why then did he conceal it? if he thought it did not, why did he not confute it? the first of these bewrayeth his fraud, the other his folly. And this his wilful defence of his witless error argueth his Obstinacy.    

The Lord Suggester his second Evasion.  
SEcondly, 
N. 6.  I say, that it is improper to add an [&c.] to any sentence that carrieth a full sense itself, and is brought to a period. 
Deut. 5.  As for example: Thou shalt not covet thy Neighbour's wife, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his, etc. john was clothed with Camel's hair, 
Mar. 1.  and he did eat Locusts & wild honey, etc. Teach all Nations, 
Matt. 28.  baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, 
1. joh. 5.  etc. There be three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood etc. These & very many more like places are in the Scripture, where the Particle [&c] being added, it would not only be improper, but also would alter the sense of the holy Ghost.  

The Lord B ps. Answer.  
NAy, but if your L p: had not consulted rather with this Suggester (peradventure your Ghostly Father) than with the Holy Ghost, you might have discerned two notable Untruths in this second Evasion, the Holy Ghost itself in Scripture being judge. Because, first, in the Gospel, penned by the holy Ghost, there is a prescript form set down of the Lords Prayer, whereof your L p: chancing to speak, saying, There be diverse Petitions therein, as for example, Hallowed be thy name, [&c] your Suggester, at the first hearing hereof, admonisheth you, saying, My Lord, your L p: hath lost most of the petitions in your Pater Noster, because you have added an [&c.] to a full period of a speech, which carrieth a full sense in itself: and thereby have you altered the sense of the holy Ghost. Would your L p: admit of such a Critic, and not reject him as a senseless depraver of the sense of the holy Ghost?  
His second Error is, to think that the period of Christ's speech [This is my body] must necessarily be fixed at the word Body: when as notwithstanding the Relation, used by the Evangelist S. Luke, the Scribe of the holy Ghost, is otherwise; Luc. 22. 19 This is my Body given for you. Do this in remembrance of me. You see where the period is set, and that the word, Given, is enclosed within the list: which word, Given, is afterward confessed to be Tropical; and therefore overthroweth your conceit of a Literal sense quite, as if no figurative word could be impailed within the periodical Sentence of Christ.    

The Lord's Suggester his third Evasion.  
THirdly, those words of Christ, which Bellarmine, 
N. 7.  and other writers maintain to be void of Tropes, are set down by Bellarmine to be only [Hoc est corpus meum.]  

The Lo: Bps Answer.  
THis is as truly false, as were the former, for Bellarmine denies that there are Tropes, not only in these words [This is my body.] but also in these other, [Given] and [Shed] as your Suggester knew to have been cited by me. Book 6. Pag. 4. which maketh this his Error to be a wilful falsity.   

The Lord's Suggester his Confirmation of the former Evasion.  
ANd yourself charge them with a vertigo mera, 
N. 8.  for that they banishing all Tropes ab Eisdem, do notwithstanding acknowledge six Tropes: which you could not do with any Colour, if they did not acknowledge those six Tropes to be in eisdem: for no man can deny, that Christ used diverse Tropes in other his speeches, though he used none in these. But no Catholic writer doth acknowledge six Tropes in eisdem. And now when I expected the proof▪ thereof, I am turned over to seek it in the hidden construction of [&c.]   

The Lo: Bps Answer.  
ANd justly are you turned over to that [&c.] yet not as to a Construction, which any can call hidden, that shall not suffer himself to be blindfolded by your Suggester, who here again doubleth his falsehood, saying, that I alleged those six Tropes, confessed by Romish Authors to be in eisden, that is, in the same Four words of Christ [This is my body] simply; whereas he knoweth, and even now hath acknowledged, that it was in eisdem, that is, in the same words of Christ, [This is my body, etc.] therefore not simply, but with an etc. Whereby his wilfulness of Falsifying is further detected.    

The Lord's Suggester his fourth Evasion.  
FOurthly, 
N. 9  although you allege that Christ's words are [Hoc est corpus meum] etc. yet seemeth it strange to me, that all the six Tropes, which you would prove, and which you say Catholics confess, are smothered up in an [&c.] no one Trope being by any Catholic writer confessed, or by yourself proved to be in Christ's words, [Hoc est corpus meum.]  

The Lo: Bps Answer.  
HEre are but two Untruths in this one Evasion, but I must needs say they are loud and lewd ones; first, to tell me that I have not proved any one Romish writer to have confessed any one Trope in these words of Christ, [This is my body.] The second is, that I myself have not confessed any Trope in them. What not myself, Sr Suggester? blush you not, who have read the Book 2. Pag. 72. Where, in the first Section, there is a proof specified in this speech of Christ [This is my body] in two words, the Pronoune [This,] and the Verb [Is.] And diverse pages following are spent wholly in proof of both.  
His other Assertion is, that no Catholic (meaning, Romish Writer) hath been alleged to confess any Trope or figure in these words of Christ, [This is my body.] So he, although knowing right well, that I produced (Book 2. pag. 88) your Romish Gloss, authorised by Pope Greg. 13. (which therefore ought to be of equal estimation with many Romish Doctors put together) which Gloss saith: This Sacrament is called the body and blood of Christ improperly, so that the sense is, This signifieth Christ's Body. Which is the proper and express language of us Protestants. Besides, in the Book 2. pag. 78. the Title of a Section is this: That the pronoun, [This] in these words [This is my Body,] is Tropical; which I proved out of your Romish Doctors, by an Induction of the diverse senses of the word, This: which, whether it demonstrated Bread, or Body of Christ, or Individuum vagum, yet every way is the sense improper and figurative. In the first, by the Confessions of Doctors on all sides. In the second, by the confession of diverse Romanists, which called that Sense Absurd. In the third, by other Romish Authors, who condemn this, as being full of Absurdities. And all were discussed at large in my Book 2. cap. 1. & 2. in five full leaves; yet your Suggester shameth not to deny all this. It may be your Lordship is, by this time, ashamed of your Proctor.    

The Lord's Suggester his fifth Evasion.  
But in your Letter you say, 
N. 10.  that that particle (etc.) doth imply the other words of Consecration, [Hic calix est Testamentum in sanguine meo:] in which you say our Jesuits confess two Tropes. To this my fifth Replication is, that it seemeth strange to me, that in your Letter you affirm that these Words of Christ [Hic calix est Testamentum in sanguine meo] are the other words of Consecration; which doth infer that Christ's words [Hoc est corpus meum] are also words of Consecration of the Sacrament, under the Species of Bread. Which point in your Book Page 7. & 8. you deny, charging the Roman Mass to have changed Christ's manner of Consecration, by attributing Consecration to Christ's words (This is my Body: This is my blood,) where you endeavour to prove both by Reasons and Witnesses, produced out of a book of the Archbishop of Caesarea, that the Consecration, used by our Saviour, was performed by his Blessing by Prayer, which preceded the pronunciation of these words, [Hoc est corpus meum.] And Page 11. you say directly, that these words of Christ are not the words of blessing and Consecration: and the like sayings you have in other places of your Book.  

The Lo: B ps. Answer.  
IT seemeth strange to this my Adversary, that I have contradicted myself. Is not this kindly spoken, and to my credit? But to the matter. I think it not strange in him, who hath been deprehended in so many falsities already, that He should not deal ingenuously in this. For in my Book, writing professedly upon the words of Consecration, I proved exactly out, of the Confession of the Archbishop of Caesarea, that those words [This is my Body] are not properly the words of Consecration: But in my Letters to your Lordship, speaking but obitèr of them, I called them Words of Consecration, by that liberty of Schools, Dato & non concesso; than which what kind of speech can be more familiar among men? One is to pay unto your Lordship twenty pounds, and in tendering the payment unto you, saith, There is here (my Lord) sixteen pounds in silver, & four pounds in good gold: upon trial, the gold is found to be counterfeit, yet the man is instant, saying again and again, The gold is good: and your Lordship perceiving his pertinacy, saith unto him, Friend, as for your good Gold, take it to yourself, and pay me my money in silver. Now cometh your Suggester upon you, saying, This is strange my Lord; You said once that the gold was counterfeit, and therefore refused it, and now you will call it good gold.  
Just so dealeth your Suggester with me, Who called these words [This is my Body] words of Consecration, only in imitation of the Romish phrase, and not in approbation thereof. But of this more hereafter. Yet now what is all this to the point in question? (which is) why your Suggester did so fraudulently conceal the Particle [&c] when he made his first Exception against me? Just as if a man, being questioned for having found about him some hidden, and concealed, stolen stuff, should by way of digression turn his talk to another matter, telling that it seemeth strange unto him that this his Examiner (the justice of Peace) had bound over to the Assizes three of the most honest men in the Parish. Whether this Evasion could satisfy for this man's false concealment of his theft, your Lordship may judge.    

The Lord's Suggester his sixth Evasion.  
ALso I say, 
N. 11.  that if (&c) point to these other words of Consecration, [Hic calix est Testamentum in sanguine meo:] and that Catholics confess some of the six Tropes to be in these words: My answer is, that these words, and those other words of Christ [Hoc est corpus meum] are not the selfsame words, though they both belong to the Sacrament; yet they do not belong both to one and the same Species: so as if any Catholic have confessed a Trope in [Hic calix est Testamentum in sanguine meo:] yet having not confessed any one Trope in [Hoc est corpus meum] they are unjustly charged with a Vertigo, for having confessed six Tropes in Eisdem.  

The Lo: B ps. Answer.  
BUt seeing that contrarily I have proved from the Confession of Romish Doctors (as you have heard already) a Trope in Eisdem, viz. the same words of Christ [This is my Body,] although other of them deny to admit any Trope therein, therefore have not I unjustly imputed a Vertigo, or spirit of giddiness unto them. But your Suggester (as one transported with a worse spirit of falsity) denyeth that I had proved a confessed Trope in Eisdem, namely, in the very words in question [This is my Body:] even as he doth, in saying, If any have confessed any Trope to be in the words [Hic calix est Testamentum etc.] If any (saith he) as if this could be doubted by Any, which afterwards the Suggester himself confesseth to be true. What disease will you call this?  
But he addeth a Reason, why I, saying that there were confessed Tropes in Christ's words [This is my Body] etc. the Particle [&c.] could not imply the same; which you call your Consecrating words, [This is my Body:] because (good my Lo: mark his Reason) although they belong both to the same Sacrament, yet they belong not to the same Species. So Herald Would this man (think you) have dealt so with the rankest beggar that walketh in the streets? A poor man being asked, how many colours▪ he hath in his patched Cloak? Six, Master, saith he, Black etc. meaning other five colours, blue, white, russett, red, green. Soft man, saith your Suggester, that [&c.] (or, so forth) could not imply those other colours, after spoken of, because they differ in Specie, that is, are colours of diverse sorts. Witless!    

The Lord's Suggester his last Evasion.  
THe seaventh Reason, 
N. 13.  why Catholics deny any Trope to be in [Hoc est corpus meum] or in [Hic est sanguis meus] and yet may perhaps confess that in strict Construction there may be some Trope in [Hic calix est novum Testamentum in sanguine meo;]—  

The Lo: B ps. Answer.  
THere are three patches in this last piece of this the Suggesters Reply, which I will deliver distinctly. The first is in saying, that Romish Writers may perhaps confess that in strict Construction there may be some Trope in [Hic calix est novum Testamentum in sanguine meo: This Cup is the new Testament in my blood;] although he knew that in my Treatise (Book 2. pag. 87.) I proved that these two words, Cup, and Testament, are to be improperly and Tropically understood, by the Confession (first) of your learned Bishop jansenius: These words, Cup, and, Testament (saith he) cannot be properly taken in that speech of Christ [This Cup is the new Testament in my blood;] whether the Cup be taken for the vessel used for drinking, which was a temporal thing, and therefore could not be the Testament of Christ, which is eternal: or else whether it be taken for the matter in the Cup, for it being the Cup of the new Testament, could not be the Blood itself; So he. Next was the Confession of the Ies: Salmeron (in the same page) The Cup being taken for the thing contained in the Cup: and, Testament, for the Legacy given by Testament. To whom was added the Ies: Barradius, confessing that, In the word, Testament, there is a Figure.  
All these were then, in your Suggesters' knowledge, most certain; and yet he now, playing the Lame Giles, cometh here halting in, saying, Perhaps some of our Chatholikes confessed, in a strict construction, some Trope. There may be some Trope in these words. Again, you may mark how gingerly he treadeth his Maze; he admitteth that they Confess Some Trope, he saith not some Tropes, although Three Tropes were confessed therein; and that not only in a strict Construction, as he would have it, but upon a necessary Explanation. Will your Lordship be pleased to put him in mind of his so many and manifest Collusions.     

The Lord's Suggester, touching the Romish words of Consecration.  
— THough both these places be in the Scripture, 
N. 14.  & are both belonging to the Sacrament, is, for that the first of them (meaning, Hoc est corpus meum) are all of them words of Consecration, and Practical, effecting what they say; and that none of them can be wanting, all being necessary to the making of the Sacrament: but in the latter words, neither Calix, nor Testamentum are the necessary Words of Consecration, or the form of the Sacrament, seeing the Sacrament may be without them.  

The Lo: B ps. Answer.  
HIs first Assertion is, that the words, [This is my body, and, This is my blood] are words of Consecration, and Practical, effecting that which they say: and so, indeed, your Romish Church teacheth, meaning thereby an operative power of Transsubstantiating Bread into the Body of Christ. But now must I entreat your L pp: to look to the tenor of Christ's Speech, according to all the 3 Evangelists, and St. Paul himself, in relating the other words of Christ his Institution; and you shall find that the thing, whereof they say [This is my blood] is spoken expressly of the Cup, or Chalice, [This Cup is my blood.] So than you are to choose, whether you will think that by these your Consecrative words, effecting that which they say, the Cup itself be converted into the Blood of Christ: or rather to acknowledge, in these your Consecrative words, a Figurative sense.  
Secondly, he affirmeth that in the other words [This Cup is the new Testament in my blood] neither the word, Cup, nor the word, Testament, are the words of Consecration, or belonging to the form of this Sacrament. Then (say I) must he confess, that the Romish new form of Consecration is not necessary, wherein the word, Calix, Cup, is expressly set down, thus: Hic est Calix sanguinis mei: This is the Cup of my blood. Where, by the way, your Romish Church is to be challenged for an Innovation, in that which she holdeth to be a fundamental point in her Mass, which is her Form of Consecration, differing from all other Forms, and Tenors either in Scripture, or in any Ancient Tradition of Primitive Antiquity.  
Tell us again, if the Consecrating words [This is] are indeed Practical, effecting that which they say, [This is the Cup, or Chalice] then your Priest saying, This is a Cup, at every Romish Mass, doth thereby make a material Cup, or Chalice. Ponder these things (my Lo:) and see whether you can digest your Romish doctrine; if you can, then, O dura ilia! must I say. Thus hath your Lo: heard the diverse Evasions, used by your Suggester, each whereof ignorance begot, and folly brought out; to wit, a child altogether after the image and likeness of both its Parents, as can be▪    

Of the six Tropes, in Christ's words of Institution, objected by the Lo: Bishop, in confutation of the Romish doctrine.  

The Lord's Suggester his Preface to his own Reply hereunto, by his first Evasion.  
But now to come to these Six words, 
N. 15.  which you say are (and would make us to confess to be Tropical) it is first to be understood as granted, (for that it cannot be denied) that they must be Christ's words (who only had power to institute a Sacrament. Next, that they must be such only words of Christ, as were spoken by him to the end to Institute, or consecrate this Sacrament: for otherwise no man denyeth but that Christ spoke many things in Parables, and Figures. The question is not whether St Paul, saying that They that eat it unworthily do eat their damnation, spoke figuratively; or whether Christ, saying It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing, spoke figuratively.  

The Lo: Bps Answer.  
YOur L p: perceiveth right well, what is exacted of me: be as willing (I pray you) to hear what I answer; (namely) first, if I have not proved a Figurative sense in both these speeches of Christ, viz. [This is my body: and, This is my blood:] Next, if I furthermore have not shown the six Tropes, now in question, to be found by the confession of Romish Doctors in the other words of Christ's Institution, then let me be held utterly unable, and unworthy to give your L p: any Satisfaction. Proceed we to the trial.    

The Lord's Suggester his second Evasion.  
FOr if we shall prove that those words of Christ, 
N. 16.  whereby he Instituted and Consecrated this Sacrament, were not Tropical, but real, and to be understood Literally, than your accusation of our men, confessing Tropes in Christ's other words, though you could make it good, yet were it to no purpose.  

The Lo: Bps Answer.  
YOur Suggester knew, doubtless, it was to good purpose, to prove that there were diverse Tropes in other words of Christ's Institution, besides these Two, which you call Consecratory, which are [This is my body, and, This is my blood,] even because they directly repulse the Answer of your great Achilles' Card: Bellarmine; who, for defending these now-mentioned speeches of Christ, [This is my body, and, This is my blood] from being Tropical, maintained that all speeches Testamentary, Doctrinal, and of Command, and Precept, aught to be proper and Literal. Whereby he could not mean only the words, which you call Consecratory, [This is my body: This is my blood] because these are not words of Command at all, such as are, Eat ye, Drink ye, and notwithstanding are Tropical: and the other words, Given, Shed, are Both as Doctrinal as are your said Consecratory speeches of Christ, and nevertheless confessed by your Doctors to be Tropical. Yea and those same words, Cup, Testament, albeit they be both as Testamentary, as are your supposed Consecratory sayings of Christ, are yet also judged by Them to be Tropical. All these were proved, Book. 2. Pag. 96. whereby your Cardinal's defence is utterly overthrown, as you know; yet dares your Suggester face it out, saying, that This is to no purpose.    

The Shackles, which the Lords Suggester draweth upon his own heels, by his voluntary Promise.  
But if these words of Christ, 
N. 17.  alleged by yourself, Book 2. pag. 71. viz. [This is my body: This is my blood] are confessed by our men to be necessarily Figurative, then will I not only confess that you have rightly condemned our Writers of a Vertigo, but also confess that I am satisfied in this point, and acknowledge my former error.  

The Lo: Bps Answer.  
IF this could be a Satisfaction to your Suggester, then might he have been twice satisfied already, out of the Book 2. pag. 72. where the Title of the Sect: is set down in these words; That a figurative sense is in these words of Christ, [This is my body:] from the Principles of Romish Schools. Which was also performed, by proving a figure in the pronoun, This, in the same speech of Christ [THIS is my body:] which word, This, (by confession on both sides) must relate either to Christ's body, or to a common substance, called Individuum vagum, or else to the word Bread. But, by the confession of your own Doctors, the pronoun, This, could not properly demonstrate Christ's body, because (by your Romish Doctrine) Christ's body, at the pronunciation of the word, This, was not yet present in the Sacrament. Neither could it properly betoken your Individuum vagum, or confused substance, because (by the confession of Others) that sense is full of absurdities. Lastly, if it should betoken Bread, as to say, This bread is my body, than (say they, with unanimous voices) it is impossible not to be Tropical; even as well as when it is said, This Egg is a stone, or, This man is an Ass.  
Which point may be more Emphatically confirmed by the other words, which you call Consecratory, [This is my blood:] where the pronoun, This, relateth to the Cup, wheresoever that speech of Christ is recorded in Scripture, Matt. 26. 27. and Mar. 14. thus [He took the Cup and gave It (the Cup) to them, saying, Drink ye all of This, (viz. Cup) for This (namely still, Cup) is my blood. And Luke cap. 22. and S. Paul. 1. Cor. 11. rehearse Christ's words thus: [This Cup is the new Testament in my blood.] So that the word, This, pointeth out always the Cup. But the Cup cannot properly be called Christ's blood, nor possibly be changed into his Blood, as all the world of Divines have always confessed.  
Our second Proof was founded upon your Church's Confession, in her public and privileged Gloss, expressly saying, that these words [This is my body] are improperly taken, meaning, This signifieth my body, as was set down Book 2. pag. 88 Now that your Suggester should here desire of me to be satisfied, by letters, in that which formerly he received in print; it argueth either a cheating Concealment of that proof, or else a doggish appetite, which will never be satisfied.   

The Lo: Bishops Conclusion, upon the Premises.  
ALl that your Suggester hitherto hath done, is (as your L p: may perceive) for saving his first desperate blot of untruth, in concealing that Particle [&c] that so he might more eagerly charge me with falsehood; and after (in defence of his deceitfulness) huddle and multiply seven more Untruths, which have been particularly discovered in these his former seven Evasions, now already specified: wherein, as a man ready to sink into the water, he catcheth at each thing about him, be it reed, rush, or very shadow, to save himself from drowning, but all in vain. Even so hath he, being unable to make any solid defence, snatched only at mere fancies, void of all semblance of Truth. Persuade him (I pray you) that leaving all further Prefacing, he would come to the Tropes, now in question.    

Particularly now of the Six Tropes, confessed to be in the words of Christ's Institution of the Sacrament of his blessed Body and Blood.  

The Lord's Suggester.  
THe six words, 
N. 18.  which our men (as you affirm) confess to be Tropical, are [Given, Shed, Cup, Testament, Bread, Eat.]  

The Lo: Bps Answer.  
ALthough these six were most precisely mentioned, yet were the other Tropes, concerning those other words [This is my body,] and, [This is my blood] as exactly discussed, and proved to be likewise Tropical.    

The Lord's Suggester his malign Suspicion.  
But if you hold that Christ made no new Testament, 
N. 19  which you give some occasion to suspect, by the great esteem and approbation you make in very many places in your Book of Calvin, and Beza, and their Writings (for which I am very sorry) then must I confess that I am not satisfied therein. For Calvin, and Beza, and all other Calvinists, that I have read, do maintain that there is but one Testament; and by Consequent no new Testament.  

The Lo: Bps Answer.  
IT had been better you had first suspected your own judgement (friend Suggester) then either to grieve at my Approbation of the writings of Calvin and Beza, or yet to tax them of error in this case. For the first, I would know among which kind of men you will be reckoned, I mean of those, who are likewise Sorry; whether among them, who never read Calvin, or Beza; or them who have read, & did not understand then; or else of them (who are the worst sort of Malignants) who knowing their orthodox meanings, do not withstanding traduce them, as you have done. Else show, if you can, where they have denied that there are two Testaments, distinctly differing from each other, in their immediate Subject: the immediate Subject of the old Testament being Blessings, Earthly & Temporal, as the land of Canaan, and the outward Temple of Jerusalem; albeit remotely these were Types of the immediate Subject of the new Testament, namely, of Blessings spiritual and eternal, as the heavenly Canaan, and jerusalem which is above (saith the Apostle) the Mother of us all. Which Spiritual and Eternal, notwithstanding, are Typically the subject of the old Testament, figuratively comprehended therein. This Doctrine is so far from all Suspicion of error, that it confuteth the jewish, and other Heretical opinions to the Contrary. When will this man leave his quarrelous Ambages, and return to the matters in question?    

Of the first two of these Tropical Words of Christ his Institution, [GIVEN, and SHED.]  

The Lord's Suggester his first Evasion.  
NOw as concerning these words [Given and Shed] you allege Page 87. 
N. 20.  Valent. for one, and Salmeron for the other, as if they had said they were merely Tropical: Valent. saying of [Body given for you] that is, Which shall be offered for you on the Crosse. And Salmeron of this word, [Shed,] saying, That it was so said, because it was very shortly after to be shed on the Crosse. Confirming that his Exposition, For that it is not denied, but that it is the manner of Scripture to speak of a thing, as now done, which is after to be done. To this I reply, first that your Quotation is but of one Author only▪ for either of these Proofs, which doth not satisfy your Assertion in your Epistle, where you say thus▪ In Christ's Sacramental words, or words of Institution, Adversarii nostri Tropos sex, velint nolint, coguntur agnoscere, as if All, or the Greater part of Catholics held it.  

The Lord B ps. Answer.  
THis man (the Suggester, I mean) hath so enured himself to falsifying, that he can hardly speak a Truth. The first Reply is to persuade a Lord, that I had but two Romish Doctors, to witness, that when Christ said [This is my Body, Given for you] he meant, Given shortly after his death on the Cross, by a Figure called Enallage. And when he said, [This is my blood, shed for you] he had the same meaning, of Being to be shed at his Passion: and that I had not the greater part of their Doctors to verify my words, when I said, Adversarii nostri confitentur, Our Adversaries confess. Which is an unjust Reckoning, because although (Book 2. pag. 87) I used the Testimonies but of Two; yet Book 6. pag. 6. I produced a witness without all Exception, even your learned Bishop jansenius, testifiing that in these words of Christ [This is my blood, shed for you] by the word, Shed, is Commonly understood (saith he) the Future time, when it was to be shed upon the Crosse. Where the Common understanding (you know) is equivalent with Greater part.  
His second Aberration is, that whereas one jesuit attributed one Trope, or Figure, to the word [Given,] another jesuit noted the same Figure in the word [Shed;] there being an equal propriety of speech in either. Your Suggester holdeth it an Incongruity of speech, in me, to say, Adversarii nostri, Our Adversaries hold Tropes; how then will he give your Lordship leave to affirm, saying of those two men (who should have your Lordship in suit of law) My Adversaries have suits against me; but judge this term of speech to be but a Solecism?    

The Lord's Suggester his second Evasion.  
SEcondly I say, 
N. 21.  that admitting these sayings of Valent. and Salmeron for sufficient, to prove that they may be, or are extended to the future time of the Cross, yet neither of them denyeth these words to be spoken in the present time of the Sacrament: which unless they deny, they are here alleged to small purpose.  

The Lord B ps. Answer.  
THen belike your Suggester doth conceive, that your Jesuits to say, that a Verb [Given] being properly of the Future time. i. Shall be given, could likewise as properly signify the Present time, Is given. But sooner shall he himself be able at once to look up to heaven with one eye, and down with the other, than find this his conceit fancied by any Author that ever knew his Grammar; and yet will this Sophister adventure to make it good.    

The Lord's Suggester, alleging the vulgar latin Translation.  
ANd that this is no new Invention of ours, 
N. 22.  our Latin Text doth plainly show, where we use both the Present, and the Future Tense.  

The Lo: Bps Answer.  
YEs; an Invention (I dare say) new, and never heard of, before now that this Suggester hath vented it out, in an imaginary flash, against common sense. The Latin Translation useth, indeed, both Tenses, Given, in the present Tense, and Shed, in the future: but doth use neither of them both in two different senses properly; to tell us that, Given, being properly of the Present Tense, hath the proper sense also of the future. The like may be said of the word, Shed.  
How is not this fellow afraid to make your Latin Translation to be more absurd than indeed it can be, especially he himself (if he be a Priest) being sworn to the Authority thereof? If Rules fail, he will try what he can work by an Example; a very rare one I must needs say, and without any other example.    

The Lord's Suggester his notable Example.  
AS if I had said, 
N. 23.  I do give an hundred pound pension, and I will give it, the future promise doth not diminish the present gift; much less in this, where the future promise is but a Collection, but the present Gift is certain.  

The Lo: B ps. Answer.  
THis Suggester is somewhat confused, I may not suffer him to do his Acts in Tenebris. But yet because here is an Example of giving so large and honourable a Pension of an hundred pounds, I will by your good licence (my Lord) apply myself in some part to your Lordship▪ Be it then that you say you do Give, or that you Will give an hundred pound pension to a man, I say, it is bountifully said, and like an honourable Lord: but our question is not merely of the different Tenses, but of the different Senses of [I give,] and [I will give,] in their proper and several significations, being spoken of the same thing.  
Harken therefore, if you please: when you say [I give] thee this hundred pounds, and in so saying give it him, than the sense of the Future Tense, [I will give it] is false and superfluous; because it cannot properly be said to be given hereafter, which is already Given. And if you say, [I give it him] in a future signification, meaning that you [will give it hereafter,] then was your other words, [I give it him] unproper and figurative (the present Tense being put for the future:) or else you must confess it was false, and you did but equivocate with him, by promising to give that which you meant not, for you gave him but words. But will you say that in both these Speeches [I give] and [I will give] you speak properly? take heed (my Lord) for so, after that you have Given an hundred pounds in present, saying, I give; you are further tied by your other saying [I will give,] to give him another hundred more, to make good your promise. Is not your L pp: beholding to your Suggester for this piece of service, which he hath done for you, by the rarity of his Wit, quasi, without it?    

The Lord's Suggester his third Evasion, by a plain Paradox.  
THirdly, 
N. 24.  I say that those words are neither Christ's Sacramental words, nor his words of Institution, (whereby he instituted the Sacrament) as you call them pag. 88 nor his words of Consecration, which yourself in your letter do rightly term true Consecratory words.  

The Lo: B ps. Answer.  
HOw I called those words [This is my Body,] words of Consecration, without any Contradiction to myself, or advantage to your Romish Cause, I have made manifest already. For this present, I am to discover his Paradox in this, that he denyeth the words, Given, and Shed, to be Sacramental words. This I call a new Invention, indeed, and an egregious Paradox, because you shall never be able to produce any Writer, among your Romish Professors, who hath not acknowledged these words, Blessing, Breaking, Given, (spoken on Christ's part) to signify Sacramental Acts. Or yet these words, Take ye, Eat ye, Drink ye, to be Sacramental Precepts, on the Receivers part. Or these words, [Body given, and Blood shed,] to be Sacramental Narrations, betokening the thing Mystically offered; as well as these words, Do this in remembrance of Me, to be Sacramental Explications of the use and end of this Sacrament; and all these sacramentals to belong to Christ his Institution. I believe your Suggester his despair, to show the Contrary, in any Romish Writer, will never permit him to make trial hereof.    

The Lord's Suggester his fourth Evasion.  
FOurthly I say, 
N. 25.  that yourself both pag. 87. but especially pag. 7. in the 6. Book affirm that these words [Given, and Shed] are to be understood in the future Tense, as relating to the Cross, but not to the Sacrament: and so though some of our men do imagine Tropes in them, yet being denied to appertain to the Sacrament, they cannot be in the number of Eisdem, and so make nothing to the matter in hand; neither can a Vertigo be imputed to our men, that they acknowledge a Trope in them.  

The Lo: Bps Answer.  
SOme of your Romish Doctors undertook to prove, that the words, Given, and Shed, are properly taken for the present Time; as your Card: Bellarmine, with Some others have done, as was shown Book 6. pag. 4. and 5. and are contradicted by others, who have testified that the opinion of your Doctors is, to interpret them to signify the offering up of his Body, and shedding his blood afterwards on the Cross, as your L p: was taught even now. Therefore the vertigo was not unjustly imputed to our Romish Adversaries, one side denying, and another affirming two Tropes to be in these two words of Christ's Institution, Given, and Shed. And if your Suggester saw not thus much, you may justly suspect that his head was troubled with the same disease.     

Of the Tropes in the the next two words, CUP, and TESTAMENT.  

The Lord Suggester his notably false, yet most peremptory Assertion, and Evasion.  
AS for the words, 
N. 26.  Cup, and Testament, I answer, as I did to the former; first, that the Authors, by you cited, are too few for you to ground your Accusation against Adversarij nostri, who are many hundred thousands, upon the opinion of so few.  

The Lo. Bps Answer.  
THe Authors, whom I produce to prove that, Cup, by a figure, was taken for the matter contained in the Cup; and the word, Testament, by another Trope, taken for the Legacy given by Testament, were three, viz. your Bishop jansenius, Salmeron, and Barradius; the two last being both Jesuits. And if three persons be not so far plural, as to be called Adversarij in the plural number, I know neither Greek, Latin, nor English Grammar.  
But these (saith the Suggester) are but few, and there are Many hundred thousands of the contrary opinion. This is that which I have called an Assertion no less false than Peremptory, as will now appear.   

The L. Bishops second Answer, concerning the Suggesters prodigious peremptoriness.  
WHat? an hundred thousand Authors granting in these words of Christ [This is my blood shed for you] that the word, Shed (spoken of Christ at his last Supper) hath the sense of the Present Time? Never was there any Bayard more bold in his leap, than this Suggester hath been lavish in this his Asseveration; seeing that it may be rather affirmed, that your Romish Doctors, were they a thousand thousand, discussing this point, would swear that the word, Shed, properly taken, could not be understood of the time of Christ his Instituting this Sacrament. The reason may be this, Dici de, sequitur in esse in, that is to say, never can any thing be affirmed properly of that, which properly is not. But the Blood of Christ was not properly shed at the time of his Supper: therefore is it impossible to affirm truly, that this is properly said to have been shed.  
Hearken in the first place to your great Oracle Bellarm: delivering his judgement in this point (whose sentence I alleged, Book 6. p. 8.) The blood of Christ (saith he, speaking of the time of the Sacrament) doth not pass out of his body. Whereas Christ▪ (saith your Alfonsus) once shed his blood upon the Cross, he is never to shed it any more: whereby it is proved also, his true blood never to be any where without his body. Our third witness was your jes. Coster, thus: Christ (saith he) suffered a true effusion, or shedding of blood upon the Cross, his blood being separated from his body: but here (namely in the Sacrament) is only a Representation of his Blood. So he.  
To reduce these Confessions into form of arguing. Wheresoever there is a true Effusion, or Shedding of Blood, there is a Separation of Blood from the Body. But Christ, neither at the time of Instituting this Sacrament, nor yet after his Resurrection, had any true separation of Blood from his body. Ergo, he had not either then, or after, any true and proper Shedding of blood. And consequently cannot his Blood be said properly to be Shed in this Sacrament. Where now will your Suggester find out one of Ten Thousand men, who will deny this Consequence? If he himself can but imagine thus much, I, for my part, shall never envy him the property of a vertiginous man.    

The Lord's Suggester his second Evasion.  
SEcondly, I say that neither (Calix) nor (Testamentum) though they may in some sense be called Sacramental words: 
N. 27.  yet can they not be called the Sacramental words: for that the Sacrament may be without them, and so are not in the number of Eisdem.  

The Lo: Bps Answer.  
THe Suggester will be still Idem in eisdem, that is, absurdly superfluous, as I have proved evidently already. That which we are taught of him here, is, that these words Cup, and Testament, although they be sacramentals, yet are they not to be called The Sacramentals. O most excellent subtlety! whereby this man's hands and legs, in like manner, although they be called Corporal parts of his body, yet may not one say, that they are The corporal parts of his body.  
The Latin Translation useth indeed both Tenses, [Datur] Given, in the present tense, and [Effundetur] Shed, in the future; but it doth use neither of them both singly, in two different senses; as to tell us, that Given, being of the Present Tense, hath the sense also of the Future: or that Shed, being rendered in the Future Tense, hath likewise the sense of the present time. For to conceive two literal senses of one and the same words, as to say [Is shall be] is as absurd in Grammar, as to affirm out of the Sea-card of one and the same wind, that it stands North-South. If Rules fail, he will try what he can work by examples.    

The Lord's Suggester his Objecting of the plain speeches of the Evangelists.  
Besides, 
N. 28.  it is a Maxim in Divinity, that the obscure Texts of Scripture are to be expounded by those Texts that are plain and easy to be understood. But the words of St Matthew, and St Mark [This is my Blood] is much more plain than [This Chalice is the Testament in my Blood.] And therefore aught to be, and are preferred by all Antiquity before the other words of St Paul. And now to lay aside those plain words of S. Matthew and S. Mark, and to entertain those other words of S. Paul, only because they are more subject to cavils, and to figurative expositions, is Nodum in scirpo quaerere.  

The Lord B ps. Answer.  
THe Maxim is most true, but this application, as if S. Matthew, or S. Mark would relieve him, to prove a literal sense in these words [This is my blood] is as untrue: because (as hath been said) S. Matthew, and S. Mark both are as plain for an unproper sense, as either S. Luke, or. S. Paul could be. For the speech of Christ, in S. Matthew, and S. Mark, standeth thus▪ He took the Cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it, (viz. the Cup) unto them, saying, Drink you all of this, (namely, Cup,) for this (sc. Cup) is my blood.  
Inasmuch therefore as This Cup was that which Christ called his Blood, which Cup (as you have heard, Book 2. pag. 79. from the confessed Maxim of Maxims) can no more properly be called Christ's blood, than (according to your own example) a man can properly be termed an horse: Therefore must the pronoun, THIS, signify the matter in the Cup, as the Sacrament of Christ's blood; and therefore Sacramentally called his Blood. Wherefore can he not justly say, that I have sought a knot in a rush, but rather this man's Objection is not worth a Rush.    

The Lord's Suggester his foul Intanglement.  
THirdly I say, 
N. 29.  that the custom of speech, where, by the word (Cup) the liquor contained in the Cup is of every man understood; and by the word (Testament) is meant that Act or deed, whereby the Covenant, or Testament is given or confirmed, is so commonly and so usually understood of all men, that he would be thought to be rather the figure of a man, than a man that should now deny them to be allowed for direct speeches. In matter of Philosophy, Consuetudo est altera natura; in the Law, Consuetudo facit jus; and Consuetudo legi quandoque praejudicat: Shall we say that he writeth not good French, who writeth est for et, and en for an? or that he writeth not good English who, for Liege people, writeth Liege people?  

The Lo: Bps Answer.  
IT is a jolly matter to see a man turn to his wits again. The Suggester saith (as well as can be wished) that it is now plain, that the word, Cup, is put for the liquor in the Cup: whereby is confessed that it is plainly a Figurative speech; as when one saith to his friend, Sir, take you my Purse to keep, meaning, the money in his purse. Such speeches may we allow to be current, but yet not to be direct speeches, as the Suggester would have it. But will it please your L p: to ask of your Suggester, upon this confession, what is become of that your Suggester, who talked even now of an 
* See above N. 20.  hundred thousand, who denied any Trope in the words, Cup, or Testament, against the opinion of some few; and was encountered with a greater number than he brought, and is now confounded by his own Contradiction? where is the Vertigo now, my Lord?  
His acquaint Crotchet of Peeple and People, though peradventure it be applauded by you, or some ignorant people, yet cannot be but hissed at by any of sound judgement; because in our question, concerning the word, Cup, (the word, Cup, being put for the liquor in the Cup) it doth necessarily vary the sense: because the Cup is no more the Liquor in the Cup, than the liquor in the Cup can be properly called the Cup. But whether the word be written Peeple, or People, it altereth not the sense of the word, and is therefore senselessly applied to our Question concerning the Cup.  
And now I will requite him with as delicate a conceit out of your Romish Schools. It is disputed, concerning the conversion of the Bread into the body of Christ, thus. 
* Innocent. de office Missae l. 3. c. 29. Dicunt quidam, quòd panis convertitur in Corpus Christi, quia Corpus sub eisdem panis accidentibus loco panis incipit esse: sicut dicitur à Grammaticis, quando mutatur A, in E, cum à praesenti Ago, formatur praeteritum Egi.  It is like as when it is said of the Grammarians (meaning some of your Doctors) that the letter, A, is changed into the letter, E▪ as when Ago in the present tense is made Egi in the preter-tense. This must needs be a dainty to your Suggester, my Lord; much good may it do him.     

Of the Trope, in the word, BREAD.  

The Lord's Suggester.  
AS concerning the word, 
N. 30.  Bread, I answer briefly, that neither did Christ use that word in the Institution of the Sacrament, neither do you allege any Author of ours, for to prove it to be Figurative. That place in the sixth of St. John, by you cited, yourselves acknowledge not to belong to this Sacrament: and the other place, by you cited, out of the 10. Ch. of 1. Cor. 10 yourself acknowledge to be spoken of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is his Church. Neither are those words Christ's, but St. Paul's, who could not institute a Sacrament; so as this word, Bread, is not to be brought within the compass of your, (etc.)  

The Lo: B ps. Answer.  
WHo can deny, when it is said by the three Evangelists, as well as by S. Paul, that jesus took Bread, and blessed it, but that which he blessed was made a Sacrament; and that which he blessed, the Text saith, was Bread? In the next place he would persuade your Lordship that I proved not the Speech of Christ, in calling Bread his Body, to be Figurative, out of your Romish Doctors; notwithstanding that (Book 2. page 75. unto 82.) diverse leaves were spent in the proof only of this.  
His third Untruth is, by intimating that I proved not this out of S. Paul to the Corinthians, but only spoke of Bread, mentioned 1. Cor. 10. which speech of Bread, there signifieth only the Mystical body of Christ, which is his Church; albeit▪ I directly insisted upon that of 1. Cor. 11. where Bread is so called after Consecration, not only Bread, but also Bread broken, to signify Christ's natural body crucified upon the Cross. (See Book 3. pag. 133.)  
And yet behold another lavish Untruth of this unconscionable Suggester. Neither do you (saith he, speaking of Protestants) acknowledge the word, Bread, to belong unto the Sacrament. Why man? all Protestants teach and profess Bread and Wine Consecrated to be the Sacrament itself, & call them both, The Sacrament of the Body and blood of our Lord. How then possibly should they not acknowledge them both to belong unto the Sacrament? As Circumcision of the flesh was called the Covenant. In the form of Baptism, [I baptise thee in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost] the word, Water, is not mentioned; will the obstinacy of this man say, that therefore Water belongeth not unto the Sacrament of Baptism? or that it is not indeed the Sacrament? against that general definition of a Sacrament set down by S. Augustine, and retained in your Schools, A Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible Grace. So is Water, in Baptism, a visible sign of the purgation of the soul, by Grace of the remission of sin; and so are Bread and Wine Visible signs of Christ's Body crucified, and Blood shed for the remission of sin; and our Sacramental Corporal eating is also a Sign of our Christian and spiritual refection thereby. Fie, fie, my Lord, that you should lend your ears to such a miserable Seducer▪     

Of the Trope in the word, EAT, used in the Institution of Christ.  

The Lord's Suggester his first Evasion.  
AS for the word, 
N. 31.  Eat, first I say, that though Christ said [Accipite, & manducate] yet were not those any part of the Sacrament, or Consecratory words, nor those words of Christ, whereby he instituted this Sacrament.  

The Lo: B ps. Answer.  
THough it be not within the Compass of those words of your Consecration of this Sacrament [This is my Body] yet are they properly belonging to the Sacramental use, and therefore might as necessarily require a proper sense and meaning as any other words of Christ his Institution, that belong either to the Sacrament, or matter of the Sacrament, if (as your Doctors have taught) Christ his Sacramental Speeches be void of Figures. And that, in every Celebration of this Sacrament, Eating is necessary, your Suggester himself (if he be a Romish Priest) must as necessarily confess; for you have heard your Doctors granting a necessary duty in the Priest, wheresoever he celebrateth this Sacrament, to eat it with his own mouth. See Book 2. pag. 48 and 54.    

The Lord's Suggester his Objection.  
WHich Sacramental and Consecratory words, thirteen of the ancient Fathers, cited by Allen, Bellarmine, Brereley, etc. and Bishop Jewel in his Reply, and the Communion book, in the Catechism for examination of Children before Confirmation, and Dr. Fr. White, now Bishop of Elie, in his Reply, and Calvin and Beza in diverse places of their works; and your self in your last letter confess to be [Hoc estcorpus meum.]  

The Lo: B ps. Answer.  
HOw these words may be called words of Consecration, but improperly, I have already signified; and shall (God willing) manifest fully in the second Edition, by differencing the Consecration of Ordination, and Accommodation, from the Consecration of Benediction. For, indeed, if those words [This is my body] should be held to be the words of Benediction, which is properly called Consecration, then should you exclude Christ his own Benediction, which is expressly set down before these your words of Consecration, as it is in the Evangelists; jesus took Bread, and BLESSED it, and after he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Take, Eat, this is my Body. And so shall we be found to agree amongst ourselves, whereas (by the Confession of your own learned Archbishop Caesariensis) your Romish Doctors are involved in irreconciliable Contradictions, as you have seen them alleged by me, Book 1. pag. 8.    

The Lord's Suggester his Conclusion, in this his first Evasion.  
SO as the word, 
N. 32.  Eat, being none of those Sacramental words of Christ, cannot be brought in the compass of your (&c.)  

The Lo: B ps. Answer.  
THis is right the Cuckowessong, so often repeated. The word, Eat, is not mentioned in those Four words of Christ [This is my body,] therefore it cannot be brought within the compass of, etc. as though (etc.) were there set as an hedge to exclude me from showing any Tropes in the words of Christ's Institution, beside only those precedent words [This is my body:] and not rather, according to the proper nature of every etc. (which hath been used by all Writers in the world) as a gap, to make passage to the other following words of Christ's Institution; I say, of his Institution, and not only of Consecration, as your Suggester pertinaciously replieth, contrary to my express words, Book 2. pag. 80. in the very Title of the Sect. 14. thus: Many Figurative Speeches, used by Christ, even in his words of the Institution of the Sacrament, by your own Confessions.  
Which so plain an expression of mine own meaning might teach your Suggester to eat his former words, and Assertion, concerning not only the word, Eat, but the other Tropical words of Christ, already mentioned. And do you not see, my Lord, how my former (etc.) still sticketh in your Suggesters' throat? it will not down.    

The Lord's Suggester his second Evasion.  
CHrist, 
N. 33.  indeed by the word, Eat, intendeth to show the use of the Sacrament, which though it were not used as Christ appointed, yet were it a Sacrament, as yourself Pag. 8. confess, where you say that Christ made it a Sacrament by his Blessing, by Prayer, which preceded these words [This is my Body:] and by Consequent, before the Apostles did Eat. Also pag. 36. where you acknowledge the Reservation of the Sacrament to be ancient, so it be for a Sacramental eating thereof: Whence it will follow, that it is a Sacrament before, and without the Eating of it: and that Christ's words, [Take and Eat] were not his Sacramental, or Consecratory words, or the words whereby he did institute the Bread to be a Sacrament, seeing it is a Sacrament, though it be not Eaten.  

The Lo: Bps Answer.  
SAy you so? Is it a Sacrament, although it be not eaten? you have no other Sacrament in the celebration of the Eucharist, but that which you call a Sacrifice, and this Sacrifice (saith your 
* Suarez Ies: Tom. 3. Disp: 75. Sect 2. Prima sententia est, Sacerdotal●m Sumptienem ess● de necessitate Sacrificii, quatenus est perfecta consumptio, & inntatio victimae oblatae, Sic moderni Thomistae, Soto. Ledesima, quos secutus est Bellar. l 1. de Missa. c. ult. But Salmeton jes. To: 9 Tract. 29. p 223. At hoc non pertinet ad esseatiam Sacrificii.  Bellarmine, and other modern Divines) cannot be, except that the Priest Eat it, as I have also showed you in the sixth book of the Treatise of the Mass. And the necessity hereof they ground not upon those words, [This is my Body,] but upon the words of Command following, [Do this.] Ask your Suggester how he can reconcile himself to those your Doctors.     

Of the Words, BREAK, EAT, and DRINK, out of Maldonate and Brerely.  

The Lord's Suggester, his Exceptions.  
But you allege Maldonate to say, 
N. 34.  that the Eating of the Body is a Figurative Speech.  

The Lord B ps. Answer.  
IF I knew that I had injured either of these Authors, it would grieve me at the very heart. First then to Maldonates' Eating, and after to M. Brerely his Drinking. I produced (Book 2. pag. 86.) not only your jes. Maldonate, but your other jes. Suarez also, affirming that those words, Break, and Eat, cannot properly be affirmed of the body of Christ without a Figure. And that those sayings, Christ's body is broken, and, Christ's body is eaten, taken in the literal sense (they say) are false. Besides, your jes. Salmeron (cited Book 5. pag. 228.) proveth the same irrefutably. This real Eating (saith he) requireth a real tearing with the teeth that thing which is eaten. But the body of Christ (saith he) is not torn with the teeth.  
Can your Lordship think your Suggester to have been a rational man, to charge me with not doing Maldonate right, now that you see the direct & express confession of Maldonate himself? or can you accounted him a conscionable man, who knowing that both Suarez and Salmeron confessed and proved the words Broke, and, Eat, to be spoken figuratively, to conceal my evidence? This practice (my Lord) why do you not detest? I pass to Mr Brereley.    

Of the word, [DRINK.] The Lord's Suggester.  
ANd M. Brerely, 
N. 35.  That the blood is not properly drunk out of the Chalice, seeing the blood hath the same manner of existing, as under the form of Bread, to wit, not divided or separated from the body. But you had done Brerely more right, if you had repeated his words as they are; Seeing the blood in the Chalice: for Brereley intendeth not to say, that the Blood is figurative, but that the being of the blood in the Chalice, whereby it seemeth to be divided, from the body, is not properly said to be drunk out of the Chalice, if we attend to the strict propriety of speech. The like is to be said of Maldonates' words, concerning the Eating of the Body, which appeareth in the same sentence, viz. Quia ipsi modi, qui significantur his verbis, non conveniunt corpori Christi.  

The Lo: Bps Answer.  
M R, Brerely his words (by me cited, Book 2. pag. 87.) were these: If we attend unto the propriety of speech, neither is the blood of Christ properly drunk out of the Chalice. What can we call wrong in this Citation? Forsooth, Mr Brereley's words are not, Drunk out of the Chalice, but, Blood In the Chalice is drunk. Would not a man think that your Suggester was In, or else newly come Out of the Wine-cellar, when he made this exception? Where I, because the liquor is not properly Drunk, before it be out of the Cup, lest MR. Brereley my Adversary might seem to speak less properly, altered his phrase. O that my Adversaries were such as would so kindly handle my writings, by so altering them, that they be better than they seem to be, and not everywhere almost deprave my words and meanings! But be it Drunk In, or Drunk Out of the Cup, Mr. Brereley plainly acknowledgeth an Impropriety in the phrase of Drinking Christ's Blood, which is the very Point in question, and which I contended for from this his testimony.  
Nor this only, but (Book 1. pag. 641.) I showed the general doctrine of the Church of Rome, in the point of concomitancy, to be this, viz. That Blood is still in the veins of Christ's body, as it was before the consecration of this Sacrament. So that Christ is received as whole man in his perfect body; whereupon I inferred, that, because a man could not properly drink the blood of a man, whose blood is still in the veins thereof: therefore can he not be said properly to drink it, because it is received under the form of a solid body, and not under the form of blood, or any liquid thing. As yet therefore Maldonate, and Brereley remain our faithful Advocates. And if your Suggester shall prove the contrary, I shall think that he was a sober man, when he made this his Reply.    

The Lord's Suggester.  
SO as neither Maldonate, nor Brereley, doth differ from other Catholic Writers in the true sense and meaning of Christ's words, or that they think [Hoc est corpus meum: Hic est sanguis meus] are Tropical.  

The Lo: Bps Answer.  
IF they differ not from other Catholic Writers in the meaning of Christ's words, now spoken of, which are Eat, and Drink, then will it necessarily follow, that other Catholic Writers differ not from them; and so we shall all be good friends, professing unanimously that these two words [Eat, and drink] belonging to Christ's Institution, are Tropical; the very point which I undertook to prove. It is not so?    

The Lord's Suggester.  
Only they differ in modo loquendi, 
N. 36.  which kind of difference I presume shall not be urged as essential in a matter of this Consequence, they agreeing in substance with all other Catholic Writers, as their whole books do plainly show.  

The Lo. Bps Answer.  
IT is your presumption indeed, and that a very Childish one too. For better manifestation hereof, I shall presume that your Suggester cannot be so absurd as, by the word Substance, to mean any Physical and bodily substance, but only the subject matter which is in controversy. And the matter in Controversy is concerning the foresaid words of Christ's Institution, Eat, and Drink, whether they be properly, or literally taken, or improperly, and figuratively. Some of your Doctors hold them to be properly spoken, others deny this, and say, this is a false sense (as you have heard.) Now your Suggester will needs play the Moderator, saying, that they agree in substance, namely, in the matter in question, though they differ in their manner of speaking; although the manner of speaking is here become the very matter in question.  
Just as if when the Lords in the Star-chamber do variously censure a defendant, some judging him guilty, and some quitting him, and holding him innocent; your Suggester should reconcile this difference, saying, that though the one part held him guilty, and the other unguilty, yet do they not differ in substance, but only in the manner of speaking. When the two adulterous Elders were examined, concerning Susanna, what tree it was in the Garden, under which the act was done, one said, under a Mastic, the other, under an Holm tree: they differed only in modo loquendi, and yet were they both thereby proved false witnesses. Albeit otherwise agreeing in one intention, to accuse Susanna of whoredom; even as we have noted your Doctors by the division of their tongues, to have been false Teachers.    

The Lord's Suggester.  
ANd because I find, that in this your Book, 
N. 37.  you do endeavour in all points of difference to prove your Tenet by the confession of the Catholic party, whose sayings you allege: which do not, as I conceive, differ in substance, but only in modo loquendi.  

The Lo: Bps Answer.  
YOu repeat your Reply, I must have like liberty to repeat the effect of my Answer. When the question is of Proper and improper signification of words, the manner of speech is the Substance of the matter in question. It is a known story of the Tradesman in London dwelling at the sign of the King's Crown, who said unto his son, Behave thyself well, Son, and I will make thee heir of the Crown: his words were afterwards brought within compass of Treason, albeit others thought the word, Crown, to have been taken by the Speaker in a figurative sense, yet did he forfeit both his own Crown and life, even for the literal signification of the word, Crown, and was hanged only upon a difference de modo loquendi, that is, the manner of speech.  
Accordingly now, when the whole structure of the Romish Mass, concerning either Corporal presence, Transubstantiation, or Adoration of the Host, do all depend wholly upon the Manner of Christ's speech [This is my body] in the literal and proper sense; and that our confutation of all these superstitious, sacrilegious, and Idolatrous Doctrines, is grounded upon the improper and figurative meaning of the same words: if all this difference in the manner of speech be no substantial matter of difference, let your Suggester but answer, why your Roman Church burned so many Protestants, only for differing from her in the manner of speech, viz. interpreting Christ's speech [This is my body] figuratively contrary, to the literal exposition thereof? If he shall say, that she did it unjustly, than was she a bloody jezabel: & if he answer, that notwithstanding it were a Difference, in manner of speech, yet was this sufficient matter to condemn them to the fire; then is he to be sent to school again among Petites, to learn what it is to differ in modo loquendi.    

The Lord's Suggester his offer to tell a Tale.  
I will, under your favour, endeavour, by an example in the same kind, to show how weak these kind of proofs are.  

The Lo: Bps Answer.  
WIth very good leave (friend Suggester) but see it be not such, as shall bewray your own folly, and expose you to the scorn of any intelligent Reader, you had best.    

The Lord's Suggester his merry Tale.  
IN K. Edward 2d his time (as I remember) at what time the University of Oxford was much addicted to the learning of those, who by some were called Nominals, for that they were strict in examining the nature and signification of every word, Merton College, being seated upon the walls of the Town, and so wanting room to make good and commodious walks, the Master and Fellows of the house being desirous to walk in the meadows that lay close to the walls, thought good to send three of their Company to the King, then lying at Woodstock; who being admitted to his presence, one of them signified to his Majesty that they were sent by the College to demand Licentiam faciendi ostium: the second presently interrupting him, said, that he was mistaken, for that a Licence to make a door was not a satisfaction to them, for so they might have a licence, and yet the door never made, and therefore his desire was to have, Ostium fieri: whereunto the third replied, that they were both mistaken, for so it might be still in fieri; but that his Petition was to have Ostium factum: whereunto the first replied again, that they were not so unmannerly as to desire Ostium factum, for that were to demand that the King should make them a door, but desired that they might have leave posse ostium facere. But the second again opposing him, and the third opposing the second, and the King growing weary, he answered them, that though he understood their request, yet would he not give them satisfaction, till they would agree in modo loquendi.  

The Lo: Bps Answer.  
IF that I had not heard your Suggester make so often mention of Ostium, a door, I should have thought it had been a Tale of a Tub, it is so fond: but let us take it as it is, and make the best of it we can. Only it might have becomed him, to have had a better conceit of the worth of that College in Oxon, so famous for Antiquity and learning, then to imagine that it should be so utterly forlorn of true Oratory and Grammar, as that three choicest Scholars therein should not be able to express this Message in latin intelligently, especially to so great a King, but that they should deserve to be sent home, like the men of the town of Gotham, as wise as they came. By the way, you may tell your Suggester that he is no Real man, who did not know what Nominals meant, when he saith, they were strict in examining the signification of words: for they were therefore called Nominals, because they held Vniversals to be, not Res, but Nomina.    

The Lord's Suggester his Application, upon his Tale.  
NOw as it cannot be objected to any of these, 
N. 39  that they differed from the rest in the Substance of their demand; so neither can it be said of these Catholic Writers, that they differ one from the other in the substance, as their Books do sufficiently witness, though they differ in the manner of utterance.  

The Lo: B ps. Answer.  
HIs promise was to bring in an Example of the same kind; and he is partly as good as his word, for it is indeed equally ridiculous; For it cannot be of the same kind, except the Application stand right, as thus: As those Scholars in their Tales, even so the Romish Writers (as namely Bellarmine, Allen, and others, who have written Expositions upon the manner of Christ his Institution) have been so defective in uttering of their meaning, concerning the same speech of Christ, that they have merited (like to the former Gotthamists) to be dismissed with laughter for speaking so foolishly.  
Or else that he think it to be a more suitable Application, if it stand thus; As the foresaid Scholars, in explicating their meaning concerning the making of a door, have contradicted one another, some delivered it in the sense of the time to come, de ostio faciendo, and some other explaining it of the time past, de ostio facto, (as the Example showeth:) even so your Romish Doctors, in interpreting Christ's words, have been repugnant one to another, by interpreting Christ's sayings in diverse senses, some Properly, and some of them Figuratively. All which is so far from weakening my Proofs, that nothing could fortify them more, to show that your Doctors are found professedly to differ in modo loquendi. As for Example, in the words [Given, and Shed;] Some expounding them (as you have heard) properly in the Present Tense, and Some improperly in the Future. This may serve to manifest the pervicacy of your Suggester, who notwithstanding holdeth on his pace.    

The Lord's Suggester.  
NEither is it possible they should differ in substance in their Printed Books▪ 
N. 40.  for that no Book among them is allowed to be Printed without the Examination of the Superiors, men well known and approved for their faith and learning.  

The Lo: B ps. Answer.  
What is this I hear? One suggesting, upon any pretence, that to be Impossible, which he knoweth hath been proved throughout the whole Treatise of the Mass, to be infallibly true? As namely, that there is scarce any one Objection made by Protestants against your Romish Doctors, which is not by others of the same Profession as fully confirmed. Whereupon we may infer, for a further Confirmation of the point now in question, that if those faithful and learned Superiors have authorised the writings of those Doctors, by whose Testimonies our Protestant Reasons are so plainly avouched, both in our Objections against your Romish Doctrine, and in our Confutation of yours; then must you necessarily grant us one further advantage, which is, that the same learned and faithful Superiors have so fairy justified our Protestant Profession. But what talk you of these your Superiors, as if they could not Contradict one another, when as the Superiors of all these Superiors, and Oracles of your Church, your Romish Popes are found not only in other Doctrines, but even in the questions concerning the Romish Mass, manifestly contradictory one to another? as this our Treatise of the Mass hath plainly discovered. See in the Index of Fathers at the word Pope.    

The Lord's Suggester.  
ANd if (this notwithstanding) any error were afterward found in any Book, 
N. 41.  the Inquisition presently condemneth both the Book and the Author, if he do not submit to the correcting of his Book. And this to be true is well known by your Lordship, who in one part of your Book calls it Booke-butcherie.  

The Lord B ps. Answer.  
YOu say very true, This practice of your Inquisitors, in expunging out of the Books of Romish Doctors all their ingenuous Confessions, whereby our Protestant doctrine and defence hath been avouched and justified, I have called a Book-butcherie. If your Lordship should know any great Personage questioned about any Criminal delicts, some whereof were also Capital Transgressions, to have violently cut out the tongues of all such, whom he did suspect could bring any matter of Accusation against him, would your Lordship think much to hear this cruelty called a Butchery, and not rather judge such a fact to be a most infallible Argument of a guilty Conscience in that party? even so the Indices Expurgatorii, wherewith the Testimonies of your own Authors, witnessing for our Profession in their Books, be so many Indices, yea judices, to convince and condemn your now-Romish Church to be an unjust and shameless Patroness of a false Cause. What the mischief of this practice must be, mine own experience can best tell. I alleged out of Polydore Virgil a sentence expressly printed in his first Edition, out of Polydor's own Original and Autographe: which sentence by your Indices Expurgatorii was commanded to be there blotted out, and afterwards to be left out in the next Editions of Polydore, and so it was. M. Parson's finding the sentence wanting in the latter Editions of Polydore, raileth down right upon me, and noteth me for a notable falsificator, never taking knowledge of the truth of the Allegation, as it was set down and is now to be read, in the first proper and true Editions of Polydore. Can there then be a more Satanical Art of delusion, than this is of your Indices expurgatorii, whereby you may have a faculty to play the Thiefs, by stealing out of the Books of your own Romish Doctors, all such their ingenuous Confessions, marked for defence of the doctrine of Protestants, and then take the liberty to call us liars, for avouching their Testimonies, albeit never so truly?    

The Lord's Suggester his last, and most General Evasion.  
LAstly, 
N. 42.  if these Allegations of Tropical or Figurative Speeches were true, yet do I not see what Argument you can draw from hence; or how you can hence prove any thing against our Tenet.  

The Lo: B ps. Answer.  
IF your Suggester cannot see what Argument can be drawn from these Allegations, brought to prove a Figurative Sense in the words of Christ his Institution, and consequently in the words which you call Consecratory, it is because his sight is dim, & he had not a fit pair of spectacles to help him; whereby he might perceive, that upon the no-proper sense of the words, [This is my body] it must follow that there is no Transubstantiation in your Romish Mass, no Corporal presence, no real Sacrifice, no proper Eating, no lawful Divine Adoration thereof. All which are substantial Points, although depending the modo Loquendi. Finally, I would gladly see some colour of Reason, why the foresaid Allegations should not be of force.    

The Lord's Suggester, his Confirmation.  
SEeing yourselves plainly confess, 
N. 43.  and it is most true, that Figurative Speeches afford no certain proof in matters of faith: M. Downeham in his Book of Antichrist pag. 169. saying, It is a rule in Divinity, that Theologia Symbolicanon est argumentativa: and the same is affirmed by Willet in his Synopsis pag. 27. and by others, whose Sayings here, for brevity sake, I omit, presuming that it will not be denied.  

The Lo: Bps Answer.  
IF I should deny this, I should contradict myself, who in my latin Apology, (part. 2. lib. 5. cap. 4.) have defended this Position, by the Confession of your own writers, to be the Confutation of the Extravagant glosses of your Popes, and Popish Doctors. Among which we may reckon that of Pope Innocent the 3. who, to prove that his Papal Authority was above the Imperial, alleged that Scripture Gen. 1. God made two great Lights, the Sun to govern the Day, and the Moon to govern the Night. And now our Suggester will have you, in effect, to know, that this is but a Lunatic Argument, because it is Symbolical, no way able to prove that the Imperial, as the Moon, had borrowed its Authority from the Papal, as from the Sun. Your Pope Boniface the VIII. argued thus; Luc. 22. Peter said to Christ, Behold here are two swords: and Christ answered, It is enough. He said not (saith your Pope) it is too much, and therefore both the Temporal and Spiritual Sword are in the Pope, as he is Vicar of Christ. So he, which Consequence your Suggester now teacheth to be no better than a wooden dagger, or rather a fool's babble, because this kind of Symbolical Reasoning is of no force. And indeed this Papal Crotchet hath been (in my Latin Apology part. 2. lib. 5. cap. 28.) confuted by your two Jesuits, Maldonate, and Suarez, as being a violent distorturing of holy Scripture.  
The same may be said of your two eminent Cardinals Baronius and Bellarmine; from that Text Act. 10. where, in a vision, it was said to Peter, Kill and Eat: which being spoken of the kill and eating of beasts, the first word, KILL, your Baronius urgeth against the state of Venice, to show that the Pope being S. Peter's Successor, had power to compel them by violence. The other word, EAT, Bellarm. wresteth to prove the Pope to be the Head of the Church, but why? For, to eat (saith he) is the property of the Head. These and a thousand such Symbolical (I had almost said, Diabolical) profanations of Scripture might be produced out of your Romish Writers, upon all points of Controversy, which justly do fall (quasi in spongiam) upon this Thesis, viz. Symbolical Arguments make no necessary Conclusions.  
But what maketh this against us, concerning the matter in question, which is the figurative words of Christ, This is my body? The position maketh only against them, who extract either a Literal sense out of a parabolical & figurative speech, as Origen did, when having read that Scripture, There be some that castrate themselves for the Kingdom of God (which was but a parabolical speech) he did really, and therefore foolishly castrate himself. Or else, when men turn the words of Scripture, properly and literally spoken, into a figurative meaning, as your Popes dealt with Sun and Moon, and with Peter's Swords. But by that Thesis was it never forbid, whensoever in Scripture the name of the thing signified is attributed to the Symbol or sign, that then the Symbolical and Sacramental speech should be judged Tropical. But this kind of exposition was always approved of Christ, and by his Church. So here, Christ taking Bread, and breaking Bread, which was the Symbol and sign of Christ's body, and saying of the same Bread This is my body] it is not possible that the sense should be Literal, but altogether figurative, as hath been most evidently & copiously proved unto you by direct confessions (in my Treatise of the Mass, Book 2. p. 84.) of your own Divines, & by examples in Scripture, (lb. p. 85.) to wit, the sign of the Passing over called the Passover; Baptism, the sign of regeneration, called Regeneration; the Rock, but a sign of Christ, called Christ: in each one of these the symbols being a sign and figure, the speech must infallibly be figurative. And therefore Bread, being a figure of Christ's body, is called Christ's body figuratively. But your Romish literal exposition, from this Symbolical, hath been proved to be as false as the other is true, by the confessions of your Doctors, alleged, Book 2. pag. 79. What hath your Suggester now gained (my Lord) by his Objection of a Symbolical Argument, excepting only that he hath showed himself to be an ignorant and superfluous Litigator?    

The Lord's Suggester his relying upon the Authority of S. Augustine, in this Question.  
THe rather for that S. Augustine, 
N. 44.  Epist. 68 saith, Non nisi impudentissimè nititur quis aliquid in Allegoria positum prose interpretari, nisi habeat manifesta testimonia, quorum lumine illustrentur obscura.  

The Lo: Bps Answer, by consenting to the Authority of S. Augustine.  
THis being your last Allegation, and reserved, for the last confirmation of your defence, to the last Sentence of your Reply, doth tell me, in effect, that you have chosen S. Augustine to decide this whole cause, as one, who albeit he were alone in your choice, yet may be to us, for determining the point in question, as it were, All in all. That therefore you may perceive you have to deal with a tractable Adversary, be it known unto you, that I shall desire none other, rather than this Umpire, whom you yourselves have chosen, and the Testimony which you have now objected: only exacting that we may stand to the Arbitrement of so honourable a Moderator. It is the fashion that in such a case Parties be mutually bound in some sums of money, to stand to the award of him, who is chosen to compound the difference. We shall need no other forfeiture on either part, than the loss of the cause, which you may seem to yield unto, by your single choice of this so singular a Father, and I for my part shall accord to the same condition.    

S. Augustine his umpirage and full Determination of this whole question, concerning the exposition of Christ his speech; whether it be figurative or not; first from the rules of Interpreting.  
THe words in question are these words of Christ his Institution [THIS IS MY BODY:] 
N. 45.  the question itself is concerning the sense of the same words which you call Consecratory, and Operative; whether it be (as you say) Proper and literal, or (as we have affirmed) the meaning be Improper, Figurative, and Tropical. S. Augustine his judgement may be gathered from S. Augustine's own Rules of interpreting Sacramental speeches; as also from his other Assertions, concerning the property of a Body. I shall deal clearly in both.  
The first general Rule of S. Augustine, is recorded by your jes. Salmeron. (in 1. Cor. 15. Disp. 24. § Ad 1. August. (saith he) hath delivered this Rule, When as words, being taken properly, and according to a literal exposition, yield a sense impossible and absurd, then must we have recourse to a Tropical and figurative interpretation. This Mayor is (as you hear) S. Augustine his own. But in this speech of Christ [This is my body] Bread (by S▪ Aug.) is called the Body of Christ; which (as your Bellarm▪ saith) being properly taken, is Impossible: and as Absurd (say others) as to say a man is a horse. (Both which are alleged in the Treatise of the Mass, Book. 2. pag. 79.) Therefore for the right expounding of these words of Christ [This is my body] we are necessarily to have recourse to a figurative Interpretation.  
You can require nothing in your answer to this Syllogistical Argument, but that it may appear unto you, that S. August. held that to be Material Bread, which he gave to be eaten, when he said [Take, eat, this is my body.] And this was proved unto you (Book 5. pag. 21●) where S. Augustine affirmed of judas, that he received the Bread of the Lord. That is, will you say, the body of Christ, which he calleth Bread, either because it hath the form of bread, or else because it had been Bread, or because it is Spiritual bread of the soul. Nay (will Augustine say) none of all these, for I said, that though judas received the bread of the Lord, yet he received not that which the other Disciples received, namely, The Bread the Lord: whereby I distinguished, The Bread the Lord, which was Christ's body, received by the faithful, from the Sacramental Bread of the Lord, received by judas.  
Our second Argument is taken from S. August. his other second General Rule, concerning Eating. For Christ, as he said Take my body, so he said also, Eat, this is my body: to teach, that such as is the Being of a thing (be it proper, or figurative) such is the Eating thereof. But of Eating Christ's body there was alleged unto you (Book 2. pag. 100) the general Rule of S. August. to wit; Wheresoever the word, or precept of Christ's speech doth command any flagitious thing, it is figurative▪ (as for example) where it is said, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man. So he. And that we may understand he excluded all Corporal eating of Christ's body, whether visible, or invisible, he explaineth his meaning to have been Spiritual only, by the mouth of the soul, telling us in his next words, We Eat, in belief of Christ's passion, by a secret and profitable remembrance that Christ's flesh was crucified for us. So he.  
S. Aug. his third Rule was produced (Book 2. pag. 95.) which strikes at the heart of the Question, viz. That Sacraments be Signs, which have the appellations of the things, which they represent: therefore do they carry the names of the things themselves. So he. And this is verified by the example, which you have already heard, to wit, the Sign of the Passover, called the Passover: Circumcision, the Sign of the covenant, called the Covenant: the Rock, the Sign of Christ in his passion, called Christ: and Baptism the Sign of Christ's burial, called his Burial.  
But where (will you say) shall we find in Augustine the subject of the question, which is, that the sign of Christ's body is called his Body? which would put the point out of all question. I answer, even in the place above cited, out of S. Augustine's own words, saying that As Baptism is called Christ's burial, so is the Sacrament of the body of Christ called his body. Which is likewise said by S. Aug. out of another part of his works, and hath been cited, Book. 6. pag. 36. which satisfieth your objected Testimony out of S. Aug. Not to interpret the places of Scripture Allegorically, except there be some other manifest Testimonies of Scripture, whereby other more obscure places may be illustrated. Here I might add, that if the body of Christ be properly so called, and accordingly extant in this Sacrament, then being (as your Church teacheth) properly offered, it should be a proper Sacrifice. But S. Aug. (cited, book 6. p. 36.) hath taught you that The body of Christ is so said to be sacrificed here, by a Similitude, as Easter day is called the Day of Christ's Resurrection.  

Arguments out of other Positions of S. Augustine.  
THe Romish doctrine, 
N. 46.  which admitteth not of any figure in Christ's words [This is my body] doth thereby conclude, that after the words of Consecration the substance of Bread vanisheth, and that there is nothing materially remaining but the Body of Christ: and that the same Body is extant in every consecrated Host, howsoever the Hosts be severed one from another, and yet that it is not Circumscribed in any space, but is wholly in the whole, and in every part of the Host.  
All these are the Consequences of your Literal Expositions of these words of Christ, wherein you have had S. Augustine an utter Adversary from point to point; saying of the first, Our eyes see Bread in this Sacrament (speaking of Bread after consecration, as hath been cited, book 3. pag. 119) And of the second, in concluding against Heretics an Impossibility that Christ's body could be in two places at one instant, as namely, in the Sun and Moon, (as was alleged book 4. pag. 171.) And this he confirmed, by teaching that it is a property of the Deity (whereby the Holy Ghost is proved to be God) to be in divers places at once, as I related unto you Book 4. pag. 187. Lastly, he is Adversary to the third point also, determining that every Body, whatsoever, filleth the place wherein it is, and cannot be whole in any part thereof, which you might have red Book 4. pag. 192.  
By all which S. Austin's Rules you may see S. Austin's Position, now objected by your Suggester, to be fully observed. For we have in Scripture most manifest places, which prove these words [This is my body] to be Figuratively understood, because in Scripture whensoever the Sign (as the Bread) being called Christ's Body, hath the appellation of the thing signified (whereof I gave you many Examples throughout the Book 2.) the speech is always Tropical. Farewell now to your Lordship's learned Suggester. I expect now to hear your Lordship speak in your own language, for a Conclusion.    

The Lord Baron himself.  
MY lord 
N. 47.  I find by your letter, that you will take it in a degree of kindness to be advertised (though by an Adversary) by private letters, with any thing that he may think erroneous, to the end that you may either satisfy him in the truth of the writing, or otherwise correct it in the second Edition.  

The Lo: B ps. Answer.  
IT is true (my Lord) and he that knoweth me, knoweth this my disposition. For doth an Adversary, although even with an adverse mind, acquaint me truly with my Error? I then say to him, Sic inimicè places: or doth a friend conceal from me mine error, as doubting to offend me? I say, Sic & amicè noces; for I desire to go as upright in my writing, as I would in my walking. And that your Lordship may know I mean sincerely to reform my Aberrations, whatsoever shall come to my knowledge, I shall tell you of one Error your Lordship hath passed by, which I purpose (God willing) to correct. For although I accounted expressly but Six Tropes in the words of Christ his Institution, yet I now perceive, by the discussing of this your Suggesters Reply, that I had demonstrated, by infallible proof, Eight Tropes in them.  
Therefore I must enlarge my former Reckoning, and instead of VI write VIII. if this may any-whit work to your Lordship's Satisfaction; besides other Explications, which (God willing) I shall add upon the like occasions.    

The Lord Baron himself.  
Which is so Christian and noble a saying, 
N. 48.  as that I am encouraged to send you this part of my Reply to your letter, which I will finish ere long, and send it according to your direction; rather choosing to send this abrupt part, then by delay to give you the least Cause of suspicion, that I either broke my promise, or was unwilling to give satisfaction to your just and conscionable motion.  

The Lo: B ps. Answer.  
ANd I wish the Reply had been as Christian, just, and conscionable; but your Suggester is not the man (I dare assure your Lordship) from whom I may expect any conscionable dealing; after this experience which I have had of his so many doublings and juggle. Nor may I say I have been clearly dealt with by your Lordship, in promising a full Reply concerning my Allegations, in the time of the late whole vacation, and returning me a long Reply only to that one small Particle [&c.] Now if your Answer, in satisfying but one only falsehood of your Suggester, in his first Exception, hath been now almost half a year in finishing, your Lordship can tell, by the Rule of proportion, how long I must stay for a Replication to the other, wherein his (or if you will your Lordships) other Calumnious and false Taxations have been discovered in my Answer to your Lordship, the which he shall be never able to expunge. A tree is known by his fruit, and the fruit which hitherto we have found in the Reply, now made, may tell your Lordship (concerning that which remaineth, if ever it come to ripeness) that we are not to look for grapes of thorns, nor for figs of thistles.    

The Lord Baron himself.  
ANd as for the privateness of our Intercourse by Writing, if your Lordship will be pleased to keep it private, it shall not be published by me.  

The Lo: B ps. Answer.  
IT shall not— saith your L pp: and it needeth not, say I, because you yourself published it long ago, although not in Copies (it may be) yet in your verbal ostentations. So that if the publishing of this Tractate can do you any pleasure, you must be beholding to yourselves.       

THE SECOND PRINCIPAL EXCEPTIon taken against my Allegations.  

The Lord's Suggester.  
IN the same Dedicatory Epistle, speaking of the body of Christ, you say; Corpus (ut ipsi aiunt) omni movendi, sentiendi, intelligendique facultate destitutum; id est, coecum, surdum; intellectionis expers. And pag. 203. you have written thus: Christ's body in the Sacrament is (you say) without power of motion of sense, and of understanding. And I rest unsatisfied both of your (Ipsi aiunt) in the latin, and your (you say) in English: for these words sound as if Catholics taught this Doctrine, or at least the mayor part of them: but in your quotation, pag. 196. (where this point is handled) you produce Suarez only.  

The Lo: Bps Answer.  
SVarez only? I will not be so unmannerly as to tell your Suggester that this is One lie, but sure I am it is as evident an Untruth as could be uttered: because in the objected place, (Book 2. pag. 196.) when Suarez is cited, he is alleged as a Contest, both he himself confessing that Christ, as he is said to be in this Sacrament, is void of sense, etc. and testifying of other Doctors of your Church, saying; (in the Margin) Alii, & Nonnulli; and by name reckoneth among those Others, Thomas Aquinas, your Angelical Doctor (to whom he might have added Scotus.) And therefore was not your jes. Suarez the only witness, no more than the foreman of a Jury may be said to be Alone, when he giveth in his Verdict in the name of other his fellows, be they eleven, or more. Therefore this last part of your Suggester his Exception, which concerneth the Author's words, is (as you see) most false; and as faithless will he be found in his Exception against the sense of the words of the same jesuit.    

The Lord's Suggester his Exception, touching the Sense of Suarez.  
WHose words (as yourself cite them) bear another Sense, 
N. 50.  far different from what he is here cited.  

The Lo: B ps. Answer.  
SUrely then have I been exceedingly to blame; but then shall I believe you, when you shall show it.    

The Lord's Suggester.  
FOr he only affirmeth that the body of Christ in the Sacrament is destitute of those faculties (naturally considered) but saith plainly; Corpus Christi (ut est in Sacramento) potest per se moveri localiter à Deo. And this is no new doctrine, neither doth this prove that the body of Christ is coecum, surdum, exanime.  

The Lo: B ps. Answer.  
SVarez meant (saith he) that the body of Christ, in this Sacrament, is destitute of these foresaid faculties, as naturally considered: which I confess to be truly affirmed by your Suggester. And this being true, I furthermore affirm, that he hath as falsely accused me to have alleged Suarez his words in a far different sense: for, I delivered the very same sense of your Suggester in his own express words thrice, thus; No power naturally, of himself, to move himself: No natural faculty of sense, without a Miracle, to move and see. Not able without some Miracle, to apprehend things passed in his understanding. And so are to be expounded his words objected, Potest per se moveri localitèr à Deo: (adding, which your Suggester like a sly youth passed by) Loquor de potentia Dei absoluta, I speak (saith he) of the absolute power of God; signifying that alalthough by his Divine power he could, yet by his humane and natural power he could not move himself, or see, or hear, or understand things past. Which I called then a Brutish (I might have added a Brainsick and impious) Doctrine, derogating from the Article of Christian faith, concerning the glorified Body of Christ. What more?    

The Lord's Suggester.  
Christs' body walked upon the waters, 
N. 51.  not naturally, but by the omnipotency of his Godhead. The like may be said of his coming to his Disciples, the doors being shut: his issuing out of the Tomb, the stone being not removed: and his penetrating of the heavens. Which because they were not done naturally, it doth not therefore follow that the body of Christ was coecum, surdum, intellectionis expers.  

The Lo: Bps Answer.  
IF it follow not that he, who naturally, and without a miraculous power, cannot possibly see, hear, or feel, is therefore to be said to be naturally dumb, deaf, and senseless, then may he as well deny, that either Bartimaeus, whose eyes Christ miraculously opened, had been blind; or he in the Gospel, to whom Christ restored miraculously his hearing had been deaf; or that Lazarus, when he was miraculously raised out of his Grave, had been so long senseless, who naturally, and without a miracle, had not seen, heard, or used any faculty of Sense. Which proveth your Suggester, in his objection, to be, indeed, void of common sense, as well as he is in that which followeth.  
Christ's body (saith he) walked miraculously on the water: and passed through the doors of the house, yet for all that could not be said to be blind or deaf. As much as to say, a man cannot be said to be blind in his eyes, who hath agility in his legs to move himself, albeit Blindness be not incident to the eyes, more than sight is to the heels. Surely, that party is truly blind in himself, who is only miraculously made to see? This did never any deny, that was in his right mind?    

The Lord's Suggester.  
BEsides, 
N. 52.  in diverse places of your Book, yourself accuse us for praying unto it, (namely, the Sacrament) as to a living thing: but for us so to pray unto it, and yet affirm it to be Coecum, surdum, intellectionis expers, are two Positions so opposite the one to the other, and yet both affirmed by yourself, as that I must needs affirm that I am not satisfied therein.  

The Lo: Bps Answer.  
ASsuredly; my Lord, neither can I be satisfied, when I hear so absurd a Contradiction as this is; no more than I can be satisfied with the impudent boldness of your Suggester, in putting this gross contradiction upon me. For your Romish Church holdeth both that Christ, as he is in the Sacrament, is senseless (as was proved out of the place now objected out of my book concerning the Mass:) and the same Church of 
* Treatise of the Mass, Book 4. pag. 196. and Book 7. pag. 100  Rome also prescribeth a manner of praying to the same Host. She than is the Author of this contradiction, whatsoever it be, and you kiss, and adore her; I am but only a true Relater, and I must be buffeted. Say, my Lord, where is the vertigo now?     


The third principal Exception, against the Allegations, by the Lord's Suggester.  
IN the same Epistle Dedicatory you have these words: 
N. 53.  Ad nostram quod attinet Sacratissimam Eucharistiam, quia à Ministro Elementa consecrantur, & benedicuntur, non minùs Sacramenta sunt quam Baptismus. yet Pag. 117. of your 7. Book you pretend that the Sacrament worketh as the preaching of the word of God doth, Ad modum Recipientis: which (were it by Judas, or by a transformed Devil) yet the seed being Gods it may be fruitful, whatsoever the Seedman be. And pag. 116. of your first Book you say that it is no Sacrament before it is Consecrated: which Positions being so opposite, I cannot frame any due construction to my Satisfaction.  

The Lo: Bps Answer.  
I Must again necessarily complain both of the ignorance and malignity, which your Suggester betrays in this Exception. For, first, none but an Ignorant would have objected a Contradiction in these two Positions, because they were spoken in a different respect. For speaking of an ordinary Case, I said (and truly) that the Sacrament ought to be consecrated by a lawful Minister: but in an extraordinary Case, wherein it is not possible to understand the lawful Calling and ordination of the Minister, it is otherwise. And this sense I sufficiently explicated (Book 7. pag. 117.) by calling this second, a Case perplexed, and Indeprehensible. In which difference of Respects, I may say of King Saul, that he was, and was not a Prophet. Because if the word, Prophet, be taken for one, whose ordinary office and function is to prophesy, so was Saul never accounted a Prophet. But if, by Prophet, be understood only an extraordinary Rapt and Act of Prophesying, so is it true which is written of him, And Saul was reckoned among the Prophets. Next, the scope and aim of the Suggester is (as he hath professed) to charge me with wrong Allegations of my Authors, yet he saw no more in this, but (as his imagination seduced him) a Contradiction only to myself; which discovereth a malign itch to have made me a Falsificator like himself, but this his humour is Hectic in him, and breaketh further out in his next Exception.     


The fourth principal Exception against my Allegations, by the Lord's Suggester.  
PAg. 4. you say, that it is granted of all sides, that the Mingling of water with the wine is not of the essence of the Sacrament, but of its own nature Indifferent. And for proof thereof you allege Bell. li. 4. de Euch. cap. 11. § Quinto. Where Bellarmine speaketh of Cyprians opinion therein. It is true, that Bellarmine seemeth not to allow that opinion, that the mingling of the water with the wine is so of necessity to be used in the Sacrament, as that without it there is no Sacrament: but that it is a thing Indifferent, Bellarmine denieth, and saith plainly, lib. 4. cap. 10. that the Catholic Church hath ever believed that the Mingling of water with the wine is so necessary, as that without a deadly sin it cannot be omitted. And Tilemannus Heshusius, in his Book De Erroribus Pontificiorum, condemneth the Catholics for teaching, that Mingling the water cannot be omitted without a mortal sin; and by consequent that the Catholics hold it is not a thing indifferent.  

The Lo: Bps Answer.  
IN alleging the sentence of Bellarmine, I went no further than Bellarmine his own words, set down in the place objected (Book 1. pag. 4.) saying, Mixture of water is not of the essence of the Sacrament. As for the words following, to say of this, that it is Indifferent, was mine own words, and no part of the Allegation, as the diverse Character of writing, which is different from the other, doth manifestly declare: which being also but spoken obiter, to meet with some Refractory spirits among ourselves, who think nothing Indifferent, which was used of Christ, & not in any opposition to any Romish Doctrine, deserveth not your Suggesters' exception against it. Otherwise I might easily have confuted your Romish Tenet, by proving that nothing can be justly denied to be of the Essence of a Sacrament, which is a material part thereof. And I could have confirmed mine own Assumption, by proving it to be Indifferent, in respect of Christ's Institution, as (God willing) the second Edition will show; when I shall have occasion to thank your Suggester for drawing me into a further Consideration of this point, occasioning me to find a Testimony in Bellar: which will utterly condemn all your Ten Romish Transgressions, discovered in the first Book. In the interim, your own Romish Interpreter of the Romish Mass may stay your appetite a while. He plainly telleth you, that 
* Barthol. Gaventius Comment. in Rubricas Missalis Breviarii Romani in Rubrica [Sit admixta aqua.] Miscere aquam vino (inquit) est de praecepto Ecclesiae tantum. Conc. Trid. Sess. 22. And he citeth also Suares. See B●rth▪ also part. 3. tit. 4 pa. 142. lib. Missalis.  The mixing of water with wine, in this Sacrament, is commanded only by the Church; alleging his Authority, for so saying. And none of your Doctors will deny, but that whatsoever Ceremony is commanded only by the Church, the same is in its own nature Indifferent.     


The fifth principal Exception against my Allegations, by the Lord's Suggester.  
THere hath been of long time a difference between us, 
N. 56.  whether the Lay-people ought to receive in both kinds. And your Lo. pag. 5. to make the truth appear to be of your side herein, hath these words: There are but two outward material parts of this Sacrament, the one concerning the Element of Bread, the other touching the Cup. The Acts concerning both, whether in Administering, or Participation thereof, are charged by Christ's Canon upon the Church Catholic unto the ends of the world. The tenor of his Precept, or Command, for the first part is, [Do this:] & concerning the other likewise saying, [This do ye as often] whereof your own Doctors, as well Jesuits, as others, have rightly determined with a large consent. Though these words be plain enough, yet lest we might mistake the meaning, Pag. 42. your L: writeth thus: That in the public and set Celebration of the Eucharist the Communion in both kinds might be given to all sorts of Communicants that be capable of Both. And Pag. 43. you affirm, the Precept of Christ to be for the use of both kinds to all lawful Communicants. And for the proof hereof you refer us to your Marginal notes set down Pag. 6. Now if the Doctors and Jesuits cited Pag. 6. do, as you say, with a large consent determine those Positions, which you have set down Pag. 5. Pag. 42. & 43. then have I no reason but to be satisfied.  

The Lord B ps. Answer.  
IT is very true, that Book 1. pag. 43. the Title of the Sect. is this, viz. Proving the Precept of Christ, for the use of both kinds, to all lawful Communicants: which in the same Sect. I seek to make good, first by proving those words of Christ [Do this,] whether they be spoken of the Bread, or of the Cup, to be words of Precept: and for proof hereof I refer the Reader, in the Margin, to Book 1. pag. 6. where your Jesuits and others expound the words [Do this] to be words of Precept. What's wrong now? Mary your Suggester imagineth that I would persuade you, that I meant hereby to prove, that all the Testimonies (which I alleged p. 43.) acknowledged that Christ had given a Precept, for all Communicants, as well Laics as ecclesiastics, to participate of both kinds, which is notoriously false, as the objected place itself doth make manifest in these express words; [Do this] spoken of the Bread, and [Do this as often] spoken of the wine, are words of Command: but of what? this is our next Inquisition.  
So then our first Inquisition was only to determine, that by those testimonies of Bellar: and of others, the words [Do this] concerning either kind, are words of Command; but whether they commanded both kinds to all persons, or no, it distinctly belonged to the second Inquisition, and was performed in the same Sect. afterwards, in confutation of Bellarm▪ his third Evasion. And certainly except some strong intoxication had possessed your Suggesters' brain, he could never have quarrelled so vainly: and that more especially, because supposing that I had promised to have proved the words [Do this] to be confessed by the Romish Doctors, to teach a Command for the use of both kinds, as well to Laics as Priest; yet this also was justly and fully performed in the very place here objected (Book 1. pag. 6.) where your Card. Bell: and jesuit Barradius teach a command, in behalf of Laics, in the words [Do this] for the Bread. And your Card. Allen, with the jes. Valentia maintaining the like Command in the other words [Do this] touching the Cup, for Laics also. yet let us try what Instances he giveth for colour of his former exception.    

The Lord's Suggester.  
YOur first quotation is out of Barradius, 
N. 57  whom you allege to say [Facite] viz. quod feci— Christus accepit panem, gratias egit, benedixit etc. idipsumque praecepit Discipulis suis, eorumque successoribus Sacerdotibus. Whence I conceive that Barradius did not, by the word, Sacerdotibus, mean the lay-people, not that the lay-people were Successors to the Apostles.  

The Lo: Bps Answer.  
SUrely, friend Suggester, this can be no argument of any great learning in you, that you will have it known, that you know the word, Sacerdotes, to signify Priests & not the Lay-people, which every Accedentiarie boy in schools knoweth as well as you. But your mind is to prove, that Barradius his Testimony was falsely cited, namely for proof, that Laics aswell as ecclesiastics are commanded to Communicate in both kinds, by virtue of that Command of Christ, in saying of both [Do this:] which I have showed to be your vast Untruth, as both the reference proveth (pag. 43.) which is only to prove that the words [Do this] are Commandatorie; as also the place, whereunto the Reference is made, (pag. 6.) confirmeth, where Barradius, speaking of Christ's words, concerning the Bread, said, [Do this] is spoken Commandatorily. your next Instance will be as impertinent.    

The Lord's Suggester.  
YOur next quotation is out of Bellarmine lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 25. §. Resp. mirab. whom you make to say, 
N. 58.  Illud [Hoc facite] posuit post datum Sacramentum, ut intelligeremus jussisse Dominum ut sub etc. But the true words of Bellarmine are, Lucas illud [Hoc facite] posuit post datum Sacramentum sub specie panis, post datum autem calicem illud non repetivit, ut intelligeremus, jussisse Dominum sub specie panis omnibus distribueretur Sacramentum, sub specie autem vini non item. Where I note, that in the first part of this sentence all those words (sub specie panis, post datum autem calicem illud non repetivit) in which words the whole substance of Bellarmine's sentence consisteth, and which is directly opposite to what Bellarmine is alleged to say, are omitted. And in the second part of this sentence, which Bellarmine hath purposely set down, to confirm and make plain his former opinion, the essential part thereof is also omitted, for he is alleged only to say, Ut intelligeremus jussisse Dominum ut sub &c, Whereas Bellarmine's words are: Ut intelligeremus jussisse Dominum, ut sub specie panis omnibus distribueretur, sub specie autem vini non item.  

The Lo. Bps Answer.  
IF the Devil himself should winnow me, by his examination in this point, he could not find any fault either of Commission, or Omission, in my citing the words of Bellarmine. And this would Bellarmine his Ghost tell this your Suggester, if it should appear unto him, saying: Sir, My Adversary (the Bishop) hath not mistaken my meaning, but you his, who intending nothing else (pag. 4.) than to prove that the words of Christ, in saying [Do this as often etc.] are also words of Command, and I affirmed as much. As for the other part, concerning the Cup, and the words which you say he omitted (Sub specie autem vini non jussisse, that is, Christ did not likewise command concerning the Cup;) you could not infer that he omitted the effectual part of his proof: for his proof was only to show that [Do this] were words of Command whether we understand [Do this] spoken of the Bread, or [Do this as often as etc.] spoken of the Cup, both which are words of Command (as every man of common sense will confess;) although Non item (as I said) not to Command alike, because [Do this,] spoken of the Bread, I said were simply words of Command. But [Do this as often etc.] spoken of the Cup, although they were words of command, yet not simply so, but conditionally only, as thus, [Do this, as often as you do it, in remembrance of me.] And (friend Suggester) you must further know that he was so far from omitting my Objection against Protestants, touching Christ's conditional speech [Do this, as often as you shall do it, in remembrance of me] that (which you cunningly forbear to acknowledge) he did fully confute (in the same Sect. pag. 45.) that which you now object against him.  
So would Bellarmine have told your Suggester, whom I must further challenge for a double fault. First, for his charging me falsely, with a fraudulent omission of words, when there was no cause at all to cite them. Secondly, for that he himself omitted my Confutation of Bellarmine, when it served directly for my justification.    

The Lord Baron his own Epilogue, pleading Charity.  
THese Particulars I have set down both to satisfy your Lordship's desire, 
N. 59  that I should set down somewhat in writing, that a Trial might be made whether I had reason not to rest satisfied in those Allegations; wherein I must acknowledge, that your Lordship shall do a work of Charity to give me satisfaction.  

The Lo: Bps Answer, justifiing himself in all his other Proofs, even by the Exceptions now taken against him.  
IT were to be wished, your Lordship had sought satisfaction in Charity; but they, that can discern of Qualities, will say that there is a great Gulf between Charity and Malignity. The one seeketh the reformation of him, whom he impeacheth, the other worketh, as much as may be, his ignominy and blemishment; which was your Aim (my Lord) in all your Exceptions, which notwithstanding may in some sort pled for me. For were it, they were Five, or if you will five times five, Errors committed in the number of two thousand other Testimonies, sincerely alleged, shall not the Exceptions against so few be an approbation of all the rest? and if so; what then must become of your Romish Church, in her Mass, but that (as the seaventh Book of that Treatise proveth) it is to be counted a vile Brothel-house of Superstition and Idolatry?  
My Lord, I should proceed to the second Charge, but I give you to wit, that I am now arrested in the way, by a Romish Priest: I shall make a present dispatch with him; only be you pleased to afford me your presence, for the time, and judge what discharge I can make. Fear not (my Lord) I shall not desire any to be Surety for me.     

A LATE SLANDErous Crimination, made BY A ROMISH PRIEST against the Lo: Bp. by objecting M. Parsons his Sober Reckoning against him.  
THe words of the Romish Priest, 
N. 60.  in his letter to his friend, are as followeth: Let that Knight take heed, how he trusteth him, who was never brought to a Sober Reckoning, but was fond, false, or impertinent. So he, alluding to the Book of Mr. Parsons, called, The Sober Reckoning.  

The Lord Bishops Answer to the Romish Priest, showing the Faithlesness of his Crimination.  
THe Objector, doubtless, had reason to conceal his name, even for his own faithlesness sake: which is decernible enough, in his fradulent concealing of my answer to M. Parsons. Who writ a Book called A SOBER RECKONING, full fraught with many vile and ugly Aspersions, and imputations of falsities against me; and I returned him an Answer, in a Book entitled an ENCOUNTER, satisfying, from point to point, every Exception, and leaving M. Parsons on the score for so many, and as many more Falsifications, as he in that his Reckoning did charge me with. Both the Books have been now above twenty years extant; yet hath there not appeared any one Priest, out of the multitude of their Romish Seminaries, that upon examination of both our Reckonings, did, or could except against any one farthing of my accounts; or would allow as much as one word in writing, for the clearing of your S. Robert, in the least parcel of his Reckoning. I do not think but your Lordship (who will be known to have read all our Protestant Books) can testify this which I say.  
So that this Tenebrio, by objecting against me a false and perfidious Reckoning, were it never so Sober, (for the Devil can be a liar, although he cannot be unsober) and by concealing my just justification, falleth into that double Condemnation, whereof it is written; 
Prov. 17. 15.  He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the righteous, they are both abomination to the Lord. Now this Tenebrio is become both, He, and He. And although this slander were written but by one, yet I know, it hath been in the mouths of many of your Romish Professors, who, when they can say nothing else, to my latter Book of the Mass, they gull one another with the mention of Imputations of false Allegations, set down in M. Parsons his Sober Reckoning. Therefore have I apprehended this occasion, to deliver somewhat concerning M. Parsons; the rather, because he is one, whom your Lordship hath singled out, as a Pattern of moderation: to the end that you may see the miserableness of your Cause, which must be supported by such Frauds and Falsehoods, as his have been.   

The Lo: Bps Justification of himself, against M. Parsons; First, in general, inserting, for his Readers delight, M. Parsons his Syllogism, and notable Trick of not answering.  
THe Egyptian dog, passing by the River Nilus, is said cautelously to lick here and there of the water, not daring to lap any space of time any one where, for fear some Crocodile catch hold of him, and devour him. I once published a book called a Full Satisfaction, written for the discovery of the Rebellious Positions and Practices of Romish Priests. M. Parsons fell upon it, with all the strength of his wit, singling out here and there that which he thought might seem to impeach my sincerity in some Allegations of Authors; but the most material points, concerning the Rebellious Doctrine itself, he commonly pretermitted in, I think, an hundred places: and was not this to lap here and there, and run away? And good reason, for in these pretermitted places were solid proofs of Romish rebelliousness, a Crocodile, which he durst not meddle with in that his Dispute.  
His nimbleness and agility in frisking in this kind, was manifold. One I may not omit, which may recempence, in some part, your merry tale with a mad trick, which he played me, in answering to a confutation of his Syllogism. I made a Prosyllogisme, which Mr Parsons in his ignorance called my Syllogism; and then in his insolency took upon him to correct it, and to condemn me for want of Logic; after, in his scurrility, to send me to Cambridge, to learn more: howbeit out of his kindness, he willingly taught me himself by a form of Syllogism, of his own framing, which he calleth a true form of Syllogism, and a good form of Reasoning, according to the true rules of Logic. Notwithstanding, in this form of Syllogism, wherein he meant to express the greatest skill he had, he bewrayed the grossest errors he could, if he had studied to be absurd. For beside three other Faults, which were repugnant to all Rules of Logic, the masterpiece of his ignorance, or monster rather, was his Fourth Error, by changing of the Copula, in the premises, which was Maketh, as [Maketh competent judges.] and turning it into, Are, in the conclusion, to wit, [Are competent judges] The absurdity whereof I illustrated by the like, as if one should argue thus.  
Every one in framing his last will and Testament [maketh] his own Executor.  
But William Cade frameth his last will and Testament,  
Therefore William Cade [is] his own Executor.  
Or else thus.  
Every good huswife [maketh] a good pudding.  
But Alice Webb is a good huswife,  
Therefore Alice Webb [is] a good pudding.  
Your L p: professeth some scholarship, say then, was it not reason that I should call Mr Parsons to a further account, for this his misshapen Creature, which he called a True form of Reasoning? he therefore coming to make (as he called his book) a Sober Reckoning, reckoneth indeed after his fashion; for the first, second, & third Errors, saying; Lastly, his third Quarrel is etc. as if the third had been the last, whereas the fourth, of changing the Copula, was the Last. But Mr Parsons skipping by the fourth, taketh his heels at the first sight of this other Crocodile, & answereth nothing at all, knowing that the Absurdity thereof, if it had been published, would have exposed him to the hisses and scorn of all the Sophisters in his own College at Rome.  
As for that his Reckoning, there is not any conscionable man, whom I will not invite with all earnestness to read, and examine, but yet with both his eyes; by comparing it, and my Encounter together. I shall, before I finish this first part of my Discharge, give you a sufficient scantling of Mr Parsons his disposition, in Calumniating me, which I must do by degrees.   

The excellency of Mr Parsons his Pen, in respect of others of his order.  
THe English Seminaries of Romish Priests abroad never harboured a more excellent Scribe, than was Mr Parsons, whether we observe his Elegancy in Style, dexterity in Invention, Subtlety in contrivance, Audacity in undertaking, or Acerbity and scurrility, in his invectives against his Adversaries; as all of his profession have witnessed, by their admiring, and in a manner only not adoring, certainly in doting on him. The Unruliness of whose Pen, and the virulency thereof, none hath more felt than myself; aswell in his Book of Mitigation, as in his (Antiphrastically so called) Sober Reckoning.   

That Mr Parsons his Pen, by reason of falsity and bitterness, made him unworthy to object Falsifications to any other; by the censure of Romish Priests.  
BY the law of Nations, 
N. 62.  no infamous person may be admitted for a competent Accuser of any other; much less when the infamy he laboureth of, is the faculty of Lying. But who shall now accuse this Accuser Mr Parsons of Lying, which is the foulest of crimes, as that wherewith God himself (such is the transcendency of his Truth) cannot possibly dispense? But it seemeth he hath met with the Pen of some as bitter and unruly as his own; for the Romish Priests have blazoned him (Summarily) saying: Mr Parsons was expelled out of his College in Oxford for Libelling. An infamous Libeler he was; nor was there a lewder to be found, or more scurrilous: of the Tribe of Dan, Coluber in via. For cogging and lying, as notorious a wretch as was in his age: a cozening Mate, a Caitiff, who might be set on the pillory for forgery: A most barbarous fellow, using Machavilian Atheism. So they, besides many other-like noble Emblems; yet is this the man, whom this Lord presented (among four more) as a Precedent of Moderation, void of Bitterness. But upon this deciphering of him, I might justly require, that a man of no Credit may not be admitted to discredit another. yet I shall entreat your Lp. to esteem of all those their Invectives, as of fiery flashes of intemperate brains, except I shall be able to confirm as much, by an Experto Crede, in verifying as much from his own Unruly pen against myself.    

TEN PARTICULAR Instances of such false Imputations of Falsities, by Mr Parsons, unto the Lord Bp: p: which any sensible man may discern at the first view.  
I Shall forbear all repetition of any other Falsifications, which may require an intelligent and rational Reader to be our judge; I confine myself wholly to such Accusations of his, which are obvious to sense, and which any vulgar man, who understands the language, at the first sight may cry out upon, and condemn, both of galsome bitterness, and of wilful fraud and falsehood.  
I. Out of Polydore Virgil, 
Polyd. Virgil. de Invent. rerum. lib 4. cap. 10. (Before it was purged by the Romish Inquisitors)  I alleged an observation showing how the names of some Popes fell out to be assumed per Antiphrasin; as being homo maleficus, to be called Bonifacius; being Timidus, to have the name of Leo, and diverse other the like. The bitterness of M. Parsons his Accusation against me, because of this Allegation, was this; It is a malicious Minister, having neither simplicity nor truth, but of a lost conscience by a manifest & malicious cavillation. Hearken now to his falsehood; for, when it was made known that I alleged that passage out of the genuine book of Polydore, wherein originally it was set down by himself, and not in the after-Editions, corrupted by their Romish Inquisitors: wherein the former sentence of Polydore (as most of all his other ingenuous Confessions) have been since effaced and canceled, which made any whit for advantage to Protestants causes; M. Parsons (a Sober reckoner forsooth) maketh no other Reckoning but this 
* See the Encounter, cap. 14. p. 229. : I had not (saith he) that part of Polydore by me. Do you mark, my Lord, he could not say, that he was ignorant of that perfect Edition of Polydore, which might have justified me, but that He had it not by him.  
So then the Case is this; The Accuser M. Parsons hath by him a false knave (that I may so call their corrupted Edition of Polydore) to witness against me, and knoweth of another witness, an honest fellow (namely true Polydore in his own first Edition) who would have justified me to the full, whom he passeth by and neglecteth, because he is not at hand. And what is, if this be not a wilful blindness? which may deserve his own Bitterness to be retorted upon himself, whereby he traduced me for A man of no truth, and of a lost conscience.  
II. Out of Carerius I delivered these words, 
Mitigation. cap. 6. pa. 234.  Verè Celsus, whereunto M. Parson's thus: Nay, but it should have been, verò; and there is but one Edition of the book of Carerius. Hearken now how upon this it thundereth and lighteneth; Where is this man's innocency? (saith M. Parsons) Can this be ignorance? can it be done but of purpose? and consequently by a guilty conscience: what may a man believe of all that he saith, when we see him entangled in such foolish treachery? This is his bitter vomit (as your L p: seeth) but now observe his falsehood; for I alleged the Colen Edition of Carerius, where it did appear to the view of many Romish Professors, that came greedily to see it, and found the word, 
Encount. cap. 12. p. 183.  verè, and not verò. And at length M. Parsons was willing to credit me thus much, after he had said, There was but one Edition of Carerius. Therefore was his former Invective the venom of an unruly pen.  
III. Emanuel Sa was produced, saying, Et fortè potiori cum ratione. M. Parsons his bitter Exception; It is to be Englished thus, perhaps with better reason: but M. Morton left out the word [perhaps,] which was craftily done. Behold now his own egregious fraud and craft; for although I had not the word, perhaps, in my Translation, yet might he have seen that I used the word, 
See the Encounter. c. 13. pag. 219.  peradventure, thus: Peradventure with better reason. What then but blindness itself would have made that Accusation? but yet blindness of the worst kind, which is wilful, not seeing that which he saw: for in the same book of his, he one where repeated those my very words, And peradventure with better Reason.  
IV. I am accused to have said nothing to the Practices of Protestants. 
Mitigat. c. 4. pa. 131.  This omission he calleth, in his Bitterness, Dissimulation and hypocrisy. Observe his falsehood, for he afterwards was compelled to confess, that 
* Sober Reckoning. See my Encount. cap. 11. p. 173.  I did endeavour both before and after to discourse of their Practices. What disease will your L p: call that in him, who could not, or would not see that which any man, that hath a true sight and a temperate brain, could not but see?  
V. I chanced to cite the Text of the Prophet Esay 29. 9 You are blind, and make others blind. M. Parson's bitterness: 
Mitigat. c. 2. pag. 88  M. Morton hath cited a Text, noting the Chapter and verse, wherein his fraud might be discovered; wherein I note a rare singularity in this man, above all others, by false alleging, corrupting, and mangling a Text of Scripture: let any man read the place of Esay itself, and he shall find no such matter, either in words or sense. As though I had devised a Text for a purpose. Mark his falsehood, for they are the express words of our English Translation; yea and he that then raised this lewd clamour against me, when he cometh to reckon for this, answereth; 
See my Preamble. p. 12 and the Encount. cap. 12. p. 181.  I saw not (saith he) nor looked not on the English Translation. Do you hear? he saith not, that he could not have seen, or looked on the English Translation: but he looked not, (that is) he would not, and notwithstanding he would accuse me. A more perfect Character of a malicious Calumniator there cannot be.  
VI Lambertus Schaffnaburgensis was brought in, saying, All the Bishops of Italy; etc. M. Parsons exerciseth his Bitterness: Here the word, All, is fraudulently urged, so that he dealeth not sincerely scarcely in any thing So he, for only citing the word [All] albeit (see his falsehood) the word, Omnes, All, are the express words of the Author, 
Encount. c. 14. pag. 208.  as manifestly, as in that saying of Christ, Come unto me All ye that are bevy laden.  
VII. The Testimony of Salmeron the jesuit is used, to prove the Supremacy of Kings. M. Parsons groweth to be bitter, as followeth. This is a trick of M. Mortons' art, to add, In Spiritual affairs, which is notably false. 
1 Encount. B. 2. pag. 15. & 16.  But harken to the Evidence, for my words, which are yet extant in that Book, were these, In civil causes. The words, Spiritual, and Civil, one would think might have as easily been discerned by any man of Sobriety, as the Sun from the Moon.  
VII. Tolossanus is cited; as a witness only; M. Parsons cometh upon me with a tart Invective: Can any thing be more fraudulently alleged? yet see his falsehood; he could not say that I had done my witness Tolossanus wrong, 
Preamb. p. 26. and Encount. pag. 191.  in alleging his Testimony, but not taking so much leisure as to look at him in the Margin; he falleth foul upon me, as if I had been the Author myself. Some disease sure it was in his eyes, that he could not discern the producer of a witness from a witness himself, especially in a Case of an Accusation.  
VIII. To make me like himself, 
Preamb. p. 72. & Encount. cap. 12. p. 167.  in fostering Traitorous Positions, he saith; M. Morton justifieth the saying of Goodman. Bitterly, as you see, & as blindly outright; for my words were thus: If I should justify Goodman, my heart would condemn myself. Was not this sensible enough, my Lord, to any man of common sense?  
IX. In the question about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Preamb. p. 75.  M. Parsons venting his acerbity, saith; M. Morton hath a shift to deceive his Reader. Bitterly and Brain-sickly too, by your leave, for afterwards he was compelled to confess, 
Encount. c. 12. p. 169.  that the letters set down, for his direction, in the Margin, were so dim, that he mistook them.  
The Tenth Instance is touching the Oration of Q. Marry, 
Preamb. p. 80.  which I expressed out of Hollinshead, but what of this? The Minister lieth openly, citing him contrary to his meaning. Thus exasperated he is; 
Encount. c. 12. p. 117.  but why contrary to Hollinsheads meaning? Because (forsooth) Fox reporteth that Oration otherwise. What is, if this be not open lying indeed? Like to a Juggler's trick of Legerdemain, in deluding his beholders, when he conveyeth a Ring into another man's pocket, and then calleth the man Cozener when he hath done. Each one of these Falsehoods, wherein M. Parsons hath been deprehended, might impeach his Credit much; but all together, what do they, but proclaim to the world, that he was either wittingly, or at least witlessly false in his Accusations against me?  

M. Parsons his Grief, before his death, published by a Romish Priest.  
MR. Warmington a Romish Priest, 
N. 64.  in his book called A moderate defence of the oath of Allegiance, pag. 65. hath these words; It was reported from a Gentleman present in the City, in his life time, and at his death, upon the acknowledgement, that he was the Author of the Catholic Letter (whether with sorrow and grief for some points unadvisedly and erroneously written, and brought in question in his old age; or somewhat else, in one of the Books of Dr. Morton, touching the lawfulness of the Oath of Supremacy in some Cases) soon after fell sick, and died within eight days. So your Priest. Some others, who will be known to have known somewhat, have said, it was because he had justified the base and bainfull trick of mental Reservation out of eight speeches of Christ, in the eight Chapter of S. john's Gospel. Which being known to some of the learned at Rome, 
Encount. B. 2. cap. 10.  they held that his Collection was blasphemous; even as I also did, by an Argument grounded upon his own Confession, wherein he held mental Reservation unlawful in points of Doctrine and faith. Which being granted, it must follow that it could be no less than Blasphemy to assume that the same mental Reservation should be found in such speeches of Christ, in his holy Gospel, which are the fundamental grounds of our Christian faith.  
I have not mentioned all these particulars against M. Parsons, in the spirit of Insultation, upon an Adversary deceased, (God forbid!) Nay, so far was I from desiring his death, that (as one yet living can well witness, who brought me the first knowledge of it) I wished, that God had lengthened his days, that he might have seen his own errors, before his death; I mean his reckoning of fifty false Allegations, just as unjustly, as did the unjust Steward in the Gospel, when he would have his master's Debtors write down fifty, but yet in a far different manner. For that Steward reckoned Fifty, by subtraction, to deceive his Master: but our Reckoner, by Addition and Multiplication, reckoneth Fifty, to deceive his Reader. Notwithstanding, such was my Christian respect unto him, that I wished he had grieved for them, as well as he is said to have done for his Blasphemous abuse of Scripture. I hope with that Sorrow, which causeth repentance to salvation, never to be repent of, as the Apostle speaketh. It will be time, to draw to an end of this first part of my Discharge, after I have acquainted your L p: with that which followeth in the next place.   

That the Romish Church hath provided, that her Clergy can scarce possibly be legally accused, be they never so Criminal.  
POpe Silvester decreed that no Laic should accuse a Clergy man. 
N 65.  There might be some reason for this, in some cases: but he furthermore constituted, and ordained, that a B p: should not be held convicted under Seaventy two Witnesses; nor a Priest, under 44; nor a Deacon, under 27▪ By which means it was provided, that, were Bps, Priests, or Deacons, never so wicked or dishonest, yet Laics (lest they should seem to slander them with a matter of truth) durst give no other Censure or report of them, than of Pious and honest men. What vicious Clerk would fear to dwell there, where all the Crows are white, be they never so black; and where flat nosed people, are the most comely? But yet are not these wise men in their Generation? They are. But alas silly we; one Laicke, if a Lord, shall be of more credit, in the opinion of Romish Professors, against a B p, than seaventy two others of our Religion, that should stand for his justification. But the best is, the B p: shall never need any Proctor or Advocate for him, so long as God in his Goodness shall give him power and liberty to defend his own Innocence. And now, leaving those faithless Accusers, I shall more precisely attend your Lordship in the next part of this Discharge, in answering your Exceptions against my Style, by applying my speech unto yourself.    

THE SECOND PART of this Discharge, against the Exceptions taken to the Lord Bishop's Acerbity of Style, by the Lay Lord himself.  

The Lord Baron himself.  
I Am not satisfied in the Bitterness of your Style. 
N. 66.   

The Lord Bps Answer.  
IT may seem somewhat strange, that your Lordship, having as it were surfeited of the bitterness of the Style, should complain, notwithstanding, that you are not satisfied. But you require that I should discharge myself of this your Taxation of Bitterness. Before I answer, I must ask, whether you except against any one Bitter word, as unjustly applied to your Romish Doctors? Surely I find not one, and so it must follow, that you quarrel a just Bitterness. Or is it because the words are Unseemly? Then I take my answer from Philip King of Macedon, who when Lasthenes and Olympius, with their Complices, complained unto him, that they had been called Traitors, by some of his Subjects; made them this answer: My Macedonians (quoth he) are but Rustiques, who can call a Spade by no other name than a Spade. As well may I say, the Bitterness of my Style, was Plainness, not Calumniousnesse; but what's that, you are about to object?    

The Lord Barons first Instance.  
LEt any man peruse Card. 
N. 67.  Perron his volumes, whereof sundry parts are lately translated out of the French into English, Card. Allen, Card. Bellarmine, Reynolds, Parsons, Campian, Fitzherbert, Brerely, and others; and I am confident he shall find not any of them to say, that the Protestant Church playeth the Bawd, or that the Protestant Communion is the Strumpet, or that they charge the Protestants with Sacrilegious and Idolatrous Abominations, as is in the first page of your Lordship's Book, and in the Epistle Dedicatory.  

The Lord Bps Answer.  
THis Observation is in deed of very great importance, whereby you may seem to deserve praise and thanks of the Protestants, for this ingenuous acknowledgement, (to wit) that although Protestants charge the Romish Church with Sacrilegious and Idolatrous Abominations, (upon reasons, which your Lordship hath read in the eighth book of the Treatise of the Mass, in two full Sections) yet Card. Bellarmine, Reynolds, Parsons, Campian, and Others, never charge the Protestants with any Sacrilegious and Idolatrous profanation at all. Which their Silence (as once I said) as it is an argument of their own Guiltiness, so may it be a proof of our Integrity: otherwise we ourselves should not deny, but that if they could justly impute any such Idolatrous impiety unto us, they might as justly call our Church, in that respect, Strumpet and Whore (every Idolatry being a spiritual Adultery) as well as did the holy 
* Ezech. ch. 16. & chap. 23. Ose Chap. 3.  Prophets use the same Bitter terms against juda and Israel in the same respect; yet with mouths sanctified by the holy Spirit of God. And I cannot make myself more perfect than were the Prophets of God.    

The L. Barons second Instance.  
OR that the Protestant Writers use odious Uncharitableness, 
N. 68  intolerable Arrogancy, vile Perjury, extreme Madness and folly, and plain Blasphemy, Pag. 67.  

The Lord Bps Answer.  
IN the place, now quoted, I promised a Discovery of Crimes, which I laid to the charge of Romish Writers, and in the Section itself I performed as much. For, their preferring a Custom in your Church, which (as they confess) Worketh less grace to the souls of Christian men, before a Custom of Christ and his Apostles, confessed to operate more grace; I termed an Odious Uncharitableness. Their open and professed extolling of the Wisdom of the Romish Church, above the Wisdom of the Apostles, and the Practice of the most Primitive Church universal, as well Greek as Roman, I called an Intolerable Arrogance. Their swearing to admit all Apostolical Traditions, and yet to reject some, I named vile Perjury (whereof there is a full Section in the eighth Book.) Their advancing, in point of Antiquity, their Custom of Three, or at most Four hundred years old, above the contrary Custom, before that, for above a Thousand years, even to the days of Christ and his Apostles, I judged to be plain Madness. And lastly, your Jesuits allowing a power to your Pope, to dispense with the divine Law of God, I held to be Blasphemy itself.  
All these Points were truly discovered, and now my Style is challenged of Bitterness by you. Who perceiving the Proofs, whereby I made evident such Doctrines to be Sacrilegious, Idolatrous, etc. are you more offended with me, for calling them so, than with them for making them such? Say now, upon your second thoughts, is this a conscionable Taxation, my Lord? I would gladly have learned what terms your Lordship would have supplied in this case? would it have pleased you that I had called Uncharitableness amiable; the Arrogancy tolerable; the Perjury noble? So indeed do they, who mask the visages of Sins with the vizard of Virtues; calling Drunkenness, Good-fellowship; Pride, comeliness; Rage, valour; Bribery, gratification; a society of promiscuous lust, the family of love. Not I, my Lord, I leave that faculty to them, who can delight in transformed Devils.    

The L. Baron's third Instance.  
OR that the Protestant Historians are unclean Beasts, 
N. 69.  Flat Liars, and the Believers of them stark fools. 157. pag.  

The Lord Bps Answer.  
THe matter was this, (but you will be loath to hear it.) Your Romish Historians reckon up some Thirteen Miraculous Apparitions of true flesh, and true blood seen (as they say) in the Eucharist; and of the Separation of one from the other, the Blood being shed, and dropping out, and the like. To these I oppose your Romish Theologues and Divines, confuting such kind of Relations by good and solid Reasons; saying that in such Apparitions there could not be true flesh: and others denying absolutely that Christ's blood can be properly said to be shed out of his Body, after his Resurrection, as you have heard in the first part of this Discharge. Hereupon I came to conclude saying; If therefore credit may be given to your judicious Divines, then are, and were the Authors of those Apparitions flat Liars, their Reporters incredible Writers, and their Believers stark Fools. What have I here said, which your Divines (who have avouched as much as I alleged) will not justify in condemnation of such Delusions? Only I called the Historians, because of their indiscretion, (metaphorically) Unclean Beasts, accordingly as ancient Fathers have done the Believers of Fables. And did I not contrarily call your Divines, by way of commendation, Clean Beasts that can chew the Cud? that is, discern Truth from falsehood, as likewise the holy Fathers have taught; in which respect (as you see) I named them also judicious Divines. I demand therefore why your Lordship should be more displeased with me, for calling those Historians Liars, and their Believers Fools, than with your own learned Divines, who proved them to be such? True zeal and jealousy for God would hate all feinings of Miracles, as the worst kind of Lying, being indeed the counterfeiting of the Seals of God Almighty; and whereby the Transgressor becometh guilty of highest Treason.    

The Lord Barons Reply.  
LEt me entreat you not to discourage me so much by this your Intimation, 
N. 70.  to make it fair play to call women Bawds, or Whores, or men Unclean Beasts, stark Fools, arrant Liars, if we think we can by Argument prove them so. I may doubt lest I myself differing from your Lordship in many of those opinions (for which I hear others thus pitifully taxed) should incur the same Censure, which if I thought would be, I would rather choose to sleep in a whole skin, and leave ere I began.  

The Lord Bps Answer.  
NEver shall I seek to discourage your Lordship from any good endeavour, howsoever you may descent from that which I think. But I must confess that I wish you had known what you did, when you writ thus: for the proof which I brought, to make them appear to be such, was not mine, but the Confessions of your own Romish Authors. And had it not been better for you Suavitâr cuirass cutem, in quiet silence, than to have become so unjustly taxatious, and put yourself upon so desperate an enterprise?    

The Lds Instance in his Letter.  
WIth diverse such like Phrases, Pag. 27. 41, 42. 101. 106. 123. 126. 131. 137. 151. 177. 197. 223. 213. 200. and many others in the first Book, besides what is in the second Book, which (as yet) I have not thoroughly perused.  

The Lord Bps Answer.  
PEruse the rest, I pray you, and when you have done, I shall desire you to set them down expressly, and so I am sure the intelligent Reader will find, that you had as much Reason to conceal these, as you had little Cause to reveal the former.  
I add, that your Lordship after your much raking, sifting, and winnowing of the parts of the eight Books of that Treatise of the Mass, have found but only five sour Grapes, which hath set your teeth on edge, and are angry therewith, albeit you met with five hundred other Passages, wherein I, having the like occasion to use vexatious, and stinging terms, yet forbore, and blunted the style of my Pen. What shall I say in this case, my Lord? Only I say as the Apostle said unto such Partialists, You will forgive me this wrong.    

The Lord Barons Objection, in his Reply.  
My Objections, 
N. 71.  against Bitterness of Speech were not grounded upon, whether those Terms might be in our own judegments sufficiently proved, but whether in a Treatise publicly printed concerning one of the highest articles of faith, set forth by an eminent person for learning and dignity, such bitter terms, and so many of them, were either Charitable or seemly.  

The Lord Bps Answer.  
HEre are two as odd and uncouth Instructions, as I have heard of. The first is, that no Writer may use Bitter speeches against a Crime, which he, in his own judgement, deemeth may deserve such Bitterness: so that it must be a Crime, now, to name a crime: to see one reeling in the street, and after wallowing in his own vomit, and to call him Drunkard; to hear one swearing outrageously, and to say he is Profane; to know one lead a lewd & filthy life, and to condemn him of jasciviousnesse.  
The second Advice is, that no Person of Eminence ought to censure Any publicly with Terms of Bitterness, in case of an High Article of Faith. This would make well for Arians, Pelagians, yea and Atheists themselves, if in denying of one, or other, or all Articles of Faith, they should not be therefore censured, according to their deserved appellations; both charitably, to reduce them from erring, yea and seemly too, because there is no better Seemliness, than Congruity, as of manners, so of words. And this is, when Epithets are suitable to the things and persons of whom we speak. S. Paul was a person of great Eminence, and so was Peter also, yet Paul reprehended Peter to his Face, for that, which if it had not been reform, might occasionally have brought in schism into the Church, and error in the Faith of Some.    

The Lord Barons Objection.  
HE, 
N. 72.  whose example ought to be preferred before all Examples, and whose precept bindeth above all other, saith, Estotemites, quià ego sum mitis. The woman that was brought before him, for being found in Adultery, though there wanted no proofs thereof, yet did not he call her Strumpet, because it was a just imputation, but mercifully and mildly dismissed her, salved her credit, only warning her to sin no more. S. Paul witnesseth of him, that when he was reviled, he did not revile again: S. Luke writing of S. Mary Magdalen, did not, under colour of a just imputation, call her Strumpet, but only saith, Erat mulier in civitate peccatrix.  

The Lord Bps Answer.  
CHrist was not only Mitis, but even ipsa Mansuetudo; and to his faithful penitents, Propitiation itself; notwithstanding he called the Pharisees Blind, the malicious jews he termed Children of the Devil; Peter (for tempting him) Satan; and judas (because of his obduration of heart in sinning) a Devil. The woman, deprehended in adultery, he indeed called not Strumpet, for she carried her name printed in her forehead, (being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) She was taken in adultery. If then he had named her so, had it been an Epithet either Uncharitable, or Vnseeemely, as you have pretended? So should you have blasphemously condemned the Law of God, Deut. 22. 12. the Prophets, Ezech. 16. Ose 3. The Apostles, Rom. 7. 3. and S. james 4 4. yea and Christ himself, Matth. 5. 28. Luk. 16. 18. Marry Magdalen is not called in the Gospel's Adultress, it is true, but yet worse, A woman in the City a sinner, by way of Aggravation (namely) such a Sinner, in that trade of sinning, that there was not another in the whole City comparable unto her, as your own Commentaries will tell you. Yea and S. Paul, who himself would not answer the Reviler with Reviling, yet held it a part of Christian justice to denominate wicked men by their own vices, naming the Galathians, Foolish, and the Sorcerer Elymas, the Child of the Devil.    

The Lord Barons Objection.  
ANd though I allege these examples to one that can much better teach me my duty, 
N. 73.  yet I hope you will hold me excused, as being enforced thereunto, for the defence of my being not satisfied in the Bitterness of the Style.  

The Lord Bps Answer.  
EXcept you had held me unworthy to be your Teacher, you would have been satisfied with the distinction of Bitterness, which I gave you, without which none shall ever be able to reconcile the speeches of the Prophets, Apostles, or of Christ himself. There is a Bitterness (said I) Medicinal, and there is a Bitterness pernicious and Vindicative. The Medicinal Bitterness hath its ' Ingredients, Truth, and Charity, used either for correcting Manners and errors in the parties reproved; or as Antidotes to others, to preserve them from Moral or Dogmatic contagions. The Pernicious Bitterness I call that, which is envenomed either with Untruth or Maliciousness, and is exercised only in Virulency, for revenge, against them whom we seek to vex, which is everywhere condemned in Scripture.  
Take unto you a Similitude. The jews, who offered Vinegar and Gall unto Christ, if they had done it (as some guess) to stupefy his senses, thereby to free him from extremity of pain, that Vinegar and Gall might have relished somewhat of Charity: but if it had been done to add unto him a greater vexation, it must needs be judged a jewish cruelty. Nevertheless, if you add a second member of lawful Bitterness, which may be called judicial, you shall not do amiss; in which kind may be reckoned Christ's Invectives, to wit, O you Scribes and pharisees, Hypocrites, and such like, by way of condemnation. My Lord, if you would be so docible, as to take out this distinction, it would both satisfy you, concerning my Bitterness, and preserve you from Blasphemy against the Speeches of Christ, and his holy Apostles.    

The Lord Baron his fifth Instance, and most urgent, bitter, and gallfull Exception against Bitterness.  
TO my Exception against your saying in your Book, 
N. 74.  entitled Romish Positions, viz. That it is as hard a thing to find a loyal Catholic, as a White Aethiopian, wherein you except against the word, Catholic.  

The Lord Bps Answer.  
THe word Catholic, simply taken, I never excepted against, (for I have not forgot my Creed) but against your Romish appropriation of it to yourselves; to whom it belongeth far less (as I have proved in the Romish Grand Imposture) than unto Protestants. I return to your Exception.    

The Lord Barons Objection.  
YOur own words being, 
N. 74.  We may as well expect Grapes from Thorns, or a White Aethiopian, as loyal Subjection from this Religion.  

The Lord Bps Answer.  
WHereunto I answered you by Letters, that I was ever far from terming all Papists disloyal, and I desired you to consider the place again, and I doubt not but it alone will persuade yourself, that I did not note all your Romish Professors of Disloyalty, but spoke restrainedly; applying my speech to them, who were inspired with the spirits of those Priests and Jesuits, whose Positions were in that Book discovered to be fully Rebellious. Thus much I then answered in presumption of mine own sincerity, having not seen that place, in that my Book, not almost in twenty years' space: and yet I think I shall not err in that my divination, being now called to a further Reckoning.    

The Lord Barons Objection.  
TO which, 
N. 75.  I having perused the place again, I reply first that no man (who hath read your Books, or known your readiness in Writing or arguing) will easily believe that your words (generally and without Exception) denying Loyal subjection to be found in that Religion, do notwithstanding restrain your general Position to such only as are discovered to be fully Rebellious: as if you only meant, that they only of the Romish Religion are disloyal, who are discovered to be fully Rebellious: or that they are disloyal who are disloyal. No, my Lord, this savours not of your wit and learning, neither is this your manner of Arguing.  

The Lord Bps Answer.  
THanks, my Lord, that you think I would not argue so absurdly, or otherwise than I have done in other Cases, Rationably, I hope; Conscionably, I am sure. Observe then, that the Tenth Reason there given is expressly against Romish Priests only, who were possessed with those former seditious Positions therein discovered. This was the Subject of the question in the same Book (Pag. 47.) confirmed by the Examples of your Doctors and Jesuits (Pag. 50.) together with the Practices of your Popes, in the place objected (pag. 51.) The Conclusion was, that No Loyal Subjection could be expected (said I) from This Religion, (to wit) This of that rebellious doctrine of your Romish Priests and Popes there specified; and of no other. Which you might as well have seen, at the first Reading, by distinguishing the Persons to whom, from the persons against whom I writ. The former were the Romish Laics only, whether they were of the Nobility, or Commonalty, to whom the Epistle Dedicatory was directed, whom I called seduced, because of their Popish Religion; and sought to persuade them to beware lest they also might be entangled in this other point of Romish rebelliousness; telling them that I had presented unto them that Discovery of such Doctrines of their Priests, To the end that you (said I) through the detestation of their (viz. Priests) Practices, might be brought to a suspicion of their Enchantments, not doubting but when you have perceived the damnableness of their Doctrine, you will easily avoid the danger of their Charm. And in the end of the same Epistle (pag. 52.) immediately after the words now objected against me, I added, saying: Thus have I proved, dear Brethren, the dogmatic doctrine of these men, (viz. Romish Priests) not confuting them, for this I understood was not your desire, but revealing them. Wherein Any, at the first sight, may observe that I produced the Romish Laics, as men altogether ignorant of such Rebellious Positions, and Practices; when I said, Not doubting but when you have perceived the damnableness of their Doctrine: but what Doctrine? what but that, which was there proved to be Rebellious?  
As yet therefore I held them guiltless, and plainly distinguished them, in this respect, from Romish Priests and Doctors, who were proved to be the Authors of both; and thereupon also, in the end of the same Epistle, saying to the foresaid Laics; Be you exhorted (my Brethren) to take this (meaning that Discovery) as an Antidote to preserve you against all such poisonable Positions and Practices, (viz. of Romish Priests.) Your friends (my Lord) of your own Profession, would give you small thanks, if they should see here rehearsed the whole speech, which you use in a vouching the full interest that you have in your Romish Priests. I choose rather the defensive part for myself, than the offensive against you; and therefore I expect what you can further object.    

The Lord Barons Objection.  
YOu saying, 
N. 76.  there could not be expected any Subjection from this Religion, could not be restrained to the Treasonable point only, because one Traitorous act cannot be a Religion in itself.  

The Lord Bps Answer.  
TRue, one Act cannot be a Religion itself, but yet one Position and Doctrine may. The Position of the Manichees, forbidding the Communion of the Cup in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, upon an opinion that there is a Devilish Spirit in Wine, was but one of many of their Heresies: and yet may it be lawful for us to say of this one Position of theirs, This is the Religion of the Manichees. And my discourse, you know, was as well of your Priests Positions, as of their Practices.    

The Lord Barons Objection.  
NEither doth this extend only to Priests, 
N. 77.  for that all that are of the Romish Religion are as fully of that Religion, as the Priests.  

The Lord Bps Answer.  
AS fully as the Priests? God forbid! for so should they also hold the Traitorous opinions of Bellarmine, Allen, Reynolds, Stapleton, Creswell, and Parsons, besides many others detected in the same Book; against which Allegations M. Parsons himself (a man known unto you for his Malignity and Adversenesse) could take no exception. My Lord, be advised, peruse this your Objection again, and then tell me whether I have not deserved well of you, by my not rehearsing your speech to the full, by a Figure (that you may better like of Figurative speeches) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.    

The Lord Barons Objection.  
I Was only troubled to find myself condemned, 
N. 78.  not for that I have any disloyal thought in my heart, but only for being of the Romish Religion.  

The Lord Bps Answer.  
I Answer as did once our Saviour, Doth no man condemn you? neither do I; far be it from me, that I should impeach your Loyalty, which I shall hope is that, which the Apostle S. Paul taught of a Subjection, not for fear only, but for Conscience sake also: and then may it not be the Subjection, approved by Pope Paulus, and maintained by your Cardinal Bellarmine, and other Romish Priests, which is to be subject with a [Donec] that is, Until there may be power to resist; (as you have read in that book of Romish Rebellious Positions, wherewith you are so much offended.) which kind of Subjection King David would have called Brutish, as that of the Horse and Mule; which are to be held in with Bit and Bridle. Only I cannot but be sensible of the Injury done unto me, by your violent enforcing upon me a purpose to have condemned all Lay Romanists for being of that Religion there discovered and condemned, which was direct Treason.  
You ought to have consulted with the College of Sorbon, and those Parisian Doctors would have taught you to distinguish even of Romish Religion: discerning ROMISH, in respect of the Romish Court, from Romish, in respect of the Romish Church in general. The first, they know, hath often harboured seditious documents, which they have always impugned, for the defence and preservation of the Gallicane Regalities and Liberties. Besides, there are two ways to free your Laics from suspicion of that Doctrine, which your Priests hold, and profess among themselves. The one is their own Ignorance, in not knowing it; the other their Incredulity, in not believing it. I could give instance in that Answer, which I had from an honourable Personage, of known and experienced loyalty to his King and State, saying, that notwithstanding his much acquaintance with Jesuits, yet they never uttered any Doctrine to him savouring of deposing of Kings, or disturbing of Kingdoms for Religion-sake. This, said I, as it may be an argument of their subtlety in concealing their pernicious Positions; so much more may it be an evidence of your Lordship's Integrity, which (as it were) commanded them silence. Secondly, the not believing your Priests, in such Doctrines, is the next point of security, which I will presume many of your Laics (albeit otherwise professedly of the Romish Religion) do detest, even from the unnatural heinousness thereof, as a natural Turk or jew would abhor a Parricide.    

The Lord Barons Objection.  
NEither am I the only Catholic who hath been offended with that Book of Romish Positions, 
N. 79.  but all that have read it.  

The Lord Bps Answer.  
IF you or any other have taken offence, which was not given, it cannot be my fault: I must not think myself so far privileged, as that in defending the Truth, I should not incur the Offence of some others. Habent sua fata Libelli: and you know who expostulated, saying, Am I your Enemy because I tell you the Truth? We read of them, who were Hearers of the Apostles of Christ, that some scorned, and some believed. I wish you had rather been of this Some. But what's next?    

The Lord Barons Objection.  
THere is a Book entitled, 
N. 80.  The converted jew, written by a jesuit, who spareth not to print his great dislike thereof: and I doubt not but the same is printed in other Books also.  

The Lord Bps Answer.  
WHy, my Lord? could your Lordship conceive, that when I writ this Book, entitled A Discovery of the Rebellious Positions and Practices of Romish Priests and Jesuits, that I expected or intended to please any jesuit? A jesuit disliketh it! and I dislike his disliking. This is yet but a Parity. Jesuits are offended with the Discovery of their disloyalty, and so were, often, the jews with Christ's discovery of their Hypocrisy. There is a Parity in this al-also. However, I stand sufficiently armed with that Harness, which S. Augustine once lent me; Malim ut scandalum committatur, quam ut veritas amittatur.    

The Lord Barons Objection.  
But by the speech I had with your Lordship at London, 
N. 81.  I find that you are not now of that mind; of which I am very glad, and do acknowledge myself satisfied, and will endeavour to give the same satisfaction to others.  

The Lord Bps Answer.  
But stay a while, my Lord (I pray you) and tell me what mind you thought me to be of, when I writ so unto you? If you imagine that I was of any other, than I had been, at the writing of that Book of Discovery, and of those words therein, whereunto you have laid your whole Battery, to oppugn them, you are much deceived; and that you may know I have good evidence for me, to say thus much, and for your Lordship to be persuaded thereof, in my next Book (written in the defence of that Book of Discovery) I gave this express acknowledgement, viz. I have writ against our Romish Adversaries, but not without note of difference and distinction; being verily persuaded that Divers, even the Zealous among them, partly by light of the engrafted Law of reason, and partly from some glimpse of the Gospel of Christ, do abhor such Doctrines and Practices, which have been discovered in cases of Rebellion and Equivocation.  
How like you this, my Lord? Doth this please you? Then may it satisfy you for my then-meaning, when I said, No loyal subjection can be expected from this Religion, (namely, of those Popes and Priests.) And accordingly may it remove the Scandal conceived from thence by your Lordship and Others. As for your subsequent Requests, which you make, they are no way pertinent to our discourse; I choose rather to hear of your friendly inclination.    

The Lord Barons Accommodation.  
YOu are an English man, 
N. 82.  and for that I must esteem you; you are a man of great Reading, and for that I must respect you: you are a Bishop of the English Church and Religion, which next to that Religion I profess, I prefer above all other.  

The Lord Bps Answer.  
EAch of these Respects I accounted as so many Obligations upon me, and such as deserve a Correspondence; 1. To embrace your Lordship, in the name of English. 2. To wish that I were so learned, as to give you a full satisfaction. 3. To pray to God for his spiritual benediction upon you, as I am a Bishop. 4. To tell you that the Bosom of the English Church lieth open to receive you, upon your Profession of the truth of Religion, so happily established therein; which I wish may be to your eternal comfort.    

The Lord Barons tacit menacing.  
ANd therefore I shall be sorry that any Unruly Pen should put itself in competence with yours, 
N. 83.  which could show itself most Bitter.  

The Lord Bps Answer.  
YOur Lordship should not have threatened, as thinking to affright me with the mention of an unruly Pen▪ I have not so long borne the brunt and violence of the most enraged of all your Penmen, as to fear in any just cause, any man's Pen, that is but made of a Goose-quill. Nor shall I seek a Supersedeas against him that threateneth: use your discretion, my Lord, in inciting some man of Indiscretion against me; for such he must be, that shall be unruly in his Pen: the Proverb is, Dementi gladium porrigere.    

The Lord Barons Admonition.  
YOu know what becomes a great Person to do, 
N. 84.  and in your Epistle Dedicatory you commended that saying of Artaxerxes to his Soldier, Non ut maledicas te alo, sed ut pngnes. Good my Lord do as you say.  

The Lord Bps Answer.  
WHat is then Maledicere, think you, my Lord? if you take it as opposite to Benedicere, then may your Romish Church assume this as her proper Character, she being above all others the Mother of Cursings and Maledictions. And if you take it for downright Reviling and Railing, then may the Encounter, which I writ against Mr Parsons his scurrilous, calumnious, and bitter Invectives against me, witness my extreme patience and moderation; as in the former part of this Discharge hath already been made manifest.   

The Lord Bps Conclusion.  
THe Apostle, when he extolled his own privileges, in comparing them with others, which he did for the honouring of his Apostolical Function, against the Calumnies of his Adversaries, he, lest he might incur the suspicion of Arrogancy, preoccupated, saying, I speak foolishly, 
1 Cor. 11. 17. etc. 12. v. 11.  you have compelled me. So he, instructing thereby every Minister of Christ, of the lawfulness of a selfe-Commendation, whensoever it shall be extorted from him by the iniquity of an envious and detractive Adversary, upon a necessity of justifying and dignifying his own Calling. In which respect, Selfe-praise, although it may seem foolish in the outward sound and ears of carnal men, yet doth it relish of true prudence, in its propersense, and in the apprehension of every Conscionable Christian. Wherefore if any words have fallen from my quill, which may seem to savour of a like affectation, I shall desire it may receive the like Construction; even for that I can, in like manner, excuse myself, saying, You have compelled me, who have charged me so unjustly with Misallegations.  
To conclude, let me ask you first what Creature that is, which coming among the varieties of flowers, sucketh sweetness out of them; next how different it is from another Creature, which feedeth wholly upon venomous herbs and flowers. I would I had not cause to give you this Protasis. Notwithstanding I pray to God for each of you, that by the knowledge and sight of your own errors, you may be brought to the acknowledgement of God's Truth, to the Glory of his saving Grace in Christ jesus.  
All Glory be to God.  
FINIS.