THE RELECTION OF A CONFERENCE TOUCHING THE REAL PRESENCE.  
OR A BACHELORS' CENSURE Of a Master's Apology for Doctor featly.  
By L. I. B. of Art, of Oxford.  Psal. 67.31. 
Jncrepa feras arundinis.   printer's or publisher's device 
AT DOUAI, By LAURENCE KELLAM,  
M.DC.XXXV.   

THE PREFACE.  
IT was (when I lived in Oxford, and I think it is still) the custom for him who defends in Devinitie, to make first a Supposition, wherein such as come to hear that exercise, may see the State of the Question which is to be disputed. By this means the Defendant lays his Cause open to a fair trial; and diverse Auditors not yet perfect in the knowledge of such matters, are better enabled to understand and understanding to judge, betwixt him and his Opponent that undertakes to persuade the contrary.  
I was thinking to conceive my Preface in that manner, like a Supposition; & it had been to good purpose, considering that some may come to see this Book or Conference, who being catechised by Puritans, never knew the true State of the Question betwixt us and them in the point of the Real Presence. But those with whom I am to deal, will not permit such a discourse; excepting, that it is against I know not what law.  
My intention is not to write a Book of the Blessed Sacrament: that Argument deserves a better pen; and is excellently treated by diverse worthy Catholic Divines: but to maintain the just honour of the defenders of it, traduced & scornfully jeered by a Precisian, on the behalf and by the consent of Doctor featly. Whose niceness shall not hinder me from doing that which doth confessedly appertain to the Sustentants part.  
And yet I mean withal, to keep myself punctually to the matter, without running out into new; for that were to make the business infinite: or, bringing Arguments for our tenet; for they with whom I deal would then report that I change parts, and pretending to be a Defendant come a Disputant.  
Doctor featly in a Challenge of his, 
In his Challenge to M. Fisher.  resembles a Controvertist to a Sawyer, who, till he hath gone through, keeps himself to the same line: and imputes unto his Adversary that he never pierced into the heart of any Controversy. Whereas himself (Master featly I mean) was the man that moved the saw out of the line; and ran into an other distinct matter, when he was not able to give satisfaction in the former, which had been the Controversy betwixt them 2. Their disputation was, of a Catalogue of Protestants in all ages; and he, leaving that, challengeth his Adversary to dispute of Communion in both kinds. Which is a way to run over Controversies; but not to make an end of Controversies. Logicians number it amongst the faults of a Disputant. It is a  yielding of the cause.  
I have taken (a Minister's imporportunitie made me,) the Saw into my hands; and am, if we regard the Controversy, upon the upper side: my Adversaries (being still in error) be in the pit. The lines, featly drew: they be his Arguments; deliberatlie chosen, by him, for the best; these, which I am to meddle in. If they do not leave pulling, we shall in time come to the heart of this Controversy. So they keep themselves to their own lines.  
The matter of the Conference was, not Transubstantiation, but the Real presence only. So my Lord of Chalcedon did express 
Supra pag. 7.  himself; and Master featly to the same purpose, Doctor Smith, saith 
b. D. Feat in his Relat. pag. 288.  he, distinguishing betwixt the Questions of Real presence and Transubstantiation, determined the point in Question to be this, whether the body and blood of Christ were truly and substantially in the Sacrament under the forms of bread and wine? My Lord Defended the affirmative: videlicet, that it is there truly and substantially: that is to say, according to the substance of the thing. Master featly undertook the contrary, videlicet that it is not there truly and substantially, 
c. Feat. pag. 289  not according to the substance of our Saviour's natural body and blood.  
The words of Institution, which featly did object, be these, This is my body; 
Matt. 26  this is my blood etc. which words he says, must needs be taken in a sense that makes against the Real presence.  
In this proposition or enunciation, Hoc est corpus meum, this is my body; (It is the like of the other words, Hic est sanguis meus, this is my blood) there is to be considered, the subject; the predicate, or attribute; the determination of the predicate; and the copula or note of identity. Four things, in the four words. The Subject is, Hoc; the Predicate is Corpus; the determination of it, Meum; the copula, the verb Est.  
The Subject or first word, Hoc; doth not of itself, import bread rather than body; or body, rather than bread, it is indifferent. Significat (saith the Doctor of the Schools) substantiam in communi, since qualitate: id est, forma determinata. It signifieth a substance in common without the quality, that is, the determinate form. Suppose a chalice before me, and that I point towards it, saying This is— I may, to make up the proposition, say gold, or wine, or blood; without changing the first word This. If I add, blood; it contracts and determines the subject, This, (which before was uncontracted and undetermined,) to one particular thing. if I say wine, it contracts it to an other. if I say gold, it is contracted to a third. This is blood. this is wine. this is gold.  
The word Est is a verb substantive, that signifies identity, or connexion; which connexion or identity cannot be conceived without the extremes identified or connected, which be the things signified by the subject and the predicate. And the references of the subject to the attribute, and the attribute to the subject, be founded it it. Whence it comes, that it is not possible to know what the Subject determinately relates unto, (being of itself indetermined,) till the predicate or attribute be also known because until then, neither the terminus, nor the ratio fundandi (the connexion,) is known. The same verb or copula, doth also consignify the time for which the connexion is exercised; which time presupposing the connexion, for it is the modus of it, (and may , the connexion persevering, Petrus, est, fuit, erit, albus.) doth presuppose likewise both the extremes. This is manifest, (to him that looks well on it,) because it presupposeth the connexion; which connexion doth presuppose the said extremes as before hath been observed. Ipsun Est (saith the 
Ipsa igitur secundum se dicta verba, nomina sunt, & significant aliquid: constituit enim qui dicit, intellectum; & qui audit quiescit. Sed si est, vel non est, nondum significat: neque enim signum est rei, esse vel non esse. Nec si hoc ipsum Est purum dixeris; ipsum enim nihil est. Consignificat autem compositionem quandam, quam sine compositis non est intelligere. Arist. 1. de Interp. c. 3. Vide Commentatorem, Ibidem.  Philosopher) consignificat compositionem quandam, quam sine compositis non est intelligere. the word Est, Is, doth consignify a certain composition, which cannot be understood without the things compounded. So then, by the intention of Art, the copula de praesenti doth signify the connexion of the subject and attribute 
e. Infra pag. 484.  for that instant wherein both extremes are so uttered, that both (not one only) may be conceived.  
The word Corpus signifies a 
f. Vide S. Thom. de Ente & Essent. c. 3.  body; & by the word meum, it is determined to the speakers, our Saviour's, body. so likewise in the other form, Hic est sanguis meus, the word sanguis signifies blood, and by meus, is determined to signify our Saviour's. Moreover, this predicate corpus is here taken properly, and sanguis in like manner; as ●he text itself preventing the cavils ●f Heretics hath declared by ad●ing to it that whereby it differs frō●ignes or mere figures: or, other ●lood, or other bodies. 
g. 1. Cor 1●.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 
h. Ibidem.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
i. Luc. 22  This is my own bo●ie, that very body which is given, bro●en, sacrificed, crucificed, for you. and ●his was, doubtless, his true, real body. 
k, Mat. 26.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and 
l. Ibiden.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 
m. Ibid.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and 
n. Luc. 22.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This is my own blood, the blood of the new testament: that blood which is shed for many, this thing in the cup is the very thing shed for you. Which was blood properly. The thing is so plain, and so clearly expressed, that 
Li. 10. c. 2.  Chamier the Caluinist, coming to the Quaeritur, Quid sit corpus meum, sanguis meus; what is that, my body, my blood? answers roundly, Nos candidè & liberè, ac libenter respondemus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 interpretandum: it is literally▪ properly, to be interpreted, and understood. So fare concerning th● parts of the Proposition, in several▪  
Now to reflect upon it all together; upon the whole Proposition▪ The verity or falsity of a proposition▪ doth suppose the connexion and entire essence, which essence includes th● subject the predicate and the copula. A● properties, you know, do presuppose the natures whose properties they be▪ Wherefore you be not to look fo● the verity of this Proposition when you have heard only Hoc: that is no● a proposition nor in, Hoc est: that is not yet the proposition. But when al● is uttered, Hoc est corpus meum: there is a proposition, and a true proposition: for he speaks it that cannot lie. In this proposition, the subject Hoc, relates unto the predicate Corpus, and the predicate Corpus relates unto the subject Hoc, the ground of which reciprocal reference is the copula, or verb Est.  
When your soul came into your bo●●e, your matter had thereby a relation ●o your form (being of itself according ●o the substance, indifferent to that, ●r any other;) and your form, a rela●●on to your matter, which reciprocal ●elation is founded in the union or connexion, that is involved in your substance; and is antecedent to those accidents, which be in alio genere. ●ut whilst you were yet in fieri, before ●he generation was ended, the foresaid ●●lation of matter to your form deter●inatlie, was not, it was to early to ●●oke for it before the terminus or the ●●tio fundandi were in being.  
And, as now, your matter being a●uallie related to your form, a Philosopher may consider it (by way of abstraction) without that order, and se●●ndum se, in which consideration, it is ●●determined and indifferent to all ●●rmes: so likewise in the Proposition ●hich we speak of, Hoc est corpus ●eum: though that Hoc, be there de●●rminatlie related to Corpus, in manner above specified; yet, a Divine ma● consider it (by way of abstraction without that order, and secundum s● in which consideration, it is indifferent to stand for, or relate unto, t●● body, bread, or any thing else, th●● might (by God's omnipotent pours be in that form, it signifying of 〈◊〉 self, only, contentum sub hac visibili fo●ma; non specificando qualitatem veluti substantialem; not determining particularly and in specie what that thing is as before was noted. Neither it is an● great matter, whether this indetermination be declared by vagum, as som● do: or by confusum, or commune, as others. They be but several ways of understanding the same thing, to wi●● the indetermination of that pronounce conceived secundum se.  
This is sufficient for the Reader a● this present, touching the words o● Institution, in which the Controversy chiefly doth consist. And by it, h● will be able to understand those objections which hereafter are brought against the Supposition, and reference, of the word Hoc: the time, consigni●●ed by the Verb, est: and the like. As also, that vain pretence of Tautologie ●o oft repeated by the Doctor, and his Apo●ogist. The subject, Hoc, doth signify (as I said) substantiam indeterminaté: ●he predicate corpus meum, signifies a particular kind of substance; a man's body, our Saviour's body; speciem, si●e qualitatem, determinat. so that, one conceit answers in the mind, to the subject, an other conceit or apprehension, fare more distinct and explicit, answers to the predicate, and therefore it is not (as the Doctor pretends) nugatory to say This is my body. And had it been indeed idle tautology, it must of necessity have been true (let the Doctor note this,) whosoever had spoken it, and said over a piece of bread, This is my body, which is fare other wise. Our Saviour, being God, spoke it: and it was verified, he could not lie. A Priest speaks it, and it is verified in virtue of the Institution of our Saviour, who hath engaged his omnipotency for the verification of it in that case. But you speak it, being no Priest, and it is false. Whence it appears further, that the proposition of the Priest is practic: able in its kind, to infer what it signifies, (which is an other point cavilled at by the Apologist:) and yours which is not able to do so, speculative only. Thus fare touching the words in Question. I come now to our Adversary's construction and Interpretation.  
The Pamphlet which I am to refute, is written in behalf and Defence of Doctor featly, and dedicated by Waferer to his Lord of Coventrie: who seem to be in two several Opinions touching the interpretation of the foresaid words: though both of them would have them figurative. His Lord, D. Morton (who comes thundering into the Controversy, as if he would make us for fear believe the Sacrament, whatever God told us, to be for substance, nothing else but bakers bread, and wine properly,) puts the figure in the word est, which here (saith he) hath the same sense as, signifieth: as if Christ had said expressly of the bread, This signifieth my body. So he, l. 2. cap. 2. and Chamier, lib. 10. cap. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intelligimus: ut sit positum, est, pro significat. In which way, the words are thus to be interpreted: Hoc this thing: est, doth signify; corpus meum, my body. A construction so absurd, that the very Authors are ashamed of it, and therefore cover it under metaphors & clouds of obscure speeches: that it appear not to the Reader. D. Mortons' pretence for it, is this, that the subject is proper bread: which bread, saith he, doth signify, but is not, the body. That it is bread, he persuades himself, because our Saviour took bread, and the Fathers sometimes call it bread. Which is no good Argument: for, the 
Greg. Nyss. orat. catec. c. 37. Ser. de Coen. apud. Cypr. Gaudent in exod. tr. 2 Cyril. Hier. Catech. 4. Cyrill. Alex Epist. ad Calos. Aug. Serm 28. de verb, Dom. lib. 2. con. adverse. leg. c. 9 Hier. Epist. ad Hedib q. 2 Ambros. Mist. init. c. 9 Chrysost. Hom. 83, in Mat. & 24. in Pri. ad Cor.  Fathers when they speak of that, which is here after consecration, expound themselves, as you will see hereafter, (for Doctor featly doth object the same,) of bread which is changed, by the power of Omnipotency, not in shape, but in nature; of supersubstantial, heavenly, not proper bread. in which sense our Saviour calls his flesh, meat: and himself, bread: joh. 6. Whereupon when they take the word properly, they say that it is not bread; not that which nature made, no sensible thing: but the flesh of Christ, the body which was crucified; the mediator; the Lord of all.  
Neither doth it follow that it is bread properly, because he took such bread into his hands: for he changed it by his omnipotence 
b. Panis omnipotentia Verbi factus est caro. Oblata convertons in Veritatem propriae carnis. In illud (quod est immortal) transelementata corum quae apparent natura.  into flesh as they likewise teach us. and our Saviour's words according to their native proper sense do 
c. D. Morton. Instit. of the Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 1. pag. 72.  confessedly import as much: for they signify that his body is now in that exterior form, wherein before there was bread. Which doth involve a change. In a corporal feast, suppose a Prince makes it, that which was bought alive, is served in before the guests, 
d. And consequently it is not rigorously speaking, the same thing; though it be vulgarly esteemed the same. Homo mortuus quanquam figurae formam habet eandem, tamen homo non est, says the Philosopher, lib. 1. de Part: Anim. c. 1. And elsewhere he tells us Homo mortuus, dicitur aequivocé. Living and dead things have not the same form, and therefore, if you believe him, be not the same things. Vide eundem lib. 1. de Gener. t 23.  not alive. In this spiritual feast, exhibited by the Prince of heaven, that which was brought into the Church not alive, is (he is the Creator's Son and himself omnipotent that makes it,) presented to the communicants, his guests, alive Influit oblatis vim vitae, 
S. Cyril. Alex. Epist. ad Calos.  convertens ea in veritatem propriae carnis. He doth flow in to the things offered the power of life, converting them into the verity of his own flesh. Neither was he long about it: but, said the word, & 
e. Statim per verbum in corpus mutatur, ut dictum est à Verbo, hoc est corpus meum. S. Greg. Nyssen Orat. catech. c. 37.  suddenly the thing was done.  
Whereupon this ensued, that his body was at once in two places: In the one situallie, as other bodies are in the other sacramentally, & according to the manner of a spirit.  
This, as our greatest Adversaries confess, doth unavoideablie follow upon the native and proper sense of our Saviour's words. And Antiquity so understood and believed it, affirming that very body which was crucified for our sins, to be under the 
f. S Aug. Conc 1. in Psal. 33. l. 9 Conf. c. 13. & Serm. ad Neoph. apud Bed. in c. 10. ad Cor. In the 4. Argu. one place will be discussed. S. Chrys. Home, 24. in Epist. ad Cor. S. Cyrill Catec. 4 S. Ansel. in c. 11 ad Cor.  form or shape of bread: and that blood which issued out of our Saviour's side, the very price of our Redemption, to be in 
g. S. Chrys. Hom. 24. in Epist. ad Cor. S. Aug. Epist. 162. Serm. ad Neoph. S. Leo Serm. 7. de ieiunio mens. sept .. S. Greg. mag. lib. 4. Dial c. 58. S. Cyrill. Catec 4.  the chalice; and thence poured into the mouths of the Communicants. They believed that the most precious body in heaven, was at the same 
h. S. Chrysost. l 3. de Sacerd. Hom. 24. in Epist. ad Cor. Hom. 17. in Epist. ad Heb. S. Greg. Nyss. Orat. Catech c 17. S. Cyrill. Alex. anathem. 11. in Conc Ephes & lib. 11 in joan. c 27. Conc. Nicen. 1. in Act. Vatic. S. Cyrill. Hieros'. catech 4.  time, in many places, here on earth: that they had jesus, the Mediator, God and man, (he being at the same time in heaven,) here in their 
i. S. Cyrill. Catech. mist. 5. S. Chrys. Hom. 24. ad Cor. lib. 3. de Sacerd. Hom. 46. in joan.  hands; and received him with their 
k. S. Aug. l. 2. con. Adverse. leg. c. 9 Tract. 59 in joan. Origen. Hom. 5. in diversa S. Cyrill. Alex. lib. 10. in joan. c. 13 S. Cyrill. Hieros'. Catech. 4. S. Leo. Serm. 7. de ieiunio mens. Sept.  mouth. The ground of which belief were the foresaid words and asseveration of our blessed Saviour (to whose Authority they had submitted their understandings,) Take, eat, this is my body.  
They did not presume to dispute with Him, about the nature of quantity, or substance, or 
l. Or repute it absurd he should be in a man's belly. What is better, what purer, what more glorious than the blessed Trinity? and is not the blessed Trinity in every place, and (now you stop your nose) in every thing? The body of our blessed Saviour is immortal, impassable, and existeth in the Sacrament, according to the manner of a Spirit.  place: (they were sure he knew these things better than they did,) or, by that little which man knows or seems to know, define his Power & Art: but ingenuously honoured and willingly heard Him, as the Master of men and Angels; in 
m. Coloss. 2.  whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.  
To fear least the body, which is substantially individual, should be distracted into two bodies by this accidental and supervenient manner of existency, is a fault in the brain liable to the name, rather than any sign of a good and sincere judgement. It is in the Sacrament according to the manner of a Spirit as before hath been observed, and Spirits are not subject to distraction by quantity, 
When a man is beheaded, is his soul cut in two?  though that happen (and whilst they are in it) to be divided. One Angel is able to move (& so to be 
n. Vide Caiet. Baun. Nazar. etc. in 1. p. q. 52. a. 2.  in) two bodies at once: & though the bodies be distinct he still remains the same. Neither is he continued by the continuity of bodies, if those he moves (suppose two drops of water) become one. A Spirit in extended things is not extended; in continued things, not continued: in distinct things, not distinguished. He is in another order, far above. God, is neither multiplied in himself, by the great multitude of things wherein he is: nor by their quantity extended. Were there at once many worlds, he would be in them all 
Saint Augustine had an apprehension that the soul of Martyrs were perchance, at once in diverse places. Quanquam ista quaestio vires intelligentiae meae vincat, quemadmodum opitulentur Martyres iis quos per eos certum est adiwari: Vtrum ipsi per seipsos assint uno tempore tam diversis locis, & tanta inter se longinquitate discretis, sive ubi sunt eorum memoriae, sive praeter suas memorias ubicunque adesse senti untur: an ipsis in loco suis meritis conguo ab omni mortalium conversatione remotis, etc. Res haec altior est quàm ut à me possit attingi, & abstrusior quàm ut à me valeat persetutari: & ideo quid horum duorum sit, an verò fortassis utrumque sit, etc. S Augustin. lib. de cura pro mort. c. 16.  undistracted.  
That it is the fault of men overhasty and undiscreetly rash, to determine the supposition of the pronoun Hoc, before the 
p. Neither doth Hoc, of itself determine that precise instant wherein it is uttered. The thing demonstrated may follow that instant or moment, when the proposition is speculative, much more when it is practic and is cause of the thing signified. Nomen & Pronomen secundum Grammaticos non consignificat tempus, sed Verbo id competit: quare demonstratio per se Pronominis abstrahit a tempore: scilicet & quo prosertur Pronomen & quo terminatur totius orationis prolatio; saith, Soto, cited in the Censure, p. 501. In the Relation of S. F. pag. 80. there is a place of Scripture brought to show that the thing demonstrated, may follow the pronoun Hoc, Hoc est praeceptum meum, ut etc. There be diverse other examples of it in holy Scripture: whereof some are noted also by your Chamier l. 10. de Euchar. c. 21. Et hoc vobis signum, invenietis infantem. Luc. 2. Hoc scientes, quod vetus homo. Rom. 6. Hoc est pactum meum— ut circumcidatur. Gen. 17. Haec sunt nomina— Reuben, Simeon, Exodi 1. And the Prophets otherwhile begin with Haec dicit Dominus. He adds that sometimes Hoc, and Hic, demonstrate things past, Hoc totum factum est. Matth. 1. and sometimes that which the eye cannot at all perceive, Haec eo cogitante. Mat. 1. Falsum est, says he, c. 18. etiam in Pronomine, adverbiove demonstrandi requiri rem praesentem. Non enim est perpetuum. and, Omnia, tam praesentia quam praeterita, sensui sunt demonstrabilia: quia in sensibus aures sunt, quibus per verba nihil non demonstrari potest. To which purpose he citeth S. Aug. l 2. de Doct. Christ. c. 3.  predicate be known, it appears by that I have already said about it. If it be considered secundum se (as it is before the rest is uttered) it is indetermined and he must make a new Dictionary that will have it in that acception to signify bread. Or, Hic, (in the other form,) determinately and ex vi sua, to signify wine: into which new Dictionary should the same compilers put Haec, for meat, which it doth signify as determinately of itself, the young Scholars in Hic, Haec, Hoc, would have a feast.  
If Hoc doth not, being taken secundum se, determinately signify bread (as it is manifest it doth not,) then D. Mortons' whole building, without more ado, 
D. Usher's arguments for bread, are answered by F. malon.  falls unto the ground. Yet lest it should not easily enough be ruined this way, he doth another way himself undetermine it, whilst he brings in an Army of Witnesses to force his Reader to believe that the Sacrament is consecrated by prayer & benediction distinct from these words (Hoc est etc.) which he saith be not words of invocation and prayer, but of declaration. It is in the second Chapter of his first book, in his Challenge; where he saith, The Archbishop of Caesarea cometh in, compassed about with a cloud of witnesses and reasons to prove that the consecration used by our Saviour was performed by that blessing by prayer which preceded the pronouncing of those words Hoc est corpus meum. Were this so, the chiefest of his (D. morton's) cavil, which is about the supposition of of the word Hoc, were cut of by it. When the water at Cana was changed, and wine standing upon the table, what cavil could then be raised against these words Hoc est vinum, This is wine.  
He thinks he gets the Cause, if he can, out of the words of any of ours, deduce the contrary to the common tenet of the Church. Which manner of disputing in him is notoriously 
q. If the church-authority be overthrown by authority, it must be done by a greater. The authority of private men, is far, yea infinitely less: in regard of the Divine Assistance which the Church, by promise, hath He shall teach you. joan. 14. & 16. It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us. Act. 15.  insufficient. The Writers themselves were still ready to retract whatever could be found in their books any way repugnant unto Church-doctrine: they knew they might mistake: and therefore submitted their writings & opinions and judgement to the judgement and Censure of the Church, which they believed to be secured from error, by the providence of the holy Ghost her Master.  
Should a man in the Schools of Devinitie step up and say, The definition of the Council of Trent, approved by the Church, is repugnant (in consequence at least) to the Opinion of, suppose, Bellarmine, Ergo the definition is false; He would be thought either to deride the Cardinal, or to want something which commonly men have. This I say in general, touching the manner: and for the matter, it is well known, the Cardinal (I mean the same of others) was able to defend, both, Universal tenets, and his own private Answers and opinions, against a better Scholar then D. Morton.  
Doctor featly, as it appears by his Argument out of Tertullia's words, puts the figure in the word Corpus: 
Conference of Cathol. and Prot. doct. l. 1. c. 10. a 1.  for he would have the words to run thus, Hoc est figura corporis mei, which is the opinion of Oecolampadius, favoured also by Caluin. And according to this way, the words, Hoc ●st corpus meum, are thus interpreted: Hoc, this thing, est is, corpus meum the figure of my body. Whence it will presently follow (if you consider the ●ext well: this is my () which is broken, delivered, for you;) that the figure of our Saviour's body suffered for us.  
His Arguments are in the Relation where you will see their Answers. He agrees with D. Morton in excluding the verity of the body, and in expounding Hoc, this bread; which is more than the word signifies. And the determination of it to bread properly taken, is begged: as hath been showed before; and shall appear more fully hereafter in the Solution of his Objections. Neither doth it determinately import or signify a thing distinct from Corpus. If it did, it were false to say pointing at you, Hoc est corpus; because the proposition doth affirm Identity betwixt the significata of the two extremes, which Identity were not, if Hoc determinately signified a thing distinct from that which is signified by Corpus. And by the same reason it appears manifestly that the extremes are not, ex vi terminorun, disparata. If they were, Hoc must import a nature or thing distinct from that which Corpus doth import: which is not only against Theology, but also against Logic and the general notion of men that know Latin, agreeing that hoc, of itself, determines no nature.  
I note here further that both these, D. Morton & D. featly, do make the blessed Sacrament to be in itself nothing else but bread properly, with a relation to grace, and to the body now in heaven (which relation being founded in the institution, is rationis, in the mind only,) and consequently, how ever in words they repugn, they make it a mere sign or figure. This appears by their interpretation of the words; Hoc this bread, est 
b. D. Morton  doth signify, Corpus meum my body, it doth signify; there is all: or, Hoc this bread, est is, Corpus meum the 
c. D. featly  figure of my body, the figure, not the substance, not the verity. They tell you there is more, but if you ask what it is, they cannot find it. Grace is not the Sacrament, but the 
d. This writing is the effect of my pen as the instrumental cause: but it is not my pen that still remains a mere pen.  effect of it. God's omnipotency, is not the Sacrament, nor any part of the Sacrament properly. Neither is his decree to give us grace when we receive worthily, the thing here meant by this word, Sacrament. Nor the faith and devotion of the receiver: faith is not the Sacrament. Nor the body of our Saviour in Heaven, or on the Cross. What then is it? Nothing but the sign: that is, bread properly, with a double reference, one to the body or death of Christ; another, to grace, nothing else. This really is their tenet; though they be ashamed, many of them, to profess it. Pretending a great feast, they serve in dishes; and in them the picture or figure of meat; but the meat itself, the body, is, they say, in heaven only, never nearer.  
The Catholics interpret the words plainly & properly, Hoc this, est, is, Corpus meum my body. In which sense it is confessed by our adversaries themselves that they import such a real presence as we believe and defend. So that, My Lord, sitting down to defend, had this advantage on his side, that the Scripture doth in plain terms avouch his tenet. And M. featly on the contrary, this disadvantage, that he was to dispute against the proper sense of holy Scripture. Which proper sense, was, when Luther began, 
e. Hic error (so the Sacramentarians do style it) apud totius orbis Christianos invaluit. Bucer. lib. de Concord. pag. 660. Missae abominatio omnes reges & populos à summo usque ad novissimum sic inebriavit, ut etc. Calu. l; 4. Instit. c. 18  generally believed & abbetted: & that confessedly for 
f. Libenter concedo Idolomaniam Pontificiam, cuius est verum sacrificium Missaticum, totum paene terrarum orbem invasisse, praesertim superiore proxime millenario. Hutter, de sacrif. Misl. pag. 377.  many hundred years together. 
g. Si verum est quod de Corpore Christi (he speaks to Berengarius) tu credis & astruis, falsum est quod ab Ecclesia ubique gentium, de eadem 〈◊〉 creditur & astruitur. Omnes enim qui Christianos se & esse & dici laetantur, veram Christi carnem verumque eius sanguinem, utraque sumpta de Virgin in hoc Sacramento se percipere gloriantur. Interroga vniuer os qui Latinae linguae, nostrarum ne litterarum notitiam perceperunt, interroga Graecos, Armenios', seu cuiuslibet nationis quoscuncunque Christianos homines uno ore hanc fidem se testantur habere. Lanfran. Archiep. Cantuar. l. de Euchar con. Bereng. See the Censure. pag. 331.  All Nations as many as believed that our Saviour hath true 
h. Those who following the error of Eutiches, said the flesh of our Saviour was turned into his Divinity, said consequently to their error that here was really present the body of the Divinity. Sacrificium panis carnis Christi, negant esse corpus Christi, sed divinitatis corpus esse dicunt. Euthym. in Panoplia. par. 2. ti●. 20. Whence it appears how unskilfully they be, by some brought for the Sacramentarian heresy.  flesh & blood, have believed it: & amongst them, our country 
i. See the prudential Balance.  England. And Luther himself wrote a 
k. Defensio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verborum coenae.  book in defence of it, telling the Sacramentarians, the text of Scripture is to 
m. In defence. verb. coenae. He is large in examining the places objected out of S. Augustine, Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilarius, and Irenaeus. Hereafter I shall have occasion to bring some of his words touching the place of Tertullian which featly stands upon: and as for Irenaeus whom Birckbeck doth allege, he demonstrates plainly that he held a real presence of our Saviour's body to our bodies. Pugnabat (Irenaeus) contra Valentinum Haereticum, eiusque socios qui asserebant Christum non esse filium Dei, & non fore resurrectionem carnis, nec corpus saluati, sed animam. Contra hoc scribit & affirmat Irenaeus quod corpus etiam saluetur, & quod resurrectio carnis futura sit, secundum Symbolum Apostolicum. Inter caetera autem hoc contra ipsos producit argumentum: Si corpus non saluatur, quid ergo cibatur corpore in coena? si ibi aeterno cibo vescitur, ut in aeternum vivat necesse est. Referamus autem propria ipsius verba. Quemadmodum enim qui à terra panis percipiens vocationem Dei etc. Luther. in Def. verb. coenae. p. 408. See the place, for he is very large. Paulus dilucidè nos docet quid sit Dei vocare seu nominare, ubi ait, Deus vocat seu nominat ea quae non sunt, ut sint. Eodem modo Irenaeus loquitur de Dei vocare seu nominare. Item Moses Gen. 1. testatur Deum per suum vocare seu nominare, quod est per verbum suum, omnia creare. Si tibi (Oecolampadium alloquitur) haec definitio non placet, age, praesta te Magistrum, & nos doce quid aliud vocatio Dei esse possit, quando Deus vocat, dicit, appellat, nominat. Hoc verbum Dei est cum inquit Hoc est corpus meum, sicut in Genesi ait Fiat lux, & fit lux. Deus est qui nominat seu vocat, & quicquid nominat id illico praesto est, ut Psalm 33 testatur, dixit & facta sunt. Ibidem. Item, Irenaeus ait. Quomodo autem rursus dicunt carnem in corruptionem devenire, & non percipere vitam, quae à corpore & sanguine Domini alitur? Hic iterum audimus, corpus nostrum eo cibari corpore & sanguine Domini, ut in aeternum vivat, & non corrumpatur ut Haeretici somniabant. Irenaeus loquitur de corporali manducatione & cibatione corporis, & tamen vult cibum illum esse corpus & sanguinem Domini. Ibidem He brings there also the Sacramentarians Evasions, and refutes them out of Irenaeus words.  clear & plain, in so much that it cannot 
l. Si quispiam mihi persuadere potuisset in sacramento praeter panem— verum ego captum me video, nulla evadendi via relicta: textus enim Euangelij nimis apereus est & potens. Epist. ad Argentin. habetur tomo 7. in Epist. Farrag.  be avoided: & avouching withal that it was the Father's tenet. So likewise doth Melancthon, 
n. Melancth l. de Ver. Corp. Quid fiet in tentatione cum disputabit conscientia quam habuerit caussam dissentiendi à recepta sententia in Ecclesia▪ Tunc verba ista, hoc est corpus meum▪ fulmina erunt. Ibidem.  Sequor, saith he, veteris ecclesiae sententiam quae affirmat adesse corpus in coena: ac iudico hanc habere Scripturae testimonium. I follow the sentence of the ancient Church which affirms the body to be present in the supper; & I judge it to have the testimony of Scripture.  
Those who stood on Featlies' side, were such as by Apostasy had gone out of the true Church. 
o. Archidiaconus Andegavensis. anno 1035. Docuit paruulos non esse baptizandos, teste Guit mundo eiusdem temporis scriptore. Hanc autem Haeresim esse constat universalis ecclesiae testimonio: idemque fatentur Angli Protestants.  Berengarius, (who 
p. Malmesb. l. 3.  recanted;) 
q. Sacerdos & Pastor de Lutterworth. anno 1371.  Wickleff, 
r, Archidiaconus Wittembergensis, & Lutheri discipulus.  Carolstadius, 
s. Pastor Tigurinus.  Swinglius. 
t. Ex monacho Apostata.  Oecolampadius, & 

u. Noviodunensis. Deus adeo hunc Haereticum percussit, ut desperata salute, daemonibus invocatis, iurans, execrans, & blasphemans, miserrimè animam malignam exhalarit. Schlussel in Theol. Calu. fol. 72. idemque testatur Hieron. Bolsecus in eius vita.  
That Luther, Caluin, Swinglius, Carolstadius, Oecolampadius, had been Papists, (as they speak) before they fell into their Heresies, is declared out of their own authors in the book de Auth. Prot. eccles. l. 2. c. 11.   Caluin: 
x. See the Censure, pag. 274.  judas, and that great Apostata the 
y. See the Censure, pag. 274.  Devil. I do not mention 
z. Touching this Bertrame read the Plea for the Real Presence, against Sir Humphrey Lined. by I. O.  Bertram, because he that makes any speech in him Caluinisticallie Protestant in this matter, doth withal make him contradict himself, (it is the same of that 
Concerning this Homily, and the Author, see the prudential Balance l. 1. c, 19 in Odo, and Alfrick. etc. 22. n. 4.  Homily which is cited as Elfricks',) and thereby casts him of.  
The judge of Controversies, is, according to our Adversaries themselves, either the scripture, or the Spirit. If we go with the Controversy to the Scripture, & to our Saviour speaking in it, the cause is ours; This is my body which is broken for you. Which words, if they be certainly true in a proper and literal sense, than we are to yield the whole cause [real Presence, propitiatory Sacrifice, and Adoration) saith D. Morton, the last who wrote in England before Waferer of this subject. I have said oft, and now repeat the same again, that the literal sense or letter cannot be retained in these words of Christ, 
Cited p. 293.  This is my body, without establishing the Papistical transubstantiation, saith Beza.  
If we go with the Controversy to the Spirit in the Church, we gain the Cause too, for all known Churches in Luther's time did believe and profess it. If to the Spirit in the first Protestants, Luther and his Disciples, the Cause is ours.  
If we consider diligently the circumstances of the text, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, my own body, that which is delivered, broken, crucified, for you: and of the blood in like manner, (ut supra pag. 11. we are more and more confirmed in our tenet.  
If we read the Fathers, we find them to be ours, the Lord of Plessis Mornay, had objected out of them, by the help of his Ministers, what he could: but he is fully answered by the worthy Cardinal Peron, in a just tome of this subject only, which book he were to refute, that would lay claim to Antiquity in behalf of the Sacramentarian Heresy.  
Moreover that our tenet of the Real presence of our Saviour's body under the signs, was the tenet of Antiquity, the Church tells us, the Church I say; in Luther's days, and before, a thousand years together: in which Church there have been innumerable great Scholars, examining Records, reading the Fathers, comparing and considering the text of Scripture; and this Church tells us, the Fathers, their predecessors, taught them as they teach us. Why should we not believe them, & in a matter so plainly delivered in the Scripture; rather than Daniel featly, or Oecolampadius, or john Caluin?  
If you will move us with Authority, bring greater Authority. If you will move us with Scripture, bring plainer Scripture; and more worlds openly, in plain terms interpreting it, against us. The Authority of one Divine, of a Nation, will not serve against a world.  
The Doctor objecteth S. Augustine; but, against S. Augustine: as hereafter will appear. He objecteth Tertullian and Origen; and, against Tertullian, and Origen they, in this point, were not divided from the world. But, had Origen, or Tertullian been opposite in their opinion, who so mad as to follow them, against so great an authority as the Church?  
To oppose a less Authority to a greater, & thereby to think to win the cause, is absurd. If Authority can move, the greater it is the more it moves.  
To urge against the Church, the words of any, in 
As, when a man speaks of the practical dictio or vocatio, which is a making of the thing by saying it is or calling it by the name, (Ipse dixit & facta sunt; Lazare veni foras: Adolescens tibi dieo surge;) to interpret h●s words of a mere speculative dictio or vocatio. Qui est à terra panis, percipiens vocationem Dei, iam non communis panis est, sed Eucharistia, ex duabus rebus constans, terrena & coelesti. Irenaeus l 4 c 34. and l. 5. c 2. Quando ergo & mixtus calix & fractus panis percipit verbum Dei fit Eucharistia etc. The words are operatoria, practical: as you will see more at large in the solution of the fift Arg p. 479. & seqq. S. jerom upon those words of S, Matth Surgens imperavit ventis— venti & mar● obediunt ei. Ex hoc loco, saith he, intelligimus quod omnes creaturae sentiant creatorem. Quas enim increpavit, & quibus imperavit, sentiunt, imperantem: non errore Hareticorum, qui omnia putant animantia, sed maiestate conditoris: quae apud nos insensibilia, illi sensibilia sunt. In c. 8. Matt.  another sense than they did utter them; or to build an advantage upon a mistake in some 

b. For example, what the word Hoc, doth precisely demonstrate. S. Bonaventure did avouch the real presence and transubstantiation, as all Scholars know; though he did expound Hoc, of bread. Wherhfore your deduction from the like interpretation, (could you find it in one more ancient,) to the man's belief of a mere sign, would not hold. The sequel failed, in him, a Divine. And you, though you know not peradventure whether S. Peter when he said Tabytha rise, did address his speech to the dead body, calling that Tabytha, (Conuersus ad corpus dixit, Tabytha surge,) or to the live Person which upon his word appeared; or whether it did in the beginning of the speech stand indeterminatlie: will grant, notwithstanding, that in the end of the speech, there was not a dead corpse, as in the beginning: but a live woman, and this by virtue of his words instrumentally, and principally by the operation of God's omnipotency; which doth also work here, as the Fathers tell us.  
In these propositions, Coeci vident: mortui resurgunt; qui in monumentis sunt audient votem etc. there is (as the Divines say) sensus divisus.   nice point or subtility, wherein, with consent in the mystery 
c. The thing imported by our Saviour's words properly understood.  itself there might be diversity of opinions; is an evident sign of Heretical pertinacy. The Church, by continual exercise, doth profit in the knowledge of such matters. And, as now amongst the modern Divines, some do better interpret God's word in obscure places, and deliver the truth in more accurate & proper terms, than others: so was it, if we believe the 
d. S. Aug. de Praed. Sanct. c. 14. Hier. Apol. adu. Ruff.  Fathers, in the times primitive; wherein some did speak of matters, by Protestants now believed, less 
e. Fieri potest ut— vel certe antequam in Alexandria quasi Daemonium meridianum Arius na ceretur, innocenter quaedam & minus caute locuti sunt, & quae non possint perversorum hominum calumniam declinare. S. Higher, Apol. adverse. Ruff. lib. 2.  warily than others did.  
It is well known also, that the best Scholars and greatest Saints were ever ready to submit themselves and their judgement to the judgement of the Church: with whom the Spirit of truth remains, to teach all truth, forever. Wherefore, if it should have happened that any of them had been mistaken in this matter, (as S. Cyprian was in the point Baptism,) he could not without open wrong be objected against the Church. Especially, considering that, in that his general submission of his judgement he virtually retracted whatever should be found in his writings contrary to any determination of Hers.  

S. Aug. l 5. de Bapt. c. 17. l. 2 c. 4.  You know S. Augustine's Apology for the Saint but now mentioned, whose opinion he rejected because it was against the definition of a General Council. Neither do I prefer my own opinion before his, but the judgement or sentence of the Holy Catholic Church, all which he was not. and again Neither durst we affirm any such thing if we were not well grounded upon the most consenting or agreeable Authority of the Universal Church, unto which undoubtedly he (S. Cyprian) would have yielded if as then, the truth of this Question, being cleared and declared, had been established by a General Council. So far touching the state of the Controversy Disputed in the Conference.  
The Apologist, who doth address himself against 
c. Quando minora maioribus coaequantur; inferioris comparatio, superioris iniuria est. S. Hier. ad●. jovin. l. 1.  my Lord, is bitter: and without any cause given him. The title over every leaf is, An Apology for Doctor featly against the Bishop of Chalcedon. The Object of my Censure is this Apology, which labours to discredit the Catholic Relation: & doth many times misreport and corrupt it: which makes me represent it again to the Reader entirely. I shall have much ado whilst I blot out Waferers Errors to keep my pen from touching him that lies amongst his lies and heresies. But, the field of combat is no place of compliment. Flattery, ever a fault, when it is practised to the disadvantage of Religion becomes a crime.   

APPROBATIO.  
IN hoc libro, cui titulus A RELECTION etc. nihil est fidei Catholicae, aut bonis moribus contrarium, sed multa quae veritatem Catholicam de Reali praesentia confirmant. Quapropter dignum censui qui praelo committatur.  
Actum Duaci, 22. Maij. 1635. Georgius Coluenerius Sac. Theologiae Doct. & eiusdem regius ordinariusque Professor, Collegiatae Ecclesiae S. Petri Praepositus, Vniversitatis Duacensis Cancellarius, & librorum Censor.   

THE ERRATA.  
In the Praef. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. pag. 29. is my. p. 90. import it. p. 93. where you. p 103. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 112. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 116. are two— so you shall have. p. 117. marg. 108. p. 132. descant. p. 151. So now we. p. 160. So much. p. 163. the body is pres. p. 172. perceive. p. 186. the figure the. p. 201. it is not bread. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 205. Chamier. l. 10. de Euch. c. 2. p. 210. he gave to be. p, 132. or a proper speech a negation of. p. 248. call our. p. 260. S. Tho. 2. 2. qu. 173. ar. 2. p. 273, as black. a. the conclusion. p. 284. and transsubst. p. 300. thereby. p. 306. speak. p. 322. pag. 301. p. 349. returnest. p. 396. and adm. p. 410. visibile body. p. 419. later.— immolation: affirming. p. 421. bread. Moreover. p. 443. pronoun. p. 147. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 459. his chair. p. 482. is conf. p. 505. the words of consecration Hoc est corpus meum. p. 516. refer his confession, to sacrificing; not to unbloody. p. 519. jesus, was. pag. 527. of lies. 544. (g) p. 546. no other name. p. 547. Pane & vino deficiente, licet in coena ijs uti quibus pro potu & cibo communiter utimur, says Scarpius count. 3. de Euch. q. 1. p. 1411. p. 569. to write them. p. 587. whether M. T. G. B. p 588. merry. b. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. p. 184. peronatus.   

M. Featlies' Conference with D. Bagshaw seems by his Relation pag. 301. to have been before this. His Refusal to meet my Lord, whereof S. E. makes mention pag. 10. (E. H. M. W. the Doctor can spell these letters,) was when the Prince, our now Sovereign, was in Spain. I have the Relation by me, but forbear to print it unless I be further called upon.   

THE SUM OF A CONFERENCE BETWIXT M. D. SMITH NOW B. OF CHALCEDON, AND M. DAN. FEATLY MINISTER. ABOUT THE REAL PRESENCE.  
WITH THE NOTES of S. E.  
Facile est ut quisque Augustinum vincat, quanto magis ut vicisse videatur: aut si non videatur, vicisse dicatur, facile est.  S. Aug. Epist. 174.  

TO THE READER.  
IT is now more than a year, COURTEOUS READER, since first I saw the Sacrilege of M. featly, whereunto he hath adjoined a Conference or Disputation had in Paris long ago with my Lord of Chalcedon. This Conference being short I presently read it over, and liked so well some fragments of my Lords Answer which the Minister hath imparted, that I desired to see the whole: but could not then get a copy.  
Having lighted now at leingth on a Latin one, and liking it exceeding well, I have thought good to translate it, and impart it unto others by the print: partly because it is not easily found by such as do seek after it, the Conference being passed almost twenty years ago; and partly also because the Minister (who would seem to have a Copy) doth cite imperfectly my Lords answers, putting words or pieces together at his pleasure, and sometimes adding: and obscuring the sense which in the Relation itself I find to be distinct and clear.  
He hath also striven to make good his former Arguments; & involuing them in a new discourse, hath thrust in, here & there, what he thought good: wherefore for their sakes that are unlearned, I will, as oft as there is cause, add a note; and taking of the new mask of words, will let the Reader see, that after all his washing, those Ethiopians have not changed their complexion: and that now this second time of their coming on his Errand, they need not any other Answer then that was given them before.  
In one of his Epistles before the book I mentioned, he demands to see another leap; which may be showed him in good time, mean while you may be pleased to measure this, which the minister would not have begun himself to chronicle, had he not thought it to be extraordinary.   

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here's Rhodes.  
IN the year 1612. Master Daniel featly being in France, Chaplain to the Ambassador of our Late Sovereign, there came to Paris one M. Knevet, half-brother to M. john Ford, an honest & virtuous Gentleman the living in that City. This M. Knevet, being, upon his arrival there, put in mind, that he was mistaken in the matter of Religion, which is the thing a man should principally attend unto; and that before Luther all known Churches did believe that which he saw there in France openly professed; told his brother (M. Ford) he would see one of ours defend it before M. featly, whom he did esteem a great Scholar. Withal he acquainted. M. featly with the business, & with the point he meant should be discussed. M. featly thinking himself alone hard enough for the whole Church of Rome, undertook it: and to perform it with the more applause, did provide himself diligently for encounter. At leingth, upon the third of September, word was sent to M. D. Smith (who being then in town was entreated to undertake the cause,) that he should provide himself for the morrow.  
On the 4. of September there met at M. Knevets' chamber, M. D. Smith, and M. Featly. With M. D. Smith came his cousin M. 
* Since Doctor of Divinity.  Rainer; & with M. Featly came one M. john Porie, who had been a burgeois (as it was said) in the firste Parliament, in King james his time. There were also present M. john Ford, M. Thomas Rant, M. Ben: johnson, M. Henry Constable, & others; not English only, but also, French: for M Featly presuming the victory, had made the matter known. The conference began at noon: and by agreement, M. D. Smith was this time to defend, M. Featly to dispute. Afterwards upon another day, M. D. Smith was to dispute, and M. Featly to defend: the rest, not to entermedle.  

THE RELATION.  
THE conditions of this Conference Master featly did not observe; for whereas it was to have been private before it M. Knevet (for whose sake it was undertaken) and his brother, only; Master featly brought to pass that it was public; there being many called unto it, not English only, but also French. Secondly whereas the conference according to appointment was to be betwixt them two only, M. featly called M. Moulins thither also, though this Minister afterwards changing his mind, did not come. thirdly, he let not M. D. Smith know of the time of Conference but one day before they were to meet, whereas he (as we may justly believe) had provided himself long before. Whence one of his friends said the conference would be exact and elaborate.  
Before they began to dispute. D, Smith said the conference was to be, not of transubstatiation, but of the real presence only, which by order of disputation ought to be first. He said also that he was content to grant unto M. featly the opponents part for this day, so that M. featly would promise to let him have it another day; otherwise he would by lots try who that day should be opponent. And M. featly promising that another day he should propose arguments for the Catholic tenet, he willingly overtooke the defendants part. But when according to the manner of Oxford he began to declare the state of the question, & to show whitall the grounds of the Catholic tenet, featly cried out that he would in no case give way thereunto. D. Smith told him that himself was a Doctor of Oxford, and that he (M. featly) was a Graduate of the same University, wherefore there was reason they should observe their university manner. But M. featly took this in so ill part, that he said openly he would rather omit the conference then permit it: So that D. Smith was forced herein to let him have his will, lest the expectation of the auditory should hereupon have been frustrate: or they take occasion to suspect that he sought to decline the combat. Wherhfore leaving that his fort wherein he might have justly stayed, and coming out into the open field, he bade M. featly bring out his arguments, such as might suffice to justify before God and men his departure both from the Roman Church and all other ancient whatsoever, yea and from the Lutheran too in this point; which need to be demonstrations without doubt; for there be not wanting probable arguments to impugn a truth most evident.   

THE NOTES OF S. E.  
D. featly in his Relation doth acknowledge that he would not permit my Lord of Chalcedon to set down the confirmations, or show the grounds, of our tenet, and for excuse pretends that it was against the laws of the disputation, wherein it was agreed, as he relates, that Master featly at that time should only oppose and D. Smith only 
a He should have added that M. featly should answer another day: for this was likewise agreed upon; but he could not be brought to do it.  answer. Whereas it was told him them, that it hath been and still is the custom in Oxford for the Defendant to do that which my Lord would have done; and the University hath conceived it to appertain (as indeed it doth) to the Defendants part: which M. featly cavilling at, in the beginning, shown himself not willing to enter in to the combat with my Lord of Chalcedon if he could have put it of; and therefore (being conscious of the weakness of his cause) thought the very sight of our tenet as it appears to Scholars, would overthrow his, utterly; and that every word by way of preface, was an argument to convince it. The same fear and in the experience of the first conflict much augmented, he betrayed again afterwards when he was called upon to be defendant according to promise, as appears by the end of the relation, where the Reader will see with what tergiversation he did shift it of. And since that time also, in England itself, twice to my knowledge, (I can put the particulars down when time serves) he hath refused to meet my Lord, in dispute.  
Being himself in his Relation to tell the state of the Question, he puts down a discourse to make the simple Reader giddy, to the end he see not on which side the truth stands, and which of the Disputants have the upper hand; whereas the state of the Controversy is in itself clear & plain. The Catholics hold and believe that in the holy Eucharist, there is the body and blood of our blessed Saviour truly, really, and substantially. Conc. Trid. Sess. 13. can. 1. condemning such as hold it to be there only as in a sign, or in a figure, or in virtue. Ibidem. 
a joan. 6. v. 55.56 1. Cor. 11. v. 24.25. Conc. Trid. sess 7. can. 6. & sess 1● cap. 1. S. Tho. 3. p. q. 83 a 1. ad 2. & a 2 ad. 2 Decret. de Consec. Dist. 2. c. 48. & 72.  We do not deny that it is there virtute, in virtue & efficacy; it hath virtue & power there, to work in the Soul; neither do we deny that it is there as in a figure, for the Eucharist is an image of the passion: or that it is there as in a sign, the exterior species are a sign of that which is within. It is a Sacrament also, & a Sacrament is a sign. But we deny 
a tatummodo ut in sign, vel in figura, aut virtute, ex Can. 1.  that the body & blood are there only so; believing that they are there according to the verity and substance of body and blood.  
The Sacramentarians, for whom D. featly disputed against our tenet, hold the contrary: uzt, that the body & blood of our Saviour be not in the Eucharist truly according to the verity and substance of the thing signified by those names, 

Cited by my Lord of Chalcedon in the Conference of Cath. & Protest. doct. c. 10. a. 1.  
The Son of God is by the mystical benediction united to us corporally, as man: but as God, spiritually, with the grace of his spirit renewing our spirit to new life and participation of the divine nature. S. Cyrill. Alexand. li. 11. in Io. c 27. See Cardinal Peron again S. Bless. Mornay Paris 1622.   but that the Eucharist is a sign & figure of it only. jewel, it is not indeed Christ's body. Peter Martyr, it is not properly the body of Christ. Musculus, it is not the very body. Cartwright, it is only a sign. Perkins, it is only a sign and seal of the body. Zuinglius, it is only a figure. Beza, it was mere bread and wine which our Saviour gave with his hands. Caluin, the body is exhibited according to the virtue, not according to the substance. And featly in his Relation pag. 3. Christ is not therein according to the substance of his natural body. and pag. 4. the words of institution are to be construed figuratively, and not properly according to the rigour of the letter. And a little before; not in the proper sense.  
Against this Heresy of the Sacramentarians, we oppose plain Scripture, and the direct affirmation of jesus Christ,  the unanimous interpretation of Antiquity, and general consent of the Church, in whom the holy Ghost determines controversies appertaining to divine faith; and hath determined this, which was believed in all ages, and generally professed in all Christian Countries', when Luther (who fain would, but in conscience as 
a Epist. ad Argentin.  he said could not contradict it) did begin to divide himself from the Church.  
D. featly opponent, is to prove the Catholic tenet to be false; and that in the Eucharist there is not flesh and blood, according to the substance of the thing, but a sign or figure of it only.    


THE FIRST ARGUMENT.  DAn. Featly. 
The words of Christ This is my body, are understood of a figure, therefore not of the body itself.  Doctor Smith. 
I distinguish your antecedent- 
1.  Of a mere figure, such as were the legal figures, which the Apostle calls egena elementa, 
Gal. 4.  poor elements, or such as statues are in regard of the things they do represent; I deny your Antecedent. 
2.  Of a figure which hath the verity joined together with it, in which kind the Son according to the Apostle to the Hebrews, 
Heb. 1.  is the figure of his Father's substance: and a King showing in triumph how he did behave himself in the war, is, in this later action, a figure of himself as in the former; and bread, exposed in the shop, is a figure of itself as to be sold: So I grant your antecedent, and deny your consequence.  D. Featly. 
Tertulian lib. 4. contr. Marc. c. 40. saith: Acceptum panem, & distributum discipulis, corpus suum illum fecit, hoc est Corpus meum dicendo, id est figura corporis mei. The bread taken and distributed unto his disciples, he made it his body, saying this is my body, that is, the figure of my body. Therefore according to Tertullian those words are understood of a mere figure.  D. Smith. 
You pass quickly from Scripture to the Fathers, yet you are wont to say, 
Collat. li. 2. ca 22.  that the Fathers though conspiring all together) be not authentical and infallible expositors of the Scripture. wherefore your argument relying upon the Father's exposition, is weakly grounded according to the tenet of your own men. To the place objected I Answer, 
Lactan. Instit. diuin. li. 5. c. 1. Hieron. li. de Instit. mon. ad Paul.  that Tertullian (as Lactantius and S. Hierome have well observed) speaks very obscurely, and sometimes placeth his words so that it is hard to discern amongst them which to which is referred. In the place alleged, he doth not refer those words, id est figura Corporis mei, to Corpus meum, but to Hoc. And the sense or meaning of them is, This, which once was an old figure of my body, is now my body. And when Master Doctor Smith said he could bring out of Tertullian himself in the same place, four reasons proving this was Tertullia's meaning, and withal cited other words of Tertullian, wherein he doth after the same manner disorder the composition of the words, Master featly would not suffer him to bring those reasons, neither did he say any thing to the places wherein Tertullian had in like sort inverted the order of the words: but only said the order of the words (alleged) was unusual; and that it follows not they are here disordered by this Author, because he had done the like elsewhere. Doctor Smith answered that this kind of confusion of words, and difficulty in expounding himself, was not unusual in 
a Tertullianus creber est in sentetijs sed difficilis in eloquendo. S. Hieron loc. cit.  Tertullian; bringing instance thereof: & said withal that he did not infer that Tertullian here did speak so because he had done the like in other places, but because he doth afford in this very place four several reasons why he must be so understood: whereof one he produced presently out of the words objected. For, quoth he, since Tertullian says that our Saviour made bread his own body, he was not so forgetful as immediately to add, that the Eucharist is a mere figure of his body. This he seconded with another, as that Tertullian presently after the foresaid words, saith, it had not been a figure etc. figura autem non fuisset, by which words he shows that he speaks of the figure which was before our Saviour said hoc est corpus meum, this is my body. And the book of Tertullian being brought he shown a third reason out of other words ensuing.  autem & sanguinis veterem figuram in vino recognoscas, aderit Esaias etc. and that thou mayest acknowledge in the wine an old figure of blood, Esaie etc. Out of which words he proved that when Tertullian spoke of bread, he spoke of an old figure; because he saith of the wine plainly that it was an old figure of blood; and connecting this his proof, videlicet, that wine had been an old figure of blood, with the former of bread, he saith ut autem & sanguinis veterem etc. Where the particles autem and &, show that in both he speaks of a like (that is to say, an old legal) figure: and that he meant, that both wine was an old figure of our Saviour's blood, and bread an old figure of his body. Now if Tertullian speak (as hath been proved) of an old legal figure, it is certain he could not refer the word figure, to the attribute or praedicatum, Corpus meum my body: (for our Saviour did not say that the Eucharistical bread was an old and legal figure of his body) but only to the subject. He was ready to urge also, had D. Feat. permitted, that which immediately follows in the same place. Cur autem panem Corpus suum appellat, & non magis peponem quem Marcion cordis loco habuit, non intelligens veterem fuisse istam figuram Corporis Christi, dicentis per Hieremiam, adversum me cogitaverunt cogitatum dicentes venite conijciamus lignum in panem eius, scilicet crucem in corpus eius. Itaque illuminator antiquitatum quid tunc voluerit significasse panem satis declaravit, corpus suum vocans panem. But why he calleth bread his body and not a pompion rather, which Martion had in place of a heart, not understanding that it was an old figure of the body of Christ, saying by jeremy they have conspired against me, saying come let us cast wood on his bread, to wit, the cross on his body. The Illuminator therefore of antiquities hath declared sufficiently what he would have bread them to have signified, calling his body bread. In which words Tertullian speaks plainly of an old figure as appears by veterem, and tunc. Moreover Tertullian in all that book proves that our Saviour did fulfil diverse figures of the old Testament; & amongst others these of bread and wine, which in the old law were figures of his body & blood. Therefore when he speaks of them (of bread and wine) as figures, he speaks of old figures: and so would not say that our Saviour made bread to be a figure of his body (for it is certain that he did not make bread an old legal figure) but that he made bread (which was an old legal figure) his body as Tertullian himself there speaketh.  
In fine Master D. Smith told Master Featley that of courtesy he would admit the word figura figure, to be referred to the word Corpus body, that his argument might run on, and he make the best he could of it: but the minister would not make use of this his free offer. And this was the issue of the first argument.  

THE NOTES OF S. E.  
BY this discourse it doth appear manifestly that Tertullian in the words objected doth not oppose but approve our doctrine; avouching a change in that which of old was a figure of our Saviour's body (to wit, bread) into the same body; our Saviour by this means, making it present in the shape of the figure which it doth fulfil; and even to the mouth and 
* Caro Corpore Christi vescitur. De Resur. carnis.  flesh, according to the same author, in another place. Master Featleyes' discourse of S. Cyprian calling Tertullian Master, puts me in mind of some words after cited by my Lord in his answer to the 5. argument which the reader may take from one of the same age, (to let Antiquity interpret Antiquity,) as a further Comment upon the meaning of Tertullian. 
Serm. de Coena apud Cyp.  Panis iste non effigie sed natura mutatus, omnipotentia verbi factus est caro: & sicut in persona Christi, humanitas apparebat, & latebat divinitas, ita Sacramento visibili ineffabiliter divina se infundit essentia. That bread being changed not in shape but in nature, is by the omnipotence of the Word made flesh: and as in the Person of Christ the humanity did appear and the divinity lie hid, so (here) a divine essence doth unspeakeably pour itself into a visible Sacrament. Behold a presence brought about by change of the Substance or nature of that which was before (according to Scripture) a figure, into the flesh or body; the exterior shape of the figure (bread) remaining, and containing in it the foresaid holy substance: as in our Saviour, God who is invisible, is really in the shape of man. Neither is our cause any thing hurt by the placing of those words, id est figura Corporis mei; whether they be, joined in construction to the subject hoc, or to Corpus the praedicatum: since he whose words they be doth admit and teach a change whereby the figure is fulfilled; and therefore is no more an empty figure, according to that which was answered in the beginning of this argument.  
Now to come to D. Featleyes' relation: first he demands a place for the figurative Protestant exposition, out of any Protestant, more pregnant than is this of Tertullian: & upon the sight thereof he will (if you take a Minister's word) yield the better. Answ. Tertullian doth not exclude the presence of the body to the mouth, or to the signs: but doth teach it, even here in this place which you think is against it, as hath been showed already. But your men exclude it, as you may remember by that which you were told in the beginning. Confessio Czingerina. Signa non sunt substantia signatorum, sed tantùm accipiunt nomina. The signs (Eucharistical bread and wine,) are not the substance of the things signed (body and blood) but take their names only. The Heluetians, Panis non est ipsummet Corpus Christi, sed eius signum dumtaxat. The Eucharistical bread is not the very body of Christ, but a sign of it only. Zuinglius, Panis figura tantummodo est. the Eucharistical bread is a figure only. And, Praeter panem non est quicquam ampliùs. There is not any thing besides bread. These and many other of this kind, and out of English authors too, be cited by my Lord of Chalcedon. Collat. Doct. Cath. li. 1. c. 10. ar. 1.  
Secondly he says, the Words id est figura, are to be referred to the praedicatum, as all men do in the like. It was answered that Tertullian himself, did not always refer to the praedicatum what follows in that manner; much less could it be truly said, 

Mar. 9.17.  
Dicendo denique Christus mortuus est, id est unctus: id quod unctum est mortuum ostendit, id est carnem.  
Aduersus Praxean c. 29.   that all without exception, do. And to give you an example in Tertullian; he in his book Aduersus Praxean speaks in the same form, saying: Christus mortuus est, id est unctus. Where, that part of the speech, id est unctus, is an explication of the subject, Christus. And; that the words, id est figura, in the other speech are so to be referred, it was then proved out of Tertullian himself, (who questionless is a good interpreter of his own mind) and out of this very place, by diverse reasons; Which reason's D. Featley was not able to disprove. But the reader will say, be it so: let the words be ordered as you say, hoc, id est figura corporis mei, est corpus meum; what reason have you to add more words in the proposition, as, quae fuit vetus; making the sense to be, This which was an old figure of my body, is my body. Answer. In the proposition no words are added, but in the explication of the proposition, the word figure is determined according to the mind of Tertullian, by the words vetus, and quae fuit; that you may know of what figure he speaks: veterem istam fuisse figuram. It is Tertullian doth tell the sense of Tertullian.  
Thirdly, Tertullian (says D. Featly) could not be so dull as to think our Saviour meant the bread Which Was in the old law a figure of his body, is noW his body. Answer. He says expressly that he, our Saviour, made it his body; Wherefore now, bread, (according to Tertullian,) not remaining bread, but changed, is his body. This Tertullian did believe, and teach, there, in that place, telling us that bread was of old, a figure of our Saviour's body, (non intelligens veterem fuisse istam figuram corporis etc.) which he proves out of jeremy: and that this old figure, bread, was by our Saviour made his body, acceptum panem Corpus suum illum fecit, The bread taken, he made it his body. So now it was no more bread in substance, but another thing. It was 
a Serm. de Coen.  changed in nature, 
b Greg. Nyss. orat. Catech.  transelemented, 
c Cyrill. Hier. Catech. mist. 4. Itaque illuminator Antiquitatum, etc. Cited p. 20.  not bread (in substance,) but the body.  
To show that our Saviour in assuming those elements (bread and wine) to consecrate therein his body and blood, did intent to fulfil two old figures, is the very scope and drift of Tertullian in that place▪ and the partial Scope of his book; as all may know that can read and understand latin. and this according to Tertullian is the sense of our Saviour's words: this thing in my hand, made of bread, (an 
a jerem. 11.19.  old figure of my body) is my body.  
Out of this D. Featley in his relation, strives to prove that the words of institution be figurative: for (saith he) this proposition, this figure is my body, cannot be true but by a figure: sith neither the substance of bread, nor the accidents are properly the body of our Saviour. Answer. The question is not whether there be any figure or no, but whether here be a figure excluding the verity, as you were told in the beginning, and yourself undertook to prove. Neither are those words you speak of (this figure in my body,) the words of institution, wherefore if there were a figure in them it would not follow there is a figure in the words of institution. And if there were a figure in the words of institution, it would not yet follow that it is a mere figure, such a one as doth 
a Vide Tertull. l. 5. x Marc. c. 20. Plane de substantia etc.  exclude the verity for which kind of figure you dispute. This the reader may conceive, if he call to mind those other words, hic est calix, etc. Where Catholics do grant a figure indeed, but such a one as doth consist with the verity of the blood.  
To that expounding proposition, made out of Tertullia's comment upon the word hoc, which comment is this, id est figura. I answer that the word figure, is there extended to signify the thing made of a figure: as in scripture the word 
a Gen. 3.  dust, is sometimes used to signify the thing made of dust, 
b joh. 2.  water, to signify the thing made of water, and 
c Exod. 7.  rod, to signify the thing made of a rod. Puluis es. Virga devoravit. Gustavit aquam, etc. And in this sense the proposition is true▪ for, the thing made of bread (an old figure) is our Saviour's body, and properly too for substance. To the proof, videlicet neither the accidents of bread, nor the substance of bread is properly called the body. I answer that it is true, & withal it is true that the thing made of bread is properly the body: 
d Tertul. l. 4. contr. Marc.  Acceptum panem Corpus suum illum fecit; the bread taken, he made it his (not another's, but his own,) body. 
e Serm. de Coen. Cyp.  Panis iste non effigie sed naturâ mutatus, omnipotentia verbi factus est caro. That bread, being changed, not in shape but in nature, by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh. 
f justin. Mart. Apol. 2. ad Ant. Imp. Those words in S. justine, ex quo carnes nostrae per mutationem aluntur, be a description of the bread before consecration: as in Tertullian, those, vetus figura.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are taught that the meat on food (bread and wine) made Eucharist, by the prayers (words of consecration) of the Word of God, are his flesh and blood. Bread and wine before consecration, but after consecration flesh and blood. This was the doctrine of that age.  
D. Featley. Hear D. Smith was forced to acknowledge a figure in the words of institution. Answer. This is false in that you say he was forced. In the very 
g See p.  first words of his answer, when you had only alleged the words of institution, before you had urged any thing, he, of his own accord, told you there was a figure, but not an empty figure: which answer you have hitherto been impugning. And in his answer to the next argument he of himself repeated it again, to show that he did stand upon the same ground still, which he known you could not undermine. Moreover in saying he was driven to it here, you make your own tale uncoherent; for, in this place of your relation, the dispute as you put it down, is not about our Saviour's proposition as it is in the gospel, This is my body; but, about an other made out of Tertullian, The figure of my body, is my body: which words (whether they be figurative or not figurative) are not the words of institution.  
D. Featly. Thus they grew to an issue; M. Featly affirming that he demanded no more than to have him grant there is a figure in these Words, hoc est corpus meum. Answer. The issue of this argument was that you D. Featly could not prove Tertullian said our Saviour made the bread an empty figure of his body; this Author, speaking there of an 
(a) Non intelligens veterem istam fuisse figuram Corporis Christi, dicentis per Hieremiam etc. Cited pag. 15.  old figure before signifying our Saviour's body; which figure he (our Saviour) now as Tertullian saith, turned into it. Acceptum panem corpus suum illum fecit. The bread taken he made it his body. That there is a figure in the words, but not an empty figure, was told you in the beginning, and you did undertake then to disprove it: if you be now contented with such an one, and desire no more after all your labour, than was before offered you gratis, your adversary must have the honout of making you change your mind.  
D. Featly. As for your distinction, of a mere figure, and not mere in speech, it is nothing but a mere fiction of your own brain. As if you should say, this is a shadow, but not a 
(a) You shall read in Scripture of shadows which were not mere shadows. And if shadows may positively be seen, as you will say you have seen many, they benot mere shadows: Apparent nobis huiusmodi omnia nigra, a quibus rarum & paucum lumen repercutitur. Atis. Co. c. 1.  mere shadow. Answer. Here at length the Doctor gives the reader notice of the distinction told him in the beginning, of a mere figure & not a mere figure; which, being not able to disprove, he sleights, calling it a mere fiction: So leaving the reader to subsume that either the son of God, whom the Scripture calls the figure of his Father's substance, is a mere figure void of being; God without divinity; or, that he is a mere fiction. Nor doth he mend the matter much by contracting it to speech; for, his reader in that kind also will subsume and think, that either the Scripture is a mere figure, or hath no figure in it. Because, according to the Doctor, a speech cannot be mixed: in part proper, and figurative in part. Neither is it the same reason of a figure, image, or sign; as, of a shadow in your sense: for a sign, an image, a figure, is not necessarily void of being as you conceive a shadow to be. Sacraments are signs, and have some being; man is an image of God, yet a substance: the son of God according to S. Paul is the figure of his Father's substance, but not an empty figure, unless that be empty which hath in it a whole infinity of perfection. He is the image of God, and yet hath the Divinity, all, in him. In like manner that whereof we speak, the Eucharist, is an image, a figure, a Sacrament of the body; not empty, but such one as hath withal the body in it. This was said at first, since when you have but gone a round, and are now even there where you began.    

THE SECOND Argument, taken out of S. Augustine.  D. Featley. 
S. Augustine lib. 3. de doctrina Christ: saith that speech of our Saviour, ulses you eat the flesh of the son of man etc. is figurative, therefore the other, this is my body, is so too.  D. Smith. 
I distinguish the 
* were it denied that S. August. speaks there of Sacramental eating, the Minister could not prove it. recondendum in memoria etc.  Antecedent. There is one eathing that is figurative both according to the thing and the manner too; so the Fathers in the old law did eat Christ: an other eating there is which is proper in regard of the thing, but figurative in the manner, because the thing eaten, though it be taken into the mouth, and let down into the stomach, is not bruised and cut, according to the common manner of eating. And such a figurative eating of the body of our Saviour, S. Augustine means, and says that the speech ●oh. 6. is figurative in this sense, to wit, according to the manner; for elsewhere he saith that we receive with faithful heart and mouth the mediator of God and man, 
Lib. 2. count Adverse leg. ca 9  man Christ jesus, giving us his body to be eaten, and his blood to be drunk. Where it is manifest that he speaks of proper eating of the flesh of Christ, according to the thing eaten; because he saith we receive the same flesh with the mouth, which we receive with faithful heart; and also because he doth add presently that, that our eating of the flesh of Christ and drinking of his blood seem to be more horrible than killing, and shedding of man's blood: whereas a mere figurative eating, wherein the flesh of Christ it self is not eaten, but the figure only, doth not seem to have any horror, as the eating of our Saviour's flesh which is received without all hurting of it seemeth to have, though indeed it have not.  D. featly. 
It is horrible to eat man's flesh what way soever.  D. Smith. 
That is not true, as appears in mummy, which because it is not in the proper shape (of flesh) is eaten without horror.  D. Featley. 
That is dead flesh, we speak of flesh that is alive.  D. Smith. 
It is not only horrible to eat man's flesh because it is alive, but also because it is man's flesh in its proper shape, (for it were a horror to eat, of the dead body of a man; and likewise because there is a kind of violence offered to it, in that it is torn and mangled with the teeth, and eaten to the end we be bodily nourished there by. But in the eating of the flesh of Christ in the Eucharist there is no such matter, for it is not there in its proper shape, neither is there any violence offered to it in itself, nor is it eaten to the end our bodies be thereby nourished; and therefore there is indeed no horror to eat it in that manner; though it seem horrible, because in eating, one carries himself so as in eating other meat. I say therefore with S. Augustine that our Saviour's words unless you eat the flesh etc. be figurative according to the manner of eating, because our cutting and mangling with our teeth doth not arrive unto the body of our Saviour in itself: and that it is proper in regard of the thing, because the flesh of Christ itself is taken into the mouth, and by vital instruments let down into the stomach. So that the foresaid speech of our Saviour, unless you eat the flesh etc. Is according to S. Augustine mixed of a proper and a figurative speech.  
Accordingly I admit that in those other words, This is my body, there is a figure; not a mere or naked one, void of truth and propriety, but a figure joined with truth and propriety: because although they signify that the Eucharist is the body of Christ truly, really, and properly, according to the thing; yet they do not affirm it to be the body of Christ after such a corporal and natural manner as other things are the things which they are said to be: but after a spiritual, invisible, mystical, sacramental manner; and such a one as doth figuratively show and represent the natural manner of the same body in another place. Which those words of our Saviour declare, do this in remembrance of me; and those other in the foresaid Chapter of S. john, the words which I speak unto you be Spirit and life. That is to say, as S. Augustine doth expound 
(a) Expos in c. 6. joh.  are to be understood spiritually. And, 
(b) Con. in Ps. 98. Sacramentum aliquod etc.  I have commended unto you a Sacrament etc. And in another place Our 
(c) L. count. Adimant. c. 12.  Lord doubted not to say, this is my body, when he gave the sign of his body.  D. Featley 
None of yours doth acknowledge any figure in these words of our Saviour, this is my body.  D. Smith. 
None of us acknowledge that there is contained a naked figure void of the truth and propriety, at the 
* Pag. 25.  Protestants would have it: and yet none of us deny that there is contained such a figure as withal hath with it the truth & propriety. Yea Bellarmine doth sufficiently insinuate such a one, lib. 2. de Euch. c. 24. & 8. and S. Augustine in the place above cited, and others. Neither is it any way opposite to the truth of the Catholic faith. Yet speaking absolutely and simpliciter, it is not to be granted that this speech hoc est corpus meum, this is my body, is figurative: both both because a proposition is absolutely and simply to be esteemed rather from the thing which it affirmeth then from the manner, and therefore since that proposition is proper in regard of the thing it affirmeth, it is absolutely to be said a proper speech: as also because to be figurative, seems to have adjoined unto it a certain negation, either of the thing, or of some manner of being of the thing: & therefore since a negation hath as Logicians term it a malignant nature, he that absolutely should say that proposition were figurative would seem to say, at least at these times, that it were not proper; which were false to affirm. Wherhfore it will be lawful only to say that there is in the foresaid proposition a certain figure, in regard of the manner, as hath been said before, or that it is figurative according to the manner, but not absolutely that it is figurative.  

THE NOTES OF S. E.  
FOr the application of this discourse to the relation which D. Featly makes, the learned need not any help, I will only show others how to do it, as before in the former argument.  
D. Featly. S. Augustine saith those words, unless you eat the flesh of the son of man, seem to command a sin or horrible wickedness, it is therefore a figure. Answer. To eat it in its proper form and shape, as some people have done man's flesh, it is indeed horrible; and being horrible, that sense is to be rejected: to eat it in an other form, as we do in the Eucharist, it is not horrible, wherefore that sense is not, according to S. Augustine's rule, to be rejected.  
D. Featly. Then S. Augustine's argument is very weak. Answer. His discourse is good, and shows that our Saviour's speech, unless you eat etc. is not to be taken according to the common sense of the words, but in an other wherein there is not indeed wickedness and horror.  
D. Featly. What then say you to S. Augustine's conclusion, It is therefore a figure. Answer. It is a figure in regard of the manner; for the manner of eating man's flesh which is commonly apprehended, were wicked and horrible: but not in regard of the thing; for to receive into the mouth a man's flesh existent after another manner, that is not wicked not horrible. S. Augustine himself grants that we receive a live man, 
Lib. 2. contr. Adu. leg. c 9 lib. de Resur. carn. c. 8.  Mediatorem D●i & hominum, the Mediator of God and men, into our mouth; And Tertullian whom before you did object, saith, Caro corpore vescitur: the flesh eats the body.  
D. featly. A speech figurative according to the manner of eating, and eating of a thing not in propria forma, are Schoole-delicacies; where find you any such thing in S. Augustine? Answer. Our Saviour doth feed his Church with the delicacies which you speak of, and in that manner too. The thing in his hand, was in the form of bread, and it was his body; So he told his disciples, 
Mat. 26.  this is my body. And S. Augustine believed it, for he saith that our Saviour had 
(a) Conc 1. in ps 33  himself, in his own hands, when he commended his body to the Disciples, & that he did bear in his hands his own body. This was Corpus humanum, in aliena speeie, it was (S. Augustine saith) 
(b) Li. 9 Conf. c 13.  victima sancta qua d●letum est chirographum; & this, (which is also dispensed from the 
(c) Ibid.  altar,) the Disciples did eat; they did eat 
(d) Tract. 59 in joan. Mat. 26.  panem Dominum, bread our Lord; a delicacy no doubt. The thing in the chalice in the form of wine was his blood; so he told his disciples, This is my blood; It was sanguis humanus in aliena specie, that which 
(e) Serm. ad Neoph. cit. Paschas. ep. ad F●ud. Idem que asserit Sam. Chrys. Hon 24 1 Cor.  issued out of his side, though not in the same form; the very 
(f) Ep. 162  price of our redemption: and the Disciples did receive it, and 
(g) Ibid.  judas (though he did not believe) drank it too. This is the Feast which our Saviour made, these be the delicacies which the best Antiquity did feed upon, according to S. Augustine; who did well reflect on your difficulty, yet found no difficulty in the thing itself. 
(h) 2 count. Adu. leg. c. 9  We receive (I repeat what you were told before) with faithful heart and mouth the Mediator of God and man, man Christ JESUS, giving us his body to be eaten, and his blood to be drunk; though it seem more horrible to eat man's flesh then to kill, and to drink man's blood then to shed it.  
For such as will peruse S. Augustine's words I will put them down at leingth. Ferebatur Christus in manibus suis quando commendans IPSUM CORPUS SWM, ait, Hoc est corpus meum, 
(i) He that carrieth a man carrieth his soul, quodammodo. See the Bachelors Answer to the fift objection, and the words of the Canon, Hoc est, in the fourth ob.  ferebat enim ILLUD Corpus in manibus suis. S. Aug. in Psal. 33. conc. 1. Tantummodo memoriam sui ad altare tuum fieri desideravit, VNDE sciret dispensari VICTIMAM SANCTAM qua deletum est chirographum quod erat contrarium nobis. lib. 9 Confess. c. 13. Illi manducabant PANEM DOMINUM, ille panem Domine contra Dominum: illi vitam, ille poenam, Qui enim manducat indignè iudicium sibi manducat. Tract. 59 in joan. Hoc accipite in pane, quod pependit in cruse: hoc accipite in chalice quod manavit de Christi latere. Serm. ad Neophit. Tolerat ipse Dominus judam, diabolum, furem, venditorem suum; sinit accipere inter innocentes discipulos, quod fideles noverunt PRECIUM NOSTRUM. Epist. 162.  
D. Featly. S Augustine by figurata locutio, meant such a one as could in no sense be proper; for he distinguisheth proper from figurative. Answer. Proper and figurative, in the speech are distinct; and as fare as the speech may be taken properly, there it is not figurative; but it is figurative where in propriety it imports a crime. And because part of the speech whereof we dispute may be taken in propriety, part cannot; therefore it is mixed: as being not purely figurative, nor purely and entirely proper.  
D. featly. A proper figurative speech is as a man should say a white black colour: How can that be? Answer. And a mixed speech, is as if one should say a mingled colour: may not that be? In a mixt-coloured habit, black is not white, or white black; yet the garment hath both: so a figurative sense is not proper, nor a proper sense figurative, but in the same speech both may be. And as S. Augustine here calls this speech figurative in regard of the manner of eating, though the same speech in regard of the substance received be not figurative, 
Com. in c● ad Ephes.  so doth S. Jerome (who lived at the same time) call the flesh of our, Saviour in the Eucharist, Spiritual, in regard of the manner, though the Substance of flesh be not a Spirit: and the Apostle 1. Cor. 15.44. terms the body Spiritual in regard of the condition it shall have in the resurrection, though for substance it consists of matter still and by corporeum differ from a Spirit intrinsically, as much then as it doth now. And as you cannot argue out of that place of S. Paul, it is spiritual, therefore it is a mere Spirit; or, it is a spiritual body, therefore it is not a body properly: no more can you make such arguments our of S. Augustine's words, and say; it is figurative therefore it is a mere figure; or, it is figurative eating, therefore it is not eating properly. The reason is because eating may be figurative some times in regard of the manner of doing; as a body may be spiritual in regard of the manner of being, though neither the substance of the one be spiritual, nor the essence of the other figurative.  
The discourse about the propriety of those words, Hoc est corpus meum, this is my body, against which you did object that none of ours acknowledge any figure or impropriety in them at all; whereby you seem hitherto (not reflecting on that which in the beginning was told you) to have conceived our tenet so as if we held and believed a pure propriety for substance and manner; gives me occasion to enlarge myself here a little by way of digression. My Lord told you that the words are proper in regard of the thing signified; but that in regard of the manner, there is not exact propriety; wherefore the speech may be said to be secundum quid improper, or figurative, but not absolutè and simpliciter; for the reason by him specified. So the Logicians do say that an Ethiopian is white secundum quid; but absolute, black. This seemed to you strange, as if it had never been said before by any Catholic divine, and therefore you poor he thought the Protestant cause was gained, as soon as you did observe (which was not so soon as you might have done) that there was an impropriety and figure in the manner; whereas all learned men do know, and your own Masters do confess, that such an impropriety or figure is admitted by our Divines. And that the Controversy betwixt us & Protestant's is not about that, but about an other matter: to wit, Whether the thing in our Saviour's hand after consecration, were his body truly according to the substance. This, (I say) and not that other, is the Controversy; for it is certain and agreed on all sides that it was not there existent according to the manner of a man's body; it was not locally extended, and visible in its own form and shape: this was and is still out of Question. So that when you disputed you did not indeed know the state of the Question. Neither when you were told, yea many years after, 
Sunt ergoea qua sunt in voce earum quae sunt in anima passionum notae. A rist. li. r. periher. c. 1. Dictiones significant primò intentiones quae sunt in anima. Commentat. Ibid.  have you been able (if willing) to conceive it, though the thing be plain enough. To let you see that our Divines do not abhor a figure or impropriety in the manner, as if that admitted all were lost, I will put down some of their words; but first will tell the Reader how such an impropriety, and consequently a figure, (for improper speech is called figurative) is found in it.  
Words according to the Philosopher, do signify the conceptions of the understanding: the conception is an image representing the thing we think on. This image our understanding makes, together with the species of the thing; which species the Object sends into the mind or understanding by the way of Sense; as by the eye, for example. Now that which presents itself to the eye to be seen, (it is the like in other senses) is not the pure estence or quiddity of a thing, as they speak in schools, and you by your experience know; but it is a thing sensible and to be perceived with this organ and faculty, it is an extended and coloured thing; which thing we do see, and conceive, and name; agreeing that such or such a word shall be in speech a sign of it. Looking on a man, we conceive in our mind his figure, colour etc. representing all in one image; to which image we subordinate (as a sign of it, and of its object also; this word, a man. So likewise in other things. Whence it comes that an object, which is of itself sensible (had it a natural manner of existency) if it be at any time by supernatural power and means without that accidental form wherein that kind or species of substance doth appear to sense, (a man for example without colour or quantity,) it doth not answer perfectly to the name; because it doth not answer perfectly to the intellectual image, whereof the name is a sign. And because it doth not answer perfectly to the name, this name cannot be attributed to it without some kind of impropriety. For, in attributing the name to it, we do seem to say that it hath in itself all which the name doth signify; that is, all which the conception (whereunto this name was subordinated as a sign,) doth represent: which is not exactly true if the foresaid exterior form be wanting. In so much that the Scripture doth seem to deny sometimes predication in that kind; as where it saith, 
1. Cor. 15.  that flesh and blood cannot possess the Kingdom of heaven; because indeed that which enters there, shall not have wholly that manner of being which it hath here; but, a better. Our blessed Saviour in regard he was disfigured much in his passion, seems in the Prophet to deny, himself to be a man: 
Ps. 21.  Ego vermis & non homo. I a worm and not a man. And in the Gospel (after his resurrection) he seems to deny his corporal presence, Cum essem vobiscum, 
Luc. vlt.  when I was with you. S. Augustine because our Saviour's body in the Sacrament is not visible and extended as commonly men's bodies are, 
In ps. 98 Negare certe noluit quin idem corpus quod in sacrificium crucis obtulit in coena porrigatur. Caluin. l. 4. Inst. c 17. Dupliciter caro & sanguis intelligitur; vel spiritualis ●ila atque divina de qua ipse dixit caro mea ve●e est eibus & sanguis meus vere est potus: vel caro & sanguis quae crucifixa est, qui militis effusus est lancea, etc. S. Hier. in Ep. ad Ephes. cap. 1.  and as our Saviour's was when he spoke of eating his flesh, saith in his name, non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis. You are not to eat * this body which you see. And if I should present unto you in a cup a piece of ice, & bid you drink this water, you would be ready to deny that it is water, or that you can drink it; or wash your mouth or hands with it. Why? because it is in a strange accidental form, not in the common form of water; which form if it had in exterior appearance, (as it hath indeed the substantial form, and inner essence,) you would not then stick to confess that it is truly water. Thus fare touching the ground or reason: you are expecting now to hear what our Divines have said of the matter, whether they will admit any figure, any impropriety; or abhor it rather, as overthrowing utterly (so you would have the reader think) the real presence we believe.  
That they fear not any such hurt by a figure as you pretend, it is manifest by their explication of S. Luke's Words, c. 22. this is the Chalice etc. whereby generally they do prove and indeed convince openly the real presence of the blood; and yet admit a figure, one at least in the same words. This did suffice to my purpose; but for your better information, I will tell you more, and about the body too.  
Bellarmine lib. 1. de Eucharistia c. 11. answering Caluin who said the Catholics must needs admit in the words of Christ, 
Resp. ad 7.  This is my body, that figure which is called intellection, saith. If we, were forced to admit it, we would do it not unwillingly. And, if your Danaeus doth not lie, 
Contro. de Euch. c. 8.  he did grant one in those words. Claudius' de Sanctes, Rep. 3. c. 3. goes further, and saith. Neither though we should grant that there is a Metonymy, would the Caluinists get that which they desire, to wit, that the thing signified is not present with the figure. And he said well in the opinion of your own Masters, who did penetrate into the Controversy further than you do: For, saith Peter Martyr, 
Cont. Gardin. Col. 1197.  A figure as fare forth as it is a figure, doth not repugn to the presence of the thing. The bodies assumed by Angels were figures of them present. And Caluin. 
Admon. ult pag. 813. Cont. Hessus. p. 849.  A figure doth not exclude the thing figured. And, Nego (says he,) in eo verti quaestionem, sumanturne haec verba, Hoc est etc. in proprio sensu, an Metonymicé. I deny that the question doth consist in this, wheter the words, this etc. be taken in the proper sense, or metonymicallie. Bucer in Hospinian. It is manifest that out of this speech, 
part 2. fol. 108.  in which bread is called a figure of Christ's body, it followeth not that therefore Christ's body is not here. The like have Beza, and other of your men: As also Luther and his Lutherans, 
Vide Hosp. p. 2 f. 130.  who do grant a figure in the words, yet hold a real presence. But I come to Catholic Divines again.  
Ruardus Tapper Deane of Louvain. a. 13. It is not inconvenient to admit figures in this speech of Christ, this is my body: so they exclude not the verity of Christ his presence. And, we must not therefore here exclude every figure; for the consecration of the chalice doth necessarily require some, but especially (we must exclude) that figure which excludeth the real presence of Christ's body under the Sacrament. Again, And according to this figure, did Tertullian and S. Augustine speak when they did expound our Lords words, This is my body, thus, this is a figure of my body. Cardinal Allen li. 1. de Euchar. c. 32. declaring the sense of S. Augustine in these words, the Sacrament of Christ's body is in some sort Christ's body etc. He said so, quoth the Cardinal, because a thing being put out of its natural manner of being, and out of all natural conditions and sensible proprieties agreeing to such a name, and endued with strange accidents, although it keep its substance, yet because it wanteth the conditions of subsisting which together with the substance come to the sense and coceipt of man, and are comprehended under the proper name, it almost loseth its proper name; or if it keep it, yet not so provertie as if it kept its proper manner of being etc. in so much as the body of Christ under the form of bread is called and is the body of Christ by a certain figure. In which words he admitreth, yea and in all that book defendeth the real presence; yet withal, in regard of the manner of being, he doth admit an impropriate or figure. Suar. 3. p. disp. 46. Sect 4. I add saith he, out of S. Anselme, and out of that which I said before, that albeit Christ's body be truly and substantially in this Sacrament, yet in the manner of being it differeth from the natural being of bodies, which manner Christ hath in his proper form; and therefore according to this manner Christ may be said to be in this Sacrament either incorporallie or invisibly, or less properly, or figuratively. And so the words which fignifie Christ to be here, are in a manner sometimes said to contain a figure, because according to this manner they have an other sense, then without this mystery they should have. Gordon Controu. 3. cap. 9 There are two kinds of figures; some that wholly take a way the verity of the thing which Christ promised; and these we admit not: others there are that take not a way the true presence of Christ's body, but rather confirm it; and these we most willingly embrace: for there is scarce any speech so proper in which there may not be found some figure, either of word or speech, where upon the Council of Trent sess. 13. c. 1. disalloweth not all figures, but only such as deny the truth of Christ flesh and blood. Pitigianis in 4. dist. 10. q. 1. ar. 1. ad. 2. We do not exclude from the form of this Sacrament all figurative and unproper speeches; for without doubt some are to be admitted, especially in the form of the blood: but we reject only those which suffer not with them the real presence of the body and blood in the Eucharist. To spend time in citing more of these, it is needles. These had read the rest, and he that is conversant in our writers can presently turn to more.  
Of old, when Berengarius had broached your heresy, our Divines then living, taught the same. When Frudegardus objected to Paschasius that according to S. Augustine it is a figurative speech when the Eucharist is called the body & blood of Christ, 
Paschas. epist. ad Frudeg.  he answereth thus; These are Mystical things, in which is the verity of flesh and blood, and none others then Christ's, yet in a mystery and figure. Neither is it marvel if this mystery be a figure, and the words of this mystery be called a figurative speech; seeing Christ himself is called of the Apostle Paul a Character or figure though he be the Verity. And Lanfranke Archbishop of Canterbury, answering to Berengarius (that objected S. Augustine's words, the Sacrament of Christ's body is in some sort the body of Christ) The flesh, 
Li. count. Bereng.  says he, and blood, with which we are daily nourished for to obtain God's mercy for our sins, are called Christ's body and blood, not only because they are then in substance, though differing much in qualities; but also after that manner of speech where with a figure is termed by the name of the thing which it signifieth. To the same purpose Suarez 3. p. tom. 3. disp 46. Sect. 4. and saints Repet. 3. c. 4. do cite these words of S. Anselme, Christi benedictione panis fit corpus eius, non significatiue tantùm, sed etiam substantiuè: neque enim ab hoc Sacramento figuram omnino excludimus, neque eam folam admittimus. By the benediction of Christ bread is made his body, not significantly only but also substantially: for we do neither wholly exclude a figure from this Sacrament, nor admit a bare figure. Before these again, the Fathers also did,  the real presence to the mouth, admit a figure, in the manner; calling the Eucharist an image, an antitype, a figure: which speeches yourselves (not understanding them) object many times.  
The reason of all is, because our Saviour's body and blood have not here their natural, but a Sacramental manner of existency, which manner of existence or being is not the proper being of such things: And the forms under which they be, do signify (and therefore are, significative,) the same as existent in their proper manner. This came to pass by our Saviour's institution, 
It is all one, to signify, and to be significative: to represent & to be, representative,  who could order all as he thought good Hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis tradetur; Hic est sanguis meus qui pro vobis fundetur.  
If you should further ask me why our Saviour were so delighted with signs or figures as to mixed then with propriety in this his great work, and Sacrament of the Church; and this kind of figure or image principally, wherein the same for substance is in the representing and the represented, I remit you to some greater clerk for an answer; unless this will serve, that himself is the figure & image of his Father, and in substance all one with him. VERBUM est DEUS substantialiter, & DEUS representatiué: the eternal word is God substantially, and God representatively, Yea; itself, doth represent, itself: since it represents all that the Father doth understand.    

THE THIRD ARGUMENT.  D. Featly. 
Origen Hom. 7. in Leuit: saith if you follow the letter in these words unless you eat the flesh etc. that letter killeth: therefore the words of Christ concerning this Sacrament, are not to he expounded according to the letter.  D. Smith. 
Origen speaks according to the Capharnaiticall letter, that is to say, according to that literal sense wherein the Capharnaits did understand those words; who (as S. Augustine says in Psal. 4. & in c. 6. joa. and S. Cyprian. serm. de Coena, 
we do not say the Capharnaiticall sense is indeed the sense of those words: but they, mistaking, thought it was. ) understood those words of our Saviour so as if we were to eat the flesh of Christ after the same manner, as we do eat the flesh of beasts, boiled or roasted, & cut and mangled. In which sense if the letter be understood, it doth kill as Origen saith; and as S. Augustine in the place above cited, it imports a crime. But seeing our Saviour saith his flesh is truly meat, 
joan. 6.  and that his words are Spirit and life, they are to be understood so that they be expounded both properly and also Spiritually, or mystically. Which thing we rightly do when we say they are to be expounded properly according to the substance of the thing eaten, because that substance which in the Eucharist we eat is the very substance of the body of Christ: and also spiritually according to the manner, because we do not eat, cutting and mangling it, but without hurting it at all, no otherwise then if it were a Spirit.  

THE NOTES OF S. E.  
Here D. Featly without taking notice of what was told him out of S. Augustine and S. Cyprian, repeats again that the Capharnaiticall manner of eating was the same with our eating of the flesh in the Sacrament: whereas the difference is most clear 
(a) S. Au. enar. in Psal 98.  They thought our Saviour would cut of some pieces from his body and give them to eat. 
(b) Ser. de coena, Cyp.  They imagined they were taught to eat it boiled or roasted and cut in pieces. We believe & teach that it is received (c) work, entire, under the form of bread. And, that Origen did admit and believe this our manner of receiving it, these his words declare plainly. When thou takest that holy and uncorrupted banquet, 
Origen. Hom. 5. in diversa loca Euang. See D. Andr. Serm p. 476. Every Man carries one of these houses about with him; and the M●ster of it is his soul.  when thou dost enjoy the bread and cup of life, eatest and drinkest the body and blood of our Lord, than our Lord doth enter under they roof: wherefore humbling thyself imitate the Centurion and say, Lord I am not worthy that thou come under my roof. For where he enters unworthily, there he goes in to judgement to the receiver. Here Origen declares that he believed our Saviour all to be in the blessed Sacrament, and will have us speak unto him there, as the Church doth in the Mass; Domine non sum dignus etc. Lord, I am not worthy thou enter under my roof. He doth not call bread, Lord; acknowledging himself unworthy it enter: but Him that is in the exterior form of bread. And herein he doth consent with S. Augustine before alleged, who saith that we receive the Mediator with our month; and  Tertullian, 
Supra p. 78.  Caro vescitur Christi corpore, Flesh eateth the Body of Christ. Moreover, suppose the soul be wicked: notwithstanding, He, Christ, goes in, this Author saith. but in, whither? not into the soul by means of faith; that way you have shut up: therefore you must confess he goes in to the body at the mouth, as S. Augustine told you. Who said also that judas received the price of our Redemption; not with the mind sure, 
Supr ap. 79.  (he was then a Traitor) but with the mouth.  
D. Featly. Should we eat with the mouth the flesh of man, we should run upon the point of S. Cyrills' reproof, 
In expos. anath. 11.  Dost thou pronunce this Sacrament to be man-eating? and dost thou irreligiousty urge the minds of the faithful with gross and carnal imaginations? Answer. The gross and carnal conceit of eating man's flesh, he rejects; the Sacramental manner we speak of, he did believe. Even in that anathematisme which you mention, 
A 〈◊〉 1●  and which he there defends, he saith, the thing proposed on the altar, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that which is before the Priest, is our Saviour's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his own body. So near he tnought our Saviour's body was to the communicant. Again he saith, that by means of the benediction (consecration) the Son of God, as man, is united to v● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 corporally. 
Li. 11. in joan. c. 27. Ibid. Li. 10. c. 13.  And that We do receive the Son of God corporally and substantially. In an other place he saith the power of benediction doth bring to pass that jesus Christ dwelleth in us corporally with the communication of the flesh of Christ. And the manner of compassing it, is, as he doth also teach, 
(a) Epist. ad Calo. In Answer to your marginal note about Bereng. See the Answer to Bells challenge, ar. 2. c. 5.  by converting bread and wine into the verity of flesh and blood.  
D. Featly. Do those words, nisi manducaveritis carnem, unless you eat the flesh, sound after the Capharnaiticall strain? Answer. To flesh and blood they did, and do: but the holy Ghost hath taught the Church an other way of eating flesh; not in the proper, but in another shape. 
Mat. 26.  Do but hearken, and you shall hear the Gospel mention eating a man's body in the form of bread; Take and eat, this (in my hand) is my body.    

THE FOURTH ARGUMENT.  D. featly. 
S. Augustine in Gratian, dist. 2. can. hoc est. saith; As the heavenly bread which is Christ's flesh, is after a sort called the body of Christ, when as in truth it is the Sacrament of the body of Christ; the Gloss addeth, The heavenly Sacrament which truly doth represent the flesh of Christ, is called the body of Christ, but improperly, wherefore it is said, in a sort; but not in the truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery.  D. Smith. 
Gratian first, 
See Bellar. Descriptor. Eccles.  is not an authentical Author amongst us; much less the Gloss secondly I oppose other words of S. Augustine in the same place of Gratian, where he saith that the Sacrifice of the Church doth consist of two things, the visible form of elements, and the invisible flesh and blood of Christ: both, of a Sacrament, and re Sacramenti, that is to say; the body of Christ: as the person of Christ doth consist and is made of God and man. thirdly I answer that S. Augustine in those words understood that which is Sacramentum tantùm, a Sacrament only.  D. featly. 
S. Augustine speaks of that bread which he saith is the flesh of Christ, but that which is Sacramentum tantùm is not the flesh of Christ, therefore he doth not speak of that which is Sacramentum tantùm.  D. Smith. 
The words of S. Augustine are not cited entirely, for epist. 23. (if that be the place Gratian means, 
This place is quoted in the margin of Gratian. ) he saith that the Sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ after a certain manner: and it is not inconvenient to say that, that which is Sacramentum tantùm, is the body of Christ after a certain manner; according to which manner he saith baptism is faith.  D. Featley. 
Indeed Gratian I confess contradicts himself.  D. Smith. 
Why then do you reliè on such authority? let us on to sure testimonies.  

THE NOTES OF S. E.  
TO clear this discourse wherein D. featly hath urged two Authorities together, I will speak of each apart. That Gratian held the real presence, it is out of question. In that Distinction which you cite, he brings diverse places out of the Fathers to show the manner of it, as, that the body is there indivisiblie by change of bread into it: citing to this purpose S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, S. jerom, S. Hilary, and others. See can. 35 41. 55. 69. 74. 77. 79. 82. 87. and not six lines before the place objected, he hath these words out of Prosper and S. Augustine, directly opposite to your tenet, as p. 3, you put it down. Caro eius (Christi) est quam forma panis opertan in Sacramemmento accipimus. It is the flesh of Christ which we receive in the Sacrament covered with the form of bread.  
The words objected were imperfectly cited, and themselves being read at large expound their authors meaning. They be these. As the heavenly bread which is the flesh of Christ is after a sort called the body of Christ, whereas indeed it is the Sacrament of the body of Christ, I mean of that which being visible, palpable, mortal, was put upon the Cross, and (as) that immolation of the flesh which is done by the hands of the Priest is called the passion, death, and crucifixion, not rei veritate, in verity of the thing, but significante mysterio in signifying mystery: So the Sacrament of faith, Baptism I mean, is faith The sum of Which analogy or comparison is this: As the Eucharist is after a manner; to wit, mystice, significative, mystically, significantly, the body crucified as crucified: so Baptism is faith, after a manner, that is, mystice, significatiuè, mystically, significantly. Also, as the action of unbloody immolation, 
S Ambr. de Sacr. l. 4 c. 4. & 5.  videlicet consecration, is the passion, mysticè, significative; so the Sacramental action, Baptising, is faith, mystice, significatiuè. He might have added too, 
S. Chry. Hon de prod. jud. & Hom. 2. in 2 Ep. ad Tim. S. Hier. Ep. ad Heliod. Conc. Trid. sess. 6. c. 7. & sess. 7. can. 6.  that as the consecratory action is signum practicum corporis sub aliena specie praesentis, a practical sign of the body present under another form; as making it so to be: so the baptising action is signum practicum fidei praesentis in baptizato, a practical sign of faith present in the baptised, as making it so to be, according to the father's doctrine, and belief of the Catholic Church.  
Against this discourse it might be objected that one and the same thing cannot represent it 
a The Manna as kept in the ark, was a sign of itself as it fell in the desert.  self: wherefore the body in the Eucharist cannot represent itself upon the Cross: But this (supposing the doctrine of the Gospel) is not hard to be conceived. It being not hard to understand how one & the same thing being within two several forms, by the one may represent itself, as in the other; these references being not founded in the substance immediately, but in the exterior forms subject to the eye, which forms are distinct. And in this case, the form, wherein the reference of representation is founded, is one with the other form, representatiuè, in representation: but the substance under the two forms is one and the same entitative in entity or being. The same individual body, being really under both.  
According to this discourse the sense of Gratian'ss words as they are in him at leingth, is this: the heavenly bread, videlicet, the flesh of Christ in the Eucharist, is after a certain manner, videlicet, representative, the body of Christ as visible: and it is also the same flesh identice, covered with the form of bread. And if against this you should object that he denies the heavenly bread to be the body of Christ in truth, rei veritate; I would tell you that you mistake him; for his words are, the immolation of the flesh by the hands of the Priest, (that is to say, Consecration, and the rest which the Priest doth at Mass unto the host, as, breaking of it,) is called the passion, non rei veritate, sed significante mysterio, not indeed, but in signifying mystery. And certainly, Consecration is not the passion of Christ rei veritate, indeed and truly.  
Neither was the Author of the Gloss of your opinion, but contrary; for he held also the real presence to the signs, effected by transubstantiation. In proof whereof take these places out of him. Ad prolationem istius, hoc est corpus meum, transubstantiatur panis in corpus. Glossa. de Consec. dist. 2. in can. 35. Upon the utterance of these words This is my body, the bread is transsubstantiated into the body. Vbi erat verus panis antè & verum vinum, modò sunt tantùm accidendia. Ad can. 41. where there was before true bread and true wine, now there are only accidents, of bread and wine. Ad prolationem verborum, panis fit Corpus Christi & vinum sanguis, remanent tamen, species panis & vini sub quibus latent & operiuntur caro & sanguis, ne in sumendo esset horror si species crudae & vivae carnis, & crudi sanguinis appareret. Ad can. 55. At the uttering of the words, the bread is made the body of Christ, and wine the blood; but the species of bread and wine do remain; under which species the flesh and blood do lie hid and are covered, lest there might be horror in receiving if the species or shape of raw and live flesh, and of raw blood should appear. All these are the words of the Gloss whose authority you cited for your opinion: with what conscience let the reader judge.  
In the words which are objected he meant as the text, which I have expounded already; (a Commentatours aim is the meaning of his Author:) though there be some thing therein also as appeareth by what I have said in this place, which he, a Canonist, did not accuratlie observe.  
My Lord Bishop in his answer to the words of S. Augustine whereunto Gratian pointed, 
Epist 23.  secundum quemdam modum Sacramentum Corporis, Christi Corpus Christi est: the Sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ after a certain manner: said, the Saint understood them of that which is sacramentum tantùm, a sacrament or sign only. Against this Answer the Minister replied again, 
He had yet another explication ready, & out of S Augustine too, which the reader by this time doth reflecton.  grounding his argument on the words as he finds them in Gratian. And it was answered (and by comparing you shall find it true) that Saint Augustine's words are not in Gratian cited entirely. But suppose they were; what then? wherein do those Authors (whom we have declared to be avouchers of change of bread, and transubstantiation) seem to favour you?  
D. featly. Mere accidents of bread which are Sacramentum tantùm, cannot be termed heavenly bread: this which the Gloss and Gratian speak of, is called heavenly bread; wherefore they do not speak of mere accidents, or that which is Sacramentum tantùm. I Answer to the mayor; they cannot be called heavenly bread, properly; but they may be so called, as the Gloss told you, improperly: and as S. Augustine speaks with a restriction, secundum quemdam modum, after a certain manner. For, after Consecration they are signa Corporis Christi 
a As the same Authors teach in the same place.  praesentis, signs of the body of Christ present: & so are heavenly bread and Christ's flesh in their kind, that is, significatiué. But you will ask me, how they can be called, coeleste Sacramentum, a heavenly Sacrament? I answer that they may be so called in regard of their reference to our Saviour's body which they cover; which reference is founded in a supernatural and heavenly action, to wit, consecration. A relation, you know, takes its nature or species from the terminus, the thing which it relates unto, and from that which is ratio fundandi, the reason of founding it: if those be sacred or heavenly the relation is esteemed so too.    

THE FIFT ARGUMENT.  D. featly. 
In those words hoc est corpus meum, the subject Hoc, stands for bread, therefore the speech cannot be proper.  D. Smith. 
I deny the Antecedent.  D. featly. 
I prove it first out of the Fathers that say bread is the body of Christ.  D. Smith. 
I answer that they understand it as they interpret themselves of supersubstantiall bread; 
S. Aug. serm. 28 de verbis Domin. Serm. de Caen. Cypr.  of bread which being changed not in shape but in nature, is by the omnipotency of the word made flesh; of bread whereinto the divine essence doth ineffablie pour itself, 
Ibid.  even as in Christ under humane nature the divinity lay hid. finally of bread which, saith our Saviour, 
joan. 6.  is my flesh for the life of the world. Now this bread, is bread only in name and exterior shape; but in substance it is our Saviour's body.  D. Featley. 
secondly I prove it: by reason: for when hoc signifieth, the body of Christ is not there, therefore as then it cannot stand for it.  D. Smith. 
I answer that hoc doth signify, and suppose, when it is uttered, yet not 
a As in this proposition, This is my precept that you love one another etc. joan. 15.12. the pronoun this, doth relate unto the precept (not as then, extant, because not utteded,) and demonstrate it. And was to be verified by it: not before.  for that instant, but for the end of the proposition, when the praedicatum is in being: for, subjects are such as their attributes permit then to be. And in the end of the proposition there is our Saviour's body. 
That bread is bread before the Sacramental words; when Consecration comes, of bread there is made the flesh of Christ. S. Ambr. l. 4. de Sacran. c. 4. wherefore that I may answer thee, it was not the body of Christ before Consecration: but after Consecration I tell thee that it is now the body of Christ. Ibidem.  As when I say This a Cross, & make it withal: the word, this, doth suppose for the Cross, not which is when the word this, is uttered; but which is, within the whole time that I speak. So when I say taceo, I do not signify that I speak not while I am uttering this word but that I am silent when I have donne uttering it. And if our Saviour had changed water into wine by saying this is wine, the pronoun this, had signified and supposed for wine, not which was whilst the said pronoun was uttering, but which was within the whole time of the proposition.  D. Featley. 
Christ could not change water into wine by saying, this is wine.  D. Smith. 
That ●s strange, he having made the world of nothing, with a word. Howbeit this is another business. I brought it only for examples sake.  

THE NOTES OF S. E.  

Iren. l. 4. cont. Haer. c. 34. Tert. l. 4. count Marc c. 40. Hier. ep. ad Hedib. q 2. August serm. 28 verb Dom. Epiph. in Anc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cyril. Hier. at cc. 4  THe Authors which D. featly cities to prove the Eucharist is ordinary and common bread, are Ireneus, Tertullian, Athanasius (so he names the work,) jerom, Austen, Epiphanius, Cyrill, Theodoret and Gerson; but these will not admit of his interpretation as you may see by their own words. S. Irenaeus, It is not common bread. Tertullian, he made it his own body. S. Jerome, it is panis qui de caelo descendis, bread which came from heaven. Saint Augustine, it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 supersubstantial, bread, S. Epiphavius, though for the exterior form there be no similitude yet he that believeth it not to be as our Saviour said (his body) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 falls from salvation. 
Theod. dial. 1. & 2. Gers. l Serm. de coen. Dom. It is not Eucharist till the connsecration be complete: and then it is no more bakers bread: omnipotency hath turned it to verify our saviours words Hocest, etc. Conc. Nic. can 14. Theop. in c 6. joan. & 26. Mat.  S Cyril●, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. that which seems bread, is not bread, notwithstanding that the taste esteems it so; but the body of Christ. Theodoret, there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a change, made by grace or supernaturally. The mystical signs are adored, as being (really according to the inner substance) the things which they are believed to be: videlicet the flesh and blood of Christ. Gerson, bread is transubstantiated into the true body of Christ. I omitted to bring the testimony of S. Athanasius (whose mind is known well enough out of the Council of Nice wherein he was,) because the Commentaries which you cited are not his, but Theophilact's, who would be coming in, too, with his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if he were called upon. The reason why the Fathers call the body of our Saviour as being in Sacrament, bread, but supersubstantial and heavenly; you had given you before: videlicet because it is in that exterior form, and by consecration made of bread. 
joan. 6. 1. Co. 10 Mar. 16. Gen 3. joan. 2. Exod. 7.  So you find in Scripture Angels called men; man called dust; wine called water; and a serpent, then when it was indeed a serpent, called a rod.  
D. featly. Corpus Christi cannot properly be affirmed of bread, for they be substantiae disparatae. Answer. Of common bread, it cannot: of consecrated and supersubstantiall bread, it may. These are not disparata, sundry things. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 supersubstantiall bread, and Caro Christi, the flesh of Christ, are in substance all one.  
D. featly. Is their meaning this, bread not being bread, is Christ's body? 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Just. Supra p. 45.  Answer. They mean that the thing under the form of bread, (which indeed is not bakers bread,) is his body. And so did our Saviour mean too, when he said, the bread which I will give is my flesh, joh. 6. if it were flesh, it was not properly bread; but improperly. And that bread, improperly so called, was a man's body, properly. Wherefore our Saviour could not say as you would ridiculously have him say, it is my body, that is to say it is not my body. Neither is the sense of an affirmative proposition, suppose it improper, to be rendered as you do. As, where God said to Adam, putuis es, thou art dust; it is not to be glossed after your manner, thou art dust, that is to say thou art not dust. 
Serm: de Coena. Ambr. de Mist. init. c. 9 Gregor. Nysl. or. Catec. c. 37. August. Suprà. Eo nomine appellata res, unde versa est, non in quo versa est. S. Aug. q. 21 in Exod.  God doth there avouch something truly; wherefore you must study for his meaning, and not blasphemously impose a ridiculous sense upon his words. The Fathers (as I have showed) have declared their own meaning; it is bread changed, not in shape but in nature: transelemented: supersubstantiall bread: and such, is not indeed bread. As the rod changed, was not indeed a rod; but a serpent; and water changed was not indeed water, but wine. The name was used to signify another thing.  
The Doctors other proof, whereby he Would fain show that Hoc, stands for bread, is an ordinary objection, borrowed from our School divines, who propose it for the better explication of the terms, and may be, and is by them, diverse ways answered. I am to defend here that answer which my Lord gave, omitting what the Minister impertinently hath thrust in; and giving the Reader before notice, that, there are some propositions merely speculative; as this, God is wise; or this, a man is a reasonable creature. And these do not make but suppose what they signify. Others are operative or practice; as this, I do baptise thee; and this, Tabytha arise; and these do work what they signify. The proposition which is here in question, Hoc est corpus meum, this is my body, is of the later kind, practice.  
D. featly. This pronoun demonstrative hoc, this, must needs signify some thing, that 
* In the instant when that word was uttered.  then was existent, to which Christ pointed, sayingh This. Answer. It must not: for the proposition being practical, it doth signify, and demonstrate, not that which is supposed already being, but that which it makes to be. The proposition (I do not say the subject or the attribute, but the whole entire proposition) is the cause; and the thing signified, is the effect: which effect the foresaid proposition demonstrating doth make, and making doth withal demonstrate it. Now the effect you know (if you know any thing in Philosophy) doth suppose the whole cause, and follows it. So in these operative speeches of our Saviour, Lazarus come forth: young man arife: the words Lazarus and young man, did not signify persons existent then precisely when they were uttered; 
Cyrill. Catena.  but when the speeches were complete. The words did signify then, (when they were) but not things existent then: for when the words were, the persons by them signified were not.  
D. featly. That hoc, the first word of the proposition, when it is uttered doth it signify, or no? Answer. 
Nomen significat sine tempore. Arist. li. 1. Periher. c. 3.  It doth signify; and by way of demonstration: and having done that office goes away, for words (you know) cannot stay; nor can the speaker utter all at once. Neither can you determine precisely, having heard it, what it did demonstrate, 
It relates to the substantive which follows.  but must hearken to the rest for to know. I point, for example, towards that before your eyes, and say This is— And you see and hear me; but know not precisely what I mean by the word this, till you hear the praedicatum. If I say whiteness or colour, there is one subject of the speech; if I say paper, there is another; if English, there is a third. The pronoun this, is yet undetermined, it doth not of itself point at colour, or paper, 
Paper is not whiteness: nor whiteness paper.  or any other thing. If it did, it would still show the same; and so were not a fit instrument or sign to show indifferently the one or the other. And being of itself indifferent and undetermined, if you will know determinately what it stands for, you must stay till the praedicatum come; for before you cannot understand it precisely by that Hoc; nor by the second word which is est. But having heard the whole speech or sign, you will easily then perceive what I mean. Haec est— What? albedo? charta? 
I point at the Chalice and say This is— and till you do hear more, you know not whether I demonstrate the cup or the thing in the cup.  scriptura? you know not what I mean by that Haec; nor whether it be made as yet; or metaphysicallie present, (mo●allie at least it is,) When I speak; or no. Perhaps I mean the word or letter which I make whilst speak; perhaps I mean the paper whereupon I writ; perhaps I mean the superficies only; or the whiteness; or the light upon it. The praedicatum when it comes will determine. And If it be uncertain to the hearer until then, in speculative propositions; much more in such as are practic: where by the speakers intention the demonstrative this concurres to make what by the same intention it doth relate unto.  
D. featly. If hoc, do signify the body of Christ or transubstantiated bread, you make a false proposition: for when hoc precisely is uttered, there is not transubstantiated bread or the body of Christ. Answer. Who told you that hoc is a proposition? stay till the proposition be uttered, all, & then there is the body of Christ: because God's words must needs be true; (his omnipotency doth verify them): and if they be true, the thing in that form is his body; for his words do signify and importit. 1. Reply. Hoc signifies it seems, that it is then the body when the word hoc is pronounced. Answer. No; that one word hoc doth not signify all this. When all are uttered, then there is that body present under the species which you see: for so much is imported. Not by any part of the proposition precisely, (no part is a perfect sign of the body now present in this form,) but by the whole, as I told you before. It works, instrumentally, the thing signified; and in this thing the proposition, with all its parts, is verified. the verity of a proposition being nothing else but the conformity of it to that which it doth signify. 2. Reply. When is this operative proposition verified? Answer. In that instant wherein the effect or thing signified is in being, for then there is the terminus or extreme whereunro the conformitic doth relate, and whereby it is defined: not before. Neither was the proposition before wholly uttered, and therefore could not have effect before. 
Motus. temp. (Generatio.) Forma. instant.  When was the form of your baptism, think you verified, Ego te baptizo? when it was, or when it was not? When the Parson said Ego, or when he said te, bap.. or ti. or Zo. Had he stopped when he came to bap. you know what I would infer: yet then, te, was past and gone. 
Esse consignificat compositionem quandam, quam sine compositis non est intelligere. Arist. 1. Periher. c. 3.   
To put a figure in the copula (which thing you speak of by the way) there is no need: for it is natural to union or composition in its exercise, to suppose the extremes; & consequently the copula may by institution (directed according to nature) signify for that instant wherein both extremes are uttered, and the speech complete: and especially in a practical proposition, which is to verify itself.  
D. featly. If Hoc stands for corpus, body, it would be tautology. Answer. No more than this, This is paper; featly is a man; God is wise. Reply. There is identity. Answer. There is indeed identity of the thing signified by the subject and the attribute: but there is not identity in the manner of signifying. And if identity of the thing did suffice to tautology and battology as you pretend, 
— sub illis Montibus inquit erant, & erant sub montibusillis.  this were tautology and battology, God is wise, just, omnipotent, and eternal; and were to be resolved after your new manner, thus, God is God, God, God, and God. And whereas hitherto it hath been taught in Schools and and with great reason too, that the Superior predicamental degrees are more universal than the inferiors and therefore not to be confounded though they signify the same thing, now hereafter Universities must all neglect art in speech & read your predicament, which before times hath been Featlaeus, homo, animal, vivens, corpus, substantia; thus in English according to your Logic, Featly, featly, featly, featly, featly, FEATLY. Where you the supreme genus of your new predicament, are in predication to be common to other animals, and bodies, & substances; for so the supreme genus ought to be. This must be granted if (as you would teach us) the difference of formalities be not to be regarded in speech; and if the distinction of a double identical predication or acception be now to be rejected.  
D. featly. Belike the Apostles were ignorant that Christ's body was his body: and by virtue of those words, he made his body his body. Answer. They did not know (till they were told) that, that thing in our Saviour's hand under the shape of bread, was his body: neither did he by those words make his body to be his body; but he by them made his body to be under the shape of bread, his omnipotency (to verify them) turning the substance of bread into it.  
D. featly. A proposition merely identical, quoad significatum, proves nothing. Answer. That which is merely identical, is so for matter and manner too; quoad significatum, and quoad modum significandi: this, is not; as you were told, and could not contradict it. For matter, a proposition may be identical, and prove too; and such are those which define the Subject: as this; a man is a reasonable creature. And he that denies it can prove any thing, shows himself ignorant in the principles of science, and knows not what a demonstration is. But why do you talk here of proof? our Saviour's proposition did not suppose what it signified, videlicet, his body under the form of bread, but did cause it; and so did verify itself. If yours cannot, what wonder? you neither are omnipotent, nor are used in such actions by him that is.  
D. featly. If I point at our Saviour's body in heaven, and say, this body is Christ's body, will it follow that bread is turned. Answer. No; but something else (it seems) is; how else could your mouth utter such an impertinent discourse?    

THE sixth. ARGUMENT.  D. featly. 
There is as much figure in the words of Christ consecrating the bread, as in his words of the cup; but in the later there is a manifest figure;  in the former also.  D. Smith. 
I deny the mayor. For in the later the chalice is said the blood of Christ, which must be a figure, because a chalice and blood, are two distinct things; and one thing cannot properly be another thing. In the former, there are not signified two things and one of them said to be the other; but the same thing is predicated upon itself; as if I should say (pointing at the table,) This is wood.  D. featly. 
I speak not of the word calix, but of that  follows, testamentum, testament.  

Bellar. li. 1. de Euchat. c. 11. §. quantum ad alterum. & l. 1. de Missa. c. 8.  D. Smith. I answer that the word testamentum, is there taken properly enough: for, not only the last Will of the testator, but every authentical sign of that Will is also called a testament. So we call the Bible a testament. Now the blood of Christ is an authentical sign of his William.  D. Featley. 
No part of the testator can be called his testament, but the blood of Christ is a part of Christ, ergo.  D. Smith. 
I answer that a part as the blood) of the testator may be his testament, if it be shed to signify his last will. As among barbarous people who did confirm their covenants or leagues with shedding their own blood, 
Alex. ab Alex. Gen. Dier. li. 5 cap. 3. Sallust. Bell. Catil.  this their blood shed in sign of the covenant or league was an authentic testimony of their said league. And our Saviour pouring his blood into the mouths of the Apostles did confirm a covenant, and authentically testify his last Will; 
Heb. 9  as Moses sprinkling the blood of a calf upon the Israelites, did confirm the old testament.  D. featly. 
If by testamentum in the words of the cup, the blood of Christ be understood, it will make this ridiculous sense, This cup is my new blood in my blood. And in like manner, if the body be understood by the word Hoc, the sense will be, The body of Christ is the body of Christ.  D. Smith. 
It will not follow that the sense is as you say, for though identity in the thing signified be necessary in every true proposition wherein it is said said This is This, yet there must be diversity in the mannrr of signifying, else it would be nugatory. And hence although homo, a man, and animal rationale, a reasonable creature, be really all one, and the same thing signified by the subiectum which is signified by the praedicatum, when I say homo est animal rationale, a man is a reasonable creature; yet the sense is not this, homo est homo, a man is a man. Because the manner of signifying is diverse, and the thing is conceived and signified another way by the praedicatum, than it was signified and conceived by the subiectum; though the thing signified be the same. wherefore the sense of the proposition, This is my body, is this, This thing is my body; and the sense of the other, This chalice etc. is this, This drink is an authentical sign of my last Will in my blood. Which sense though it be identical according to the thing signified, as the sense of every true proposition wherein it is said, This is this, aught to be; yet is it not identical according to the manner of signifying: for the same thing is signified, but under another conceit, which diverse conceit doth not suffer it to be resolved into such a proposition as is identical both according to the manner of signifying, and according to the thing signified too, as that is, the body of Christ is the body of Christ.  

THE NOTES OF S. E.  
THe dispute here is not about that inner sentence or decree whereby our blessed Saviour disposed to such as persever, 
In calicis mentione testamentum constituens sanguine suo obsignatum, substantiam corporis confirmavit. Tertull. li. 4. con Marc. c. 40.  a Kingdom, (Luc. 22. 29.) that of heaven: but about an exterior sign of the foresaid inner Will; and the question is, Whether the mystical cup be such a testament or no. Not, whether it be our Saviour's inner will; that is not in question, but whether it be a sign of it, and such a sign as may be called a testament, as a man's Will written in parchment, is commonly called by that name, testamentum. Other propriety than is there, we look not after.  
Doctor Featly strives to prove it is not: which if he 
(a) Lice● metaphora non sit admittenda in verbis consecrationis circa substantiam eius quod Deus in eo esse voluit; tamen in aliis verbis quae potius sunt epitheta ipsius sanguinis metaphoram admittere nullum incommo● dum est. Si enim semel constiterit verum sanguinem suum in sacramento nobis reliquisse, quid poterit obesse hunc sanguinem vocare nowm testamentum vel quid aliud per metaphoram? Vasq. 3. p. Disp. 199. n. 42. Where he hath another answer to this argument And you remember what hath been said above, to this purpose, p. 54. etc.  could do, the tenet he undertook to disprove, would notwithstanding subsist: and still might be confirmed, yea proved unanswerably, out of this place of Saint Luke here objected; wherein we are told that this thing in the chalice was shed FOR US; and if FOR US, it was not wine but blood. The name also, testamentum, taken and understood in the sense above mentioned, agrees unto this thing very well; For, that authentical sign or instrument whereby the Testator doth signify his last Will, is in that acception or sense well and fitly called testamentum; and this is such a sign or instrument, ordained by our Saviour to signify his last Will. Moreover he, our blessed Saviour, as S. Luke, cap. 22. and S. Paul, 1. Cor. 11. do testify, (and their testimony is true) did affirm it to be the new testament; wherefore since the speech may be understood properly in the sense above specified, we must understand it so.  
The Doctor first is discontented as it seems for having any figure at all granted him: as it was granted in the answer.  
D. Featly. What privilege have you more to set a figure upon the words of consecration of the cup, than we upon the like of the bread? Answer. That of calix is a figure, expounded in the same place by funditur, is shed, and elswere the thing is delivered in proper terms hic est sanguis meus, This is my blood. Marc. 14. Neither did we put it there; the Evangelist did put it. On the other words which are plain and proper, you say you put a figure, and it is such a one as takes away the verity. We may not be so bold with Scripture. The word testamentum, is taken properly in the sense above mentioned; and because that is not the first signification, but a secondary, it was told you it is taken satis proprie properly enough.  
D. featly. No substantial part of any testator is properly his testament: blood is a substantial part of Christ: ergo. Answer. The Mayor is contrary to the Gospel: This drink is my testament, which drink is shed for you. Is shed FOR US, it was blood, blood a testament: and blood is a part, you confess. 1. Reply. 
Luc. 22  That in the chalice was not blood. Answer. Even now I proved it was, for it was the thing shed for us: wherefore in substance it was not wine, (wine was not shed for us,) but it was blood. If you conceive not this argument which is clear, take the thing immediately on our Saviour's word, he is God and cannot lie: This in the chalice is my blood. Mar. 14.2. Reply. That in the chalice which our Saviour said was blood, is not a testament. Answer. Our Saviour saith it is; and I believe Him.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, This cup is the n●w testament. 1. Cor. 11. Hear therefore is blood a testament: blood; not in form of blood, in propria specie: but in aliena specie, in form of wine.  
D. featly. Will you say that Christ's blood needed his blood to sign it. Answer. Blood in propria specie in its own form, was not the testament, nor to be confirmed with the blood, that is, with the real death of the testator: Blood in aliena specie in form of wine, was our Saviour's testament, and to be confirmed with the blood, that is, with the real death of him, the testator.  
D. featly. It is tautology, if that which is the testament be blood. Answer. No more than this, featly is a man; though that which the subiectum doth signify be the same really with that which is signified by the praedicatum; unless I be mistaken, and you be not really a man. Neither is it all one to say featly is a man; and to say, a man is a man; or featly is featly. He hath not yet understood Logic that cannot distinguish one of these propositions from the other.  
D. featly. The sign of Christ's will is no more his will, 
If testamentum be taken for the inner decree, it is calix and sanguis testamenti: if it be taken for an instrument & sign of that decree, it is calix testamentum.  than the sign of his body is his body. Answer. The dispute is here about our Saviour's words; and he did not say of that in his hand, this is a sign or figure of my body; but, this is my body: howbeit the Eucharist being (and by our Saviour's institution) a Sacrament and a Sacrifice commemorative, it is also a sign; and a representation of his body as existent in propria specie, in it own shape, as above you were told. But of the cup he said, This chalice is the new testament. And since we may, we must also, take the word properly; not for his inner Will or decree; it is that only significative, significantly: but for an authentic sign of it, as hath been said before.    

THE SEVENTH ARGUMENT.  D. featly. 
Christ, Math. 26. said the chalice is the fruit of the vine, even after consecration, therefore the consecrated chalice is wine indeed.  D. Smith. 
Those words were spoken by our Saviour of the legal cup, which he and his disciples drank before consecration, as S. Luke doth teach clearly, cap. 22. And since it doth not appear that our Saviour repeated the same words of the Eucharistical cup, which he had said before of the Legal, (though S. Matthew relates them after he had related the consecration of the Eucharistical cup, (there is more reason to say that S. Matthew did not observe order in relating our Saviour's words, then to understand those of the Eucharistical cup which S. Luke doth teach plainly to have been spoken of the Legal or common cup; and S. Matthew telleth not expressie of which they were spoken, but only relates them (as I said) after he had related the consecration of the Eucharistical cup. 
Compare these Evangelists together and you w●ll see that one of the two in diverse other things doth not observe the order in the relation.  Since therefore (as I did insinuate before) it is not very likely that the same words were spoken of both cups, & since that S. Luke teacheth plainly that they were spoken of the common cup whereof S. Matthew makes no mention, it is more likely they were spoken of the common cup only, and related by S. Matthew out of order.  D. featly. 
Innocentius, the Council of Worms, and others expound the words, of the Eucharistical cup.  D. Smith. 
I answer that for the authority of some Fathers, that opinion is probable: and according to their exposition, those words are to be understood in the same manner as above we have expounded some Fathers that say, 
In the answer to the 5. arg.  bread is the body: to wit, bread changed in nature, etc. and so we say, the fruit of the vine is the blood of Christ; but the fruit changed, not in shape but in nature, the supersubstantial fruit, etc. Moreover many Fathers expound it of the common cup as S. jerom, 
S. Hier. in c. 26. Mat. Beda & Theophil. in c. 22. Luc.  S. Bede, and Theophilact.  
He added afterwards that it was much to be admired why we should gather what the Eucharist is, out of words which it is uncertain whether our Saviour spoke of the Eucharist or no, rather than out of those words which it is most certain he did speak of the Eucharist; as these, This is my body, this the cup, etc. As also, out of those words which he did not utter to tell us what the Eucharist was, but that he would not drink any more either of that or of the common cup, rather than out of those which he spoke to no other end but to 
a Practicè, simul efficiendo: neither did they or could they signify the Eucharist is the body, but making it withal; for, before the body was not in that form or species.  signify what the Eucharist is. How much better do Catholics who out of words which it is certain Christ spoke of the Eucharist, and spoke them to the end only to signify (practice) what the Eucharist is; rather than out of other words which he spoke to another end, and which it is not altogether certain he spoke of the Eucharist; do gather what the Eucharist is, and make these words the rule of expounding all others about the Question of the Eucharist.  

THE NOTES OF S. E.  
HEre are two clear solutions of D. Featlies' argument, according to the two several opinions about the cup our Saviour spoke of. Against the later he doth not make any new reply, but amplifies only what he had objected. The former, he saith, he did, that is, he thinks he can, in fringe, as followeth.  
D. Featly. In those words in S. Matthew, this fruit of the vine, the demonstrative this, must have relation to the cup, of which S. Matthew spoke before. Answer. It cannot, if the fruit of the vine be taken for wine properly: the reason whereof is evident by the words spoken of the Eucharistical cup which immediately go before, this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many unto remission of sins; wine properly, was not shed to remisssion of sins; the eucharistical cup was, as the Evangelist (after our blessed Saviour) doth here affirm; 
Quotidie in Sacrificits eius (Christi Domini,) de genimine verae vitis, & vinea Sorec quae interpretatur electa, rubentia musta calcamus. S. Hierom. Epist. ad Hedib. q. 2.  and another yet more expressly. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, This the chalice which is shed FOR you. Therefore the Eucharistical cup was not wine properly.  
D. Featly. Should I take a cup, and after I had drunk of it, say, I would drink no more of this, you would understand me of that which I drank of last. Answer. Did I see the whole action, I should judge according to that I saw; no doubt; and S. Matthew seeing our Saviour's action, did conceive it well enough. But should one or two tell me that D. Featly at the table having drunk beer and wine, said, he would drink no more of this beer; I had no reason to think he meant wine, though wine were mentioned last before. Now, by the relation of S. Matthew and S. Luke (if you attend unto it well, and remember all which they as the Organs of one infallible speaker, the Holy Ghost, deliver, (it appears that our blessed Saviour drank of two several cups; and that he called the one of them the fruit of the vine; the other, his blood, and his testament; avouching it to be shed for men. Both were on the table before him; and he did in one speech demonstrate the one, telling what it was; a strange cup for the contents, S. chrysostom calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the twice dreadful chalice; THIS the chalice the new testament in my blood etc. in the other speech he demonstrated the other; telling what that also was, and distinguishing it by a short description from the other, which was his testament & his blood; saying, I will not drink from hence forth of THIS fruit of the vine.  
D. Featly. Will you make S. Matthew to write non sense; to relate Christ's words I will drink no more of this; and no where to express of what he spoke, or to what this this is to be referred? Answer. It is to be referred to the fruit of the vine; I will not drink from hence forth of this fruit of the vine; and he is senseless that cannot see this reference, it is so plain. If you desire to know more of this cup, read S. Luke where the thing is more at large. You are wont to say, Scripture must expound Scripture; here it doth so: why do not you believe what it tells you?  
D. featly. All the Fathers generally understand those words, I will not drink etc. of the Sacrament. Answer. You were told that some do; and had answer given you according to that opinion, which answer you have not impugned: & that some do not, as S. jerom, S. Beade, S. Anselme, & Theophilact, whose opinion is better grounded, as hath been showed. Wherefore you did amplify when you said all generally understood it of the Sacramental cup. And when you come to verify your words by naming those all, you find only five in all, with one particular Council: all which, held the real presence, and were opposite unto you in the cause. Let us look on them severally. Clement, Cyprian, chrysostom, the Author de dogmatibus, Pope Innocent, and the Council of Worms. First, the Bishops in the Council of Worms were known Papists in communion with the See of Rome, and at that time when by your own confession the whole world believed the real presence and Sacrifice of the Mass; which they also profess even in the Canon whence you would dispute: and throroughout they show themselves Papists, acknowledging Confirmation, Monks, Penance or Sacramental Confession etc. together with the Pope's authority in calling Counsels, and determining controversies appertaining to Religion. The treatise de Ecclesiasticis dogmatibus which you cite as S. Augustine's, is not his; and you have been told already what saint Augustine said was in the Cup: 
Ep. 162.  even the price of our Redemption. He taught also that the holy victim whereby we were redeemed, 
l. 9  was dispensed from the Altar: that Christ had his own body in his own hands, 
Conf. c. 13. suprà pag. 45.  and so carried it after such a strange manner, as no man ever before did, or could bear himself: that we receive the Mediator jesus Christ with our mouth; 
Conc. 1. in Psal. 33. l. 2. con●. Adu. leg. c. 9  and with our mouth drink blood notwithstanding the seeming horror. Clement says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 &c▪ as our Saviour in the Gospel I am the true vine. Io. 15. if he a vine, his blood (and especially as in the chalice) may be called 
(a) See S. Jerome. cited p. 111. m.  wine. S. chrysostom saith in the place objected that our Saviour doth change the things proposed; that he doth nourish us with his own body, that we receive him, and touch him, and have him in us; that Angels tremble when they see the thing wherewith we are fed: and exhorteth us to believe it is as our Saviour told us, his body, and not to trust our sense. He says also that is in the cup which did issue out of the side of our Saviour. S. Cyprian did openly profess unbloody Sacrifice under the forms of bread and wine, Epist. 63. Neither can all your glosses obscure those words before alleged, Panis iste quem Dominus discipulis porrigebat, non effigie sed naturâ mutatus, omnipotentia verbi factus est caro. suppose I say the same of the wine, genimen istud non effigie sed naturâ mutatum, omnipotentia Verbi factum est sanguis. That fruit of the vine being changed not in shape but in nature, is by the OMNIPOTENCE of the WORD made blood. Innocentius tertius, in the book you cite, expounds the Mass, defends the real presence, and teacheth expressly transubstantiation; which he did also define in the great and general Lateran Council.  
D. featly. What answer you to so many Fathers, a Council, and your Pope? Answer. I might as you see, turn the demand back, to ask of you, what you say to so many Fathers, and a Pope in a General Council. But to forbear making thrusts, because you think that is not fair play in a defendant: as there art two Controversies, so you shall have for answer, two things: first, that all are against you in the matter of the Real presence against which you are disputing: which matter is defined by the Church; openly delivered in the Scripture; generally acknowledged in Antiquity; and those whose authority is objected did all believe it, as we do: wherefore themselves were to answer your scruple; & would do it easily, in manner above 
(a) In my Lords answer pag. 165.  specified. secondly, the other Controversy is not determined by the Church; neither did the Council that you speak of, (a Nationall Council only,) determine and define it; nor Innocentius propose it as matter of belief, but only as a private Doctor makes his use of it: nor the Fathers generally consent in it; nor the Scripture openly deliver it; but rather the contrary. Wherefore admitting it to be probable, you are to thank those Authors for the courtesy: for you cannot get so much by way of argument. And he that could, should not be contradicted on our part: for, persisting in the belief of the real presence, we might indifferently defend, 
The Reader may perceive by the Ministers words, more than the Minister would have him to believe, touching the event of the conference.  either that it was, or that it was not, the consecrated cup, which is meant by those words in S. Matthew.  
D. featly. D. Smith triumphed as if he had gotten the day, saying are these your demonstrations? are these sufficient causes why you should separate yourselves from our Church, and from your brethren the Lutherans? Answer. Had he not reason, when your oppositions were all answered; and the Dispute at an end? The reasons moving to leave THE COMMUNION OF THE CHRISTIAN WORLD should be unavoidablie convincing: but hitherto there have appeared none such; nor ever will do, from the mouth of any Protestant.    

THE BREAKING UP of the conference, and the Ministers terguiersation.  
ANd here the conference ended, having lasted near seven hours; from noon till it was almost night. Some days after, D. Smith hoping according to M. Featlies' promise he should also have a day to propose the arguments for the Catholic tenet, told M. Knevet that he would be ready to dispute the next tuesday being the tenth of September, desiring him to give M. featly notice of it the Sunday before: but though he went thrice that day and twice the next unto the house wherein M. featly did abode, he could not speak with him. 
F. l. 1. d. 1. c. c. v. c. 9 44.  At length having gotten to speak with him, he warned him to provide himself against the day appointed: but the minister began to pretend that he was to write letters, and that there remained yet a great part of their arguments whereunto in equity it should be answered; or at least they should be proposed for the space of an hour, before D. Smith should object any thing. D. Smith answered that he thought this to be an unjust condition, as well because M. featly had not permitted him when he was to defend, so much as to show the grounds of his tenet, and therefore why would himself demand now to dispute when his turn of defending was? as also because no such condition was agreed upon in the treaty, but only that M. featly should have one day allowed him to oppose, and D. Smith should have another.  
He demanded therefore now a day wherein he only might oppose according as it had been granted to M. featly before. But M. featly refusing to yield thereunto, M. Knevet provided himself for his journey, determining on Tuesday to leave Paris. When M. Featly heard of this, hoping (as it seems) that D. Smith would not challenge him to dispute any more after M. Knevets' departure, late at night about nine a clock he sent M. Knevet to him and said he would be ready to meet him the next week, upon condition a day might be allowed him to prosecute the rest of his arguments. D. Smith told him that could not be, himself being the next friday to departed out of Paris; but gave him leave to choose for the time of conference, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday; for longer he could not differ it. adding, that if M. featly would make choice of none of those days, he could neither perform his promise, nor save his honour. He said also that if M. Featly would put down under his hand that he would not keep the first conditions of the conference, but add new conditions, he would solicit him no more; but this he would interpret as a declining of the conflict.  
Wherhfore the day following M. Featly wrote unto M. Knevet saying he heard that D. Smith exacted of him his promise to meet again, & that he was ready to perform it upon Tuesday, on condition that he might have leave first to propose all the rest of his arguments, as he said D. Smith promised. Which thing verily was most false, for the promise was not made of all arguments, but of a day wherein he should propose which & what arguments he listed: which w●s accordingly permitted him to do. That he now declines the conflict it is evident, both by the new conditions which he doth propose, & by his own words to one of his friends, whom he told that Catholics brought so many 
(a) Traitté du S. Sacrament de l' Eucharistie. par l'illust: Cardinal du Perron. Paris, 1622.  Testimonies of Fathers to prove the real presence that there was need of many weeks to read them over; and by the confession also of another of his company, who said plainly that M. Featly did exceedingly fear to undertake the part of defendant, and sought a fit occasion to save his honour.  

THE NOTES OF S. E.  
THus ends the Relation, which had never looked so fare abroad had not the Minister importunely called it out. It was not adorned for the print, but plainly set down as you see; howbeit, being evocated to public judgement it fears not to appear, even there, where the Doctor thinks all are on his side. It is no great matter, by the press to make a show, to triumph in papers, and speak freely there where none may contradict: but, could the Reader have been a Spectator, and seen this action in the life, he would have acknowledged what M. Knevet hereupon did confess, that M. Featly was to young for Doctor Smith. He is many ways to weak to undertake so great a wit, so ready in answer so strong in argument so conversant in Scripture, Fathers, Divines. Much less (whatever outrecuidance makes him think of his ability▪) is he able to overmatch an understanding so full of light so ample so vigorous, excellently furnished with all variety of learning; and, in a cause so clear so common, the cause of the whole Catholic world: wherein the JUDGE of Controversies (if the Scripture be judge) gives the sentence openly in plain terms on our side, and the Holy Ghost in the CHURCH doth confirm it.  
By the Minister's carriage in the business, and by his own Relation since, you may conceive what is in him; Ex ungue you may gather what a thing the 
(a) I● ta●res Libyan ruunt leones Ne sint papalionibus molesti. featly of himself, in his Sacrilege, p. 28.  Lion is. I have heard from one that was present at the Conference, that he brought his arguments with him written in a paper, and urged them so poorly that M. Pory did prompt him diverse times. He reports indeed that one of the standers by said it was vera digladiatio, and not Sorbonica velificatio; velitatio I think he would say. I inquired of the party from whose mouth the speech should have come, who remembers no such thing; but tells me the minister did run over his arguments so slightly, that it deserved on his part rather to be called levissima velitatio, then vera dig●adiatio. And as for the Sorbone Disputants over whom he would insult in the comparison, the Hugonots in France do know there never wanted even of those Bachelors which he doth glance at, such as were able & ready to meet his Master Moulins when soever he durst enter combat.  
M. Knevet upon the Ministers poor carriage in the dispute, and tergiversation afterwards when he should have answered, disliked the Protestant Cause; (which he saw their Champion could not make good with argument in the presence of a Scholar, nor durst face to face appear to defend it:) and soon after was reconciled unto the Church; and at Venice died a Catholic. So my Lord, though he were not permitted once to put an argument, nor so much as to show the grounds of our tenet; using the buckler only & never suffered for to draw the sword; got the field; and bore away the prize.   
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. here's the leap. 
Hear the leap.     

HAEC Relatio disputationis habitae inter Reverendissimum Dominum Richardum, Episcopum Chalcedonensem, & Daniel●m Featlaeum Ministrum Protestanticum, de Real Praesentia Sacro-sancti Corporis Domini N. I. C. in Eucharistia, una cum notis S. E. adiunctis, nihil habet Catholicae fidei aut bonis moribus contrarium, prout mihi constitit ex fideli relatione cuiusdam S. T. Doctoris, qui opus totum perlegit.  
Actum Duaci 9 junii. 1632. GEORGIUS COLVENERIUS S. T. Doctor, & Regius, Ordinariusque ac primarius Professor, Collegiatae Ecclesiae S. Petri Praepositus, & Canonicus, Academiae Duacensis Cancellarius, & librorum Censor.   

A RELECTION OF THE PRECEDENT CONFERENCE. Wherein it is defended against the exceptions OF MIRTH WAFERER MASTER OF ART OF ALBAN HALL. IN OXFORD.  
AND HIS APOLOGY FOR DANIEL featly D.D. Censured by L. I.  
Non disputare amant Haeretici, sed quoquo modo superare.  August. con. Faustum. lib. 13. c. 12.  

TO THE READERS OF THE TITLE.  
THese (Gentle Readers) are to thank you for your pains. You have already satisfied my desire. If it be known that there is a Censure made of Waferers book, it is enough. It is an honour to him; more than he deserved.  
There was but little in his Apology; and there is not much here in the Censure. He is a Master of Art, and I a Bachelor of Art, of Oxford. Many of that University, might I write my name at leingth, would know me.  
Waferers learning is not much: nor mine. 
Minut. Foel.  His reading little. The book he cities most, is a tome of eight or ten leaves: and I have read a volume of that quantity, I shall have occasion to cite Latin sometimes: pardon me if I do not still put the same in English. I was not willing to bestow so much labour upon Mirth. And to what end should a man english Aristotle? He that understands him not in Latin understands him not in English. I desire no Reader but a good Interpreter. If you will read it, do read it; and if you will not read it, do not read it. Either will content me; and more I will not beg. what already you have done was a courtesy to  
The Writer. L. I.   

TO MASTER MIRTH WAFERER In oxford; or Odiham, or elsewhere; Quocumque sub axe; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, More wit, and more grace.  
THere is a time (Sir) as I have heard, to be merry: and when better then in the company of Mirth? I am no good Musician, yet, for this once, to bear a part with you (for recreations sake,) I will discant upon your base, Apology. And because I have heard others more skilful than yourself, when I see that you are out, or sing such things as you should not, I will be, I say not, your 
(a) Monitor.  Cynthius.  
I have read your elegant Pamphlet over, and am thinking to tell others what I find in it. What hinders me? If they be good things, your commendation will be the more; & that, if I mistake not, is the thing which you did aim at when you made it: if they be not, the fault was yours to make them public, and thereby to give liberty to men, without injury to your fame, to speak of them.  
He, they say, that will not be laughed at, must not play the fool upon stage; nor he publish his weakness in print that will none endure a Censure. 
Waf pag. 5.  you were told before that your scribble were childish, and full of errors. If after this admonition you would needs come out in print, you should have blotted out the faults (which had been to burn the copy) and not have added to your childishness impudence; and obstinacy to your errors: whereby your case is now made notorious and inexcusable.  
Whilst the opinion of your weakness stood only on report, it might have been said in your behalf that fame doth not always tell the truth; but if our judgement of such a defect in you be made according to your true picture, (drawn by your own self,) the issue of your brain, and image of your insufficiency, your p●inted and approved book, in this case (which is yours) the Apologist himself knows not how to make a good Apology.  
The ground which a good name and fame do stand upon, and which is honour's object or motive, is worth and virtue. when we question a man's worth, we may consider him either absolutely in all kinds, or respectivelie to some particular way of esteem, that is, only in one kind. That which you, in setting out this Pamphlet, aimed at, was to be thought a good Controvertist, a discreet Counsellor in matter of Religion, an acute Apologist, 
Quandoque oportet ut contumeliam illatam repellamus, maxim propter duo. Primò quidem propter bonum eius qui contumeliam infert, ut videlicet eius audacia reprimatur & de caetero talianon attenter, secundum illud Proverbiorum 26. Respond stulto iuxta stultitiam suam ne sibi sapiens videatur Alio modo propter bonum multorum quorum profectus impeditur propter contumelias nobis illatas. Vnde Gregorius etc. S. Tho. 2.2. q 72. a. 3.  and a good writer. In which kind, I tell you freely Master Waferer, you have defamed yourself (if before you had any fame in this kind) & forfeited your honour. This I will show, without soliciting any in Oxford to come and testify what they know, (twice, since I read your book, I have been there, and never asked as much as what you were,) out of your own mouth, under your own hand, by your own book.  
A book that comes abroad into the world, should have nothing in it against faith or good manners; your book offends in both. How it offends in faith, and how deficient it is in all such learning as you have undertaken to show, the Censure will note, it is more than can be said in few words; yet this in general. The whole scope of the book is to maintain an Heresy, against God's Church, & against our Blessed Saviour's express words; for the maintenance of which Heresy, you avouch many more; 
Waf: pag 88  and style it a mere Sophistical cavil (o heavens!) to take Christ immediately on his word.  
For manners, Every one doth expect in a writer, then chiefly when he treats of Religion, veracity in elocution, and tranquillity of mind, whereby his judgement may be sincere and his words deserve credit. But your book discovers in you great defect in both. it shows you to be borne away with passion, wholly partial, and much addicted to the vices of calumniating and lying.  
The Censure will note part of your lies, and calumnies. Here only I will put you in mind of your comportment towards my Lord of Chalcedon, and S. E. betwixt whom you say you divide your (bitter) language.  
Your carriage towards my Lord (whom the greatest scholars in England do known to be a great scholar) is (give me leave to call a spade a spade) malapertlie insolent. You are a mere Puny, and he a Reverend Prelate; yet you, Good Master Doctor take notice that— you must be kept ad idem. But by the Doctors leave—. For shame Father not—. not a word of this in answer to one who passeth, for a grandie. D. Smith lays down a rule that— Rather say I è contra. the comparison of eating flesh in mummy deserves no other answer but mum: yet because it is a piece of his Lordship's wisdom it shall be sifted; Then, his Lordship's singular imperfections, &, O most unsufferable dotage; with other more bitter speeches, wherewith your Puritan gall seeks to dishonour his known worth. And for S. E. your anger scarce forbears to annihilate him in matter of learning.  
He you say, hath answered but stammeringlie and by roate. so poorlie as not worth confutation. if as fraudulent and fabulous as his relation is illiterate and slender, they have neither truth nor honesty in them. simple, simple, simple, simple, simple, simple. Far below the answer of D. featly, a weaker pen may foil him. every boy can tell you. Your Sophistry is slender and boyish. your very A. B. C. of Logic will teach you. Only smile at some passages and they are answered. He must give me leave to answer with a smile. you do wisely to apply yourself to the unlearned, for they that can sift authors— we will pardon his doting. you close this sentence very saucily. if you were not as good as cup-valiant. though you should teach the ignorant as seldom you do (now at least in his place I am to do so; but Mercury is not made of every stock. Pardon my interrupting of you, I was weary in gathering those phrases out of your book. Briefly, that I may end, though you do not, you tell him, he is) shameless and foole-bardie. that there is in h● answer (that Reader, which thou hast but now seen,) insufficiency and obstinacy. fallacious dealing. the spirit of contradiction. bitterness. satyrs. invectives. jeers. slanders. detractions. lies. nonsense. calumniations. and what not? yet forsooth, if some lines may seem to gall him I ‛ le make (say you) no Apology, because it can plead retaliation.  
Can it so Master Waferer? and are the holy Brethren vindicative, indeed? It seems.  Et Laeto sua bilis inest. 
I have recited part of your language which you say you divided betwixt them two; for you deal by retail with them; with other Catholic Divines you deal in gross, calling their learning juggling Philosophy; their tenets, impious delusions; their pens, impudent, and their doctrine such as will not stick to licence the loudest lie, so it be advantageous to the cause of Rome. So you.  
There are some, the Philosopher tells, qui circa finem communem peruerse iudicant, who judge unto wardlie of the the common, highest end. You know their name. The Scripture saith there are an infinite company of fools, and, every one will be meddling. you begin to be wise in your own conceit; I will answer or censure you, this once, lest that egg prove a cockatrice in your brain. my Censure shall be your glass wherein you may examine both your learning and your manners, and amend.  
I shall be thought by some, less wise, for appearing with you upon ●he stage; especially in the manner that I do; but, no matter; so I may do you, or any other, good. One said, 
S. Paul.  to the weak I became as weak, that I might gain the weak. and, I am made all things to all men, to gain all to Christ.  
To deal with you, required no sad thoughts, or deep study: and there are Feriae Academicae; scholars have their days of recreation. Neque semper arcum. you came abroad, Master Waferer, as I suppose (a fit of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) to show Mirth; and I, without offence may sometimes smile. congruit & veritati ridere quia laetans: 
Tertull,  de suis aemulis ludere quia secura est. It appertained to the part I undertaken. Vbicumque dignus risus officium est.  
sickmen's pills are leapt in sweet, some maladies be cured with music. If mirth recover you, I shall be glad I made you merry. If upon the Censure you grow penitent, I shall be glad I made you sorry: Not that you were made sorry, but that you sorrowed to repentance.  
To others I shall give warning to take heed of such Pamphlets as yours, made to spread errors. they be profane and vain babble that increase by degrees to more and more ungodliness. they partake in their kind the pestilent nature of serpents; and this, (yours Master Waferer,) which raiseth up the head to hisse at the doctrine of the Church, and spits venom at the Defenders of it, is one. But I will cut it, into pieces; and with the segments will make a medicine to cure the swelling which another of the same kind (Featlies' Conference) hath made in your head.  
This your Pamphlet, the gay coat of your Indiscretion, you have laced up and down very trimly, with verses. Nunc oblita mihi tot carmina. It is longer since I was a child. Else, out of the ruins of that kind of learning I would hurl sometimes a piece, at the head of your Apology.  
My quarrel, Master Waferer, is not with your person, but with your book. If I touch you it is by that medium: no other, put that of, I touch not you but some other that hath scribbled it. Whether you be the man, or not; I wish to you as to myself, and to all, that God in his mercy will please to amend what is amiss in us; and make us eternally his servants. This is the mind and prayer of  
Your frindlie Enemy and censuring Friend. L. I.   


ANSWER TO THE EPISTOLARIE PROLOGUE.  
BEfore your Apology be diverse Epistles scarce worth reading: not worth answering. In one of them which is to S. E. you quarrel with him, first for concealing his name. you saw the first letters of it, enough to own the book. He was not to make it further known to such as you, who vex your Antagonists more with Pursuivants then with Arguments. Had I been the man I might have told you further that your prophetic wit had half spelled the letters, beginning your Epistle to him thus, Sir Refuter, in concealing your name etc. S. you read sir, the title of a Barchelour. Dimidium facti qui benè coepit habet.  
secondly you quarrel with him for saying that my Lord of Chalcedon is a Doctor of Devinitie, and of Oxford, (he told featly so when they met,) whereas it is conceived, 
Suprà pag. 8.  say you, that his Lordship can show no testimony of his degree taken, than his own hand. Yet he can, Master Waferer, as good, not to say better, than your Doctor can, for his, and derived from that Authority which is able to erect Universities, and hath established all, that indeed give degrees in Devinitie. The authorising of that power which is to give public testimony of ability in highest learning, and to declare a man fit to teach it (teaching of Devinitie being a matter of great consequence in the Christian Society) doth appertain to the See Apostolic. And he who can erect an Academy, can make one to be of it.  
thirdly you tax him as if he had said that my Lord, 
Suprà pag. 10.  after he was Bishop, had challenged featly, in England. you shall have your answer in the end of the Censure. mean while, he who reads the words of S. E. will see that you mistake and misreport him.  
In another of your Epistles you show the streingth of your fantasy which hath suddenly shrunk S. E. into the littenes of a pigmy, and magnified featly into a tall Giant. (He S. E.) is, say you, far below the answer of D. featly: who looks, be like, over him as the Devil did (the word is) over Lincoln. But, if your Champion be so far above, may it not be (weigh them again) because he is in this cause, minus habens.  
You add that some weaker pen (your own) may foil him. But you begin to crow to soon. Were you borne with a crown upon your head? if not, you must win, before you sing your epinicia: & you must fight before you win yet see; this Pulius Martis crows, again; the Conference, you say, is so weakly maintained that one who was at that time an infant is now grown strong enough to disable it. how? strong enough? you might have left that rather to some friend of yours; or to the judgement of the Reader: who now perhaps, hearing you so soon commend yourself before you come to trial, will have difficulty to believe that, that Infant which you speak of, is yet come to his age of discretion.  
Neither have you omitted to insinuate the method (over and above lying and calumniating,) which you mean to keep in putting of, those things whereunto you cannot frame a seeming answer. Only smile, say you, at some passages and they are answered. They be answered then, sure: for your spleen is petulant. but, curandum plané ne risus rideatur.  
— Solutos  
Qui captat risus hominum famanque dicacity  
Fingere qui non visa potest; commissa tacere  
Qui nequit; hic niger est: hunc tu Roman cauêto.  
Who seek occasion to laugh and jeer: feign things that are not; babble all they hear.  
Such black ones, Roman, do not thou come near.  
Thus fare your Epistolarie Prologue. I come now to   

THE CENSURE OF THE APOLOGY.  
THe Doctors first objection was, that in the words of Institution there was a figure. It was Answered by the distinction of a double figure: one, hath the verity io●ned with it; and this kind of figure was admitted. Another hath not the verity joined with it, and this kind of figure was denied to be in the words of institution.   
THe Apologist. 
Before I answer your Doctors distinction, I can not but challenge S. E. for smothering our Doctors main argument.  The Censure. 
I never saw your face, yet I know you. By your voice; by the beginning of your speech, by the very opening of your mouth.  
You can not but challenge. When man was first made, he was left (the Scripture saith) in manu consilii sui, fit to deliberate on his actions; with power given him, freely to choose, and do, what in discretion he thought best. And the wise do so still, when the they see no just occasion, they can choose and do forbear to intrude themselves into Disputes and questions that are above their reach, and in such matters to presume to teach and correct and challenge others that have spent more time therein. Which wisdom and discretion be the first things of many which I miss in you, who are at this present so disposed that you can not forbear; you can not but challenge. A Martialist sure from your nativity.  
It were good we knew whom you mean to set upon, that others be out of fear. In the prosecution of Which Inquirie I meet another of your indiscretions. You know not yet the man; only you have seen two letters of his name; but were he some Divine (though yourself be but a smattrer in the Science, it matters not, you are resolved and do challenge him.  
May not the matter betwixt you (which you know was never any) be taken up? No: by no means. Hath he done you any wrong? None at all. Why then must you challenge, and him rather than some other?  
For smothering the Doctors Argument. Are you the Doctor? No; sure you are not; I know you by your voice. Yet me thought when I touched your book first, I perceived Esaws hand. The more circumspect must I be, coming to deal With so monstrouse an Adversary, that hath more hands than one man.  
Well: we have had a sight of your one half; we know your genus, one that cannot but challenge. But such there may be perchance more, that are indiscreetly determined to challenge, What is your difference let us see that.  Ap. 
Before I Answer your Doctor's distinction I can not but challenge. You do not only challenge then, & that without discretion, for you can not but do so: but you Answer distinctions also. This indeed every challenger doth not. It is your difference, this. Neither woods nor villages breed any such challengers. So you we have from you, and of you, a definition, at least a Description, taken according to the quality which here you come to show.  
I desire not to take away what God hath given you; your wit Master Waferer, is not the slowest: and your understanding seemeth to be good enough were it out of the bonds of error. But that humour which makes you raise yourself above the Church, and judge, and condemn & contemn it, being seconded with the passion of a Spirit wholly Puritanical, hat● blinded your understanding, and so turned your wit awry, that had your friends loved you well they should not have let you look abroad in this public manner. For, the condition of the world is such that possibly some will laugh at Mirth, and say  
Why, man! you in your gown and cap! be distinctions to be answered? are you yet to learn the difference betwixt an Answer and an Argument, betwixt a buckler and a sword, and yet can not but challenge? Ludere qui nescit— But I pray you Sir, will you meet at cuggels, or at sharp? not at sharp belike, for that were dangerous; your cause might have holes made in it. no, not at sharp. But, such as you think will strike with bucklers only, you can not but challenge. Thus freely will they speak to your face. But, what will your Academians do behind your back?  
O jane, à tergo quem nulla ciconia pinsit,  
Nec manus auriculas imitata est mobilis.  
The two faced man was happy in his kind▪  
That none did mock him; for he saw behind.  Apologist. 
For smothering our Doctors main Argument.  Censure. 
Not he. It was choked with a distinction. All his labour was to bring it forth into the light; which is far from smothering.  Apologist. 
He makes him begin to dispute at the third syllogism.  Censure. 
The substance of your Doctor's Argument is related and answered to the full. The preambles which you miss had rusted in the paper of Arguments he brought with him, had he not drawn them long after, for the print. The good soldier doth not esteem a flourish amongst strokes: when his adversary comes to strike, he stands his ground, and encounters; pede pes, densusque viro vir: but whilst offers are made only a fare of, he smiles at the folly. To beat the air is no conquest for a man.  
The sum of your Doctors flourishing (which you call the main argument) as far as it is pertinent to the first objection, is this. The Catholic tenet of the real presence hath no ground in Scripture, Ergo. the Antecedent is proved; because if there were any ground in Scripture for it, it were Matth. 26. or joh. 6. but in neither of these: Ergo. The Minor proved, because these words Matth. 26. This is my body, are to be understood figuratively. At which proof the Catholic Relator did begin: and therein he did your Doctor more honour in the estimation of such as might be able to distinguish a grave Scholar from a trifling Puny, then if he had wire-drawn his discourse into more parts, importing but the same: and for the leading Enthimeme, traced in this, with a Coxcomb in his forehead, Positio quam defendis falsa est; Ergo falleris.  
But if I mistake not your pulse, another thing it is that grieves you, which you do not complain of. Your Doctor's argument was presently cut of, with a distinction, in so much that he was fain to take another, and from Scripture (which only you think able to warrant a tenet in matter of faith) to pass to the Fathers: whom notwithstanding, you do not hold to be infallible in their judgement, as he was told at the same time. For avoiding of which disgrace in changing so soon and so oft his Medium, he hath premised a syllogism with all kind of mediums in it; that so changing never so oft, he might be said never to change. As if I should argue thus  
That doctrine which hath (1) no foundation in the word of God, and is (2) repugnant to the doctrine of the true ancient Church, & (3) overthroweth the principles of right reason, implying (4) palpable absurdities, and apparent (5) contradictions, is to be rejected as erroneous and heretical. This is Featlies' Mayor. I subsume.  
But Caluins' doctrine of the Eucharist, is such. Quamuis incredibile sit in tanta locorum distantia carnem Christi ad nos penetrare ut sit nobis in cibum, tamen meminisse debemus quantum arcana Spiritus Sancti supra captum nostrum emineant, & debet fides concipere quod mens non comprehendit. Though it be incredible that the flesh of Christ should penetrate unto us in so great a local distance, to be our meat; yet we must call to mind how much the secrets of the holy Ghost are above our capacity; and faith must conceive what the understanding is not able to comprehend. Caluinus lib. 4. Institut. cap. 17.  
Ergo Caluins doctrine of the Eucharist is to be rejected as erroneous and haereticall.  
Let me call this, my main argument; and I will leap from place to place, all the Topics over; without changing my Medium: just as your Champion doth.  
Now touching this Argument: you will think that by denying the Minor, you do satisfy for the present, till further prose be made: why then should not our Defendants deny all be satisfaction enough for yours, in that which, M. Featly barely had affirmed? and for the rest, which was one part only, (the first) which he did undertake to prosecute, an Answer met his proof and dispatched it. Which made you step out into the list, to do, you knew not (for fear) what, or against whom. At last, it was resolved under your Cap, that you would answer the distinction: but, (because it were to much for Hercules himself to deal with two at once) you would first of all challenge S.E. for smothering the main Argument. Whereunto his Answer, I know, would be this, that it was fully satisfied and dispatched, there being nothing objected which was not directly answered, either by denial, if it were barely affirmed (even according to the relation of your own Doctor;) or by distinction of a term in the proof of that which was undertaken; as in his Notes you find more at large.  Apologist. 
Doctor Smith would father a false opinion upon us, that we hold there is a mere figure in the words, This is my body: whereas we most plainly affirm that the Sacramental elements are not mere empty signs of the body and blood of Christ, but a true and lively figure of them.  Censure. 
First you challenge; and next you give the lie; wherein you show yourself more choleric than mindful. Are not you the man who maintain that a proposition cannot be mixed: partly proper, and partly figurative? The distinction of a mere figure and not mere in speech, is nothing but a mere fiction, saith your Oracle, in his Relation, pag. 293. and pag. 294. how saith he, can the same speech be figurative & proper, that is proper & improper? & a little after. what is this to prove that a speech which may not be properly taken, such is every figurative, may be properly taken, and so figurata, and propria both? And you, Master Waferer, to the same tune, pag. 17. Since a proper speech is when words are taken in their genuine sense, and a figurative when they are translated or taken from their genuine sense, to be taken in their native sense and not in there native sense (besides that it is a mere fiction) is a plain contradiction. And pag. 36. That there can not be a proper and figurative sense both, in one and the same proposition I have already proved. So you, & vitula tu dîgnus. Whence it follows, that the proposition which we speak of. This is my body, is according to you, merely figurative. for figurative you say it is; and, all figurative speeches are, you say, merely figurative, the case then standing so, the thing that fawns on your learned Mastership, may put forth the tongue, quantùm sitiat canis Apula, tantùm, to lick up again, this Doctor Smith would Father a false opinion upon us, that we hold there is in the words (This is my b●die) a mere figure, Whilst the standers by, take notice that you confess with all, 
Fallitur, qui plus aliquid sibi per Sacramenta conferri puta●, quam quod verbo Dci obla tum vera fide percipiat. Caluin. 4 Instit. c. 14. §. 14 Nihil absurdius est quam Sacramenta ●fferri supra verbum, cuius appendices sunt & sigilla. Idem in Consensu de re Sacram. pag. 755. Vocatur panis sacrae Coenae, corpus Christi, non quia sit, sed quia testatur nobis vere dar● in●cibum. Idem in Matt. c. 3. Et in c. 19 Eucharistiam vocat frustulum panis. Similiter frustum, crustulum, placentam, & laganum, vocant Wittakerus, Beza, Petrus Martyr.  the opinion which your oracle, and yourself, maintain, to be fal●●; for for much is imported by those words, D.S. would impose a false opinion upon us, (what opinion?) that we hold there is in the words a mere figur●. this opinion you say is false, and for to maintain this false opinio you are come abroad a polemic in print; Antycira● some will say, and unhappily enough, melior sorbere meracas.  
In the other part of your words by me cited in this §. wherein you would seem to put down your own tenet for which your Doctor disputed, you show yourself ignorant in the cause.  
The controversy, was not about the spiritual effects, which do follow upon the receiving of this blessed Sacrament, but about the thing received into the mouth; Whether this thing were indeed our Saviour's body, according to the verity and substance, as his words in propriety of speech import, This (in form of bread) is my body? Whether in the holy Eucharist there be really our Saviour's body according to the verity and substance? The Catholic Church takes his words (as being dogmatic) properly, submitting her understanding to the omnipotent verity that spoke them: and affirmeth what he, her God and Saviour, did affirm. Master featly on the other side laboured to prove that the words were not to be construed and understood properly; that the speech was merely figurative; and that Christ is not there (in the Eucharist) according to the substance of his body, or shrouded under the accidents of bread. In which tenet, you Master Waferer, join with him, telling us, 
pag. 9  We (these are your words) deny such corporal presence of the body and blood, as if the thing signified and represented were according to the natural substance thereof contained under the shapes of the outward signs. A figure (you know) was granted; the question was whether this figure had the verity (the body and blood of Christ) in it; or whether it were empty of it. Whether that which the Apostles received into their mouths, were a mere empty figure of the body and blood of Christ; or whether the thing within that Sacramental sign or figure, were (as our Saviour's words in their propriety import) his body and his blood. The Protestants that speak their minds plainly, pretend no more than a mere figure.  
Their words are set down in the Collation (whither S. E. directed you; 
See the Conference of the Catholic and Protestant Doctrine, with the express word● of Scripture. extant in English. pag. 266. & seqq. ) where they, your Masters, and the best learned on your side, speak of the Eucharist, your own, thus; It is not the body of Christ, not his very body, not his body itself, not his true body, not his substantial body: not flesh, not Christ's true flesh; but another thing, and much different from Christ's flesh: not the thing itself of this mystery, not our spiritual food. It is nothing else but bread, nothing but common bread, nothing but a bare creature, nothing but a bare sign▪ or figure, nothing but mere bread and wine. Only a sign, only a seal, only a token, only a testification, only a symbol, only a type of Christ's body. It only hath the name of Christ's body, it is only a simple ceremony. It is so the body of Christ as the Paschal lamb was Christ, as the dove was the Holy Ghost, as the water of baptism was the blood of Christ. It is the body of Christ only figuratively, by resemblance and no otherwise. symbolicallie, metonymicallie, tropicallie, significantly. no otherwise then a key delivered, is a house. the body It is present only by speculation, & mere imagination: as our bodies are now present in heaven. Christ is no more communicated there in the supper then in the Gospel: no more received in the Sacrament, then in the word; nothing more given in the supper then at preaching; no more offersd by the Sacrament then by the word, yea the Sacrament is inferior to the word, and the memory of Christ, body is more fully refreshed by the word then by the Sacrament.  
All this and more hath been told you, out of the mouths of your greatest Divines and pillars of protestancy. The words and places are cite●, in the Conference l. 1. c. 10. a. 1. Where there is a cloud of domestical, Protestant, witnesses against your Oracle and you, whose very names would shadow this leaf of paper. Among them you shall find your Caluin, Beza, Peter Martyr, and Swinglius who learned it of a Spirit, the Devil it was Luther says; with your English, jewel, Perkins, Whittaker, Cartwright, etc. each, as learned, as your featly.  
Hereunto you reply nothing: but instead of a Reply have calumniated my Lord, and contradicted yourself withal, Saying, Doctor Smith would feign father a false opinion upon us, and goes away currant with it, that we hold (as he hath proved signatis tabulis, 
pag. 159.  and your own confession above cited may be added thereunto) that there is in the words (This is my body) a mere figure.  
But now forsooth, you most plainly affirm (they be the rest of your words) that the Sacramental elements are not mere empty signs (will you strike your own fellows in your choler?) of the body and blood of Christ, but a true and lively figure of them. As if a picture can not be a true picture, and a lively picture, and yet a mere picture; or a figure be a true figure, and a lively figure, and yet a mere figure.  
The legal figures which were according to the Apostle but egena elementa, were mere figures, yet some of them as lively, yea more lively than your bread and wine. The blood of the Testament, and the Manna in the desert, did signify our Saviour's flesh and blood in as perfect a manner, if you consider all the analogy to the full: and the 
Agnus Paschalis dicitur esse Christus eadem prorsus ratione qua panis ille dicitur esse corpus Christi pro nobis traditum. Beza (your admired pattern of Christianity, so you call him pag. 98.) in. 1. Corin. 5.  Pascall lamb eaten at supper was a more lively figure, flesh of flesh, blood of blood, killing of killing; that lamb without spot, of our innocent Saviour; then bread and wine there distributed, if they were mere elements, with a reference to the thing represented, the Passion, which was then future respectivelie to them both vizt▪ to the legal, & to the Sacramental, supper, wherefore, since you are forced by the authority of holy Scripture to grant that the legal figure was (not withstanding the the liveliness) a mere figure, it remains that an other sign or figure; though lively, may be but a mere figure. The liveliness of a picture is to represent ad viwm to the life; and, a picture, the picture of the King, may do so, though it be nothing else but a mere picture, which your own fellows acknowledge whilst they grant, as before hath been told you, that in the supper there is mere bread and wine, a sign and seal only, nothing else but bread and wine, which tenet you likewise hold in your mind, as appears in your whole pamphlet throughout: but it is in is self, so poor a thing, so short of precedent figures, 
(b) Caluin cited above; pag. 156. yet the same Caluin says. cum signa hic in mundo sint, oculis cernantur; palpentur manibut; Christus quatenus homo est, non alibi quam in c●●lo quaerendus est Calu. in Confess. de re Sacram. art. 21.  so unworthy of the chiefest place amongst Sacraments in the new Testament, so contrary to the proper sense of our Saviour's words, and so uncapable of those high encomiums which the Fathers give, or attributes which they do predication, the blessed Sacrament; that, you are ashamed openly to profess it: still juggling with us, and in steed of answers which you pretend, giving us words, nothing else. as to the communicantes (after fair promises of the body and blood of Christ present by 
(a) Wafer. pag. 8●, Mor. p. 135.  God's omnipotence changing the exterior elements, and penetrating into our souls according to the substance of flesh and blood,) you give nothing but mere bread and wine.  Apologist. 
Doctor Smith should have proved that the same proposition may be true in a native, genuine, and proper sense, though the words be used in a peregrine, figurative, and impropre sense.  Censure. 
It was ridiculous enough to challenge at buckler only, as he did who came into the field to answer distinctions; but to be an andabatarian in such a combat, not daring to open his eyes to behold his enemies so blunt a weapon, is superlativelie absurd. His populus ridet.  
The word questioned for impropriety, is corpus, in this proposition, hoc est corpus meum. This word corpus doth directly signify (if we speak as the chiefest Science doth conceive it,) the 
(a) Fit conversio totius substantiae panis in substantiam corporis Christi, Conc. Trid. sess. 13. c. 4. Ex ut sacramenti quantitas dimensiva corporis Christi non est in hoc sacramento S. Tho. 3. p. q. 76 a. 4. proinde neque ea quae sequuntur quantitatem. Ex ut realis concomitantiae est in hoc sacramento tota quantitas dimensiva corporis Christi, & omnia accidentia eius. Ibidem. vide eundem, 1. p. q 76. a. 4· ad 1.  substance or part of substance, which requires three dimensions, leingth, breadth, and thickness, according to which notion it is, (in the words of institution) taken properly; and the proposition proper, by the possessive meum, this word corpus body, was determined to a man's; not whose soever; but our Saviour's.  
The same word Corpus, body, both in the apprehension of the vulgar (as you may learn by present experience when you please,) and according to the Philosopher (as hereafter shall appear) doth import withal, the natural manner of being of such a substance; which manner is, to be a thing extended according to the foresaid dimensions: and, a man's body, to be a thing figured and visible. which manner of being naturally flows out of that kind of substance, and usually comes into the conceit with it. And in regard of this manner, the proposition is improper; for such an extension, imported also commonly by the word corpus, is not there. It is improper, I say, if you regard the manner of being, usually imported also by the word corpus, body; but, proper, if you regard the substance of the thing directly signified by the same word. If you regard the substance of the thing directly signified, the words are taken in their native, genuine, and proper sense, and the proposition is in that kind native, genuine, proper: If you regard the manner of being (imported also usually by the word,) the attribute is not taken properly, nor the proposition proper. Had you opened your eyes to look upon the distinction which you answer, 
Relation pag. 39  you might have seen that in these words, (This is my body) there is a figure: not a mere or naked one, void of truth and propriety. because, although they signify that the Eucharist is the body of Christ truly, really and properly according to the thing, yet, they do not affirm it to be the body of Christ after such a corporal and natural manner as other things are the things which they are said to be: but after a spiritual, invisible, mystical, sacramental manner; and such a one as doth figuratively show and represent the natural manner of being of the same body in another place.  
Now; though for words to be taken in their native sense, and not to be taken in their native sense, as long as it is secundum idem, be contradiction; yet, to be taken in their native sense according to the substance of the thing directly signified, and not to be taken in their native sense according to the manner of being usually imported also by them, is not secundum idem, nor any contradiction.  Apologist. 
Good Master Doctor take notice, that since, a prop●r speech is when words are taken in their genuine sense; and a figurative when they are translated or taken from their genuine sense, that to be taken in their native sense, and not in their native sense (besides that it is a mere fiction) is a plain contradiction, because the sense would be native and not native.  Censure. 
Against whom do you fight good Andabatarian? who told you that the speech was proper absolutè, simpliciter; and figurative or improper absolutè simpliciter: that the words were taken in their native sense, and that they were not taken in their native sense? that secundum idem, they were, and were not? This is a fiction of your brain, a chimerical goblin that your ignorance hath made for your argument to fight against. Those against whom you pretend to deal, have no such thing; they do not say the speech is proper absoluté, simpliciter; and, that it is absolutè, simpliciter, figurative: they say only that, it is proper absolutè, simpliciter, and figurative or improper secundum quid. Which you will prove to be a contradiction, when you prove this to be so, aethiop's est niger, aethiop's est albus secundum dentes: and have demonstrated (against the logic rule) that an argument holds well from secundum quid to simpliciter. Open your eyes (brave challenger) and read in great letters what they defend, THE SPEECH IS ABSOLVTè TO BE SAID PROPER; AND FIGURATIVE ONLY SECUNDUM QVID.  
By this time, having been distempered with a giddiness of understanding, so that you could hardly peceave what you were to do, you are reeled over the entry, into the matter of the first argument; where you begin to show your Divinity; and will read a lesson to my Lord and S. E. before you know what it is yourself. My L. had said, figures, some, were not mere figures as were the legal; but, had the verity joined with them, of which kind he brought 3. the first an increated figure, the son of God, who is (according to the Apostle) the figure of his father's substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and hath it also with him, yea and in him. hereunto M. Mirth as followeth.  Apologist. 
I grant since the Diviné essence was incarnate, that the son is essentially the same with the Father, who though quoad▪ hypostasim in respect of his filiation he be a distinct person from his father, yet quoad naturam according to his essence he is equally sharer of the same godhead, and is not an other but the same God. But I pray Sirs take notice that these words are spoken of the Son as his Divinity manifested itself in his humanity, so then as the Divinity of the son did manifest itself in his flesh, he had the image of his father's person engraven in him; so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies: tell me then is this image the same with the father whom it represents? is God the son God the Father? is the second person the first? or is the Divinity of the son as manifested in his flesh the person of the Father? if not then this instance proves not your distinction which manitaines a figure to have a verity joined with it.  Censure. 

1. Tim. 1.  Some (the Apostle says) will needs be Doctors of the law though they neither understand what they say, nor of what thing the speak, and among these Doctors (M. Mirth) you take a place; violating, with a profane temereity, the sacred mysteries of Religion, and undertak to teach divinity to graduates in Divinity, before you can speak sense in matter of Divinity. For which reason, this worthy specimen of your improficiencie therein (which being the first in your book (I have transcribed,) deserves not a relation, yet since you give it for a lesson to better than myself; and call for good attention with pray Sirs (D. Smith. & E. S.) take notice that— I will over it once again, with as many pauses (for the reverence to such a Master) as there be parts in it.  
Waf. I grant since the Diviné essence was incarnate that the son is essentially the same with the father.  
The son, essentially the same with the father, (how? not absolutely, but say you) since the Divine essence was incarnate. Before (it seems) he was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, consubstantial; his generation was not eternal, or if it were, the essence which by this generation he received was not the same which God the Father hath, but another, for had he received the same, (as the Scriptures teach, and the Catholic church believes,) he had been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, consubstantial, before the incarnation, which is more than your Mastership doth admit. A bad lesson that is (Master Mirth) which canbe learned without forgetting of the Creed.  
Waf. Who though quoad hypostasim in respect of his fillation he be a distinct person from the father, yet quoad naturam according to his essence he is equally sharer of the same God head, & is not an other but the same God.  
Hitherto it hath been believed in the Church, that the son of God received by his eternal generation the Divinity, all; the whole nature or essence, together with all the essential attributes. That there is in him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Coll. 2. ●  all the fullness of the Divinity. and our Saviour himself to his father; 
joan.  omnia tua mea sunt, thy creatures are my creatures, thy perfections my perfections, thy substance my substance, and thou thyself art my, Father: but now the case is changed in M. Mirth's lesson; the Divinity is divided betwixt the Father and the son, and each hath an equal portion of it. the son is a sharer in the Godhead, and equally sharer with the Father. What part he leaves the Holy Ghost I do not find, whether he, (the Holy Ghost,) hath an equal share with the Father and the son: or none at all, as not being incarnate; for the Son got his share this Master thinks, since the Divine essence (in him) was incarnate, since which time he is essentially the same with the Father.  
Waf. But I pray Sirs take notice that those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are spoken of the Son as his Divinity manifested itself in his humanity.  
Why not rather (if I may be so bold to speak to so great a Master) of the Son as consubstantial to the Father, as the Ancients have understood it? especially, 
joan. 1.  since it follows immediately, that He caries or sustains all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the word of his power. this he doth not as man, but as God. and as God also, the world was made by him, 
Hebr● 1.  as you find immediately before. and the like in S. john, per ipsum facta sunt omnia, all things were made by him, who was in the beginning, before the Incarnation they were made by him, by the word which was in God, and was God, by this intellectual, subsisting Word (which doth expressly represent God the Father, and is his lively image, Imago Dei invisibilis, and his eternal Son, the splendour of his glory, 
2. Cor. 4 Coloss 1 Hebr 1 Sap. 7. Basil. Home 15 de fide Epiph. in Anchor. Amb●l 2 Exam Greg. Nyss▪ li de diff. ess. & hip.  the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his substance, the spotless glass wherein he beholds his own glorious majesty, Candour lucis aeternae, speculum sine macula Dei Maiestatis; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & imago, totum in se monstrans pat●●m, the express image, showing the father all within himself. by him, I say, by this Word mundus factus est, revolutions of ages, the whole world, was made not by him as appearing in flesh, as man, no● but by him, as God.  
Had you rather hear a Protestant speak then me? His divine nature hath no less than three to express it, son, brightness, and character: and two to prove it, the making, and supporting all. Agreeably to these three we believe of him, that he is consubstantial as the son, coeternal as the brightness, coequal as the character; against the new heads of the old Hydrasprung up again in our days. Andr. Serm. upon this text. Hebr. 1. you proceed.  
Waf. So then as the Divinity of the son did manifest itself in the flesh he had the image of his father's person engraven in him: so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies.  
Be it that it signifies to engrave an image, this graving is not proper (neither the Divine, not the humane nature, is carved or graved properly) but metaphorical; signifying the expressing of an Image. And what Christian Divine doubts but that the son of God, being Verbum aeternae mentis, is, and from all eternity, an express image of his Father? & infinitely more express, more lively, more clear, than the nature, or soul, or understanding, or art, of man; as showing the whole Divinity within it, and comprehensivelie representing God the Father. Will you deny this Master Mirth? will you deny that the Son of God did still represent his Father, and that he is his eternal Image? if you do, you blaspheme: and if your words, as they are by you intended in way of answer be well considered, you do. But we must on to your Conclusion, which is  
Waf. Tell me then, is this Image the same with the father whom it represents? is God the son God the father? is the second person the first? or is the Divinity of the son as manifested in his flesh the person of the Father? 

Birckbeck Featlies' companion, objecteth that the sign and the thing signified cannot be the same in that very respect and point wherein they are opposite. If he means by that his manner of speech in that very respect and point, that the relations be distinct or not the same, there is no question of it: one relation is not the other▪ If he means that the same thing in substance cannot (in regard of diverse accidental forms) be denominated by them both, he begs, and cannot prove it. By his example in the Trinity, the son is not the Father, it seems he means the former paternity and filiation be opposite relations, which cannot one be affirmed upon the other, either in abstracto, paternitas est filiation or in con●reto, pater est filius, yet the minister believes, I suppose, that both are in God; where they be subsistent. And though the Father be not the son, yet the Father is with, and in the Son. this he believes too, and this is enough to justify the distinction which I am defending.  
Those who call the Eucharist a sign, do say also ●hat it is the body. Ex duabus rebus constat (Eucharistia) terrena & coelesti. the body, and the species But none ever said that, to be the body was to be the sign, or that it was the body and the sign secundum idem. And since it includes both within its notion, it is easily understood how both secundum diversa may be verified. That which is invisibly within, (the body) is signified, it hath the one relation: that which is without, exposed to our eyes, (the species, Sacramentum tantum,) doth signify, it hath the other relation attributed to it, these things be distinct, and the relations being opposite be in their kind distinct also.  
Some too, say that it is the sign of our Saviour's body as visible in itself upon the Cross, because the species do represent that also, or bring it into the memory of believers, as hereafter you will hear when we come to the place which is urged out of Gratian. Hear in this place it is sufficient to note that it follows not, The Sacrament is by some called a sign or figure Ergo they did not believe the body is within it, within it I say, this doth not follow▪ wherefore that part of the distinction wherein it was said, some figure may have the verity within it, may stand.   if not then this instance proves not your distinction, which maintains a figure to have a verity joined with it.  Cens. 
That the son is not the Father, or the second person the first, a child but seven years old, could tell; and yet that instance of the eternal son being the figure of his father's substance doth illustrate what was said in the explication of the distinction; namely, that a figure may have the verity joined with it; God the Father being inseparably with his son, whom the Apostle calls the figure of his substance: and in him too, if we believe the son himself, the Father is in me, and I in the Father, joh. 10. v. 38. and afterwards again, twice, in one chapter; giving motives also, to persuade men to believe it. And if the son hath the Father's essence in him, how can the Father be separated from the Son? can he leave his essence, and be gone? Again, as the Father hath immensity, so also hath the Son; how then can the Father be any where, and the Son not there also; or the Son any where without the Father with him? He is verbum mentis, an intellectual word; and therefore immanent, abiding in the conceaver, and so present with him. Vnigenitus in sinu Patris. No violence can separate or divorce them, having both, but one nature, one existence, and that, uncapable of division; as being in itself a pure act.  
It may be further added, that, were the words of the Apostle understood of the son of God as man, and only so, my Lord's instance would still be good, for God the Father is never separated from the Son; wherefore God the Son being within that humanity, God the Father was not absent. The fullness of the Divinity did & doth inhab●te and dwell in him corporally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Scripture says; and, 
Col. 2. 2 Cor. 2  Deus, erat in Christo, mundum reconcilians sibi. Do you not believe that the Father is in me? 
Io. 10.   
Now Sir; to return to the words again; if the place of S. Paul doth not make good what was told your Doctor, uzt, that some figure had the verity joined with it; it is, either because the son of God is no● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the figure of his Father's substance; and this you will not say; because S. Paul affirms it: or, because that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Father is not with this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in effect you do say, and therein deny the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 revealed in Scripture; which is a foul error in Divinity. It is pity that unlearned men be permitted to vent in writing such stuff, fit for nothing but to breed Apostasy, and undo the simple reader.  
Navim si poscat sibi perornatus arator  
Luciferi rudis, exclamét Melicerta perisse  
Frontem de rebus.  
If he who knows no stars, should come from plough,  
And in his start-ups moderate the stern,  
The Sea-god might exclaim, shame's no where now  
When dunces needs will do, before they learn.  Apologist. 
So then this simile makes nothing against us, since it only illustrats such a figure as to which the thing signified is present.  Censure. 
If it doth that, it doth all for which is was brought. But see your giddiness; you scarce have breathed since you said; this instance proves not your distinction which maintains a figure to have the verity joined with it.  Apologist. 
The king in triumph may be the same king which overcame in the war: but he in this solemnity represents some past actions, and postures of his behaviour in the conquest; not himself. that triumph is the figure of the king's victory not his person.  Censure. 
One instance was enough to make the distinction understood; and after much ado, you have, in fine, granted as much; uzt, that the former instance doth illustrate such a figure as to which the thing figured is present: wherefore I need not proceed unto the second, wherein it was said that the King showing in triumph how he did behave himself in the war, 
Rclat. pag 15. Waf pag. 24.  is in this latter action a figure of himself as in the former. and the less need there is, because instantly you accord & say 'tis true. If it be true than it may stand, to show that the substance of the thing signified or represented, may be in the sign or figure; for the king in the wars and the king in the triumph is the same King, the same body, the same substance. Whether he be in this posture or in that; whether he fight or flourish; whether he be in this motion, or in that other; he is one and the same man: the actions are distinct, but not the person. Moreover, as the King triumphing is the sign, he figure, the thing representing, so is the King victorióus, & subduing his enemies, the thing signified, called to mind, represented. By the glorious show at home, he would represent & bring to mind his Royal comportment abroad; by this triumph, that war. He would have men call to mind that He was in that action, that there He shown his valour, making it appear how that His hand merited the sceptre, and His head the crown. And whilst you conceive it otherwise, you come short of the nature of the show. you take away the grace of the royal action represented, in taking out of it the king's Person, which is the life and lustre in it. you take, the soul out of the body, the diamond out of the ring, the sun out of the day. To say nothing of your subtility in conceiving (by occasion of that representation or sign) postures without members, wounds without bodies; a battle fought & a victory obtained without thinking on a man. If your brain be the theatre of such spectakles, you must needs purge.  
Naviget—  Apologist. 
His last simile (or instance) is the weakest. Bread, saith he, exposed in the shop is a figure of itself as to be sold. But (by the Doctor's leave,) bread as it is to be sold is not itself, Ergo it is not the figure of itself.  Censure. 
Now you are in form, and therefore your Adversary had need to look about him, lest with your Ergo, you draw the strings and shut him in the bag. You are examining the last instance, 
Bread as exposed, is no●●or then bread as vendible. A stone, or the bakers Cat in that place, is no sign of it.  wherein it was said that bread (suppose a white loaf) exposed in the bakers shop, is not only bread but a sign, and not only a sign but bread; it is both It is a sign of vendible bread, and itself is the very thing whereof it is a sign, as you may presently know, if you will but agree with the baker for it. You need not ask of him whether he will sell it or no; he signified his mind to sell it by exposing it there. We do not say that the vendibilitie is the sign of the vendibilitie, but that the same thing which is exposed, (the loaf of bread) is the subject of both the denominations, for, it is the●e vendible, you grant: and it stands there to signify that bread (even that loaf if you like it) is there vendible. And if the same substance may be in the sign, & the thing signified, we look no further into the simile: we do not contend that to signify is to be signified; that is not in our thoughts.  
I would here have left you in the bakers shop, but that you le●t ou● into the margin to see whether possibly the manna, as in the ark, could be a sign of itself, as in the desert. By that which hath been said about the two former instances it appears that it might. The same substance is, according to several reasons, 
Your colour hath a reference to your body. your body hath a reference to your soul that is within it, why may not the Sacramental species have a reference to the body that is invisibly within it? See the place of Gratian, Arg 4. or to the body visibly on the Cross? Ibidem. where you confess as much. See also Peter Martyr, suprà pag 55.  capable of both denominations. I say several; because the reason founding the one denomination, is diverse from the reason founding the other. You look perchance for a real order or relation betwixt the sign and the thing signified; but such an order is not necessary: nor, in some cases, possible. The King (you say) by his triumph doth represent actions past: that relation cannot be real, because those actions are past. yet, an understanding hath power to make them, or rather (as I told you before) to make the king in that action, stand before our apprehension obiectiuè: and so may compare, this to that; or (rather) the King in th●s posture, to the king in that posture. And reflecting again upon this comparison, finds a reference. But these niceties which you call into the dispute, are troublesome to the Reader that never was in schools The An est, he perceives better than the quid; let us put that, the a est, in an example within his reach.  
Your tailor having made you new , brings his bill, and bids you cast it up. NOW let it be supposed, that you have only shillings in your pocket, and use them as counters in casting up this bill. It will happen that, as they, (the shillings) stand for pounds, and pence, so they may stand for shillings too. When all is done; and all abated that may be; be the sum rigorously due, five pound and three shillings, which three shillings you may let the tailor take, whilst you go into your closet to fetch the five pound: and to study, whether those shillings were the signs of themselves. Upon the table in the account, they were signs of shillings; and when you first took them out of your pocket, they were shillings: if now, you will not have the same to be the sign and the thing signified, you must give other, to the tailor: and let those be hereafter bullion, for having once been signs.  
If this case had any difficulty, yet in ours there is none. Who cannot conceive that the species of bread may be referred to a body, as a sign of it, if it be indeed invisibly within? He is very stupid that cannot understand it. Well Sir, if you be resolved about your shillings, bring Tertullian out with you: for the next business is about a place in him, Acceptum panem, 
Professus itaque se concupiscentia concupisse ed●re Pascha ut suum (indignum enim ut quid alienum concupisceret Deus) acceptum panem & distributum discipulis, corpus suum illum fecit, hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est figura corporis mei, figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus, caeterum vacu● res quod est phantasma (vide quod infrà citatur ex li. 5. c. 20.) figuram capere non posset▪ aut si propterea panem corpus sibi finx●t quia corporis carebat veritate, ergo panem debuit tradere pro nobis. Faciebat ad v●nitatem Marcionis ut panis crucisigeretur. cur autem panem corpus suum appellat, & non magis peponem quem Marcion cordis loco habuit, non intelligens veterem fuisse istam figuram corporis Christi, dicentis, per Hioremiam, adversus me cogitaverunt cogitatum, dicentes Venite conijciamus lignum in panem eius, scilicet crucem in corpus eius? itaque illuminator antiquitatum quid tunc voluerit significasse panem, satis declaruit, corpus suum vocans panem. Sic & in cali●is mentione testamentum constituens, sanguine suo obsignatum, substantiam corporis confirmavit, nullius enim corporis sanguis potest esse, nisi carnis, nam & si qua corporis qualitas non carnea opponetur nobis, cerie sanguinem nisi carnea non habebit ita consistit probatio corporis de testimonio carnis, probatio carnis de testimonio sanguinis, ut autem & sanguinis veterem figuram recognoscas aderit Esaias, quis inquit, qui advenit de Edom? rubor vestimentorum eius ex Bosor etc. multo manifestius Genesis in benedictione judae, ex cuius tribu, carnis census Christi processurus, iam tunc Christum in juda deliniabat. ●auabit inquit, in vino stolam suam, & in sanguine vuae amictum suumistolam & amictum carnem demonstrans, & vinum sanguinem, ita & nunc sanguinem in vino consecravit, quitunc vinum in sanguine figuravit, Tertull. adu. Martion. lib. 4. c. 40. Vide Cyprian. lib. 2. Epist. 3.  & distributum discipulis, corpus suum illum fecit, Hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est, figura, corporis mei, and the rest, recited in the margin. Out of which words M. featly did argue for such a sign as had not the verity joined with it.  Apologist. 
It is most plain that Tertullian (in those words) means to interpret himself against transubstantiation, for if he had held his body to be truly and substantially in the bread, why would he have added to these words, he made it his body, this interpretation, that is, the figure of his body?  Censure. 
The words figura corporis mei, are not an interpretation of corpus, in that speech corpus suum illum fecit, as you may easily know not only by the Author's discourse, but also even by the Syntaxis of the words. Panem fecit corpus suum, id est fecit figura corporis, is no congruity in Latin. And again, that mei, which follows, doth repugn to the construction which you make; panem fecit corpus suum, id est, panem fecit figura corporis mei,  
Suum, id est, mei. this is so untoward that you will never be able to persuade a man, Tertullian meant it should run so. The words id est figura corporis mei, are an exposition of the subject, hoc, as your Doctor was told in the Conference: and the Author's intention was to say, that our Saviour by the words of consecration hoc est corpus meum, turned an old figure, bread, into his body. Acceptum panem, corpus suum illum fecit. Wherein he is so so fare from interpreting himself against transubstantiation, that he doth avouch and teach it.  Apologist: 
'tis mere Sophistry to attribute those words (that is a figure of my body) to the subject, (this.)  Censure. 
This is all which is returned in answer to four several reasons, demonstrating, and out of this Authors own words, that his meaning was, by these words id est figura corporis mei, to interpret and declare what before, that thing was, which our Saviour now, by Consecration turned, into his body. Some thing, he saith, our Saviour made; fecit; and by speaking these words, Hoc est corpus meum. Fecit, hoc est corpus meum dicendo. the thing he made it of, was bread, Acceptum panem, etc. The Question is, Whether concerning this bread Tertullian would say, that of no figure he made it a figure; or, Whether he would say, that being before a figure of his body, he now turned it into the same body. the words are Acceptum panem corpus suum illum fecit, dicendo, hoc est corpus meum. the interpretation is, id est figura corporis mei. Which interpretation, if you join to the subject hoc, it makes the later of the two senses: if you join it to corpus, the predicate, it may be drawn to the former placing it thus, hoc est figura corporis mei, this is my body's figure, putting instead of corpus, figura etc. Which your own men, Chamier, Hooker, and others will not endure; (and with reason, for the word which is the predicate, corpus, signifies the thing crucified, as appears by saint Paul This is my () which is broken for you. you cannot put figure there, instead of body; & say, this is my figure which is broken, for you.) whereupon they take corpus properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And although our tenet would suffer no prejudice by admitting that the Eucharist is a figure, and consequently by saying that our Saviour by consecration made it so, for you were told there is a figure though not an empty figure, and in the Conference my Lord told your Doctor that of courtesy he would admit the word figura, 
pag. 22.  figure, to be referred to the word corpus, body, that his argument might run on; yet certain it is that Tertullian doth intent the later sense, and not the former. For, the figure which he speaks of was before; and our Saviour did not, you you confess, make by consecration, that which was before. Figura autem non fuisset. Non intelligens veterem istam fuisse figuram. quid tunc voluerit significasse panem. 
Birkbeck pag. 61. doth make a Syllogism, whereof if you change the minor puttng this, But bread was an old figure of Christ's body, His Argument is answered. He translates there also, figura, non fuisset, a figure it could not be, to make it serve i● turn.   autem & sanguinis veterem figuram in vino. and the rest, which you find in the Relation.  Apologist. 
In other places he makes bread the subject in this proposition, as in these panem quo ipsum corpus representat, bread by which he representes his very body, Again panem corpus suum appellans, calling bread his body, and presently after corporis sui figuram pani dedisse, he gave to bread to be the figure of his body; in which places he is easily understood to mean that bread represents Christ's body as a figure, not to be sustantiallie the same.  Censure. 
It doth not follow out of the affirmation of a figure that the substance of the body is not here: 
Plane de substantia Christi putant & hic Marcionitae suffragari Apostolum sibi, quod phantasma carnis fuerit in Christo cum dicit quod in effigy constitutus non rapinam existimavit paria●i Deo, sed exhausit semetipsum accepta effigie serui, non veritate. & in similitudine hominis, non in homine; & figura inventus homo, non substantia, id est non carne: quasi non & figura, & similitudo, est effigies substantiae quoque accedant. Benè autem quod & alibi Christum imaginem Dei invisibilis appellat. Numquid ergo & hic qua in effigy eum Dei collocat? aeque non erit Deus Christus vere, si nec homo vere fuit in effigy hominis constitutus. Vtrobique enim veritas necesse habebit excludi, si effigies, & similitudo, & figura, phantasmati vindicabitur. Quod si in effigy & in imagine, qua filius patris, vere Dei praedicatus est; etiam in effigy & imagine hominis, qua filius hominis, vere hominem inventum. nam & inventum, ratione posuit, id est, certissime hominem: quod enim invenitur, constat esse. Tertull. li. 5. advo r. Marc. c. 20. Faciliùs intelliges quod in hac sententia obscurum est, si legas hoc modo. numquid ergo & hic quia in effigy eum Dei collocat, aeque non erit Deus Christus? vere; si nec etc. & postea. vere Deus predicatus.  this being not a mere empty sign or figure, but such a one as hath in it the substance of the thing signified and represented, as your Doctor was told in the beginning. And according to this Author, our Saviour turning the substance of bread into his body, did by this means put the verity within the figure; and so left it such a figure as we speak of; not empty (as before in jeremies' time) but full. The very same is imported by the the words which you cite in the first place. representare, is, rem aliquam praesentem sistere, to exhibit a thing present. And our Saviour by turning the substance of bread into his body, doth thereby, exhibit his body present; under the figure of bread: and so properly doth represent it. In this signification Orators, Lawyers, and Divines, use the word. and Tertullian himself, very frequently, as, where he saith that our Saviour 
a. Tertull. de Resurr. car.  represented the things foretold by the Prophets; that the 
b. Ibid.  general judgement shall consist of a representation of all mankind; that God 
(c) li. 4 con. Martion. See store of testimonies of this kind in Card. Peron. pag. 211. 212.  representing Christ, said This is my son etc. itaque iam representans eum. And this is the native and proper signification of the word. To exhibit a thing present in a sign or figure, is not so properly rem sistere praesentem, as is the other exhibition of the thing in itself; wherefore that signification is less proper. yet in this sense also, the word is here verified; for, the Sacrament is a sign or figure of the body; and it hath also the body in it. Our Saviour himself who did institute it, was the figure of his Father's substance, and had his Father in him. suprà pag. 178.  
The second place you bring is this, panem corpus suum appellans. where you suppose the word panem to be the subject, and to be taken properly, 
Subjection est in Grammaticae prior nominatinus, de quo aliquid dicitur: Grammatici vocant suppositum. vocatura nonnullis antecedens, quia in ipso sensu debet semper antecedere, etsi in oratione interdum sequatur. Deus erat verbum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. nobilitas sola est atque unica virtus, Keker. ex Melancth.  which (if it could be proved) would not yet serve your turn: for we could easily expound the words, by others of the same Author before cited: panem corpus suum fecit dicendo hoc etc. The calling, would I then say, was practical; such as turned the bread into his body: dicendo hoc est etc. corpus suum illum fecit. Dixit & factum est. he made it to be so, and he made it dicendo. Call to mind the Speaker, and you will not think the thing to him hard or difficult. It is he, per quem omnia facta sunt. He that sendeth forth light, 
Baruc. 3.  and it goeth, calleth it again, and it obeyeth with trembling. The stars have given light in their watches and rejoiced, they were called and they said we are here, and they have shined to him with cheerfulness that made them.  

Benedict●one etiam natura ipsa mutatur. S. Ambr. de mist. init. c. 9 Ante verba Christi Calix est vivi & aequae plenus: ubi verba Christi operata fuerint, ibi sanguis efficitur qui plebem redemit. Idem Sacram. l 4. cap. 5. Inuenimus Calicem mixtum fuisse quem Dominus obtulit; & vinum fuisse quod sanguinem (practice) dixit. S. Cypr. li. 2. Ep. 3. Sacrificium verum & plenum tunc offered (Sacerdos) in Ecclesia Deo Patri, si sic incipiat offerre secundum quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse. Ibidem. And had there been in this Father any obscure speeches touching this matter, the divine Providence hath not left us without means to learn his mind: for together with his book there is come into our hands from Antiquity, such a comment, (Sermo de Coena) that we need not study long to find it out, Panis non effigy. etc.  Did the word panem stand for Baker's bread, I would say, that this bread was by the words of consecration, changed, panem corpus suum fecit dicendo hoc est etc. and so no more bakers bread after consecration, though before it were, it is afterwards, the body of Christ, supernatural, heavenly bread; the bread of life. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. it seems bread it is in the shape of bread; but in substance it not bread. Cyrill. Qui est à terra panis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 percipiens vocationem Dei, iam non communis panis est, sed Eucharistia, ex duabus rebus constans, terrena &c Caelesti. the bread which hath being from the earth, receiving the call or invocation of God, is now, not common bread, but Eucharist consisting of two things, the earthly, and the heavenly. Iren. lib. 4. c. 34.  
This answer you see is ready, if that supposition of yours could be made good. But your objection is not so fare advanced as to require an answer: and you are engaged in a further business: being to prove, that when the consecration is done, the bakers bread remains according to this Author, which is contrary to his words before alleged, corpus suum illum (panem) fecit. the body of Christ is not (you know) bakers bread. and by consecration our Saviour did this, Hoc est corpus meum dicendo.  
By the order of the words you cannot get advantage as before I did insinuate, & now confirm it by this, that indifferently he puts either first: lib. 3. contra Mar. c. 19 Panem corpus suum appellans. and lib. 4. cap. 40. corpus suum vocans panem. See the margin above pag. 191. Wherefore omitting that dispute, which is not here material, let us inquire what the word panem (be it the subject or the predicate) doth signify in that proposition, Whereunto it is easily answered out of the same Author, that it signifies, not proper, but mystical, not earthly, but Heavenly bread. The verity of which answer appears by the scope of his discourse. He is expounding an obscure place of antiquity, found in jeremy the Prophet, Mittamus lignum in panem eius: which words are uttered in the person of the jews. By lignum he means the Cross. that eius is referred to our Saviour of whom the jews spoke, mittamus lignum, let us cast wood upon, let us crucify panem eius. the word panem (and that word only) is obscure. If it be taken for earthly, bakers bread: the sense would be, let us crucify bakers bread. which could not be the sense. What bread; then, is this which they threaten to crucify? it is Heavenly, mystical, bread; not bread in substance, but the body of jesus Christ. Against this bread, they did afterwards conspire, they did crucify, this bread. 
Itaque ill. etc. pag. 192.   
And that indeed this mystery was couched under those words in the Prophet mittamus lignum etc. our Saviour himself, best able to tell the meaning of Antiquity, declared, in calling his own body bread, joh. 6. and afterwards exhibiting it (the very same that was crucified,) in the form of bread by turning bread into it, and so giving it, Matt. 26. Lue. 22.  
On the other side, if we make of the words that construction which you would have, you I say, who contend that in the proposition before alleged, panis stands for earthly bread, figuratively representing the body; the sense would be, that the cross was cast upon that earthly bread; that bakers bread was crucified. which is false, and ridiculous. Si panem eo sensu corpus suum Dominus appellavit, faciebat ad vanitatem Caluini, ut panis crucifigeretur: Why? because the cross was to be laid upon that bread whereof our Saviour did interpret the speech or words of jeremy, mittamus lignum in panem.  
You had from me in the former place (objected) one reason why Tertullian did not understand improperly the predicate corpus in our Saviour's words, hoc est corpus meum. Hear now you have an other out of this second place, which declares that he understood it to be so fare from a mere figure, or bread-a-figure, that it is (he believed) the thing it self which was crucified, which agreeth well to the determination that our blessed Saviour himself doth add by way of difference to distinguish it from corporal bread-a-figure. He doth not (as you would have Tertullian against his own discourse expound him) mean to say, this is a figure, or, understand by the predicate or word corpus, the figure of a body, the whole sense than had been this, This ●s a figure which is crucified for you: but he saith, this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 my very body, which is given for you. And so much you Chamier doth acknowedge against featly. Quaeritur quid sit corpus meum, sanguis meus. Nos candi●e & liberè ac libenter respondemus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 interpretandum, cum He●ychio in Levit 22. Sancta Sanctorum sunt propriè Christi mysteria, quia ipsius est corpus de quo Gabriel ad Virginem dicebat, Spiritus Sanctus superuenier etc.— Est igitur corpus illud, id est solida substantia humanae naturae, quam assumptam in utero Virginis circumtulit in Hypostasi sua verbum— Etenim omnino Christi corpus, non nisi dupliciter nominatum est, vel proprium illud a nobis designatum, vel mysticum quod est Ecclesia, the Question is, what is Corpus meum my body, sanguis meus my blood. whereunto we answer ingenuously, openly, and willingly with Hesichius that it is literally to be interpreted. The mysteries of Christ are properly the holy things of holies, for it is his body of whom Gabriel said to the Virgin, the Holy Ghost shall come from above etc. It is therefore that very body, that is to say, the solid substance of humane nature, which being assumed in the Virgin's womb the word carried about in his Person. For Corpus Christi signifies but two things in all; the proper body which we have now specified; and the mystical, which is the Church. so he: a protestant, and he instar omnium; you know the man that said so, and if it be so, than a greater scholar than he that said so, your Master featly.  
The third place, corporis sui figuram pani dedisse, will neither yield solid proof for you; nor us; because (omitting the cause of doubting whether they be Tertullia's words or no, which is insinuated, together with the reason, by Pamelius out of whom you read pani) the lection (and it seems by some defect in a copy out of which other later were transcribed) is doubtful: whether it should be pane, as Latinius thinks; or panis as most do read with Beatus Rhenanus; or pani, as Pamelius found in one of the three Vatican copies which he had, and where the ground shakes, none but W— build on it. Moreover none of those lections do favour you, and were it pani, the sense would be that he gave to celestial bread (his body) the figure which was before, by turning the substance of it into the substance of his body, and with the exterior shape which was left covering the same: so joining figure and verity together, and by the one confirming to us the other. leaving the Church withal, a Sacrament, consisting of them both: not the body only; that were not a Sacrament; and the communicant would have horror to receive naked flesh: nor the figure only, that would have been elementum egenum, futurorum umbra, a sign and nothing but a sign: but figure, and body to; and so, that (the time of mere figures exspiring,) the former substance of the figure, 
 ergo in Genesi per Melchisedeth Sacerdotem benedictio circa Abraham possit rite celebrari, praecedit ante imago Sacrificij in pane & vino scilicet constituta. Quam rem perficiens & adimplens Dominus, panem & calicem mixtum vino obtulit. Et qui est plenitudo, veritatem praefiguratae imaginis adimplevit. S. Cypr. l 2. Ep. 3.  bread, by conversion passeth into the verity, the body. thus, (were it pani) the place would make for us; and imply a transubstantiation as I have declared. neither would the words admit any other so genuine a sense, as his. for, if you take pani for bakers bread, the construction (supposing which is a thing manifest and above demonstrated that the figure he speaks of was an old figure) would be, corporis sui figuram pani dedit, he gave to (bakers) bread the (old) figure of his body, (which figure also was bakers bread) which is as much as if he had said, he gave bread to bread, old to new; jumbling belike both together to make one loaf of two, as some do mingle beer, old and new together, when the one is newly made, and the other growing sour. Pane, and panis, were further from your purpose, as I could easily show if any should pretend it; the fittest (if you could find it in any copy) were panem; but hitherto no such appears; and if it should in time, we should not be to seek a solution, having already said that the sacrament, called also by the name of bread (for diverse reasons elsewhere specified) is a figure of the body, but not a mere and empty figure.  
I had almost forgot to take notice of your translation of the words, corporis sui figuram pani dedisse, he gave to bread to be the figure of his body. If he had done so, either at the supper by making of it the blessed Sacrament, which is a figure (though not empty) of his body: or in jeremies' time (as he was God, Tertullia's word being Deus: sic enim Deus in Euangelio etc. ut hinc iam eum (id est, Deum) intelligas corporis sui figuram pani dedisse: mark also the preterite:) if, I say, he, as God, be said in jeremies' time, to have given to bread to be the figure of his body: yet should you not have translated the words so as you do. I do not speak of translating dedisse he gave; I suppose you meant dedit: but, of translating the word, suppose dedit, he gave to be. Which translation in other matter yourself would not endure. Sempronius Lepido dedit asinum. were this Lepidus a friend of yours, you would not turn dedit, he have to be.  
In the margin pag. 23. S. E. had cited other words of Tertullian for a further exposition of his meaning; Caro corpore vescitur; and these next you gloss.  Apologist. 
the meaning of Tertullian in those words, caro corpore & sanguine Christi vescitur, ut & anima de Deo saginetur; is, that the body receiving in the outward element (which otherwhere he calls the figure of his body) the soul presently apprehends the thing signified, uzt, the body of Christ.  Censure. 
See Masters! a golden exposition; clear, native, proper, subtle, accurate. The body eats the flesh, that is, the soul doth apprehend it. O monstrous wit, able to make quidlibet ex quolibet▪ I can not sufficiently admire, I am astonished when I consider thy streingth and perspicacity. Before, I knew thou couldst make contradictions: (which omnipotency itself cannot;) and now I see thou canst: find senses, where they be not. But, Pluribus intentus minor est ad singula sensus. Whilst you were looking beyond the object of God's power, to tell us what he cannot do, you did not consider that Tertullian being in that book whence the words are cited, to defend the Resurrection of bodies, which Heretics did impugn, chiefly out of the baseness of flesh; and it's origen at first, & corruption at last; as appears by the fourth chapter of that book: he, on the contrary, speaks much in commendation of it. Vituperationem laudatione dep●llas. ita nos rhetoricari quoque provocant haeretici, etc. you may refute and repel the dispraise of a thing by the praise and commendation of it, and Heretics provoke us to play the Rhethoricians in this kind. so he, ca 5. where he begins to praise it, continuing to the tenth chapter. in the midst of of which discourse, having spoken in the praise of humane flesh in common, he betakes himself to speak of the dignity of the flesh of Christians, particularly. So much quoth he, be said out of the public form as it were of humane condition in the behalf of flesh: let us consider now, how great a prerogative this frivolous (as Heretics in contempt, style it,) and base substance hath from God in as much as it is the form of Christian men, 
Porro si universa per carnem subiacent anima, carni quoque subiacent, etc. Et hac quidem velut de publica forma humanae conditionis in suffraguim carni procuraverim: videamus nunc de propria etiam Christiani nominis forma quanta huic subtantia (heretici.) frivolae ac sordidae apud Deum praerogativa sit, & si sufficeret illi quod nulla ommino anima salutem possit adipisci, nisi dum est in carne, crediderit; adeo caro salutis est cardo, de qua cum anima Deo allegitur, ipsa est quae efficit ut anima allegi possit. Sed & caro abluitur, ut anima emaculetur. Caro vaguitur, ut anima consecretur. Caro signatur, ut & anima muniatur. Caro manus impositione adumbratur, ut & anima spiritu alluminetur. Caro corpore & sanguine Christi vescitur, ut & anima de Deo saginetur. non possunt ergo separari in mercede, quas opera coniungit. Tertullian. de Resurrect. carnis. cap. 7. & 8. Obiter advertet Lector quot in hac una sententia Tertullianus indicat sacramenta.  and there come in the words above cited; wherein, (as appears both by the words themselves and also by the scope of his discourse) it is evident that he means to say, the flesh even that which Heretics vilified, doth receive into itself by the mouth the body and blood of jesus Christ, to the end the soul by the worthy receiving of it, be divinely fattened: the flesh, says he, caro, vescitur. and what doth it eat? a mere sign or figure, bakers bread? is this the great prerogative? no, vescitur corpore, the body itself: that his sacred and divine body, his creature man, by his bodily mouth, the flesh, doth eat: and thereby the whole hath benefit; the soul grace; (so he receive worthily,) & in time glory: and the body, (as other ancients have more clearly expressed themselves) immortality. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever. In another place he saith the hands also touch it: wherein he doth agree with S. Augustine, 
De Idol. n. 31. & 34.  out of whom the next argument was taken, who saith, our Saviour had his own body (even that which was crucified) in his own hands, and that we receive it with our mouth. 
Citat. inserius.   Apologist. 
He (D. Smith, or S. E) saith he hath good reason to refer that which follows the propostion (this is my body) uzt the figure of my body, to the subject (his,) and not to the predicate body, because it may be showed otherwhere in him, that what follows the proposition in that manner must be referred to the subiiect and not the predicate.  Censure. 
This is willfully to mistake and misreport. when D. featly in the conference had said, it did not follow that Tertullian in the place objected had disordered his words because he had done the like elsewhere, 
pag. 17.  my Lord answered (as you find in the Relation) that he did not infer that Tertullian did here speak so, because he had done the like in other places, but because he doth afford in this very place (cited) four several reasons why he must be so understood. which thing was inculcated again by S. E. so that you do manifestly impose, against your own knowledge, when you tell us the author says he hath good reason to refer etc. because it may be showed other where in him that what follows etc.  
In the end of this your first section, you bring a place out of the Sermon de vnctione, which makes against yourself, and for us; as will appear to him that reads it: 
Dedit itaque D.N. in mensa in qua ultimum cum Apostolis participavit convivium, propriis manibus panem & vinum, in cruse verò manibus militum corpus tradidit vulnerandum, ut in Apostolis secretius impressa syncera veritas & vera synceritas exponeret gentibus quomodo vinum & panis caro esset & sanguis; & quibus rationibus causae effectibus convenitent, & diversa nomina vel species ad unam reducerentur essentiam; & significantia & significata eisdem vocabulis censerentur. His gratiae supernae privilegiis, esu sanctificati panis refecti, etc.  to which purpose I have cited the words at leingth in the margin. He speaks of consecrated bread, esu sanctificati panis refecti, and saith the bread is flesh, and the wine blood, (ut exponeret gentibus quomodo vinum & panis, caro esset & sanguis.) and that diverse species are reduced to one essence, which is done by turning the bread into the body. whence it comes that this thing hath both names; it is called bread, as being made of bread: and being in the exterior form of bread. and it is also the body itself, which body is the thing signified by the sacrament, and is really (according to the substance, in it. This change of the sign into the thing signified, and the being of the same thing (that which was signified) now under the form of bread, is more clearly delivered by the same Author in a former sermon de Coena, Panis iste quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat, non effigie sed natura mutatus, omnipotentia Verbi factus est caro: & sicut in persona Christi humanitas videbatur & latebat divinitas, ita sacramento visibili ineffabiliter divina se infundit essentia. that bread which our Lord gave the Disciples, being changed not in shape but in nature, is by the omnipotency of the Word made flesh: and as in the person of Christ the humanity did appear and the divinity lie hid, so (here) a Divine essence doth unspeakably pour itself into a visible sacrament.  
Some grave Divines think this Author to be saint Cyprian that glorious martyr and prelate of the Church Primitive, other writers, amongst whom is Erasmus, esteem him at least a very learned man of that Age, and so much appears by the work itself, 
Ad D. Cornelium Papam etc. titulus. Ego quidem nec a meipso neque ab alio quaero nomen, neque enim aliquid me existimo esse cum nihil sim, qui hoc a vobis maxima supplicatione quaesivi, ut non essem quod sum, etc. in Praefat. operis.  dedicated to Cornelius then Pope. He was a Catholic Father as all know, says your patron, Morton pag. 125. yet you, but an infant at the time of this Conference, pag. 2. (having not what to answer to the foresaid words wherein he hath expressed himself so plainly against your Heresy as nothing can be imagined more plain and opposite,) call him before you in the peremptory terms of a Pedant; and vouchsafing his work no better words than bastard, and surreptitious brat, will needs give him the ferula, because he did not compound his Orations by your Thomasius Dictionary: or call upon you to teach him what words were then in use, in honore vocabula; what out of date, verborum vetus interit aetas; what had not obtained the Grammarians leave to pass, being as yet strange and new, cinctutis non exaudita Cethegis. The best is, and it is well for him, that he is so far of, your Mastership cannot reach him: ferulae manum subduxit.  
Being now come to the end of this argument which you would have grounded in Tertullian, I cannot omit to tell you that your own great Evangelist Martin Luther, examining the same words in his book entitled Defensio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verborum coenae, accipite, comedite, hoc est corpus meum, contra phanaticos Sacramentariorum spiritus; concludes that in them Tertullian doth avouch the presence of the body itself, 
Debent demonstrare quod dictum Tertulliani non tantum possit sed omnino necesse sit in eam sententiam quam ipsi (Sacramentarii) habent, accipi. Quod si non faciunt, iure eos mendaces & falsarios accusamus cum glorientur se suae causae certissimos esse & manifestissimam veritatem habere. Luth. Def. verb caenae, pag. 406. Tertullian is affirmat Christum in caena panem corpus suum fecisse, secundum verba sua Hoc est corpus meum. Hic nullum verbum ambiguum aut amphibolou audias. nam panem facere corpus suum express, clare, & signate dicitur. Ibidem. Vocabulum figura, obscurum & ambiguum est. Ibidem. Quod si Oecolampalius demonstrare non potest figuram hic imaginem significare,  deprehenditur depravator Tertulliani & falsarius, & cum suo corporis signo occumbit. Quando autem demonstraverit? ad calendas Graecas, cum cuculus in Lusciniam mutatus fuerit. Ibidem.  in the sacrament. satis aperté videmus Tertulliani sententiam esse quod verum & naturale Christi corpus sit in pane coenae, pag. 407. and that the sense which Oecolampadius then (and featly now) would put upon the words, is forced and violent; Tertulliani dictum violenter in suam opinionem trahit, ut figura hic coactè sonet signum, contra suam naturam; cùm tamen nec possit nec id Tertullianus admittat. pag. 406. He is large and spends diverse pages in examining Tertullia's mind; and was your Master's Master, the great light and Evangelist, and Reformer, topful of the Spirit Protestant. Refute him first. If you, slight him, primarium Euangelij propugnatorem, (Swinglius Sacramentariorum post Diabolum Princeps, 

Cum autem panis sit figura corporis Christi, plane necessarium est ut verum Christi corpus vere ibi adsit ubi figura eius est, quae ex pane per verbum figura eius facta est. (Est haec alia verborum interpretario, qua contendit esse figuram corporis praesentis) Hanc esse Tertulliani sententiam mihi exploratissimum est; nec verba eius quicquam obscuritatis & perplexitatis habent. pag. 407. Ex his liquido constat Tertullianum omnino velle ut in pane sit corpus quod pro nobis datum est, ne oporteat asseverari merum panem pro nobis esse datum. Ibidem.  
Ex his omnibus luce meridiana clarius est, ut mea fert opinio, quod Tertullianus figuram hic non eo sensu usurpet quo Oerolampadius, pro simulachro aut signo, sed pro re visibili, quam eo nominat figuram corporis Christi, quod ei corpus Christi insit aut subsit. Ididem.  
M. D. Smith told M. featly that of courtesy he would admit the word figura to be referred to corpus that his argument might run on, and he make the best he could of it. In the relation; supra, pag. 22.   in Exegesi fol, 335.) take it not in ill part if others hereafter forbear to look more upon your scribble, already confuted and condemned by the Leader of your Sect.   

The second Argument was of Saint Augustine's words of eating the flesh of the son of man, Figura est etc. lib. 3. de doct. Christiana. And it was answered that this eating is figurative according to the manner, for this flesh is not divided (in the eating) in itself; as other flesh: but not figurative according to the thing, the flesh.  
In the margin of the relation, S. E. put these words, which Waferer (though he dispute oft against marginal notes, 
In relat. supra pag. 35. ) takes no notice of; Were it denied that Saint Augustine speaks there (li. 3. de Doct. Christia. c. 16.) of Sacramental eating, the Minister could not prove it. recondendum in memoria etc. This is another solution of this second Argument; for the same may be answered diverse ways, as the former also might. But, to insist upon that which was given: what hath Waferer brought against it?  Apologist. 
I will maintane that the very body of Christ is not corporally present under the shapes of bread and wine. And first I may deal with Doctor Smith, as etc.  Censure. 
Having done with the first argument, you come now to the place of the second, where forgetting that you came into the field as a second only, to make good your Doctor's objections, nothing else; you begin others: and will fight against some body, (if any body please to lose time and fight with you) with arguments out of your own learned head, and maintain that the body of Christ is not corporally present under the shape of bread and wine. Where, by the word corporally, if you mean the natural manner of being which bodies commonly have, consisting in the extraposition of parts in order to place; all being not in the same part of the place, but one part of the body in one part of the place, and an other part of the body in another part of the place; as your parts are; your eyes, your nose, your ears, your hands, your legs, your feet: if you take the word corporally, to signify this manner of being, I know not who doth hold or avouch it in the Sacrament. Catholics do not. If by corporally, you mean substantially, or, according to the substance of the body; and in this sense understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you do undertake more than all your masters can prove. And you overmach yourself in singling out a Doctor; some Logician, that knows his Catechism, and hath heard that the Eucharist is such a sign or image as hath in it the body and blood, according to a supernatural, spiritual manner; and that the Fathers do speak sometimes of sacramental, sometimes of spiritual receiving only: might serve to combat with you, if perchance he did not esteem it unworthy of him to meet one who comes tilting at him with a—.  
You are provided no doubt, of a goodly sheaf of spears; had every one of them been headed with an Ergo, they would have penetrated a brain that had been armed double-coxcomb. And had you thought on it, you might have added in your dedicatory to the great 
(a) Challenge. Challenge  Challenger, your Father in God 
Et nos tela, Pater, ferrumque haud  
debilé dextra  
Spargimus, & nostro sequitur de  
vulnere sanguis.   
Or vinum, wine; that rather: for if your lance's wound, there is no blood: if they pierce, there is no body: but suddenly instead of a man's body, bakers bread; and wine, instead of blood. Pectora percussit, pectus quoque— You look perchance that some body meet you, in this new field of your own pitching, that with your fearful engines you may do, what featly could not with his arguments. alas! poor, man! fain he would, and can not find an adversary to prove himself upon.  
How? The Church? oh no. that is to great a task for you. It hath been to hard for whole Legions of furious Heretics. it hath stood against all Errors that ever were. There are in it millions, of great scholars: and you but in your ABC yet. It is an army, castrorum acies ordinata. What, you. you, fight against the church? as you love Mirth Waferer, talk no more of that. if you do, men will think you be mad.  
The compass, Master Waferer, wherein the battle was to be, was drawn with your Champions own sword; the Arguments to be answered, the Scriptures to be expounded, the Fathers to be looked into, were those, & those only, which he brought. The subject of the writing which you will needs stickle in, was a Conference wherein Doctor Smith, now Bishop of Chalcedon, defended against D. featly. The Controversy was about the real presence. Some twenty years after it was past, your Doctor set forth a Relation of that he said had passed in it; which Relation being partial, S. E. set out an other. That which the Reader did expect to learn here by, was to know how the matter went; what were the Arguments, what the Answers: and which of the two Combatants had the honour of the day. In which case it is impertinent to allege other Arguments, or to hear you dispute four and twenty ways more, against that and other tenets.  
When S. E. came to represent again what had been done before, he kept himself within the compass which your Doctor had prescribed. He made no discourse to show how in all ages our doctrine had been held, by the Fathers, and Divines, & the Christian Churches generally Which thing it had been easy fo● him to do, after Garetius, & Saints and Gualterius, and Bellarmine, Pero● and others, he did not gather together, and urge, the texts of Scripture with all their circumstances, ever hitherto understood, and necessarily to be understood, properly: he did not cite any Fathers at all but such only as your Doctor had objected, whose meaning he was to declare by their own writing: every one knowing best his own mind, and being the best interpreter of his own words. He did forbear to make Arguments, and kept himself unto the matter objected by Doctor featly; who otherwise, would have cried out again that the laws of answering were violated. If you would needs undertake to represent the other part, you should have done the like in that kind; not have gone out of the compass, to flourish there, where no man was: but have set upon the Solution where you found it, and this ●oo, not by way of answer to distinctions, as elsewhere you do for the most part, repeating still, Doctor Smith ●oth not prove, (which if he had undertaken, your Champion would have run out of the room) but by further discovering the force of Arguments there proposed, and the Answers insufficiency. If you think yourself better able to make choice of Arguments for your Doctors tenet ●hen he himself was, he is not much beholding to you for your opinion of his art or judgement: And unless you thought his to be of themselves to weak, what need had your wit ●o send a new supplie? This officiousness of yours makes little for his honour.  
Having given a sight of your forces, to those who please to look on ●hem: you display in the the rearward our Opinion: which is, it seems, so ●asie as any child may conceive it, and ●er so hard as it exceeds man's capacity. Elephants are over head and ears, and Emmets wade through the same water.  Apologist. 
Every puny can tell you that though bread seems only bread to the eye, and in sustance be nothing else, yet in its spiritual use and signification it's the body of our Saviour: not that Christ's body is present under the accidental forms of the element, though it be therewith spiritually eaten. This I confess to be a mystery, but if you demand what it is, I'll answer you as Octavius did Caecilius when he expected to hear what God was, Nobis ad intellectum pectus angustum est etc. so if you expecte to hear exactly what this mystery is, I answer it is a Mystery; and if I could perfectly disclose its secrets, and show you what it were, than 'ttwere no Mystery.  Censure. 
Magnum sibi fatuitas quaedam videtur esse mysterium, saint Cyrill says. Is it not belike some Chimaera you speak of, that is so clearly dark, and darkly clear?  
But master Waferer, what difficulty were there to conceive bread-a-figure, bread-a-signe? are you confounded at the mysteries of an juie-bush, or a letter? they be signs, as unlike the things they signify, as bread is unlike flesh, or wine unlike blood. Or, if God should please to tell us, he would give him grace that received bread the sign, worthily; what unconceavable matter were there in in this? is it not easy to conceive that he is able to do so; or that (if he promise) he will perform it? These, forsooth, you call mysteries; inexplicable unconceavable mysteries: lest (when Catholics object the Fathers, admiring indeed our Saviour's being in the Sacrament) you be without the fantom of an answer.  Apologist. 
Doctor Smith saith that a figurative speech seems to have adjoined unto it a certain negation, but there is non egation in a figurative speech as figurative, save only the negation of, or translation from the native signification, which helps to confirm what I said before, that a proper sense and a figurative are as much as native and not native, proper and not proper.  Censure. 
Before indeed you complained of those who said you pleaded for a mere figure in the words Hoc est corpus meum; and if you be remembered, 
Apol. pag. 9  you say Doctor Smith would feign father a false opinion upon you, that you held there is in them a mere figure. which former speech of yours, is not confirmed, but contradicted rather, if now you say that a speech any way figurative hath a negation of 
(a) Do those hold the same, who say Nobis vo biscum de obiecto convenit?  all propriety, or a proper speech a gation of all impropreitie. For, were that so the one of them were merely & in all respects proper: & the other, merely & wholly figurative, which thing you there deny. You know We do not say that the same speech is either purely, or absolutely, both proper and improper: but we say that it may be proper according to the thing signified; and figurative, in regard of the manner of the same thing, as you were told before. which is fare from contradiction in the understanding of him that understands what a contradiction is. as, for an Ethiopian to be absolutely said black, and yet secundum quid, according to his teeth, white, is no contradiction but a truth, in the judgement of every one that ever saw those men.  
That a figurative or improper speech hath a negation joined to it, as fare as it is figurative or improper, it is manifest: for the word improper, signifieth a privation; and a privation doth participate of a negation. Privatio says the Philosopher in his Metaphysic, contradictio quaedam est, 
lib 10. t 15.  aut impossibilitas determinata, sive simul accepta cum susceptivo. I said, as fare as it is figurative or improper; whence it follows that, if it be purely figurative, it hath joined to it a perfect or whole negation of propriety: as in this your example, Herod is a fox. if it be figurative only as it is related or compared to the manner of the thing signified, it hath not joined to it a negation of the thing, but of the manner only. and consequently, the speech may still remain proper as fare as concerneth the substance of the thing, which substance is by it directly signified. as in our example This is my body: which words, in as much as they signify the substance of our Saviour's body, be verified properly; though they be not properly verified according to the manner which the same words, if they were taken fully in their whole usual sense, would also import.  
When you say that in a figurative speech as figurative, there is no negation, save only the negation of, or translation from, the native signification, you say true considering the force of that your as— But from thence you can no more infer what you pretend, uzt that it is absolutely figurative, than one might infer of an Ethiopian, that because he is, white secundum quid, according to his teeth, Ergo he is absolutely white.  Apologist. 
Doctor Smith lays down this rule, that a proposition is absolutely and simply to be esteemed proper or figurative, rather from the thing which i● affirmeth then from the manner; which rule is absurd, for there is the same thing affirmed in a figurative proposition which is in a proper.  Censure. 
Hear is a trick of legerdemain, cunningly used, to steal away the truth, before proved, and approved. The juggling will appear if your discourse be put in form. The reason first, There is the same thing affirmed in a figurative proposition which is in a proper, as Herodes est vulpes: Herodes est cal●idus; they be your examples. than your inference, Ergo it is absurd to say that a proposition (which is proper in regard of the thing signified by it, and improper in regard of the manner of the same thing usually also signified by the word) is absolutely & simply to be esteemed proper or figurative rather from the thing which it affirmeth then from the manner, to wit, of the same thing, who sees not the incoherence of this argument, & that you labour to destroy one truth with an other? The Controversy was, and is, about a mixed proposition, such a one, as in regard of the thing directly signified is proper; and improper in regard of the manner of the thing. It was said and maintained against Doctor featly, that this, Hoc est corpus meum, is such a proposition: and yourself must needs grant it to be so, unless you will have it to be merely figurative, or merely proper; both which you disavow, as above hath been declared. If it be not merely figurative, nor merely proper, then sure it is mixed: for a figurative speech pure, and unmixed, is merely figurative. Moreover this proposition, being not merely figurative, is proper as fare as it regards the substance of the thing signified: according to the tenet of the Catholic Church, which holds and believes, the body, signified properly by those words, to be really and truly there, according to the verity and substance of the thing, which, even according to your own rule, is enough to make the speech proper, in that sense: for you say, that proposition is proper in which the predicate doth in its native sense signify that thing which agrees to the subject. & the same proposition, in as much as it is compared to the manner of the thing, is figurative and improper; for the body hath not in the Sacrament the common manner of a body, as, extension of parts in order to place, and visibility: but another manner, as your Doctor was also told. Which being so, the Question was touching the modus loquendi, Whether this mixed proposition, being proper in regard of the substance, and improper in regard of the manner, (or generally, Whether a proposition which is proper in regard of the substance, & improper in regard of the manner,) be flatly and simply to be said proper, or improper? Whereunto it was answered, and well, that a proposition is absolutely and simply to be esteemeed (proper or figurative, proper or improper) rather from the thing which it affirmeth, then from the manner: and consequently, since the proposition (hoc est corpus meum) is proper in regard of the thing it affirmeth, it is absolutely to be said a proper speech. The reason of the rule is manifest, for the denomination is to be taken from that which is the principal; and the thing, doubtless. is more principal than the manner of the thing: the substance, more principal than it's accidental manner. an Ethiopian though he be white secundum quid, is absolutely or sine addito said black.  
Your own rule before cited, confirms all this, but this is not the first time you fight against yourself we know, the same thing may be signified by diverse propositions, whereof some be proper, & others figurative: as in holy Scripture we find the Divine perfections to be signified sometimes by proper speeches and sometimes by metaphorical. But the Question was, Whether one, and the same proposition, (not diverse, but one) being proper in regard of the thing signified, and improper and figurative in regard of the manner, were to be called absolutely, sine addito, proper; and only secundum quid, according to the manner, figurative? As if it had been demanded, whether one that is white only secundum dentes, and all the rest black, be flatly or simply to be said white, or black, the Answer was, that the proposition, having in it the foresaid mixture, was rather to be said proper; and the man, rather to be said black, which is true, notwithstanding that there be other men, some white some black: and other propositions, some figurative, some proper, respecting the same thing.  Apologist. 
No proposition is figurative according to the thing signified.  Censure. 
You mean that it hath not that denomination as it is under a reference to that thing. Before you said it, I thought otherwise, and shall do so still, even of that which you bring for Instance, Herodes est vulpes. that your proposition, is figurative in comparison to the thing signified, which is Herod's Wiliness. this wiliness of Herod, the proposition doth signify and affirm; not properly, (it is not the proper signification of vulpes,) but metaphorically, and by translating the word to signify that wherein Herod hath some kind of analogy or agreement with a fox; 
Orators look not for Metaphors in things but in words. Ad unum verbum contracta similitudo.  as you know by the nature of metaphors, out of Aristotle, Tully, and others. And because vulpes, the predicate, doth not properly, but metaphorically, signify that thing which is affirmed upon Herod, therefore is the proposition figurative and improper, even by comparison to that thing, it is an improper sign of that which you would have me to conceive. The word indeed hath an other signification, which is that we call proper, which your dictionary leads you to, but according to the thing which answers to that, it's proper signification, the proposition is not verified. In all other pure figurative propositions you shall find the same, and therefore you must alter your unlearned assertion, that no proposition is figurative according to the thing signified; and all your discourse that depends upon it, wherein, impertinently to the matter in Question, you compare one material object or thing, to several propositions: whereas you should compare one proposition to the principal and proper, or secundary and improper object of its terms. The proper object of this word or sign vulpes, is a fox. it signifies that thing, properly, and taking it as it signifies to us that thing, the proposition is false: the improper object whereunto by translation it is extended, is a wily fellow; and taking it in this sense, the proposition is true. neither are these things in this manner signified, one and the same thing: unless a wily man perchance be properly, with you, a fox.  
Moreover, the manner of signifying in words, is either proprius, native & proper: 
Sensus sacrae Scripturae, literalis, mysticus, Sensus literalis, proprius, improprius. Sensus mysticus, alleg. tropol. anagoric. ut infra.  or improprius, and translatitius, metaphorical, and improper. Every word that hath a metaphorical signification, hath a proper also; as appears by the etymology of the name. and the way to know in which sense the proposition (wherein it stands) is verified, and consequently whether it be taken in the proper or the metaphorical sense, is to compare it to the thing. Herod is a fox, Mirth is a locust. If you compare the proposition in its proper signification, to the thing, it is improportionable, difforme, and false: if you compare the same (material) proposition in its metaphorical signification, to the thing, it is proportionable, conform, true. Whereupon we conclude the speech to be metaphorical. If the proposition be according to the native sense verified upon, or in, the thing, we say that it is proper: as these other. Herod is wily, Mirth is an Heretic. If it be verified according to the substance of the thing properly signified, not according to the manner; it will then be called proper absoluté sine addito, taking the denomination from that which is principal; 
For we say that a thing is white, or not white, not because all is so, but because the greatest or most parts be so.  (Dicimus enim aliquid ess● album aut non album, non quia totum es● tale saith the Philosopher, 6. Phys. tex. 38. sed quia maximae partes eius, & plures, sunt tal●s;) though not omnibus modis, in regard of the impropriety annexed, respectivelie to the manner. as this: hoc est corpus meum.  
Before I leave this point I must put you again in mind how you do still weaken your own opinion more & more, and fight against your fellows whilst you contend that here corpus the predicate is taken improperly. It is true that if it were taken improperly according to the thing signified by it, the proposition were figurative or improper: but it is false, even in the judgement of the learnedest of your own men (so ignorant you are in the cause you undertake) that it is so taken. The word corpus, (I repeat the same again) is not taken improperly according to the thing by it signified not, as the word vulpes, in your proposition (which is your great Master's instance in this very matter) Herodes est vulpes. no. But properly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that substance quam cruci affixam, & in sepulchro depositam Verbum suscitavit à mortuis, de qua suscitata dictum est, videte manus meas & pedes meos contrectate me & videte, nam Spiritus carnem & ossa non habet prout me conspicitis habere. quam denique transtulit in coelos inde reddendam terris postremo adventu. denique quicquid dici potest ad describendun, circumscriben dumque, suis veris proprietatibus illud ipsum individuum. for that substance which being nailed to the Cross, and laid in the sepulchre, the Word raised from the dead; of which (substance) it is said, See my hands and my feet, feel me and see: for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see I have. Moreover that substance which h● carried into heaven, to render it again a● the last coming, and finally, what eue● can be said to describe and circumscribe the very same individual substance with its true property. So your Chamier, 
l. 10. c. 2.  confessing Corpus to be, by our Saviour, taken literally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not in a borrowed but in the native sense: however you, Master waferer, will have it not to be taken here in its native but in a borrowed sense: and the proposition (this which you speak of) therefore to be figurative because the word that is the predicate is so taken.  
I omit to note further how you be troubled with an equivocation of a speech figurative according to the manner, having not wit enough to distinguish the modus essendi, which is in the object, from the modus significandi, which is in the word or speech: or to know under what reference a word hath propriety; under what, it hath not; & how, and when, these denominations be pure or unpermixte. But I have now given you occasion (enough for for a Scholar) to reflect upon the matter. On you go to seek: and if you cannot find, to make, absurdities.  
Pugnantia secum  
Frontibus adversis componere.  Apologist. 
S. E. seeks to justify that answer of his Lords of a figure mixed of a figurative and proper action, for he saith that the same speech may be proper and figurative, as a garment of a mingled colour is white and black: but let him know that it is not the same speech if either the signification or the manner of signifying be changed.  Censure. 
you and your Doctor in his Relation, purposely involve things that in themselues are clear. My Lord had said, not of a figure, but of a speech, (that of our Saviour unless you eat the flesh etc.) that, according to S. Augustine, it was mixed, which he declared at large in the Conference. & M. featly himself takes notice of it, telling us that he said our Saviour's speech, 
Feat. Relat. pag. 294  unless you eat etc. is proper and figurative according to S. Augustin: figurative according to the manner of eating, but according to the matter itself, proper: and so it is a mixed speech of a proper and a figurative, thus your Doctor himself at last relates it; obscuring the same again presently in the accommodation of the distinction to the thing in Question.  
What that is which you would teach S. E. touching the speech of our Saviour, (which is not merely figurative even by your own confession;) neither I, nor you know. The Holy Bible is still the same, though there be in it both propriety of speech, and figures. A mingled garment is still one, though there be in it white and black, and a proposition which is verified improperly, according to the manner of the objects being, which is usually by the words (consequently as it were) imported; and properly according to the substance of the thing directly signified, is still one and the same proposition.  Apologist. 
Why doth S. E. instance in that proposition (1. Cor. 15. it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual,) to prove that a proper sense, and a figurative may be in one proposition?  Censure. 
It had been requisite you had first been able to understand what is said, before you began, to take upon you to refute it. S. E. brings examples to show that it is not peculiar to S. Augustine only, to call a thing spiritual in regard of the manner, though substantially, or according to the substance it be not so; for in like manner Saint Jerome doth call on Saviour's flesh, which is flesh indeed and really, spiritual in regard of the manner which in the Sacrament it hath; Spiritualis atque divina caro de qua (Christus) dixit, Caro mea vere est cibus etc. And S. Paul for the like reason doth call the body after it is risen again, spiritual, seminatur corpus animale, surgit corpus spirituale. 
Confer. pag. 47.  His words are, And as S. Austin here calls this speech figurative in regard of the manner, though the same speech in regard of the substance received be not figurative, So doth S. Jerome call the flesh of our Saviour in the Eucharist spiritual in regard of the manner, though the substance of flesh be not a Spirit; and the Apostle terms the body spiritual in regard of the condition it shall have in the Resurrection though for substance it consists of matter still, and by corporeum differ from a spirit intrinsicallie as much then as it doth now So he.  
Next unto this wilful mistake, you enter into a discourse of divers senses in one and the same place; which discourse lays your ignorance more open: but is little to the matter of the Conference. That there are not two senses a figurative and a proper in one place of Scripture, you will prove, 
Waf. pag. 36.  you say. If you meant to prove that one and the same place, cannot be figurative secundum quid, in regard of the manner, & absolutè, proper, as hath been defended before, in several occasions, you quickly forget what you meant to do, or were not able to do what feign you would have done: for you bring not any argument at all to make it good. Of literal senses in general, you writ something, confusedly, and seem to deny there may be many in one place or text of Scripture: but not one argument appears to prove the thing which wanted proof, uzt, that one and the same place could not be figurative, secundum quid, and proper absolutè or simpliciter. If you meant to prove that one & the same proposition could not be proper absoluté, simpliciter; and improper or figurative absoluté simpliciter; your labour was impertinent, since the proposition in Question was never said by my Lord or S. E. to be such. neither have they said that any other proposition had the two senses mentioned, in that manner. That the same man may be white secundum quid, and absoluté black; the same speech, improper secundum quid, and absoluté proper, hath been said; and the speech objected, hoc est corpus meum, is such. That this, or any other, is absoluté proper, and absoluté figurative or improper; or the same man absolute white, and absolutè black, is the meteor of your brain, which like an Ignis fatuus leads your argument still out of the right way.  
The sense of a place of Scripture is either literal or mystical. Some places have both; as that, Abraham 
(a) It is written that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was borne after the flesh; but he of the freewoman, by promise (24.) which things are said by an Allegory: for these are the two testaments, the one from the mount Sina which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. etc. (26.) But Jerusalem which is above, is free, which is the mother of us all. etc. Now we brethren, according as Isaac, are the children of promise. (29) but as then he that was borne after the flesh persecuted him that was (borne) after the Spirit: even so it is now. Ad Galat. 4.  duos filios habuit, unam de ancilla, & unam de libera; sed, qui de ancilla secundum carnem natus est, qui autem de libera per repromissionem. Gal. 4. The mystical sense is threefold, allegorical, tropological, and anagogical, and the same place may some times have all three. For example, in the place now cited, and as it is expounded by the Apostle, there is the Allegorical, Haec sunt duo testamenta etc. v. 24. the Anagogical, illa autem quae sursum est Jerusalem etc. v. 26. and the tropological, sed quomodo tunc is qui secundum carnem natus fuerat persequebatur eum quisecundum spiritum, ita & nunc. v. 29.  
Concerning literal senses, it is the tenet of S. Augustine lib. 12. Confess. that there may be diverse; too three, four, or more; in the same words, and since a word may have many significations, why might not the Holy Ghost, understanding all verities, and all significations, of all words, use the same words, in the same speech, (as that; in the beginning God created Heaven and Earth,) in many significations, at once? This speech in isaiah, generationem eius quis enarrabit, the Fathers understand sometimes of the temporal, sometimes of the eternal generation of our Saviour; and that of God the Father, in the Psalms, Filius meus es tu, Ego hodie genui te: the Apostle takes in one sense, Act. 13. and in an other sense, Heb. 1.  
Touching the mixture of proper & figurative; it hath been told you that the same place may be proper absolutè, simpliciter; and figurative secundum quid: you cry out for one such, and do not mark that before your face you have already two: nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis etc. and hoc est corpus meum. That this is proper according to the substance of the thing signified, we prove by the common rule of interpreting the Scripture, when it proposeth dogmaticallie matters of Divine belief, and the same is confirmed to us abundantly by other places of Holy Scripture which do concern this Sacrament and sacrifice, and by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the Catholic and universal Church, which did ever believe it since our Saviour (truth itself) spoke these words. That the same speech is figurative & improper in regard of and respectivelie to the manner of the thing which manner usually the word corpus doth import, it is evident; for, the body hath not in the sacrament, extension of parts in order to place: but is there, all in every part of the dimensions of bread, according to the manner of a Spirit.  
When M. Mirth had come thus fare, imagining (poor man) that he had got some victory, he puts a crown upon his head; and snatching the trumpet, gives notice of a new battle; wherein he means to set upon the little digression of S. E. which digression he cruelly dismembers; and spurns the pieces of it over the rest this Section, to and fro; contemptibly. I cannot without pity see the thing so misused; perhaps if the parts be gathered together, the discourse may stand again; and affright him, in the midst of his triumph.  Apologist. 
Next I will run over again this section, and page by page will answer the dainty subtleties of Master S. E. and justify our Doctor's discourse against his Notes.  Censure. 
If you will prove your tenet, you must over again, and a thousand times again; and then will find yourself (as the mill-horse doth after all his labour) even there in the end where you were in the beginning. Did not this appear in your Doctors first argument, and in this you now prosecute, which is the second? can you do more than he? but now, forsooth, you will answer page by page: and in matter of Logic & Philosophy. We have lost already to much time in hearing your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and this (though the matter come nearer to your cap) will (most likely) be lost also, but you teach, & we must hearken, you will answer subtleties you say, page by page, that is, exactly.  
Fortasse cupressum  
Scis simulare.  Apologist. 
you say words do signify conceptions, I would have you know there is a great deal of difference betwixt conceptio, and conceptus.  Censure. 
Satis pro imperio. What S. E. meant by a conception you have presently in his next words, The conception is an Image representing the thing which we think on. This Image, vitallie proceeding in the mind, is properly in English named a conception of the understanding. 
Confer. pag. 8.  Some name your Mastership will allow it in our language; such as may distinguish it from the object or the thing conceived. I pray you turn your Dictionary and find what name this is. turn to which word you please, conceptus, or, conceptio. S. E. used neither, but only said words do signify the conceptions of the mind. which English, you cavilling at, should have mended; (seeing you will needs make yourself his Master:) and have taught him, and your own Dictionary to speak it better, in good English: and such english as doth not equally signify things objected, whether they be feigned, or not feigned.  
For proof of this Assertion, words do signify the conceptions of the mind, he needed not your help, having cited in the margin these words of Aristotle, (which it seems you do not understand,) sunt ergo ea quae sunt in voce, earum quae sunt in anima passionum notae. neither had he need of Smiglecius, having cited the Commentators' interpretation, which is clear enough, dictiones significant primó intentiones quae sunt in anima.  Apologist. 
you tell how the species which together with the understanding concur to the framing of verbum mentis, are sent into the mind or understanding by way of sense; but you are deceived; these species which concur with the understanding to frame verbum mentis, are species intelligibiles, and the object sends no species into the eye, or any other sense, but sensible species, and those sensible species are not sent into the understanding by way of sense.  Censure. 
It would have well become a Master, (Master Waferer,) if he finds a fault, to show the way to mend it. and if you do not show that it is indeed a fault, however your silly Pupils may be content to believe it on your word without evidence of reason (and will profit accordingly in their studies,) your adversaries in the matter, will not.  
If the species of paper, be not sent into your mind by paper, and by the way of sense, how came it thither? did you know what was in this Censure before you read it? are you able to make us a particular description of that part of the world which is not yet discovered, and to write us their history? it seems you can; for you gather not your knowledge by way of sense. your Intellect, by privilege, was otherwise stored from the beginning, which is the reason why you teach divinity before you learnt it; and talk nonsense, so familiarly: whilst others coming more nakedly into the world, with their Quo omnia fieri, the passive or possible: and quo omnia facere, the agent; are fain to learn before they teach, and to abstract from the phantasms (which exterior objects by the sense cause in them) the forms of things, whereby they may conceive or understand.  
Aristotle thought that the possible understanding or intellect, is, 
Arist. 3. de Anima. ●. 4. & 13.  as a painter's table that hath yet no picture in it: and his reason doth demonstrate what he saith. In this table, the Soul (whose instruments all the powers be) doth with her active intellect, as with a spiritual hand, describe the species of that which is represented and offered to her by the fantasy: & then doth use it (the same species) to conceive intellectuallie the object of it, 
Imaginatio aliud est a sensu, & arationatione. Arist. 2. de Animat. t. 153.  which object it had only imagined or by the fantasy conceived before.  
The phantasm of itself was not able to describe the foresaid species or Image in the spiritual table which the soul hath, as wanting activity in this higher kind; but there is in the soul power enough to make it. A fair picture in a transparent glass-window, is not of itself able to make its species in the air, or in your eye; but light coming upon it, the species is made: so here the picture which is in the Imagination cannot of itself work a species in your understanding, but the spiritual light coming on it, 
Species impressa,  the species is imprinted. This way, according to the Philosopher, the species comes into our mind: and from the thing conceived. First into the exterior sense: from thence; (not the same species numero, but in equivalemce the same) into the interior sense; and still further, till at last (being purged of its material conditions, or abstracted from them,) it arrives in the understanding: where it is not corporeal, as in the senses, but spiritual according to the nature of the power wherein it is received, and is not a sensible specie (that is, serving for the sense to know by) but an intellective species, as being in the understanding, and serving it to conceive the thing that was offered to the sense; a man, paper; 
Quonian autem ut in universa natura est aliquid, alterum materia cuique geners: quod ia●o sic est, quod potentia est illa omnia▪ alterum causa & effectinum, eo quod omnia efficient, quae res usu venit in arte si cum materia comparetur: ita etiam in anima hae adsint differentiae necesse est. Atque est quidam intellectus talis quod omnia fiat, quidam quod omnia faciat, veluti habitus, perinde ac lumen: nam lumen quoque quodammodo sacit actu colores, eos qui sunt potentia colores Arist. 3 de Anima. t. 17. & 18. In nobis intellectus agens & possibilis est per comparationem ad phantasmata. quae quidem comparantur ad intellectum possibilem ut colores ad visum: ad intellectum autem agentem ut colores ad lumen, ut patet te●tio de Anima. S. Tho. 1. p. qu. 54. a. 4.  whiteness.  Apologist. 
That which presents itself to the eye saith S. E. is not the pure essence or quiddity of a thing as they speak in Schools; it is an extended coloured thing, which thing we do see, and conceive, and name, agreeing that such or such a word shall be in speech the sign of it. And do they in the Schools indeed say that we do conceive a man as we see him, not in the pure essence or quiddity of a man but as an extended or coloured thing? and do we agree that this word (man) shall be a sign of that extended coloured thing?  Censure. 
Had you meant to make such a comment, you should have left out the text by which the Reader presently seethe your mistake. Doth S. E. tell you that in schools we do not conceive a man in the pure essence and quiddity of a man? he knows well enough how a man is conceived, both in the schools of Metaphysic, which doth abstract from sensible matter; & in the Schools of natural Philosophy which doth not abstract from it, but it seems that you do not; and therefore if you were yet to beg your grace for Master, you were in danger to be put back, lest the University in your ignorance should be disgraced. And the rather, because you do not understand a piece of plain English, which you take upon you to refute. In S. E. thus it is. That which presents itself to the eye to be seen (mark that, 
Confer. pag. 51.  to the eye,) is not the pure essence or quiddity of a thing as they speak in schools, and you by experience know it, but it is a thing sensible, and to be perceived with this organ and faculty, (mark that also, with this organ; this organ and this eye, is not our understanding, one would think;) it is an extended coloured thing, which thing, we do see, and conceive, and name, (I pray you have not you a name, did your Godfather if you be Chrisned, understand or conceive the thing he named; or did he not conceive it? how knows he you, his God son, from an other man or woman?) agreeing that such or such a word, shall be in speech a sign of it.  Apologist. 
Looking on a man, saith S. E. we conceive in our mind his figure, colour &c, (you had need put in etc.) representing all in one image, we subordinate, as a sign of it and of its object also this word man. Now I perceive you dream that the sensible objects come into the understanding; which makes you tell us of an extended coloured thing.  Censure. 
If S. E. can dream so well, it seems that his dreams are better than your watchings; and that he can discourse of Philosophy in his sleep better than you can do when you prepare your papers for the print. That which first of all moves our understanding (whilst it is here in our body) is a sensible thing, sending into it a species in manner above specified. Were all such removed out of the world, and that a man by no sense at all ever perceived any thing, his tabula picturae aptata that he brought with him into the world, would be in the end as naked as it was in the beginning of his life. When he hath once gotten the species of some things, he can find out some others; as by the effect he finds a cause; by Creatures, God: 
Rom. 1.  Inuisibi jam ipsius (D i) a creatura mundi per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta a conspiciuntur, sempiterna quoque eius virtus & divinitas; but first his understanding must be moved by something that offers itself unto the sense, whose nature it abstractes from the material or individual conditions, and so directly conceives it; 
S. Thom. 1. p. q. 84. a. 6.  being able also (by reflection at least) to conceive singulars, which the sense perceives directly. The parcel which you cite out of S. E. is so maimed that it hath lost all sense, but I will presently restore it.  Apologist. 
Hear what your own words say, this word man signifies a man is a thing not in his pure essence and quiddity as they speak in schools, but an extended coloured, figured thing etc. Is not this a pretty brat of your own conception, and laid at the Schools like a bastard to see who will father it? either blush yourself or give me leave to laugh: I thought before that all that this name (homo) doth import were animal rationale, sure I am the definition doth answer perfectly to the definitum, & is exactly true without respect had to colour or figure.  Censure. 
The whirlwind in your brains hath so confounded the species of things, that all is now troubled which comes from you, whether you relate or dispute: wherefore I must look upon S. E. his book, & thence transcribe his words which you cavil at. Next unto those by me before cited, he said thus, Looking on a man, we conceive in our mind his figure, 
〈…〉 51.  colour, etc. representing all in one Image, to which Image we subordinate (as a sign of it, and of its object also) this word, a man. Where he saith (you see) that this word man, is imposed to signify that sensible thing whose Image we had conceived in our mind; and to such things men use to give names. Ask your neighbour what a calf, or Turrian ox, or a bull, signifies; and he will tell you of a sensible figured thing. & the same substance may be, successively, all; except there be oxen with you that never were calves. and ask a scholar, he will still tell you there is difference betwixt an ox, and a calf; they be not synonyma. you are not a child you think; yet are a man: what is become of your other substance, that individual substance which long ago you had? or is it still the same?  
But either S. E. must blush, or he must give you leave to laugh. What needs the disiunctive, M. Waferer? he may blush, and you laugh too. neither need you his leave to laugh where and when you will. Though much laughing in others be no good cognizance, it agrees with you so well that it were incivility to deny you the use of it, your privilege, and natural property; for you are Mirth. And he may blush, and so may Alban-Hall, and Oxford, and your Mother, all may blush; and have cause to blush in you: the first in an adversary; the second in a pupil; the third in a graduate, and the fourth in a son.  
But whilst you laugh, do not distract me too; for I am studying hard and seriously, upon a Question; which your discouse hath occasioned in my mind: and my poor invention hath searched all the species and forms in her little closet to find a solution for it, and none will serve; unless peradventure one, which she hath put aside. I can not well propose it in common; but I will softly tell it you. Sir this it is: Whether your mother were a man? 
S. E. (Doctor) was not deceived. Forma dat nomen & esse.  the reason of doubt which occurs out of your discourse (and not to do her any wrong, I have indeed no other reason to move such a doubt, though sometimes her son doth argue without reason,) is, because, if the definition of a man, all that the word or name doth signify, do agree to her, the name also doth, and may be verified on her: now the definition of a man Animal rationale, (which you would have your Reader to believe is all that the word signifies,) doth agree to her; for I suppose your mother was some reasonable creature: whence it follows, unless you will divorce the definition and definitum, that the name (which doth signify that definition, and that only if you say true, without respect had to colour or figure or any other accidens) doth agree to your mother: 
Waf. pag. 41.  and consequently this is true, that your mother is a man.  
A man, I say: that is the word in Question; that was the word of S. E. in his example; and if it be granted once that it signifies more than the substance or quiddity, more than animal rationale (as it must do if it signifies not your mother, aswell as you:) than his discourse is currant, and your exception both unlearned, and impertinent, he did not instance in the latin word homo; he meant to give the Readers who do not all understand latin, an example of that he had said, in our own language, which hath names also, you might have known too, that some latin words signify more than some other, English, or latin do that be taken some times for the same, homo, signifies more than vir. May it please your learned Mastership to consider with yourself how this argument may be satisfied; but let none else know. The form I laid aside, was the species of an hermaphrodite. I suppose you will make no further speech of it. Lapidi dictum puto.  Apologist. 
You (S. E.) add that without colour and quantity the name is not perfectly answerable to the intellectual image; as if the understanding did conceive man as coloured: you must conceive coloratum is the proper object of the sense of seeing, and therefore can not be the object of the understanding formally and qua sic.  Censure. 
Nullo thure litabis  
Haereat in () brevis ut semiuncia recti.  
If a reasonable creature, without adding more, doth answer fully to the name we speak of, (man,) your mother Master Waferer, is a man, there is no way to scape; 
Laeto.  unless you say that she hath not all this, and so either is no creature, no animal; or not rationale, not reasonable; or, neither animal nor rationale; Or that the word (man) signifieth more than animal rationale that is not in your mother, which were to retract your Apology and to let the discourse of S. E. stand again, as first it did.  
Moreover, you must acknowledge that a man's understanding can conceive, not only substance, but also colours, and quantity, and figures: and consequently, it may be able to conceive an extended, and figured, and coloured, living substance. How do you conceive the Predicaments, the ten genera, and their species?  your intellect, or with your heels? or not at all? if your heels serve your turn, you may run over them apace without troubling of your head: if not at all, he was forsworn that presented you for your grace: if with your intellect, then ones understanding may conceive a man coloured, he may conceive colour as well as man; and colour in a man, and, for that as, you may keep it till there be need; together with your formally and qua sic. Let coloratum or what else you please be the proper object of the sight; it is all under the object of the intellective power, which may know what all the senses can; and more, whereby it comes to pass, that coloratum cannot be the proper or adequate object of this power; but some thing larger, that includes it.  Apologist. 
If (homo) signify colour, what colour is (homo) I pray? If you say white, then say I a black man is no man▪ if black than a white man is not perfectly a man.  Censure. 
This is but to make way for a conceit as you think, which your head was great withal; albus an after (homo) sit nescio. 
Waf. Ibidem.  Suppose I put colour, into the place of homo; & argue (as you do,) thus; If the latin word colour doth signify colour, what colour is (colour) I pray you? if white, black is none: if black, white is none. To Which Question your Mastership thinks there is no other Answer possibly to be made, but this, albus an after sit nescio. The Philosophers are wont to say that in genere latent aequivocationes: do you understand this? I think not. But, to your interrogatory; the species or differences in colour, which you speak of, are not properties of the nature of man● but the one, of this, the other of that, Individuum; from which the species or nature is abstracted▪ and no man is without colour; it is found in all and every one: 
An black for example.  though this or that (a) determinate colour be not in every one. In the extraction of a definition, we look wherein all agree; beginning first as we can, with a few; 
The conclusion.  & still comparing more and more, till we find the notion common unto all. Facilius est singula de finire quàm universale; 
Arist. 2. Post. Anal. ●. 82.83.  qua propter oportet a singularibus ad ad universalia transire: aequivocationes enim latent magis in universalibus quàm in indifferentibus, quemadmodum autem in demonstrationibus oportet (a) esse ipsum, syllogizatum fuisse, ita & in definitionibus manifestum est. hoc autem erit si per ea quae singulariter dicuntur, sit in unoquoque genere definire seorsum, ut simile non omne, sed quod in coloribus & figuris, & acutum quod in voce, & ita in common progredi obseruantem, ne aequivocatio incidat. 
Cum ad senatum rediremus, atque ut missa in universum aboleretur ageremus &c restabat aahuc non minimus conatus quo scilicet exempla proderemus qua nulla cum parabola coniuncta forent coepimus omnia cogitare, attamen aliud nihil exemplorum occurrebat, etc. cum vero tredecima dies adpeteret, vera nar●o, etc. visus sum mihi in somno multo cum taedio denuo contendere cum adversario scriba, sicque obmutuisse ut— ibi tanquam é machina visus est monitor adesse, after fuerit an albus nihil memini (somnium enim narro) qui diceret, qum ignau● respondeses quod in Exodo scribitur, est enim Phase, id est, transitus Domini protinus ut hoc phasma visum est simul expergesio, & e lecto exilio, locum apud septuaginta primum undique circumspicio, ac de eo coram tota concione pro virili dissero. Swinglius lib. de subsid, Eucharist.   
The acumen of your jest, albus and after. (Wherewith you bred yourself a difficulty, your adversary suffering none, as you have seen,) hath let your cause blood (so unwary you were) in the head-veine, 
See the lives of Luther, Swinglius, Corolstadius, etc. By Master Brierley.  by directing the mind of the hearer to the stories of your predecessors, the glories of your Gospel, Luther, Caralostadius & Swinglius; who were instructed by a black thing, the Devil; against the Mass. Luther saith in plain terms, it was Diabolus and Satan. & Swinglius after fuerit an albus nihil memini. But Conradus Sclusselburg (himself a Protestant) with diverse other Protestants, affirm that, without doubt, it was though Devil, Sole meridiana clarius est non Deum verum, sed Diabolum ipsissimum, Swinglio per somnium suam Haeresin Sacramentariam inspirasse. 
Schlu. Theop. Caluin. in prooem,  It is more clear than sun light at midday that it was not the true God but the very Devil himself that inspired into Swinglius in a dream his Sacramentarian heresy. Not albus then, but after.  
Thus fare touching the Philosophical part of that Digression, (the rest you were content to let pass, as you do still the grearest part of S. E. his Notes, without reply,) in the examen whereof you have showed your ignorance in that kind of learning too. It is needles to examine that poor Inference which you build upon your own mistakes. that will fall of itself▪ it tottered, and was senseless when I looked on it. Next, you will needs, thrust in a dispute, of the verity of propositions.  Apologist. 
A proposition is not said to true or false because it is answerable to the intellectual image, but answerable to the thing.  Censure. 
That which S. E. had said, was this; that in attributing the name to a thing (for example the name man, to your mother) we seem to say that it hath in itself, 
Confer. pag. 52.  all which the name doth signify; that is, all which the conception (whereunto this name was subordinated as a sign) doth represent: which is not exactly true (you will swear in the example of your mother) if the foresaid exterior form be wanting. 
Apolog. pag. 44.  Hear was, you see, little cause for you to come in with your let me tell you that a proposition is not said to be true etc.  
Did we suppose a vocal proposition had formally in itself, verity, in comparison to the thing or object, still the discourse of S. E. doth stand good: for even in that case, you must say that words had their significations given them by men that understand; who appointed them to be signs, not of what things soever, but, of those which they conceived. whence it will follow that, the word or name cannot be exactly verified in the thing, if in the same thing be not all, imported by the name. But, formal verity, if Aristotle may be judge, is in the understanding; non enim est falsum & verum in rebus sed in ment. 6. M●t. tex. 8. And vocal propositions are said true, inasmuch as they be signs of true mental propositions. Sunt ergo ea quae in voce earum quae sunt in ment passionum notae: & ea quae scribuntur earum quae sunt in voce. lib. 1. de Interp. tex. 1. For the interpretation of which words we will not be beholding to Smiglecius as you would have us. many writ Philosophy, that understand not the Philosopher: and whether he be one of those, or not, I neither know, nor mean to look. the words are clear without a Comment. Wherein formal verity doth consist, wherein transcendental verity, and how the understanding whilst it doth attribute the predicate to the subject doth in actu exercito know truth; are things not appertaining to this place: nor (if one may judge of your skill in this by the rest which you have uttered) within the sphere of your knowledge.  
I had almost forgot to take notice of two other passages in this your Examen of the Digression; the one is, how easily in the heat of your passion, you bring a man (had it been your Adversary you might have begged a solemn Triumph) to almost nothing. Having defined him, (you say, out of S. E.) a thing not in his pure essence and quiddity, but extended and coloured etc. first (your 
a. Hear what your own words say, this word man signifies a thing— so then we will be beholding to you for perfecting the definition of a man thus, homo est animal quantum & coloratum; as good as that of Plato Homo est animal bipes & inplume. and as the Philosopher put a cock with his feathers plucked of, into Plato his school & cried Ecce homo Platonicus, so might we put a picture of a man into yours and cry Ecce homo jesuiticus, because you will be content with this definition Homo est quid quantum & coloratum. Waferer pag. 42.43.  words are in the margin) you laugh at this man. (belike your Father was not such a thing; but one of the naked, abstracted substances, which otherwhile converse with women,) you first (I say) laugh at the man. and then begin to despoil him of his definition. the difference rationale you cut of; and define him, animal quantum & coloratum: than you laugh at him again, and bring in Diogenes ghost to keep you company. After this you take out animal; and so make him senseless, thus; homo est quid quantum & coloratum. He is mangled enough, now, one would think; having neither eyes, nor hands, nor ears: you have made of him a lump of earth, quid quantum & coloratum. one blow more and you may beat him into dust. but that will not satisfy your rage; you turn him thus diffigured, this quantum & coloratum into a mere shape or picture, that he may be without substance: and then you stab him through, with an Ecce homo jesuiticus; wherewith you fix him to the paper, where he hangs Pag. 43. till he be torn out, to light tobacco, and so turned into smoke.  
The other passage is about sucking 
(a) will you say that an Ivy bush is not a sign that wine is to be sold there, because you cannot suck sack, claret, & white wine out of an Ivy leaf? Wafer. pag. 44.  wine out of an ivy bush. you do but bungle in the application; I will help you to do it better. It is an Emblem of your communion; wherein you suck, blood, out of wine. your opinion is that it is nothing indeed but wine, standing for the sign of blood; as an ivy bush before the tavern door, is nothing but ivy, standing for a sign of wine. You say also, that it doth exhibit to you really the blood of jesus Christ, even that which was shed upon the cross. Is not this like sucking wine out of a sign wherein it is not; out of a bush of ivy? It is as fit an exposition, as apt a simile, as one would have desired, only we must recite some of your doctrine which it doth illustrate. Pag. 10. you say, Though the very body and blood of Christ be not substantially contained under the shapes of bread and wine, yet they are really communicated by the holy Ghost unto us at & by (mark that by) the faithful & worthy receiving of those mysteries. Pag. 13. bread is more than a bare figure of the body, for it hath the effectual presence of the body joined with it, though substantially it be not become the same. And though the bread be not in substance Christ, yet the faithful receiver hath (since to give him effectually and in substance is the same) the substance communicated to his soul as verity as the bread enters his mouth. Pag. 62. I'll grant you that the out ward signs are signs of Christ's body present after consecration, but I deny that the body is there present after the manner you define. 'tis not there corporally but mystically, and sacramentally, and yet so as besides the intellectual presence, there is also a real & exhibitive presence in respect of donation on God's part, and reception on man's part. Hear, besides the intellectual presence, (by faith) is a real exhibition; and a real reception of the body: the very substance of it, is as really communicated to the soul and as verily, as the bread (delivered by the Minister) is received in the mouth: and all this is done by means of the signs, exhibiting those things unto us. Is not this sucking blood out of wine, and wine out of an ivy bush?  
To our tenet, (which is the Catholic) that emblem doth not agree; for in our Sacrament there is under the exterior signs, flesh and blood, according to the substance and verity: the whole body, the whole humanity of our Saviour, the Mediator; he himself, with all the ornaments of his humanity, and all the infinite perfections of his Divinity, is there: and, receiving the blessed Sacrament into our mouths, we do receive, in it, all this. The vintners wine be not thus in his ivy bush, that you may suck sack from thence.  
After this, M. Waferer enters into the matter of transubstantiation, which matter was not handled in the Conference. He might have saved himself the labour he takes, and looseth, in talking of it, had he (as he might and should) have observed (but that he was willing to confound Questions and run out of one into another) that which my Lord in the beginning gave the auditory then present, to understand. 
Confer. pag. 7. See also Featli Pag. 288  That the Conference was to be, not of Transubstantiation, but of the real presence only, which by order of disputation ought to be first. and so it was agreed, and nothing said of that matter. What he brings against it, is ordinary stuff, and the manner of delivering it, worse than ordinary. The authors which he cities are Caietan & Scotus: who notwithstanding (as is well known to Scholars that are able to read their books) do maintain and defend, and that, 

Caiet. 3. p. q 75. Scotus in 4. d. 10. & 11. The words objected against us out of him to prove the doctrine of transubstantiation to be new, be these d. 11. qu. 3. where he speaks of the Lateran Council.  
Quicquid ibi (in Concilio Lateranensi) dicitur esse eredendum, tenendum est esse de substantia fidei: & hoc post illam declarationem factam ab Ecclesia. Et si quaeras quare voluit Ecclesia elige●e istum intellectum ita difficilem huius articuli cum verba scripturae possent saluati secundum intellectum facilem & veriorem secundum apparentiam, de hoc articulo; Dico quod eo Spiritu expositae sunt Scripturae, quo conditae. Et ita supponendum est quod Ecclesia Catholica eo Spiritu exposuit quo tradita est nobis fides, spiritu scilicet veritatis edocta; & ideo hunc intellectum elegit quia verus est. Non enim in potestate Ecclesiae fuit facere istud verum vel non verum, sed Dei instituentis: sed intellectum a Deo traditum Ecclesia explicavit directa in hoc ut creditur Spiritu veritatis. He that well considers these words, will easily perceive there is in them no occasion given to pretend that he denies the doctrine to be ancient, since he affirms it to be contained in the Scripture; & that the Church by direction of the Holy Ghost whose assistance the Catholics believe, found it there. Eo Spiritu expositae sunt Scripturae &c, &, ideo hunc sensum elegit quia—. you will not I hope, accuse the Scripture of novelty. See Saint Augustine Contra Epist. fundam. c. 4. Epist. 118. the bapt l. 2. c. 4. & 9 l. 5. c. 17. Contra Crescon. Gram. l 1. c. 33, Scripturarum in hac re tenetur veritas cum hoc facimus quod universae iam placuit Ecclesie etc. It is the Church that is to teach us, the meaning of the Scripture; docete. and the holy Ghost directs her in it, docebit vos.   larglie and professedly, both the Real● presence, which was the matter of the Conference; & 〈◊〉 transubstantiation, which matter he would fain run into, to make a further demonstration of his ignorance and unsufficiency. Next he says the churches of Asia and the Greek churches dissented, that is, denied transubstantiation. He might aswell have told his Reader that we do: they having as fully declared themselves in their Profession, books and Counsels; And that very Council of Florence whence he would (against the whole stream of authority) make good his rash assertion, in the Instruction of faith given to the Armenians, which was made in public session, sacro approbante concilio, that very year he speaks of, 1439. doth acknowledge it, in these words, Ipsorum verborum virtute substantia panis in corpus Christi & substantia vini in sanguinem, convertitur; ita tamen ut totus Christus continetur sub specie panis, & totus sub specie vini: sub qualibet quoque parte hostiae consecratae & vini consecrati separatione facta, totus est Christus. by virtue of those very words (of consecration) the substance of bread is turned into the body, and the substance of wine into the blood: yet so, that whole Christ is contained under the species of bread, and whole under the species of wine, and also whole Christ is under every part of the consecrated host and consecrated wine, when there is a separation or division made. See Cardinal Peron, his book against P. Mornay, pag. 812. & s●qq. and Censu. Eccles. Orient. Respons. 1. add German. c. 13. & Responso 2. c. 4.  
He says pag. 47. and most ignorantly, that the Church's tenet of a substantial change under the species; which change we call transubstantiation, was a thing not known or taught for 1215. years after Christ. which is a lie, many times confuted, by our Divines; Bellarmine, Peron, Allen, Gualterius, and others, yea, and by your own too, Master Mirth, your own men, Protestants, confess that Damascen taught it, that Gregory and Austin brought it into England, that it entered early into the Church. 
Cited in the Protest. Ap. tract. r. sect. 7. subd. 4. See also sect. 2. subd. 2.  Read the discourse of M. Brierley p. 184.  
Lest you should outface such as want books, some few of those which held the change, shall (for their sakes) be represented on the by. I told you that Protestants contradict your assertion; and your friend Crak●●thorps also, (Birkberks learned kinsman,) whom you cite in your margin. But I come nearer, 
pag. 232.  this your Doctor's friend, Birckbeck, will admit, (and with his advice,) that it was public taught, in England by Lancfranc, long before the time you speak of. So will (I come nearer yet) Master Waferer of Alban-Hall, and with the same Doctor's approbat, Who saith pag. 48. (so soon he forgot himself) your transubstantiation is no better than the coinage of the monk Damascen; who lived anno 730. This I note by the way only, to show your ignorance and temereity in your assertions; and how little your word is to be regarded. The point itself, I do not hear examine, because I will not leave the matter of the Conference, as you strive to do. 
Non de nomine Quaestio est, sed de re; substantiarum nempe distinctarum ordine sub iisdem accidentibus: sub quibus ante consecrationem sit natura vel substantia panis, post consecrationem verum D. N. corpus. Celebratum est Lateran ense Concilium saeculo 13. In ore duo●um vel trium testium stabit omne verbum. Matth. 18. Seculo 12. Petrus Blesensis Epist: 140. Pane & vino transubstantiatis virtute verborum coelestrum in corpus & sanguinem Christi, accidentia, quae priús ibi fuerant, fine subiecto remanent & apparent. Petrus Lombard 4. d. 11 Post consecrationem non est ibi substanitia panis vel vini; licet species remaneant, est enim ibi species panis & vini, sicut & sapor. Vnde aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur. Seculo 11. Lanfrancus, li. de Euchar Credimus terrenas substantias mitabiliter operante supernâ potentia converti in essentiam Dominici corporis, reseruatis ipsarum rerum speciebus & quibusdam allis qualitatibus, ne percipientes cruda & c●uenta horrerent. Theophilactus in cap. 26 Matt. Por●ò dicens, Hoc est corpus meum, ostendit quod ipsum corpus Domini est panis qui sanctificatur in altari, & non respondens figura; non enim dixit hoc est figura, sed, hoc est corpus meum. ineffabili enim operatione transformatur (panis,) etiamsi nobis panis videatur: quoniam infirmi sumus & abhorremus crudas carnes comedere, maximè hominis carnem: & ideo panis quidem apparet, sed revera caro est. Seculo 10. Stephanus Eduensis de Sacram. Altar. c. 13. Oramus ut cibus hominum fiat cibus angelorum; scilicet, ut oblatio panis & vini transsubstantietur in corpus & sanguinem jesu Christi, qui est oblatio benedicta, etc. 15. Sub utriusque speciei particulâ singulâ totus est Christus jesus. Fulbertus Episc, Carnot. Epist, de Euchar. ad Adeodat. Cùm in omni re sint erga nos inestimabiles divitiae Dei, adeo ut maiestate absconditâ corruptibile pro nobis corpus induerit, contumelis & passionibus se subdiderit, quo opem ferret assumpto homin; quid indignum Deo iudicari potest qui uterum Virginis subijt si virginibus creaturis infunditur? quae licet simplicis naturae paulò ante praeferrent imaginem, postmodum coelestis verbi sanctificatione inspiratis maiestas vera infunditur, & quae substantia panis & vini apparebat exte rius, iam corpus Christi & sanguis sit interiùs. & infra. Si Deum omnia posse credas, & hoc consequitur ut credas— creaturas (posse) in sui corporis substantiam transfundere. Seculo 9 Remigius Episc. Antisid. in Psa. 21. Panis & vinum à Christiana veritate dicuntur, non quod naturam panis & vini post consecrationem in se retineant, nisi quantum ad speciem & sapotem & odorem. Illi enim— panis & vini materiam in sui corporis & sanguinis natutam transferre possibile est. Paschasius Corbeiensis li. de corpore Christi c. 1. Nullus moveatur de hoc Corpore Christi & sanguine, quod in mysterio vera sit caro, & verus sit sanguis; dum sic ille voluit qui creavit. Omnia enim quaecumque voluit fecit. Et quia voluit, licet figura panis & vini hic sit, tamen omnino nihil aliud quàm caro Christi & sanguis post consecrationem credenda sunt. Seculo 8. Damascenus li. 4. de fide Orthod c. 14. Quemadmodum naturaliter panis per cibum, & vinum & aqua per per potum, in comedentis & bibentis corpus & sanguinem immutantur, corpusque alterum fiunt atque à priore ipsius corpore diversum; sic propositionis panis ac vinum & aqua per Spiritus S. invocationem & adventum mirabili modo in Christi corpus & sanguinem vertuntur; nec sunt duo, sed unum Venerab. Beda Comment. in l. Both. de Trinit. Panis fit corpus Christi; transit enim substantia, panis, in corpus Christi; non forma, (species,) nam potius hae subsistunt— sine substantia-Sienim hic contingat quod alibi est impossibile, non est mirum: cum etiam ipsum corpus Christi ineffabili modo conceptum sit. Samonas' Ga●ae Archiepisc. in Disceptat. cum Achmed. Spiritus sanctus descendit, & superuenit in ea quae sunt proposita: & igne suae divinitatis in corpus & sanguinem Christi panem & vinum commutat, non minus quàm iccur alimentum in corpus cuiusdam hominis. Seculo 7. Eligius Episcopus Noviom. Hom. 8. Vera est caro & verus est sanguis eius (Christi) quem ad manducan dum & potandum in mysterio sumimus,— in quibus manet post consecrationem similitudo panis & vini ne sit cuidam horror cruoris. Isidorus Archiep. Hispal. l. 1. de Offic. cap. 18. Placuit Spi. S. per Apostolos ut in honote tanti Sacramenti in Os Christiani ieiuni prius Dominicum corpus intraret quàm caeteri cibi: & ideo per universum orbem mos iste seruatur. Panis enim quem frangimus corpus Christi est qui dicit Ego sum panis vinus qui de coelo descendi; Vinum autem sanguis eius est. Haec autem duo (panis & vinum) sunt visibilia, sanctificata tamen per Spiritum S. in Sacramentum divini corporis transeunt. Seculo 6. Gregorius Magnus referente Paulo Diac. in eius vita. Praescius conditor nostrae infirmitatis, ea potestate qua cunct a fecit ex nihilo, & corpus sibi ex carne semper Virginis operante Spiritu S. fabricavin panem & vinum aquâ mistum, manente propria specie in carnem & sanguinem suum, ad Catholicam precem ob reparationem nostram Spiritus sui sanctificatione convertit. Remigius Archiep. Rhemen. Comm. in c. 10 prim. Corinth. Caro quam Verbum Dei patris assump sit in in utero virginali in unitate suae Personae, & panis qui consecratur in Ecclesia, unum Christi corpus sunt: sicut enim illa caro Corpus Christi est, ita iste panis transit in Corpus Christi: nec sunt duo corpora, sed unum corpus Seculo 5. Chrysostomus Patriarcha Constantinop. de Euchar in Encaen. 6. the Poens. ed. Sau. Num vides panem, nun vinum? num sicut reliqui cibi in secessum vadunt? Absit, Ne sic cogires Quemadmodum enim si cera igni adhibita illi assimilatur, nihil substantiae remanet, nihil super fluit: sic & hic puta mysteria consumi corporis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, substantia, Propter quod & accedentes ne puteris quod accipiatis divinum corpus ex homine, sed exipsis Seraphim forcipe ignem, quem sc. Esaias vidit vos accipere. Cyrillus Archiep, Alexand. Epist. ad Calosyr. Influit oblatis vim vitae, convertens ea in veritatem propriae carnis. Seculo 4. Ambrose Archiep Mediolan. De Mist. ●it. c. 9 Forté dicas aliud video, quomodo tu mihi asseris quod Christi corpus accipiam?— Probemus non hoc esse quod natura formavit, sed quod benedictio consecravit; maioremque vim esse benedictionis quam naturae, quia benedictione etiam natura ipsa mutatur. & l. 4. de Sacram. c 5. Ante verba Christi, calix est vini & aquae plenus: ubi verba Christi operata fuerint, ibi sanguis efficitur qui plebem redemit. Gregorius Nyssenus Episcopus, Orat. Catechet c 37. Verbo Dei sanctificatum panem in Dei Verbi corpus credo transmutari. Et infra. Se per carnem inserit omnibus credentibus, commistus & contemperatus corporibus credentium, quibus substantia est ex pane & vino, ut unione cum eo quod est immortale sit etiam homo particeps incorruptionis. Haec autem dat virtute benedictionis, in illud (quod est immortal, nempe corpus suum) transelementatae eorum quae apparent natura. Cyrillus Episcopus Hierosol. Cathechesi 4. Aquam olim in vinum convertit in Cana Galileae, quod (vinum) cum quandam habeat cum sanguine propinquitatem facilè in illum transmutatur. & eum patum dignum existimabimus cui credamus quod vinum in sanguinem transmutet? & infra. Hoc sciens & pro certissimo habens, panem hunc qui videtur à nobis non esse panem, etiamsi gustus panem esse sentiat; sed esse corpus Christi: & vinum quod à nobis conspicitur, tametsi sensui gustus vinum esse videatur non tamen vinum, sed sanguinem esse Christi. Seculo 3. Sermo de Coena apud Cyprianum. Panis iste quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat, non essigie sed natura mutatus omni potentia Verbi factus est caro. & sicut in Persona Verbi humanitas videbatur & latebat divinitas: ita Sacramento visibili ineffabiliter divina se infudit essentia. Origenes l. 8. contra Celsum. Nos qui rerum omnium conditori placere studemus, cum precibus & gratiarum pro beneficiis acceptis actione oblatos panes edimus corpus iam per precationem factos sanctum quoddam & sanctificans. Et hom. 5. in diverse. Quando sanctum ●●bum, illudque incorruptum accipis epulum, quando pane vitae & poculo frueris, manducas & bibis corpus & sanguinem Domini, tunc Dominus sub tectum tuum ingreditur. tu ergo humilian● temetipsum, imitare hunc Centurionem & dicito Domine non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum. Vbi enim indigné ingreditur, ibi ad iudicium ingreditut recipientis. Seculo 2. Tertullianus l. 4. contra Marc. c. 40. Acceptum panem & distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit, & l. de resurrect. carn.. Caro corpore & sanguine Christi vescitur. Irenaeus Episcopus l. 4. adverse Haeres. c. 34 Qui est à terra panis percipiens vocationem Dei, iam non communis panis est, sed Eucharistia, ex duabus rebus constans, terrena & coelesti. Seculo 1. Paulus Apostolus, pri. Corinth. 11. Ego enim accepi à Domino, quod & tradidi vobis, quoniam Dominus Iesus in qua nocte trade batur, accepit panem, & gratias agens fregit, & dixit, Accipite & manducate, HOC EST CORPUS MEUM quod pro vobis tradetur.— Qui manducat & bibit indignè, iudicium sibi manducat & bibit, non dijudicans CORPUS Domini. Retinuit Antiquitas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Contentorum ordo sub aspectabili panis forma. Sub illa fuit, ante consecrationem, vera panis natura: accepit panem. cui successit sub eadem forma corpus Domini verum; hoc est corpus quod pro vobis. A deo que sub illa specie vel aspectabili forma, facta mutatio. Aduersariorum Confessio. Beza, de Coena con. Westphal. Hoc quidem saepe diximus, quod nunc quoque repetam, retineri reipsa non posse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Christi verbis Hoc est corpus meum, quin transsubstantiatio Papistica statuatur. Morton. Institut. Sacram. l. 2 ca 1 pag. 72. What necessity there is to inquire into the true sense of these words (This is my body) will best appear in the after-examination of the diverse consequences of your own sense, to wit, your doctrine of transubstantiation, corporal and material presence, propitiatotie sacrifice, and proper adoration: all which are dependants upon your Romish exposition of the former words of Christ. The issue will be this, that if the words be certainly true in a proper and literal sense, than we are to yield to you the whole cause. So he.   
S. E. had said that Berengarius broached your 
(a) About the year of our Lord 1060. the denying of transubstantiation began to be accounted Heresy; and in that number was first one Berengarius who lived about ●●. 1060. Fox pag. 1121 Brier.  heresy, and this you Master Waferer, take heynouslie; telling us that you have it from the Apostles. If you had said that one of them (judas) was of your opinion, you might peradventure have found Scripture for it, in the 6. of S. john. where after our Saviour had said the bread which he meant to give was his flesh, that flesh which he would give also for the life or redemption of the world, the jews began to dispute of the modus, how that could be, quomodo potest hic nobis carnem suam dare ad manducandum, how can this man give us his flesh to eat? whereupon our Saviour told them that his flesh was meat indeed, and that his blood was drink indeed, and that they were to eat this flesh and to drink this blood. heereat some of the Disciples were scandalised, and said, as you do, durus est hic sermo, this is a hard speech, they had not the patience to hear of it; they believed not; and amongst those was the man, I spoke of. Sunt quidam ex vobis qui non credunt, sciebat enim ab initio Iesus qui essent non credentes, & quis traditurus esset eum. there are some of you that believe not. For jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. you know the man; he was of your opinion. yet Berengarius being the first that taught it openly as a doctrine, he may well be said to have broached it first. and, if instead of the word opinion, or heresy, you put in, Sacrament; that it run thus, Berengarius broached your Sacrament; it may be no metaphor, for it is wine that is in your communion cup, & nothing else but wine.  
Hear is an end of your second Section. I will leave you now alone, in your recreation room, and go speak with others, at the door, you shall hear of me again by that time you have stepped into your third Section; where if you can compose yourself thereunto, we will be more serious. It is not my labour (it was your Mothers,) to breed Mirth.  
Nobis non licet esse tam disertis  
Qui Musas colimus severiores.  
Master Mirth is a merry man; he can laugh out another's eyes: and his own, it seems, (is not laughing the cause?) be not fully open, he hath studied so long in the University, and talked there so much of homo, that he hath forgotten part of his own mother tongue. I have been disputing with him about a piece of it, and would have left him sooner being weary in the very beginning, (that sine ment sonum,) to here so many words with so little sense, but that he would have taken occasion thereby to make the press labour again in the edition of an other as impertinent a discourse; not omitting to appoint his title-pages to stand, and proclaim me coward at every corner-poste in London where the players put up their bills, unless I come the second time to the Comedy must I call it, or, Mirth's Tragedy.  
Our dispute was about the signification of this English word man, whether it doth only signify the substance, the quid as they speak in schools, animal rationale; or, whether it doth import, or bring into the understanding of him that hears or reads it and knows our language, and in that kind signify, more than animal rationale. It is an easy Question, (and scarce a Question but that he will make it so) which every English man or woman, or child, may determine. The child hath not yet learned to speak, and the old woman dotes, that knows not the difference betwixt these two names, man, and, woman. and should one write the story of his Petegrie, changing these names & expressing the female by the word man, the male by woman, scholars would think that he were mad. If you look into the language, you shall find the like in other words. Those who gave to things their English names, came not to the students in Metaphysic to have them first abstracted. Men were, and had society, and could speak, before they met to build Schools. The Scottish, and Welsh, and Irish, were not invented in Universities; and they which made bricks at Babel were not all Masters of Art.  
I never hard that a soul, in itself had any sex, or that animal rationale metaphysicallie abstracted from all accidents, was an hermaphrodite, though those words have a good sense in them, forma dat nomen & esse, and ratio quam significat nomen est definitio. Before such absurdities were inferred out of these words, it would be demanded what is this definitio? What this form? many formalities have names which have not proper definitions; rationale, sensible, corporeum, and other differences, have none: and the prima genera (substantia, quantitas, ad aliquid, and the rest) non habent genera; therefore no proper definition. Neither are the substantial differences of things, so known, as that, without taking into our understanding their properties which are of another kind or predicament, we can unfold or conceive them. Whereof he may presently have proof sufficient, that would but endeavour himself, or put another, (you Master Waferer,) to define the several species of living things, beasts, trees, flowers, etc.  
When natural things were by man first named in vulgar language, their definitions or notions (which they who named them conceived) were proportionable to their nature, which did occur to the sense invested with certain proprieties; & never otherwise; in which case, the Philosopher himself says, it is hard to make 
(a) Quaecunque apparent advenientia in diversis specie, ut circulus in aere, ligno, lapide, haec quidem manifesta esse videntur, quoniam nihil substantiae circuli aes, neque lapis est, propterea quod ab eis separetur. Quae verò non videntur separari, nihil quidem prohibet similiter his se habere, quemadmodum si circuli omnes viderentur aenei. Nihil enim minus aes esset ipsius formae. Difficile tamen est hoc ment auferre.  puta forma hominis semper in carnibus & ossibus & talibus partibus apparet Vtrum igitur sint etiam hae●, parts formae & rationis? an non, sed materia? Verùm quoniam non adveniunt etiam in al●us, non possumus separare. Cum autem hoc videatur quidem contingere, quando verò, non est manifestum▪ Aristot. 7. Metaphys●t 37 Formae naturales licet possint intelligi absque materia, non tamen facile, quoniam esse non possunt sine determinatis ac propriis materiis quarum sunt: ut homo, licet possit abstrahi ab his carnibus & his ossibus, non tamen à carnibus & ossibus simpliciter. Commentator, ibidem. Formae naturales difficilè abstrahuntur intellectu a suis materiis, impossibile est enim intelligere hominem sine carne & ossibus. Ibidem. Non potest (intellectus) abstrahere eas in imaginatione à materia. Ibidem.  abstraction▪ neither was a Metaphysical one, necessary to the first imposition of the word or name, since the thing conceived with its properties, is sufficiently distinguished from other things, and capable enough of a different name or sign. & in this manner, the Latin word Homo, (to speak of that language too, for your sake,) needed to suppose no other notion then that which might be gathered by observing a man's motion, discourse, figure, contenance, and other accidents found in all men that came to notice and not in any other thing but in man. Then further, as men came to the knowledge of the Metaphysic, and therbey were able to abstract a substance from sensible properties, and figure and quantity, the name was applied to signify that abstracted thing also, yet so, that it left not, to be withal, that it was before. Whence it comes to pass, that the same word, signifiing, according to diverse abstractions, more, or less, may be said to be, or not to be, entirely verified in the same thing.  
Aristotle in his first de Anima puts a difference betwixt the Logician & the natural Philosopher, in their manner of defining, Differenter definiet naturalis & Dialecticus &c. where he saith, the Logician defines by the form, the Philosopher by the matter; and brings an example of each. In the sixth of his Metaphysics he shows how the Natural Philosopher's way of defining is 
Differenter definiet Naturalis & Dialecticus unumquodque ipsorum.  ira quid est. Hic enim, appetitum recontristationis, aut aliquid huiusmodi; Ille autem, feruorem sanguinis, aut calidi circa cor Horum autem, Hic quidem assignat materiam, Ille veró formam & rationem. Ratio enim haec ipsius rei. Necesse autem esse hanc in materia huiusmodi, si erit. Sicut domus haec quidem ratio etc. Arist. l 1. de Animat. 16. Qui accipit materiam in definitione, & dimittit formam, diminuté accipit: qui autem accipit formam & dimittit materiam, existimatur quod dimittit aliquid non necessarium, sed non est ita: quoniam forma debet accipit in definitionibus secundum dispositiones in quibus existit. Commentator, Ibidem.  diverse from that of the Mathematician, or the Metaphysic. The Naturarall Philosopher doth (in his definition) abstract from individual matter (which he calls ultima, 
7. Me●. ●. 35.  others signata,) for his definition must be constant and universal; otherwise it would not serve his turn to make a demonstration: but he doth not abstract from sensible matter, or that which is affected with sensible qualities, as the other two do. 
(a) Arist. l 6 Metaphys. t 2. vide Commentat. Ibidem.  Eorum quae definiuntur, & ipsorum quid est, quaedam quidem ita sunt ut ipsum simum, quaedam ut ipsum concawm. Differunt autem haec quoniam simum quidem una acceptum est eum materia, est enim simum conca● us nasus, concavitas vero absque materia sensibili. Si cuucta igitur naturalia ita ut simum dicuntur, ut nasus, oculus, facies, caro, os, omnino animal, folium, radix, 
In definitione enim carnis & ossis oportet quod ponatur calidum & frigidum aliquo modo contemperatum; & similiter in aliis. S. Tho. ibidem. Aristot.  cortex, omnino planta, (nullius enim eorum ratio absque motu, sed semper habet materiam;) manifestum est quomodo in naturalibus oportet ipsum quid est quaerere, & definire; & cur etiam de quadam anima speculari Naturalis est, quaecunque non sine materia. Accordingly, he doth elsewhere define a 
(b) li. 2. de Anima. t. 4. & 5. Actus primus corporis organici etc.  soul. and as for singulars, he saith they cannot be defined. 
(c) Aristot. l. 7. Metaphys. t. 35.  Totius verò, ut circuli huius, & singularium alicuius sensibilis aut intelligibilis (dico autem intelligibiles quidem, ut Mathematicos, sensibiles verò ut aeneos & ligneos) horum inquam non est definitio, sed intellectione aut sensu cognoscuntur. cum verò abeant ab actu, non est manifestum utrum sint al. quando an non sint: tamen semper dicuntur & cognoscuntur universali ratione; Materia vero per seipsam incognita. Materia verò quaedam sensibilis, quaedam intelligibilis: sensibilis quidem ut aes & lignum, & quaecunque mobilis materia: intelligibilis verò quae in sensibilibus existit non prout sensibilia, ut puta ipsa mathematica. The metaphysic doth abstract from all these three matters, signata, sensibili, intelligibili: he can abstract a substance from quantity, sensible qualities, and individuation, and accordingly define it; without expressing any of them in the intellectual; or adding them, in the vocal definition.  
Thus far in common. Now to come to our particular cause. The Science which contemplates a substantial body and according to whose abstraction it was named, is Natural Philosophy, which Science, (according to the known doctrine of the schools, whereunto the best Peripatetics, and the greatest schoolmen also, do subscibe,) doth not abstract from sensible matter; but defines by it. It abstractes à materia signata; and according to this abstraction & way of defining, doth impose names to things natural; ratio quam significat nomen est definitio. Wherefore this Latin word corpus, and this English word, body, (it is the like of all others imposed according to this abstraction,) in the judgement of the Natural Philosopher do not abstract from such matter, but do signify a thing sensible. And if the thing wherein they be verified be not such, he doth not esteem the speech to be entirely proper; because the words import or bring into his understanding such a thing, howbeit, the speaker is not tied to this notion, for he may use another kind of abstraction; & according 
Materia est duplex, scilicet communis, & signata vel individualis. Communis quidem, ut caro & os, individualis autem ut hae carnes & haec ossa. Intellectus igitur abstrahit speciem rei naturalis à materia sensibili individuali, non autem à materia sensibili communi. Sicut speciem hominis abstrahit ab his carnibus & his ossibus, quae non sunt de ratione speciei sed partes individui ut dicitur in septimo Metaphysicorum (t. 34. & 35.) & ideo sine eis considerari potest. Sed species hominis non potest abstrahi per intellectum à carnibus & ossibus. Species autem mathematicae possunt abstrahi per intellectum à materia sensibili, non solum individual. sed etiam communi: non tamen à materia intelligibili communi sed solum individuali. Materia enim sensibilis dicitur materia corporalis, secundum quod subiacet qualitatibus sensibilibus, scilicet calido & frigido, duro & molli, & huiusmodi, Materia verò intelligibilis dicitur substantia secundum quod subiacet quantitati. Manifestum est autem quod quantitas priùs inest substantiae, quàm qualitates sensibiles. Vnde quantitates (ut numeri & dimensiones, & figurae quae sunt terminationes quantitatum) possunt considerari absque qualitatibus sensibilibus; quod est eas abstrahere à materia sensibili: non tamen possunt considerari sine intellectu substantiae quantitati subiectae, quod esset eas abstrahi à materia intelligibili communi. Possunt tamen considerari sine hac vel illa substantia, quod est eas abstrahi à materia intelligibili individuali. Quaedam verò sunt quae possunt abstrahi etiam à materia intelligibili communi, sicut ens, unum, potentia, & acrus, & alia huiusmodi; quae etiam esse possunt absque omni materia, ut patet in substantiis immaterialibus. S. Tho. 1. p. qu. 85. a. 1. ad 2.  to that may peak his mind.  
Hereby appears the truth of those passages against which M. Waferer most ignorantly did cavil: as that of S. E. pag. 51. That which presents itself to the eye to be seen is not a pure essence or quiddity as they speak in Schools, but it is a thing sensible, and to be perceived by this organ and faculty, it is an extended coloured thing, which we do see and conceive; agreeing that such or such a word shall be in speech a sign of it, and the rest, which you may read in him. And of Cardinal Allen pag. 57 A thing being put out of its natural manner of being, and out of 〈◊〉 natural conditions and sensible proprieties agreeing to such a name, and endowed with strange accidents, although it keep its substance, yet because it wants the conditions of subsisting which together with the substance come to the sense and conceit of man, and are comprehended under the proper name, it almost loseth its proper name; or if it keep it, yet not so properly as if it kept its proper manner of being. And of my Lord, pag. 39 I admit that in these words, This is my body, there is a figure, not a mere or naked one void of the truth & propriety, but a figure joined with the truth and with propriety: because although they signify that the Eucharist is the body of Christ truly, really, and properly according to the thing; yet they do not affirm it to be the body of Christ after such a corporal and natural manner as other things are the things that they are said to be, but after a spiritual, invisible, mystical, sacramental manner, & such a one as doth figuratively show and represent the natural manner of being of the same body in another place.  
In which words there be two things more specified, the one is that the Sacramental manner of existence, is figuratively the natural manner of existence; which also came to pass by the Institution, as appears more fully in the Gospel, do this in remembrance of me. The other, that the words This is my body, do likewise insinuate the spiritual manner of existence which the body hath here in the sacrament; for, they do not signify the body in what manner soever, or abstracted (I speak of the proposition, not of corpus, which is a simple term) but they signify determinately our Saviour's body with this kind of existence which it hath in the species or form of bread.  
Out of the former distinction of a double abstraction; if you should hear an understanding man deny, that there is any kind of impropriety in the word corpus, you were to know that he takes it according to the Metaphysical abstraction; in which sen●● the term is entirlie proper, as before was observed, not according to the Physical. So easily you may reconcile him, with the others cited by S. E. and thereby see how little it doth import the main, whether in the word, there be, or be not, admitted a kind of impropriety. In the word, I say, or term; for it is one thing to speak of that single word, and an other thing to speak of the proposition; whose sense I have unfolded, as far as occasion hath been offered; and shall do further as I shall find cause. I must now to M. Waferer again, who is gotten to his next section and there expects me.   

The third argument was about the kill letter; out of Origen, who by the kill letter meant (as it was Answered) not the Catholic sense, but the Capharnaiticall.  Apologist: 
S. E. makes a noise with the Capharnaiticall strain, as if it differed from their carnal eating: but I refer the Reader for satisfaction to D. featly his Conference, which unanswerablie convinceth their shifts of weakness and obstinacy.  Censure. 

Vide Bellar. li. 2. c. 8. §. tertius l●eus. Sunt certi denique fines quos ultra citraque nequit consistere rectum.  Had you settled a little your countenance whilst you were alone, it would have mended the matter something, for much laughter doth not well consist with Magisteriall gravity; but to put on a brazen face, ●●d avouch to the Reader what by reading without further study or instruction, he knows to be otherwise, is an extreme, more absurd. What kind of eating the Capharnaiets did mean, my Lord told your Doctor out of the Fathers, and, S. E. repeated the it again. They thought S. Augustine saith, that our Saviour would cut of some pieces from his body and give them to eat. Carnaliter putarunt quod praecisurus esset Dominus particulas quasdam de corpore suo & daturus illis. whereunto Chamier your great Panstratist, from whom now & then you borrow matter for your Pamphlet, subscribes in these words. Et hoc quidem verum, quod ipsa lectio indicat; and, Quis non videt (lo what Andabatarians he makes you two, Doctor featly and yourself, 
Cham. lib. 11. c. 19 n. 30. ) in hanc formam argumentatos esse Capharnaitas? Omne corpus carnaliter manducandum, laniandum est, at secundum Christum eius corpus carnaliter est manducandum Ergo idem laniandum est. This is true, as one may see by the very reading of the place. Who sees not that the Caphernaits argued in this manner? Every body that is carnally to be eaten is to be cut or torn in pieces; but according to Christ, his body is carnally to be eaten; therefore it is to be cut or torn in pieces. So they, as your Master Chamier tells you▪ whereas we believe, that the body of our Blessed Saviour is received whole and entire under the form of bread, as S. E. told you in his Notes, and my Lord in the Conference defended against your Doctor. Is there no difference M. Waferer betwixt these two? betwixt eating of flesh in its proper shape and receiving it in the form of bread; betwixt receiving a body whole, entire; and eating but a piece? Belike there is no difference with you betwixt all, and some; betwixt a part, and the whole; betwixt a live, and a dead thing; betwixt a corporal, and a spiritual manner of existence; betwixt the exterior forms of flesh, and bread, who would have thought a man of your name & nature, could be so melancholy, as not to discern this?  
But you are not yourself disposed, & therefore send him that will have satisfaction to Doctor Featlies' Conference. Suppose he go.  
Intererit multum— Is there more than was when S.E. read it over? Nothing at all. But S. E. hath not Answered, why so good M. Waferer? Because it unanswerablie convinces those shifts (that is, S. Augustins' exposition,) of weakness. Is that all? (S. Augustine might be weak to grapple with a Lion;) and obstinacy.  
Away with this melancholy M. Waferer▪ what? may featly descent from your Oracle Chamier, and from the Scripture interpreted by his Spirit, and from Saint Austin, and other ancient Fathers, and from the Catholic and universal Church, with commendations; and S. Austin not descent from featly without obstinacy? What Vertigo brings this about? may nothing be said for him, nothing answered in his behalf? No▪ for the Doctor's Argument doth Vnanswereablie convince.  
And who dares look such an Argument in the face? S.E. belike ran away, let's see that first: for if he durst abide, greater Scholars need not fear. The Doctor's objection I will put down all, as he relates and hath amplified it himself; and will compare it with the Answer that was made.  
featly. Origen saith Hom. 7. in Leviticum. If you follow the letter in these words, unless you eat the flesh etc. that letter killeth.  
Answer. He speaks of the literal sense wherein the Capharnaites understood those words; not of that wherein the Church doth understand them. This answer you may read more at large in the Relation, pag. 63.  
featly. what is litera Capharnaitica, the literal sense wherein the Capharnaites understood the words?  
Answer. They thought, as S. Augustine saith, that our Saviour would cut of some pieces from his body and give them to eat; quod precisurus esset particulus quasdam de corpore suo; this being the common, obvious, carnal way, of understanding such a speech. They never thought of receiving a man's body whole, under the form of bread: which is the sense, left unto the Church by the Apostles; and confirmed by the Hole Ghost the Spirit of Truth. The words be not meant of dead, naked, flesh: they contain Spirit and life. Pieces of flesh, not united to the Divine Person, such as they thought he would have them take, and carnal eating of such pieces in their proper shape and form, profits nothing to salvation; the thing were horrible in itself. It is the Spirit, the Divinity, gives a quickening virtue to that which is united to the word, 
Cyr. Al. Anath. 11  and this same word doth teach another sense which is the very life of that letter; and doth also (in its kind) give life to the receiver: Spiritus est qui vivificat Caro non prodest quicquam; verba quae ego locutus sum vobis Spiritus & vita sunt. Let Saint Augustine speak again, Non crediderunt aliquid magnum dicentem, & verbis illis aliquam gratiam cooperientem, sed pro● voluerunt ita intellexerunt, & more hominum, quia poterat Iesus aut hoc disponebat jesus, carnem qua indutum erat verbum, veluti concisam distribuere credentibus in se, Durus est inquiunt hic sermo. which imagination of cutting in pieces, and consuming it, our Saviour, as he says, refutes in the next words, Si ergo videritis filium hominis etc. Illi putabant, says he, erogaturum corpus suum, (concisum ut suprà,) ille autem dixit se ascensurum in coelum, VTIQVEINTEGRUM. Where he doth oppose integrity to chopping or cutting into pieces. He goes on.  vel tunc videbitis quia non EO MODO quo putatis erogabit corpus suum. certe vel tunc intelligetis quia gratia eius non CONSUMETUR morsibus. And again afterwards in the same place. Magister bone, quomodo caro non prodest quicquam, cum tu dixeris nisi quis manducaverit carnem meam, & biberit sanguinem meum non habebit in se vitam etc. Non prodest quic quam, sed quomodo illi intellexerunt: carnem quippe sic intellexerunt quomodo in cadavere dilaniatur, aut in macello venditur, 
S. Augu. tract 27. in joan.  non quomodo spiritu vegetatur. They believed him not, affirming a great matter and covering a grace under those words: but as they listed so they understood, and as men use to do, because jesus could or disposed it so, that he would distribute unto those who believed in him the flesh which the word had put on, cut in pieces as it were. This say they is a hard saying. 
Ibidem.  They thought he would give them his body, (cut in pieces) he said he would ascend into heaven, entire verily, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bona gratia. de vocabuli suppositione vide Theologos. Vide Turrian. de Euch. tr. 2. c. 13 & 19  not cut in pieces. Surely then at least you shall see that he will not give his body eo modo quo putatis in that manner you imagine▪ then at least you will understand that his grace will not by bits be consumed. Good Master, how doth the flesh profit nothing, when as thyself hast said Unless a man eat my flesh and drink my blood he shall not have life in him, etc. It profiteth nothing, but as they understood; for they imagined it, as it is torn in pieces in the carcase, or sold in the butcher's shop: 
S. Aug. Ibidem.  not as it is quickened with the spirit.  
featly. For aught appears by Scripture or any ancient record, the Capernites error was in this that they construed Christ's words grossly and carnally as you do▪ which you and they should have taken spiritually: my words are Spirit and life.  
Answer. Seeing our Saviour (I repeat my Lords words) saith his flesh is truly meat, and that his words are truly life, they are to be understood so that they be expounded both properly and also spiritually or mystically▪ which thing we rightly do when we say they are to be expounded properly according to the substance of the thing eaten, because that substance which in the Eucharist we eat is the very substance of the body of Christ: and also spiritually according to the manner, because we do not eat cutting and mangling it (as the Capharnaites did conceive) but without hurting it at all, no otherwise then if it were a meet Spirit. Thus fare my Lord▪ who did also declare out of S. Augustine (whose antiquity I suppose featly will not call into question) & out of another more ancient than he, what kind of eating the Capharnaites did understand. Quidam quia non credebant, nec poterant intelligere abierunt retrò, 
Serm. de Coe. Cypr.  quia horrendum eyes & ncfarium videbatur vesci carne humana, existimantes hoc eo modo dici, ut carnem eius vel elixam vel assam, sectamque membratim edere docerentur, cum illius personae caro SI IN FRUSTA PARTIRETUR, non omni humano generi posset sufficere; qua semel consumpta VIDERETUR INTERIISSE (mark this by the way) RELIGIO, cui nequaquam ulterius VICTIMA superesset. Sed in cogitationibus huiusmodi caro & sanguis non prodest quicquam, quia (sicut Magister exposuit) verba haec spiritus & vita sunt, nec carnalis sensus ad intellectum tantae profunditatis penetrat nisi fides accedat. you heard S. Augustine before, Putaverunt quod precisurus esset Dominus particulas de corpore suo. Carnem veluti concisam distribuere quomodo in cadavere dilaniatur aut in macello venditur non quomodo spiritu vegetatur. Some, because they did not believe nor could understand, went back, for that it seemed to them wicked and horrible to eat man's flesh, thinking it was meant they should eat it roasted or boiled, and chopped in pieces; whereas the flesh of that person (Christ) were it divided into portions or bits would not serve all mankind: and being once consumed, Religion would seem to have perished withal; no victim or sacrifice then remaining. But in such thoughts as these, flesh and blood profiteth nothing for (as our Master himself hath expounded) these words are spirit and life; and unless faith comes in, the carnal sense penetrateth not unto the understanding of so great a depth. Breiflie; they meant the common, carnal way, of eating flesh, in its own form and shape, piece after, piece, whereby the thing eaten by degrees is consumed. Of which kind of eating our Saviour's words were not indeed to be understood, for his body was not to be cut in pieces and to be consumed; nor in its proper shape to be devoured, but to be received in another shape, and still to remain whole, entire.  
featly. There is no such thing (as that which in this answer is attributed to the Capharnaites) implied in the literal meaning of these words (unless you eat my flesh) nor can be gathered from any circumstance of the text.  
Answer. The Question is not whether that be the true sense of the letter; we know it is not: but whether the Capharnaites did understand or conceive it so. And that they did, it hath been proved, first by the testimony of S. Augustine; and he not alone neither. secondly by the confession of your own Chamier out of whose quiver you take the chiefest of your bolts; who thinks them blind that by reading the place perceive it not. thirdly our Saviour himself correcting them, doth insinuate what they meant, by telling them, caro, the carnal meaning of his words, non prodest quicquam, doth nothing avail, there is a higher meaning which the Spirit, the interior man, and, by faith only, can perceive, in them. Spiritus est, qui vivificat, flesh apart and separate from the Word, who for us was made flesh, gives not spiritual or eternal life. You mistake in thinking he means to let it be consumed with eating, or cut in pieces; he will keep it still, & in the sight of men appear again & ascend, immortal, impassable, entire. Si ergo videritis filium hominis ascendentem (utique integrum saith S. Augustin) you will then see that he understands and can effect more than you are able to conceive; and therefore merited to be believed in this. and, that he meant not to have his flesh consumed, cut in pieces, and eaten that way which you imagine. fourthly, they (the Capharnaits,) meant that eating which the word eat doth first signify & which at the hearing of it men commonly do conceive, (see above, pag. 2▪ 3) not reflecting upon that peculiar notion which our Saviour took it in, which notion by Philosophers had never been thought upon.  
featly. A man might eat flesh according to the rigour of the letter, though he neither buy it in the market nor cut it.  
Answer. For buying, there is no difficulty▪ but I pray you Master featly, was it ever heard that one man did with his mouth eat an others body, in its own shape and form, without cutting or tearing? did the Anthropophagis swallow men whole? their mouths than were great▪ greater than the Capharnaites, who were as other men: and therefore thought not of that way, but of the common. Neither did they think of eating a man's body entire in the form of bread: that eating of man's flesh neither the Philosophers nor those who gave the name (anthropophagy) to man eating nor those jews (the Capharnaits) ever had seen, or could have invented: it was the Eternal wisdom who did (not reprove, but) ordain it, as appears more distinctly in the Institution of the B. Sacrament which we speak of. This thing in my hand in the exterior form of bread is my body, the very same that shall be delivered scourged, nailed on a cross, wounded, for you; take, and eat, it.  
featly. The horror of the sin of anthropophagy or eating man's flesh, is not in buying man's flesh nor in cutting it: but in eating it with the mouth and chamming it with the teeth. If we should do so in the Sacrament we should follow the kill letter Origen speaketh of, and run upon the point of Saint Cyril's sharp reproof, dost thou pronounce the Sacrament to be man eating: and dost thou irreligiously urge the minds of the faithful to gross and carnal imaginations?  
Answer. Gross and carnal eating, eating piece by piece, eating by the mouth a man's body in its proper form, that horrible anthropophagy, we detest. What and how, we eat, according to our Saviour's Institution, you have been told over and over; and in the former Argument this matter of anthropophagy is discussed. 
Suprà, pag. 67.  Read the Notes again: they stand good. Neither is any new thing here objected, but only we are told (and it is forsooth, a great mystery) that the sin of anthropophagy or eating man's flesh, is not in buying, nor in cutting it that is to say, to buy or cut, is not to eat. Sure, a learned observation.  
featly. I oppose against your Interpretation S. chrysostom, who saith. To take Scripture according to the letter, is to take it according to the sound of the words. To which Doctor Smith replied, when I see the words of chrysostom I will answer them▪ you shall when you please quoth Master featly.  
Answer. Neither is here any thing new. what this word eat, and eating man's flesh, 
See pag. 301. & seqq.  do sound in the ears of men never instructed in the Christian school, who knows not? But why did not Doctor featly, if he thought the words worth the reading, cite the place? could he not find it out in all the time betwixt the Conference and the printing of Relation, which were near twenty years.  
featly. Now I appeal to the Ear of all that are hear present, whether these words, nisi manducaveritis carnem, sound after Doctor smith's Caperniticall strain. I hear nothing but the eating of the flesh, which you do as properly as the Capernites could conceive, with the mouth and teeth.  
Answer. And I appeal to the judgement of all that read this Censure, or the Relation of S. E. (which hath the same in substance, all,) whether this unanswerable Argument be not answered; And whether S. Augustine (whose exposition it was that by this unanswerable Argument was impugned) be not freed from that unworthy imputation wherewith the Pedant chargeth the maintainer, of weakness & obstinacy.  
In the margin featly cities the Confession of Berengarius: & S. E. in his margin (it being a quarrel only on the by) cities the place where he may find my Lords Answer: in his book, against a prating Minister of Rascal who (take his own words, for I can not imitate his elegancy) challenged all English jesuites, and jesuited Papists, in the world, tag and rag, to answer his (confsed, silly) books, or any piece, or parcel of ●hem. which books (since you seem not to know so much M. Waferer I now tell you) were answered. his Babel was surprised, Bell confounded. A further Answer to that marginal citation than a marginal citation, S. E. did not esteem necessary; especially considering that the said Confession was not objected in the Conference. Neither could it beseem so great a Champion as you proclaim your Doctor, to strick when he was out of the field▪ and to your own disadvantage you solicit a melius inquirendum. 
Featle pag. 296. margin.   
For, casting my eye upon it, I find that your Doctor deals not, in it, fairly. He refers the words tractari, frangi, dentibus atteri, to Corpus nakedly, putting it thus, Credo corpus D. N. I. C. sensualiter & in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari, frangi & fidelium dentibus atteri; whereas Berengarius in his Confession doth not so▪ the Confession (which is recited here in this margin) 
Ego Berengarius— consentio Sanctae Romanae & Apostolicae Sedi; & orae, & cord profit or de Sacramentis Dominicae mense eandem fidem me tenere quam D. & Ven. Papa Nicolaus, & haec sancta Synodus authoritate Euangelica & Apostolica tenendam tradidit, mihiquo firmavit: scilicet panem & vinum quae in altari ponuntur, post consecrationem non solum Sacramentum sed etiam verum corpus & sanguinem D. N. jesu Christi esse, & sensualiter non solum sacramento sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari, frangi & fidelium dentibus atteri, iurans per sanctam & homoousion Trinitatem, & per haec sancta Christi Euangelia. De Consecr. distin. 2. c. 42.  hath whithin it's own terms an explication, if we look well upon it. which explication that you may see the better, I will first take the sense of the Confession into parts; and then look upon the connexion or coherence of the words. which done, the Reader may reflect again upon it as it is in itself, altogether.  
The first part of the sense is this, Profiteor panem & vinum post consecrationem, non solùm Sacramentum sed etiam verum corpus & sanguinem D.N.I.C. esse. I profess that the bread and wine, be, after consecration, not a sacrament only but also the true body and blood of our Lord jesus Christ. Hear is (I do not say all the words, but one) part of the sense. importing that the consecrated bread & wine be a Sacrament; & not only a Sacrament, but also the true body and blood of our Lord jesus Christ. so that, under the name of consecrated bread (it is the like of consecrated wine) Berengarius in this Confession comprehendeth two things; the visible Sacrament, (by which he means the species:) and the body which is invisible. Non solùm Sacramentum, sed etiam corpus. you know the force of the particles, and can resolve the proposition (I suppose) according to the rules of Logic. The like you have in the Canon Hoc est. which afterwards the Doctor objecteth, Contendimus Sacrificium Ecclesiae duobus confici, duobus constare, visibili elementorum specie, & invisibili D. N.I. C. carne. We contend that the Sacrifice of the Church doth consist of two things; the visible species of the elements, and the invisible body of our Lord jesus Christ. And in old Irenaeus, Qui est à terra panis percipiens vocationem Dei, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  iam non communis panis est, sed Eucharistia, ex duabus rebus constans, terrena, & coelesti. The bread which hath being from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, (being consecrated,) is now, not common bread, but Eucharist, consisting of two things, the eartlie, (the species,) and the heavenly, (the body.) And another old Father before cited, Panis iste non effigie sed natura mutatus, omnipotentia Verbi factus est caro. That bread being changed not in shape (there is the species remaining:) but in nature, is by the omnipotency of the word made flesh. (there is the invisible substance, the flesh, or body of our Saviour jesus Christ. 
If you find in authors teritur with corpus otherwhile; you find a caution with it, Sub utraque specie, & sub utriusque speciei particula singula, totus est Christus jesus; & sumitur residens in coelo, sedens ad dextram Patris: ipse verè est in hoc Sacramento, dentibus teritur (secundum species) & integer manet. Manducatur & non corrumpitur. Immolatur & non motitur. Stephan. Eduen. lo. de Saciam. Altar. c. 15. vixit circa annum 950. Credimus terrenas substantias quae in mensa Dominica per sacerdotale ministerium divinitus sanctificantur, ineffabiliter, incomprehensibiliter, mirabiliter operante superna potentia, converti in essentiam Dominici Corporis; reseruatis ipsatum rerum speciebus, & quibusdam aliis qualitatibus, ne percipientes cruda & cruenta horrerent; & ut credentes fidei proemia ampliora perciperent; ipso tamen Dominico corpore existente in coelestibus ad dextram Patris immortali, inviolato, integro, incontaminato, illaeso: ut verè dici possit, & ipsum corpus quod de Virgine sumptum est nos sumere, & tamen non ipsum: ipsum quidem quantum ad essentiam, veraeque naturae proptietatem, atque virtutem; non ipsum, si spectes panis vinique speciem, caeteraque superius comprehensa. Hanc fidem tenuit à priscis temporibus, & nunc tenet Ecclesia quae per totum diffusa orbem Catholica denominatur Lanfrancus Archiepiscopus Cantuar. li. de Eucharist. Vix● circa annum 1059. & cum Bérengario disputavit. ) I proceed unto  
The second part of the sense, Profiteor panem (eundem) sensualiter non solùm Sacramento sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari, frangi, & fidelium dentibus atteri. I profess that the (consecrated) bread, is sensibly touched with the bands of Priests, broken, and by the faithful chewed, not in sacrament only but in very deed. This is the second part of (I do not say the words: but) the sense: wherein you will have more ado to find a difficulty, than I shall have to find the solution, 
The Question is not what other men say of them: but what is contained manifestly in them.  which the words, if they be supposed to stand thus, offer of themselves. That the Priest doth touch the consecrated bread with his hand, and his mouth, and his tongue, every one knows; and our Saviour's body being therein really, in rei veritate, not in signo tantum, he, doth also touch it, more, than the woman touched it, who touched immediately but his garment. yet, you can not deny but that indeed and truly she did touch it. Some denied, then, that any had done it; and our Saviour himself confuted them, and affirmed, and proved it. The history is in the Gospel. A woman that had a bloody flux, came behind our Saviour, and touched his garment, the border of it; he demanded, who it was that had touched him, they denied that any had done it. Negantibus omnibus etc. he stood in it, still, that it was so: 
And a woman— came behind him, and touched the border of his garment: and immediately her issue of blood staunched, And jesus, 〈◊〉 who touched me? When all denied, Peter and they that were with him said, Master the multitude throng thee—. And jesus said somebody hath touched me, for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me. And when the woman saw that the was not hid, she came trembling, and falling down before him she declared unto him before all the people for what cause 〈◊〉 had touched him,— Luc 8.  tetigit me aliquis: and proved it, nam & ego novi virtutem de me exijsse, where upon, the woman fell upon her knees at his feet, and confessed it.  
It is not necessary when we say we touch or see a thing, that every thing in it, every essential part be according to itself an object of the sense; or that the sense perceive every part of it that is sensible. He who looks you in the face, saith he sees you, though the rest of your body be within your . and if you, being an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cataphract in your protestantish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should for fear pull down your beaver before you come into the list, your Adversary for all that might light upon your () unless you bring with you Gyges' his ring, so to make yourself invisible; as other of your Champions it seems did, many hundred years together; for none of them appeared, unless it were to Swinglius one, Ater an albus, he knew not; and an other to Luther, With a great voice.  
I see a man, yet my eye doth not discern the substance of his soul; or his matter; or his savour. and, by touching him, I do not feel his colour, or discern his form from his matter. We should end many controversies in Philosophy soon, if souls could be seen with eyes, and matter touched. There is a distinction amongst the Peripatetiks, of pierce, and per accidens, appliable to many things. and, per accidens is said many ways, M. Mirth; which had you learned, you might have been a better Scholar than many be, and more worthy of your cap.  
You have heard the sense of Berengarius: I come now to look upon the coherence of his words, which one cannot mistake in as far it appartaines to the former part. Consentio autem S. R. Ap. Sedi & ore & cord profit or etc. scilicet panem & vinum quae in altari ponuntur post consecrationem non solum sacramentum, sed etiam verum corpus & sanguinem D. N. I. C. esse: The sumne whereof is this, Profiteor panem & vinum post consecrationem non solum Sacramentum esse sed etiam verum corpus & sanguinem.  
The later part is this, & sensualiter non solum sacramento sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari, frangi & fidelium dentibus atteri. where, though he do not repeat the word panem, yet the construction of the sentence doth enforce the repetition of it. Profiteor panem, esse corpus; & manibus sacerdotum tractari, what? the same panem. This is the native construction of the words. The conjunction &, doth but couple diverse attributes, est corpus, & tangitur, & atteritur; leaving the subject still unchanged. as if I should say, Petrus est substantia, & currit, & discurrit; Substantia, and currens, and discurrens, were attributes; and Petrus the subiectum to them all.  
If any should demand how corpus and Sacramentum both, can be predicated upon this subject panis: I desire him first of all to look again upon the former part, and he shall see directly without all controversy that it is so. Profit or panem & vinum post consecrationem non solum Sacramentum sed etiam verum corpus & sanguinem esse; 
Supra pag. 239  there both are affirmed▪ and the like is in the Canon Hoc est, before also cited. whereunto may be added the words of S. Ireneus. And the thing is easily conceived; for, the Consecrated heavenly bread, the Eucharist, the Blessed Sacrament, hath the exterior form of bread; it is a Sacrament: and within that form, or exterior sign, it hath the body of our Saviour it contains, or concludes, both, under the name: 
Berengarius. Qui dicit panis & vinum altatis solummodo sunt Sacramenta, vel panis & vinum altaris solummodo sunt verum corpus Christi & sanguis, modis omnibus panem & vinum superesse constituit. ●anfrancus. Nihil horum Romana Synodus or dendum esse decrevit: nec Humbertus Episcopus ad confitendum vel iurandum horum tibi aliquid tradidit. Prior quidem sententia per quam dicitur, panis & vinum altaris solummodo Sacramenta sunt; tua est tuorumque sequacium. Posterior verò quae enunciat, panis & vinum altatis solummodo sunt verum Christi corpus & sanguis, nullius hominum est. Name, & tu veritatem carnis & sanguinis negas; & Ecclesia Christi sic panem in carnem, vinum cred●t converti in sanguinem, ut tamen salubriter credat & veraciter recognoscat Sacramentum esse Dominicae passionis, divinae propitiationis, concordiae & unitatis; postremò assumptae de Virgine carnis & sanguinis, singula suis distinctisque modis. Lanfrancus lib. de Sacrament. Altaris, adversus Berentium.  wherefore both together, may well be affirmed on it.  
And if Berengarius had affirmed the one only (abstracting from, but not denying, the other, abstrah●ntium non est mendacium) as, when I say, the Heavenly bread is the body of our Saviour, Panis consecratus est corpus Christi, and stop there; it had been easy, in this case also, to give the true sense: for, sometimes the word panis, and Sacramentum, and Eucharistia, supponunt pro corpore, connotande species; as Divines well remember. To sa●e nothing of that figurative kind of speech, wherein the part is elegantly taken for the whole; 
I presume you know the distinction betwixt suppositio and significatio.  or, the whole for the part: which figure, if we should use in speaking of this mystery, (as S. john did in speaking of the Incarnation, Verbum caro factum est,) we should not exclude, but include, and confirm the real presence; as he doth the Incarnation, in the words but now cited. Neither be we so scrupulous, as never to use a figure in this matter of the blessed Sacrament. though none, without contradicting God himself, can avouch, in it, or in the words of Institution, a mere figure.  
But to return again to the Profession; you may perceive now (if you will but set aside your humour of partiality, and judge according to the plain sense and construction which the words offer (that what some other (suppose a Schoolman) might have expressed in a larger discourse; saying for example, that, the body, not according to it's own form and nature, but according to the Sacramental species and figure wherein it is, is touched with hands and teeth, even that, Berengarius in fewer words doth profess, in saying, the consecrated bread is touched with hands and teeth. making the subject of his speech bread, which word (bread) he had immediately before professed to signify both, the species or Sacrament, and the body. and therefore chooseth rather the same word be resumed again, when he speaketh of touching, then to put corpus, in place of it, lest the Reader by that occasion considering the thing signified by it, apart, & not as in that Sacramental form, might mistake him. Which now (if he attend to his words, and their construction, and coherence,) he cannot do; being not able to find whereunto tractari and atteri be related, or what is in the speech, the subject of touching or chewing, till he comes to panem in the beginning: where he finds withal that it signifies both corpus and the species together.  
And, did panis (which is to be resumed in the second part as I have showed) stand there, in that second part, for corpus, connotando species, or by a Synecdoche stand (it self signifying the Whole,) for a part: yet still the same wariness doth appear, in that tangi and atteri were not attributed to the body, but as signified by a name bringing the species withal into the hearers mind; by a name signifying the whole: and not standing for a part but as it is within the whole. The honour of which prudent circumspection is not indeed due to Berengarius, but to those who conceived & drew the form.  
Consider now the speeches Master Waferer, and see how they differ, that which featly puts in his margin as Berengarius words, Credo orpus Domini etc. manibus sacerdotum tractari, frangi, & fidelium dentibus atteri: and Berengarius his own words, as they are to be ordered according to the right Syntaxis. Profiteor de Sacramentis Panem (he means that which is consecrated, the Sacrament) manibus Sacerdotum tractari, frangi, & fidelium dentibus atteri. who doth not perceive how the later brings with it an explication, whereby it is made intelligible, which the former doth not? He who says the Sacrament is handled, broken, touch▪ with the teeth; is easily understood, but when you say the body is handled, broken, touched, the speech is obscure, and needs an explication.  
Yet with an explication, he that believes the real presence, will perceive the meaning of it (of your proposition, for of that I speak now) to be that according to the form of bread wherein the body is, it is said to be touched, handled, broken, though not according to it's own proper form. and with this explication he will believe it.  
Those who deny God to be Incarnate, will never believe that he could be seen with men's eyes, that he could be nailed upon a cross. He that is infinite, might he, say they, have a figure? he that is impassable, suffer? he that is immortal, could he die? yes, he could.  
Being in the form of God, he esteemed it no robbery himself to be equal to God; but he made himself of no reputation, taking on him the form of a servant, made into the likeness of men, and found in the fashion of a man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Phillippens. 2. He was God and in the form of man. as he was God, according to his divinity, he could not suffer; he was infinite, immutable, immortal, impassable. as man, according to his humanity, he had a visible shape, a figure, in which he was seen, and touched, and suffered; and died. No man ever saw God. joan. 1. yet, He was seen upon the earth, and conversed amongst men. Baruc. 3. God is a Spirit. joan. 4. and a spirit cannot be touched, or felt with hands. it hath not flesh and bone. Luk. 24. but yet, feel and see, etc. Ibidem. reach hither thy hand— my Lord and my God. joan. 20. The Word was with God, and the Word was God; the same was in the beginning with God. all things were made by him. joan. 1. true. and, the Word was made flesh, and dwelled amongst us. Ibiden. That which was from the beginning; which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the word of life: and the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life which was with the Father, and appeared unto us; that which we have seen and ●eard, etc. 1. joan. 1 Hear you this Master Wa●erer? life, eternal life, that which was with the Father, that life, appeared unto us; we saw it, with our eyes; we touched it, with our hands.  
Touched life, touched the intellectual Word, touched God, a Spirit; with bands. What? would you have more light to see how this might come to pass? behold. The life was the light of men. It was the true light which doth illuminate every man that comes into the world. This light is near. it is near you; you are a man. 
joan. 1.  The word was made flesh. Now you see it. that Word, that life, that Spirit, God, was in the form, of man, and according to that form, he was touched, with hands.  
You believe it▪ and see withal how sacred mysteries, when they be delivered in some terms be more easily conceived, then in others. When I say, Christ, was touched with hands, torn with whips; nailed upon the Cross; you conceive me without a commentary: but, when I say, God was torn with whips, or, nailed unto the Cross, you expect an explication, lest the the hearers mistake the meaning as those Heretics did that thought the Divinity suffered. So, when we say, the Sacrament is touched with hands, or teeth; panis, (consecratus,) or sacramentum, manibus tractatur, frangitur, I shall be easily understood. But if one say, as featly puts it, Corpus Domini nostri manibus Sacerdotum tractatur, frangitur, there will be expected an an explication, lest the hearers mistake, and think, that our Saviour's body according to it's own dimensions and form, is used so.  
As for those words in rei veri●ate, whether you take them to signify that the body is truly touched, according to that Sacramental form wherein it is; or, that this touching of the body, is distinct from touching of it in a mere sign or Sacrament; it will come in the end all to one. For, being really in the form which is touched, it is truly said to be touched otherwise then it could be by the touch of an empty sign▪ and a further determination of it was not necessary. It is not such as that of the jews, or of the woman; touching him. one of those was by the garment; the other was, secundum inhaerentem formam. this form here which immediately receives the touch and communicates the denomination to the body as in it, is more united then the one of those, and therefore more apt to communicate the denomination; however it be said less united than the other. Whether the denomination be, in regard of the body, (for the species there is no difficulty,) proper, or improper, or less proper; the Confession doth not specify. Should I talk of Analogy, 
Mortons' rigour would have wine broken properly: though he were not well ware it ensued upon his pretence  you would not understand me; and if I speak of Aequivocum à consilio, you will take occasion to make invectives against mental reservation, for you are curious to paint dolphin's in a wood. wherefore I will only repeat what hath been said already. the body is so approximated to the hand, and mouth, by a real presence in the form of bread, that it cannot be truly said to be touched Sacramento solùm.  
Neither is this manner of speech found here only in this Confession whereunto Berengarius did subscribe. Others before had it; and they were such as understood better than you, the power of words: and in what sort (in mysteries of this nature) they might be verified. Sapientum est rebus imponere nomina, and to those who are skilful in revealed Theology it appertains to name formalities where they find names wanting to things appertaining to this object: or to apply words, before invented, 
Stephan Episc. Eduensis, suprà pag. 3, 1.  to signify more than those inventors thought on: so making them Analogical, or Equivocal; as they see cause.  
Tertullian. Zelus perorabit ingemens C●ristianum etc. eas manus admovere Corpori Domini, quae Daemonijs corpora conferunt. He speaks of those who made Idols. Proh scelus! semel Iudaei Christo manus intulerunt, isti quotidie corpus eius lacessunt. o manus praecidendae! 
a. Tertull. i● de Idol. c. 7  Zeal will plead lamenting and grieving that a Christian touches the body of our Lord with those hands that made bodies for devils. 
b. Ibiden.  Oh the villainy! the jews once laid violent hands on Christ; these molest his body daily. o hands worthy to be cut of! This is he, if you remember, who said, Caro vescitur corpore. S. cyril of Alexandria jure sanctae Congregationes d●e octava in Eccles●is fiunt, & foribus sublimiore modo clausis visibiliter simul atque invisibiliter Christus omnibus apparet. Inuisibiliter quidem ut Deus, visibiliter in corpore. praebet enim nobis carnem suam tangendam, ut firmiter credamus quia templum verè suum suscitavit. and in an other place upon those words, Ego in ipsis & tu in me, ut in unum sint consummati. Corporaliter (saith he) Filius per benedictionem mysticam nobis ut homo unitur, spiritualiter autem ut D●us, etc. 
c. Cyrill. Alexan. l. 12 in joan. c. 58.  Hol●e assemblies are rightly made in Churches upon the eight day, and the doors being shut after an higher manner Christ appears to all, visibly and invisibly both: invisibly as God, visibly in his body. For he g●ues us his flesh to be touched, that we may constantly believe he truly did raise his temple, (or body.) 
d. Idem li. 11 in joa. c. 27  The son (of God) by the mystical benediction (consecration) is united unto us as man, corporally: as God, spiritually. S. Chrysostom. Quemadmodum in Regijs, non parietes, non tectum aureum, sed Regium corpus in throno sedens omnium praestantissimum est, ita quoque in Coetis Regium corpus, quod nunc in terra, viendum tibi proponitur. Neque Angelos neque Archangelos, non Coelos, non Coelos Coelorum, sed ipsum horum omnium tibi Dominum ostendo. Animaduertis quonam pacto quod omnium maximum est atque praecipuum, in terra non conspicaris tantum sed tangis (he is approximated ●hen sufficiently to verify those words which were objected) neque solum tangis sed comedis, & eo accepto domum redis? 
e. Chrysost. Hom. 24. in Ep. pri. Corint.  As in royal palaces the walls and the gilded roofs are not esteemed the most magnificent thing of all, but the royal person seated in his princely throne: so is the king's body in heaven. Now this makest thou see here on earth. For here I show thee, not Angels, nor Archangels, nor heavens, nor the heaven of heavens, but I show unto thee him who is the very Lord of all these things. Thou perceivest now in what manner thou dost behold here on earth that thing which is most precious and most honourable of all other: and how thou dost not see it only, but also dost touch it; and that thou dost not touch it only but also dost eat it, & having received it returned unto thy house. 

Hoc Corpus affixum, verberatum, morte victum non est Hoc corpus sol crucifixum videms, radiosavertit.— Hoc corpus in praesepi reveriti sunt Magi, & viri impij & barbari longo itinere confecto cum timore & tremore plutimo adoraverunt. I mitemur igitur saltem barbaros, nos qui coelorum ciues sumus. Illi enim cùm id praesepe & tugurium tantùm, neque eorum quiequam quae tu nunc intueris viderent, summa accesserunt reverentia & horrore: tu verò non in praesepe id, sed in altari; non mulierem quae in ulnis teneat, sed Sacerdotem praesentem & spiritum perabunde fuper proposito diffusum sacrificio vides, nec simpliciter ut illi corpus intueris, sed & eius potentiam & omnem cognoscis administrationem, & nihil eorum quae per ipsum facta sunt ignoras, & diligenter es initiatus in omnibus. S. Chrysost. Hom. 24. Pri Cor. Ascend ad coeli portas, & diligenter attend non coeli sed coeli Coelorum, & tunc quod dicimus intueberis. Etenim quod summo honore dignum est, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id tibi in terra situm ostendam, Ibidem. Non est temerè hoe excogitatum, nec frustra memoriam mortuorum inter sacra mysteria celebramus, aut accedimus pro istis agnum illum iacentem (in altari) & peccata mundi tollentem deprecantes; sed ut his consolatio illis aliqua siet. Idem Hom. 41 pri. Cor. Pro omnibus oramus qui ante nos vitâ functisunt, maximum credentes animarum iwamen pro quibus offertur obsecratio sancti illius & tremendi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod ante nos iacet Sacrificij. S. Cyrill. Hier. Catech. mist. 6. Sanctum ac vivisicum, i●●ruentumque in Ecclesia celebramus Sacrificium, ●●n hominis alicuius nobis similis & communis cor●us; similiter & preciosum sanguinem esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod proponitur, credentes, sed magis tanquam proprium vinificantis verbi corpus accipimus. Anathem. 11. Conc. Ephes.  
That which lieth, on the Altar, before the Priest, here on earth; may be touched, with hands: what hinders? And what this thing is, it is made out of Controversy, by these words, proprium verbi corpus; quod in praesepi reveriti sunt Magis; affixum, verberatum; quod summo honore dignum est: agnus peccati mundi tollens; obsecratio ill●us quod ante nos ●acet Sacrificij. Vide S. Dionis. A●eopag●. 3. Hierarch Ecclesiast, which books are well defended by Master Brie●ley in his treatise of the Mass.   Before he said that our Saviour after his Ascension exhibited his body to us, ut teneremus & manducaremus, quod, saith he, maximum dilectionis signum est. quos enim amamus nonnunquam etiam morsu petimus. And before that again, showing how the words of S. Paul (which are principally understood of unbloody immolation) be verified also in breaking of the host, which action is (though not an essential, yet) an integral part, as it were, of the unbloody immolation, Quare addit, saith he, quem frangimus? and he answers, Hoc in Eucharistia videre licet, in cruse autem minimè: sed omnino contra, os enim eius non comminuetis ex eo. Sed quod in cruse passus non est id in oblatione patitur. The same Father in an other place, Quos radios solares non deberet excedere manus illa quae hanc carnem perrumpit, os quod igne impletur spirituali, lingua quae cruentatur hoc admirabili sanguine? in which words he doth most vehementlie urge a real presence to the Priests hands and mouth and tongue, in regard of the species of bread, and wine, wherein they be. And again. O miraculum, o Dei benignitatem qui cum patre sursum sedet, in illo temporis articulo omnium manibus pertractatur! there is no miracle in being touched in a mere sign. Quum Spiritum Sanctum invocaverit sacrificiumque illud horrore & reverentia plenissimum perfecerit, communi omnium Domino manibus assidué pertractato, quaero ex te quoto illum in ordine collocabimus? And Quis daret nobis ut eius carnibus impleremur? quod Christus fecit ut maiori Charitate nos astringeret, & ut suum in nos ostenderet desiderium, non se tantum videri permittens desiderantibus, sed & tangi, & manducar. 
f Idem in eadem Hom.  Why doth he add, which we break? this in the Eucharist we may see: not upon the Cross, but quite otherwise, you shall not bruise a bone of him. But what he suffered not upon the Cross, that he suffers in the oblation, (the Mass.) 
g Idem Hom. 26. in Matth.  Then what sunbeams had not that hand need to be more pure, that breaketh up this flesh, that mouth which is filled with this spiritual fire, that tongue which is embrued or sprinkled with this wonderful blood? 
h Idem de Sacerdotio l 3.  O the miracle! o the benignity of God he that sitteth above with the Father, is touched at the same time with every one's hands. 
i Idem de Sa. cerd l. 6 Dare you, Mirch, featly, Morton, public call your communion bread so?  when he (the Priest) hath invocated the holy Ghost and celebrated the most reverend and dreadful Sacrifice, touching daily with his hands the Lord of all, I demand of thee in what rank or order we shall place him? 
k Idem Home 46 in joa.  Who would grant to us to be filled with his flesh? this Christ hath done to oblige us unto him with more love, and to demonstrate his affection to us: suffering, himself not only to be seen of such, as desire it, but to be touched also, and eaten. Reflect on this. Christ himself, the Lord of all, he that sitteth above with the Father, (this is not bakers bread,) is touched with hands, and 
* Et dentibus carni suae infigi. Ibidem.  teeth also. 
l Cyrill. Hier. Catech. myst. 5.  Accedens ad communionem, non expansis manuum volis accede, neque cum disiunctis digitis, sed sinistram veluti sedem quandam subijcias dextrae quae tantum regem susceptura est, & concava manu suscipe corpus Domini. Approaching to the communion, come not with the palms of thy hands spread out, nor with thy fingers parted; but, holding thy left hand as it were a resting place under thy right hand which is to receive so great a king: that with the hollowness of thy hand thou mayest receive the body of our Lord. Before you hea●d Saint Augustine say that we receive the Meditatour, 
Supra pag. 45.  God and man, with our mouth.  
If against these Fathers, you should object that the flesh of Christ is impassable in itself, and that our Saviour under the consecrated species doth not appear in his own form to our eyes: they would Answer that; yet notwithstanding he may be seen and touched, with hands, and mouth according to the Sacramental form wherein he is. God, in himself, is impassable; but because he was in the form of man, he might suffer, and be nailed upon the Cross; and this, without driving the nails (as you seem to conceive) through the Divinity. And, according to the same (humane) form he was truly seen, though the men's eyes discovered him not according to the divine form, within. For, had they known it, they would hot have crucified the Lord of glory.  
If secondly you object the Capharnaites interpretation; the Reader (by that which hath been said before out of S. Augustine) will take notice of your wilful error in that behalf; and acquit these great Scholars here cited from so foul an imputation. We neither eat, not touch with mouth, or hands, the flesh of our Saviour according to its proper form, (which was the Caphernaietes error;) but in the form of bread, we touch, and eat it. The bread which I will give is my flesh. 
joan. 6. Mat. 26. 1. Cor. 11.  My flesh is meat indeed, take (with your hand) and eat (with your mouth) this (in form of bread) is (what?) my body, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this is my body which is broken for you.  Apologist. 
To that part of the section where he mistakes S. Augustine to maintain a corporal eating when he affirms that judas received the price of our Redemption, not by his faith for that was shut, he being reprobated, therefore into his body. I answer that there are two kinds of eating in the Sacrament, one both corporal and spiritual, wherein the body feeds on the outward elements corporally, whilst the soul receiveth the true body and blood of Christ by faith, the other only corporal wherein the receiver partakes only the outward sign, and not the body signified. So I say, judas received the last way only, and not the first, though his faith had shut out Christ's body yet his mouth was open to let down the Sacrament of his body. He (as all the wicked) received panem Domini the bread of the Lord, Sacramento tenus, according to the visible sign: the other eleven (as all the faithful) did also revera indeed partake panem Dominum of bread which was the Lord.  Censure. 
It is well you confess, that your Answer is but to part of the discourse: it hath hitherto been your manner, the rest is such as you know not how to cavil at it. The words of S. E. which you pick out be these, judas (according to S. Augustine) received the price of our Redemption not with the mind sure (he was then a traitor) but with the mouth. The substance of your Answer is, that he received bread, and wine; the signs or elements; but, not the body, and blood. which answer is so fare from satisfying the place of S. Augustine, that it is directly contradictory. 
S. Aug. Epist 162.  his words are, Tolerat ipse Dominus judam, Diabolum, furem, venditorem suum, sinit accipere inter innocentes Discipulos, quod fideles noverunt precium nostrum. Our Lord himself suffers judas, a devil, a thief who sold him; he lets him receive amongst the innocent Disciples that which the faithful know our price. That which the faithful, the Apostles, knew to be the price of our redemption, that he, judas took, what was that? wine, or blood? non corruptibilibus auro vel argento redempti estis, saith our Pastor, sed pretioso sanguine quasi agni immaculati Christi. 
1. Pet. 1.  You were not redeemed with corruptible things, gold and silver; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without spot or blemish. And the Saints in the Revelation, 
Apoc. 5.  Redemisti nos in sanguine tuo, thou hast redeemed us in thy blood. This is the price of our Redemption as the faithful know; and this, judas, though he was a traitor, did receive amongst the rest of the Disciples; not, with devotion, nor with faith neither; not cord, no; he was one of those qui non crediderunt: but ore tantum, with his mouth, only▪ whereas the other, both with heart, 
Aug. l. 2. con. Adverse. leg. c. 9  and mouth, into themselves, did receive it. And so did the Church in S. Augustine's time. We receive with faithful heart and mouth, the mediator of God and man, man Christ jesus (this is not bakers bread) giving us his body to be eaten, and his blood to be drunk: though it seem (to such as Waferer is,) more horrible (even thus, with the mouth) to eat m●s flesh then to kill, and to drink man's blood then to shed it.  
In Baptism we were incorporated into Christ, made one flesh: and this union he doth consummate, as S. Augustine doth insinuate by the real exhibition of his body in the Sacrament. But this matter is to high for M. Waferer; who at least should have regarded the words of Origen (before his eyes) who says of our Lord in the Sacrament, 
Suprà Conf. pag. 65.  Where he enters unworthily there he goes in to judgement, to the receiver. Mark well, there He (He, to whom Origen will have the communicant say, 
 ad perficiendum mysterium unitatis accip●amus ipsi d. s●o, quod accepit ipse de nostro Cap. firmiter ex Conc. Lateran.  as the Church doth at Mass, Domine non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum, Lord, I am not worthy that thou enter under my roof: this is not bread, he would not have you call bread, Lord, as S. E. told you in his Notes) Where He enters vnworth●lie, there He goes in to judgement to the receiver. The like, of invocating our Lord there, in the form of bread, on the Altar, we have in 
a. Rogantes Agnum propositum. S Chry. Hom. 41. in 1. Cor.  S. chrysostom, 
b, Obsecratio sancti illius & tremendi quod in altari positum est Sacrificij. Saint Cyrill. Hier. Cathec. Myst. 5.  S. Cyrill, and others, the thing which here I urge is, that the Church did in S. Augustine's time, receive that which he calls the Mediator, not with heart only, but also (hoever to infidels the thing might appear horrible,) with the mouth: that the Apostles did eat panem Dominum, bread the Lord; which bread, understood well what they did: and that judas, notwithstanding his malicious infidelity, received (he doth nor say the outward signs, only, as you do, but) the price of our Redemption; adding that the faithful know it so to be. Those know it that have learned the difference betwixt blood, and wine, betwixt panis Dominus, the Mediator, and bakers bread. He knows it 
c. S. August. tract. 62. in joan.  qui diiudicat, hoc est, discernit à caeteris cibis, Dominicum corpus with the eye of faith who perceives that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
d. S Cyrill. Hier. Catech. t. 4.  that which appear bread, is not bread (in substance.) what then? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the body. the body? how? did not our Saviour take bread? yes, he did; but that 
e, Serin. de Caena Cypr.  bread being changed, not in shape, but in nature, is by the omnipotency of the word made flesh: as you were told from Antiquity.  
You will reply that the rest of the Apostles having faith did receive two things, one with the body by the mouth, to wit, the outward elements or signs: the other With the soul by faith, to wit the body and blood: which later, judas (wanting faith) could not do, and therefore only with his body by the mouth received the signs, this, S. Augustine, you think, insinuates when he saith of him that he received panem Domini, having said of the rest that they received panem Dominum.  
Answer. of panis Dominus bread the Lord, the Mediator, you heard before from S. Augustine, that the Church in his time, (it is the same of the Apostles,) received it, not only with their heart or soul, but also with their mouth: that mouth which, in his words is distinguished from the soul or heart. Of the bread of our Lord, panis Domini, (which S. Augustine, expounding the 40. Psalm, qui edebat panes meos, etc. saith, judas did eat contra Dominum against our Lord, according as it was before prophesied,) I will speak afterwards; Per buccellam illum designavit, ut appareret de illo dictum, qui edebat panes meos. 
S. Aug. Enar. Psal. 40.  he designed him by the morsel, to make it appear that it was said of him, He that eateth my bread. Let that bread alone a while, and let us consider whether judas (who did not receive spiritually) took any more, according to S. Augustine, then only the outward sign. Sure, our Saviour's blood, the price of our Redemption, is more than your outward sign which you speak of; and judas, according to S. Augustine, received (he doth not say the sign of the price, but) that which the faithful know to be the price of our Redemption. such indeed as had not faith, judas himself, thought it bread and wine; but the faithful, the rest of the Disciples, they knew that, in substance, the thing was not bakers bread, as before consecration, but panis Dominus, bread the Lord; not wine from the grape, but the price of our Redemption, 
Act. 20.28.  the very blood of God. Number now the things received by the rest (all that is antecedent to the effect which the Sacrament doth give,) and the things received by judas, and see whether you can find what such thing they received more, the signs, both received: the body and blood, the price of our Redemption, both received; what is there else in the Sacrament that is antecedent to the effect which it produceth in the worthy receiver?  
If we consider the effect of the Sacrament, the Apostles by it (by the Sacrament) received increase of grace, they received it to life: but judas coming unworthily, with treason in his heart, increased by a sacrilegious act the grievousness of his sin. A man ought to come with great reverence and preparation to receive the benefits of God, but peculiarly to this Sacrament wherein with the benefits he is to receive God himself, he ought to examine himself well and look into every corner of his conscience that there be nothing amiss in it when he comes that searcheth Jerusalem with a candle, and hates iniquity with his heart. If malice, if abomination, be not removed, if due preparation be not made, the Divine justice will revenge the contempt or neglect; and that also, for example of others, even (oft) in this life, which made the Apostle give a general warning unto all that offer to come to this table, to try themselves first. 
1. Cor. 11  Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup, and the reason. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lords body, not omitting to mention the execution of God's vindicative justice upon the transgressors. For this cause many are weak and sickly amongst you, and many sleep. There are in S. Cyprian, and other ancient Writers, 
S. Cypr. Serm. de lapsis.  diverse examples of God's judgments in this behalf upon such as ante expiata delicta, ante exomologesin factam criminis, (mark this by the way, for Confession;) ante purgatam conscientiam, have pressed in amongst communicantes to receive; and thereby offered violence (as he speaks) to the body and blood of jesus-christ. But we need not go so far to fetch examples, the example of him, we were but now speaking of, judas, being notorious and most fearful. He had received unworthily, and quickly after (his crime being enormous) the Divine justice permitted the Devil to take possession of him, and to use him in the betraying of the son of God; and after, in the utter undoing of himself.  
Our blessed Saviour knowing this, did signify it in the reaching of a piece of bread. 
joan. 13. Luc. 22.  Cum intinxisset panem, dedit judae Simonis Iscariotae. Et post buxellam introivit in eum Satanas. When he had dipped in, the bread, he gave it to judas Iscariotes the son of Simon, and after the sop Satan entered into him. After which, exivit continuo, he presently went out about the treason, this was panis Domini, quem manducabat contra Dominum. the poena, the execution of the Divine justice, did accompany it, he had before made himself liable hereunto: but here began the manifest execution, and, by a new act of ingratitude in resolving to betray his Lord, and Master, who had admitted him to his table, and with his own hand reached him bread, he merited (so we sometimes use the word) that the execution should begin at this instant or moment. Which ingratitude was so great that God in the Prophet, at the foresight of it, could not (as it were) forbear to complain, long before, 
Psal. 40. August. tract. 59 in joan.  qui edebat panes meos (Saint Augustine reads, in the place objected panem meum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 magnificavit super me supplantationem. mine own familiar friend in whom I trusted, he that did eat of my bread, hath greatly trodden me under foot. And this buccella, this panis Domini, was not the Sacrament according to S. Augustine. Non ut putant quidam negligenter legentes, tunc Iudas Christi corpus accepit; intelligendum est enim quodiam omnibus eis distribuerat Dominus Sacramentum Corporis & sanguinis sui, 
See S, August. tract. 62. in joan.  ubi & ipse judas erat, 
S. Tho. 3, p. q. 81 art 2 Card. Peron. Passag. S. Aug. pag. 226 S. Aug tract 62 in joan. Quid autem erat panis traditori datus, nisi demonstracio cui gratiae fuisset ingratus? Intravit autem Satanas post hunc panem in Domini traditorem, ut sibi iam plenius possideret, in quem prius intraverat ut deciperet. S. Augu. Ibidem.  sicut Sanctus Lucas evidentissime narrat: Ac deinde ad hoc ventum est, ubi secundum narrationem Ioannis apertissimè Dominus per buccellam tinctam atque porrectam suum exprimit traditorem. judas did not then receive the body of our Lord, as some who read negligently do think: for we must understand that our Lord had already given the Sacrament of his body and blood to them all, where judas also was, as Saint Luke most plainly relateth, and then afterwards this happened, where according to the relation of Saint john, our Lord by the morsel dipped and given, did manifestly design the party that would betray him. So he, in his Commentary upon S. john; where he hath more to this purpose. By this here cited, it is clear what he meant by panis Domini. he is his own interpreter. What he meant by panis Dominus, and Mediator Dei & hominum, you know too, not bread, not a mere sign or figure, not the Sacramental element as you speak, with a reference to the body or grace; that is not panis Dominus, bread the Lord; it is not Mediator Dei & hominum, the Mediator of God and men, Who then? it follows, Homo Christus jesus. 
Vide suprà in Praefat. & pag ...  See again the words of S. chrysostom pag. 349 S. Cyrill pag. 350. and Origen pag. 65.  
I will not here dispute what the more learned of your men, Bilson, Hooker, Andrew's, &c. (some of them be cited by Montague in his Appeal c. 30) ●old in this point whereon depend others of great weight. Either they take the words, Hoc est corpus meum, in their 
a. If they do not: the proposition is with them merely figurative Feat: Pag 294 & Wafer. pag. 35. vido sup. pag. 159. as it is w●th others pag. 163.  native, proper sense, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or they do not? If they do not, the difference is in object; since we do. As, betwixt us, and Arians, about these Words Ego & Pater unum sumus, there is difference in obiecto. If they take them in their native, proper sense, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they are consequently to admit (your 
b Mor●ō●●●ed above pag 293.  Patron tells you,) the consequences which you Puritans deny. amongst which consequences you may find the modus. Nobis vobiscum de obiecto convenit, saith Andrew's to Bellarmine. 

Per ambiguitates bilingues, communem fidem adfirmant, etc. Tertull. adversely. Valentin. Citatur inferius in solutione Arg. quinti. Do Consilium ut apertè fidem Ecclesiae praedices, aut loquaris ut credis. Dispensatio etenim ac libratio ista prudens verborum, indoctos decipere potest: Cautus auditor & lector citò deprehendet insidias; & cuniculos quibus veritas subvertitur, apertè in luce demonstrabit. Et Ariani quos optimé nosti, multò tempore propter scandalum nominis homousion se damnare simulabant, venenaque erroris circumliniebant melle verborum. Sed tandem coluber se tortuosus aperuit, & noxium caput quod spiris totius corporis tegebatur, spirituali mucrone confossum est. S. Hieron. Aduerr. joan, Hierosol. Ep. ad Pammach. Quod si quando urgeri coeperint, & aut subscribendum eis fuerit, aut exeundum de Ecclesia, miras strophas videas. Sic verba temperant, sic ordinem vertunt, & ambigua quaeque concinnant; ut & nostram & adversariorum confessionem teneant: ut aliter haereticus aliter catholicus audiat; quasi non eodem spiritu & Apollo Delphicus atque Loxias oracula fuderit, Craeso & Pyrrho diversis temporibus sed pari illudens stropha. Exempli causa pauca subijciam. Credimus, inquiunt, resurrectionem futuram corporum. Hoc si bené dicatur, pura confessio est. Sed quia corpora sunt coelestia & terrestria, & aër iste & aura tenuis iuxta naturam suam corpora nominantur, corpus ponunt non carnem: ut orthodoxus corpus audience, carnem putet: haereticus spiritum recognoscat. Haec est eorum prima decipula, quae si deprehensa fuerit, instruunt alios dolos, & ●nnocentiam simulant, & maliciosoes nos vocant; & quasi simpliciter credentes, aiunt; Credimus resurrectionem carnis. Hoc veró cùm dixerint, vulgus indoctum putat sibi sufficere, maximé quia idipsum & in ●ymbolo creditur. Interroges ultra, circuli strepitus ●ommouentur, fautores clamitant: Audisti resurre●tionem carnis; quid quaeris amplius? Et in perversum ●udiis commutatis, nos sycophantae, illi simplices ap●ellantur. Quod si obduraveris frontem, & urgere ●oeperis, carnem digitis tenens, an ipsam credant re●urrecturam quae cernitur, quae tangitur, quae incedit 〈◊〉 loquitur. primò rident: deinde annuunt. Dicentibus●ue nobis, utrum capillos & dentes, pectus & ven●em, manus & pedes, caeterosque artus ex integro ●essurrectio exhibeat: tunc verò, risu se tenere non ●ossunt, cachinnoque ora soluentes, tonsores nobis ●ecessarios & placentas & medicos ac sutores ingerunt. ●dem S. Hieron. de Error. Orig. in Epist. ad Pammach & ●cean.  
Congregatis Episcopis, volentibusque voces im●etatis ab Arianis inventas è medio tollere.— & litte●rum sacrarum voces certas & confessas scripto com●ecti; nimirum, ex Deo esse silium, & natura vnige●tum esse verbum, cumque solum virtutem & sapiē●am esse patris, & verum Deum esse, ut Ioannes dixit, ● splendorem gloriae, & formam substantiae patris ut ●aulus scripsit: hic Eusebiani pravas suas opiniones quentes, inter seize mussitate: Imus quoque & nos, inquientes, in vestram sententiam. Name & nos quoque ex Deo sumus, &c S. Athanas. Epist ad Episc. Aphric. Episcopis verò denuò interrogantibus paucos istos, Anne agnoscerent Filium, non creaturam esse, sed virtutem & unicam sapientiam Patris, & per omnia imaginem indemutabilis patris, & Deum verum? Deprehensum est Eusebianos inter se conlusuriate & annuere; nimirum, quasi ista etiam ad ipsos pertinerent. Name & nos, inquientes, imago & gloria Dei appellamur,— Quod si etiam Deum verum Filium nuncupent, id & nos quoque non malè habet, quoniam verus Deus factus est. Haec Arianorum corrupta & pe●uersa mens. Caeterum Episcopi intellecta eorum fraud, collegerunt in unum has voces etc. Ibid. Non omnibus dormio.  
Post panis vinique benedictionem, se suum ipsiu● corpus praebere ac suum sanguinem disertis ac perspicuis ve●bis (Christus) testatus est. Quae verba à sanctis Euangelistis commemorata, & à D Paulo postea repetita cùm propriam illam ac apertissimam significationem praese ferant, secundum quam à Patribus intellecta sunt, indignissimum ●●nè flagitium est ea à quib●sdam contentiosis & pravis hominibus ad fictitios & imaginarios tropos quibus veritas carnis & sanguinis Christi negatur, contra universum Ecclesiae sensum detorqueri. Conc. Trident. Sess. 13. c. 1. Animam sub utraque, vi naturalis illius connexionis & concomitantiae qua partes Christi Domini etc. c. 3.  
Quid? credant ne filio ita dicenti. Ego & Pater unum sumus? Certè inquient, quia ita scriptum est, credimus, Sed quomodo unum sint etc. S. Athan. ubi supra.   and more particularly in his 9 Sermon Of the Resurrection, pag. 476. 
At the name of JESUS every kn●e should bow &c Philippens 2. If to his name, than your arguments against relative image worship are confessedly invalid.  His name, He, jesus, hath left behind to us, that we may show by our reverence and respect to it, how much we esteem Him; how true the Psalm shall be, Holy and reverend is his Name. But if we have much ado to get it bow at all: much more shall we have to get it done to his name. There be some that do it not. What speak I of not doing it? there be that not only forbear to do it themselves, but put themselves (he speaks of Puritans) to an evil occupation, to find faults where none is, and cast scruples into men's minds, by no means to do it. Not to do it at his name? Nay at the Holy mysteries themselves, not to do it: where his name is (I am sure) and more than his name, even the body and blood of our Lord jesus Christ; and those, not without his soul; nor that without his Deity: nor all these, without inestimable high benefits of grace attending on them. So he, your Doctor Andrews. Are these things, all, within your communion-bread? surely no, 
jesus, a Saviour. secundum rationem spiritualis & Vniversalis salutis, nomen est proprium Christo. S. Th. 3. p q. 37. a. 2. Ego sum Dominus, & non est absque me Saluator. Isa. 43.  Not more, nor so much, as in his Name, the soul, (for example,) is not there, at all, any way, no not as in a sign. unless at leingth, the words of Institution, sound with you thus, Hoc, est, corpus meum; this bread, doth signify, my soul. Which interpretation had your 
a. Doctor Carolstadius ex his sacrosanctis vocabulis, Hoc est corpus meum, miserè distorquet pronome● Hoc. Suinglius autem verbum substantivum Est, macerat. Oecolampadius nomen Corpus, torturae subiicit. Alij totum textum excarnificant & invertunt.— Alij dimidiam partem textus crucifigunt,— Alij dicunt non esse articulos fidei, ideoque non esse de hi● contendendum, liberum enim cuique esse ut hic sentiat quicquid velit. High omnia pedibus conculcant & destruunt Veruntamen Spiritus Sanctus est in his singulis & nullus vult erroris argui in his tam diversis & contrariis probationibus & textus ordinationibus cùm tamen unam tantùm textus collocationem vera● esse oporteat. Adeo crassè & manifesté Diabolus no● naso suspendit. Luther. Desens. verb. coenae pag. 387,  Grandfather heard of, he would with open laughter have redoubled his crassé &  Diabolus vos naso suspendit.   

The fourth Argument was taken out of Gratian and the Gloss, that the Heavenly bread is the flesh of Christ secundum quendam modum. It was Answered that the Gloss which doth use the word Sacramentum, speaks of that which is Sacramentum tantum: and Gratian of the Canon, saith the Heavenly bread which includes the flesh of Christ, is the visible flesh or body secundùm quemdam modum.  Apologist. 
For satisfaction concerning Gratian, if you but please to read D. featly on another occasion, you shall find him instead of yielding that Gratian contradictes himself, prove that he oppugnes your transubstantiation. See the Conference betwixt D. featly and M. Musket, pag. 60. etc.  Censure. 
He must look for satisfaction somewhere else, it seems, who doth expect it; as no man ever did from you to my knowledge. Well! at your request, I have turned unto the Conference, and the page 60. What is there?  
featly. I make a breach upon you with two Canons; the Canon-lawe, and the Canon of your mass.  
Answer. Nun hoc spumosum?  
But stay: let us make a demur upon the Doctor's preface, and consider whether it be likely that he doth urge Authority, sincerely. He who doth offer to persuade us, that the Canon-lawe, that Gratian, that the Mass itself is against the real presence, as here in this argument he undertakes to do, what will he not affirm? what testimonies will he not press to serve him? what so strong that he will not wrest? what so sacred that he will not violate? he might aswell urge against us the Canon made at Trent, in this matter, and outface me, that in this defence, I, do not avouch, but oppose it. I cannot think him in his wits that undertakes to persuade me, white is black: neither is he much wiser that takes on him to know the meaning of the Church better than She herself. Ea quae in voce, 
Arist.  sunt earum quae in anima passionum notae. Where the words are obscure or ambiguous, it is better the speaker interpret his own mind: than you that are not of his counsel.  
I am sent hither by Waferer, to see how the Doctor doth urge the Canon of Gratian; which I will examine, God willing, before I return to look again on his pamphlet: but, since instead of one Canon I find two, drawn together, to make the greater noise; I must give the one a lift, to remove it out of my way, before I meddle with the other. Which way the mouth of it stands, the Doctor (he stood in his own light,) could not see. He tells us it is against the Real presence. Why so Master featly? because 
a. Featl. Conf. with M. Musk. pag 66.  it is very incongruous to pray to God to look down mercifully upon Christ, and to accept the body and blood of his son, as he did Abel's sacrifice of first fruits: yet the Canon of the Mass doth so, Offerimus tibi de tuis donis & datis hostiam puram etc. panem sanctum vitae aeternae & calicem salutis perpetuae: supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris & accepta habere sicut accepta habere dignatus es munera pueri tui Abel. We offer unto thee of thy benefits and gifts, a pure host,— the holy bread of eternal life and the chalice of everlasting salvation. Upon which vouchsafe to look down with a favourable clear countenance, and to accep of, and avow them, as thou hast vouchsafed to accept of the gifts or oblations of Abel thy child.  
Answer. That quae, is not referred, as you pretend, to Christ, or his body absolutè. read again and mark it. Neither would any scholar conclude (suppose your premises had been right,) ergo the Canon denies the real presence: it affirms it, and in those very words. But rather thus, ergo that prayer is not well conceived. or, is incongruous. Which is fare from your mark.  
Wherefore to help out your argument, you add an other piece. Per quem (Christum) haec omnia Domine semper bona creas, sanctificas, vivificas, benedicis & praestas nobis; by whom o Lord thou dost ever create, sanctify, quicken, bless, and bestow upon us all these good things. Whence, your inference is, as before, that the Canon is against the real presence. But I turn it upon you. The words cannot be verified without a real presence, ergo the Canon, by them, doth make for the real presence. And the ancient Fathers who dedeclare themselves to be directly for the real presence, use the same kind of speech. To begin in S. Cyprians time, one, as ancient as he, tells us, usque hodie veracissimum Corpus suum create, & sanctificat, & benedicit. till this very day, he doth create, and sanctify, & bless his own most true (not a mere figure then,) and most holy body. How so? let the same Author tell, how the Sacrament (for of that the Canon speaks,) is made, Panis iste non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro. Well, but how quickened? & sicut in persona Christi humanitas videbatur & latebat Divinitas, ita Sacramento visibili ineffabiliter Divina se infundit essentia. Another; Influit oblatis vim vitae convertens ea in veritatem propriae carnis, ut corpus vitae quasi quoddam semen vivificatiwm inveniatur in nobis. 
Serm. de Coena Cyp. S. Cyril. Alex. Epist. ad Calos.  That bread being changed not in shape but in nature, is by the omnipotency of the word made flesh: and as in the Person of Christ the Humanity did appear and the Divinity lie hid, so (here) a Divine Essence doth unspeakeably infuse itself into a visible Sacrament. He doth flow into the things offered the power of life, converting them into the verity of his own flesh: that the body of life might as a certain quickening seed be found in us. The like is in S. Chrrysostome, S. Ambrose, and others; as you might have learned partly out of Gratian whom you cite, had you but read him.  
Moreover, in Scripture itself, these words have a larger sense then that which you conceive. 
a. joan. 17.  Ego pro eis sanctifico meipsum. there sanctifico is offero, or sacrifico: himself being (as the words import) both the victim and the Priest. 
b. Psal. 101.  Populus qui creabitur laudabit Dominum. 
c. Psal. 50.  Cor mundum crea in me Deus. Praecipio 
d. 1. Timot. 6.  tibi coram Deo qui vivificat omnia. These words, vivificat, and creabitur, have a latitude as you see. And, since almighty God doth not only give life, but still conserve it, 
e. Hebr. 1.  portans omnia verbo virtutis suae; why may not he be said in that regard also, still to quicken; why cannot an action of omnipotency able to abstract accidents from the subject still keeping them in being, and under them to make a succession of substances, be called (in large sense at least) creation? since none but the Creator can, in chief or as principal, produce this effect? and he, who puts in the Sacrament the bread of life, which heavenly bread life's itself, and gives life to the receivers, why may he not be said (in a large sense at least,) to quicken the things that are before the Priest?  
And you Master featly, that are so straitlaced as not to suffer words to be ever used but in one sense, and that (of all) the most rigorous, what sense will you find in Scripture, where words are not, ever used so? or, to forbear that question and come nearer, how will you expound (of bread and wine, which is your intent) these words by you objected? Haec omnia Domine semper bona creas, sanctificas, vivificas; and the like before cited out of the Fathers? was your communion-bread made of nothing? is it alive? did the Church in her liturgy mean to profess this? was this the Father's meaning? show me (to use your own words, 
Featl. pga. 68  Master featly) in what tolerable sense (those elements) may be said continually to be created and made alive, sith before they cannot be said not to have been, or to have been dead. Creatio est ex nihilo, Vivificatio est rei prius mortuae aut non vivae. So you, involuing your credit in a difficulty, out of which you will never extricate yourself till you believe as we do.  
But, there is a prayer (to resume that argument for the Readers sake) supra quae propitio & sereno vultu respicere digneris etc. True, there is indeed such a prayer: & the quae, that is in it, (which word you catch at,) reflects on things otherwise, and more, than you imagine. Haec quotiescumque feceritis— unde offerimus— supra quae propitio & sereno vultu respicere digneris, & accepta habere, sicut— ut quotquot ex hac altaris participatione— repleamur per Christum—. See the like (and withal the meaning of it,) in the Liturgy of S. james, Respice in nos, & ad nostrum hoc rationabile obsequium, idque accipe ut Abel dona accepisti,— ita quoquee manibus nostris qui peccatores sumus, recipe Apocalypse, a Prophecy which thou hast been pleased to inspire and suggest unto one of his Disciples, we read that an Angel came and stood before the Altar (the Altar of thy mercy) 
d. Apoc. 8.  with a golden censer, and that there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of the Saints. and, that the smoke of the incense ascended from his hand before thee, o God. And we, though not yet Saints, be consecrated unto thee in the blood of thy dear Son, wherefore let our incense, our prayers, ascend too. jube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime altar tuum in conspectu Divinae Maiestatis tuae, ut quotquot ex hac Altaris participatione sacrosanctum filij tui corpus & sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione coelesti & gratia repleamur per eundem Christum Dominum nostrum. Command, o God, these things to be brought by the hands of thy holy Angel unto thy holy Altar in the view of thy Divine Majesty, that we, as many of us as by this participation of the Altar shall receive the most holy body and blood of thy Son, may be replenished with all heavenly blessing and grace through the same Christ our Lord. So the prayer which you speak of; in the Canon of the Mass.  
I have stayed so long upon it, that Waferer, who sent me to look upon the place of Gratian: will think I have for fear, taken Sanctuary, and dare not appear to answer it against his Master featly; who having ●got the Canon ready, is levelling it against our cause: and (since now I am defending it) against me. The Minister by a stratagem hath gotten me just before his Doctor, and I may not (without loss of honour) step back or run away.  
Well: stand I must. But is this thin paper (my poor armour) Canon-proof? the bullets will fly through & thorough; or, I shall be blown away out of rerum natura. If I be killed, Master Mirth, you'll sing my Dirge● and laugh, a peal or two. I leave you this writing for a remembrance of me; and for your greater comfort, will tell you mine; that if I die in this cause I shall need no more Canonising.  
Your aim is (M. featly) to prove that our Saviour's flesh, is not under the species or accidents of bread, after Consecration. I am directly opposite. I say, it is there. Give fire to your Canon.  
featly. Gratian hath these words. As the Heavenly bread, which is Christ's flesh after a sort or manner is called Christ's body, whereas indeed it is the Sacrament of his body: and the sacrifice of the flesh of Christ which is done by the Priest's hands is said to be his Passion, death, and crucifying, not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mystery. Thus Gratian.  
Answer. And well: had it not been your misfortune (shall I mitigate your action by that word?) to corrupt the text, by omitting that substantial and intrinsical part of the sentence which answers directly to that argument you made out of it; as will appear in the ensuing citation and discussion. In regard whereof, in the other 
a. See the Confer. pag. 68 and Feat. Relat. pag 295.  Conference where you did object the same words (as unanswerable) you broke of the citation before you came to them: which was no great argument of fair dealing in the trial of so great a cause. Was it not this which Waferer meant when he said Featlies' argument was 
b. Wafer. pag. 50.  mincinglie produced? If the Canon thus corrupted, do chance anon to burst, and and the pieces fly about your ears, each enough to confound you, thank yourself. To the text of Gratian, so alleged, you join words out of the Glisse, which are cited above in the Catholic Relation pag. 68 and shall be brought again when their turn comes. The text must go first.  
featly. In this allegation, unless you will tax Gratian with false quoting, there is a threefold Cable which cannot easily be broken, first Saint Augustine's authority, out of whom S. Prosper collecteth this sentence: secondly S. Prospers, who in effect relates it, and approves it: and thirdly Gratian'ss, who inserts it into the body of the Canon-lawe, and citeth both for it.  
Answer. We shall be held hard to it (it seems) with this triple Cable. & this mustering of men together, to make good the breach which the Canon (you presume) will make in our Cause, makes a great noise amongst the unlearned, who expect by this time when the mountains will bring forth.  
featly. The words of Gratian and the Gloss here are so clear against your real presence of Christ's body under the accidents of bread and wine, 
Brutum Fulmen.  that never any Protestant spoke more expressly and directly against it.  
Answer. Implerunt cornua bombis.  

Featl. pag. 62.  I think I must bid you, as Master Musket did, Frame your argument out of those words.  
featly. Gratian here speaks of the bread after consecration, for before it is consecrated it is not Coelestis panis heavenly bread, much less caro Christi, Christ's flesh; by your own confession. But here he saith this heavenly bread is but after a sort Christ's body and not indeed, as the opposition betwixt suo modo, after a sort, and revera indeed, plainly showeth (as if I should say, that picture is after a sort, or in some sense, Caesar's, it being indeed the true picture of Caesar) Therefore after consecration the Sacrament is not in truth Christ's body, but only in a signifying mystery.  
Answer. If you take the bombast out of this Argument, it will be more in fashion; though not altogether. The Sacrament consisteth (you were told before) of two things; the one visible, the other invisible: the Controversy is not whether all this be the body, (the species or shape of bread, may signify but cannot be, a man's body;) but whether the body be really according to the substance within that accidental shape, whether it be contained (as the Council speaks) in the Sacrament. 
Conc. Trid. Sess. 13. Suprà, pag 182. & seqq. Suprà, pag. 73.  You have been told also that a thing may represent or signify that which (according to the substance) is within it: and that a substance, under two several forms, may by the one signify itself as in the other.  
The Doctors Argument out of the Canon doth touch upon these two points, wherefore I am to see whether it doth affirm or deny them. 1. Whether the body be or be not in the Sacrament. 2. Whether by the Sacramental form be signified the natural form or shape as it was upon the Cross, the substance under them both being the same.  
In his Minor, (for his Argument is an ill favoured kind of Syllogism,) he hath imposed: for, these words, this heavenly bread is but after a sort Christ's body and not indeed, (what ever meaning they might have) be not in the text, several pieces be deceitfully patched together, for advantage. That the Reader may see, and judge, I will represent here the Canon itself; 
Wafer. p. 50.  by parts, for the Doctor's engine may be taken in pieces; & at leingth, because the Apologist complains this Argument was mincinglie produced. The first part.  
Hoc est quod dicimus, hoc modis omnibus adprobare contendimus, Sacrificium scilicet Ecclesiae duobus confici, duobus constàre; visibili elementorum specie, & invisibili D. N. I. C. carne & sanguine: Sacramento & re Sacramëti: sicut Christi persona constat & conficitur Deo & Homine, cum ipse Christus verus sit Deus & verus homo: quia omnis res illarum rerum naturam & veritatem in se continet ex quibus conficitur, conficitur autem Sacrificium Ecclesiae Sacramento & re Sacramenti, id est corpore Christi. Est igitur Sacramentum & res Sacramenti id est corpus Christi. It is this we say, this it is which we labour by all means to prove, namely that the Sacrifice of the Church is made and doth consist of, two things, the visible species of the elements and the invisible and blood of Christ. And this is that mincha, that clean oblation (as the Fathers tell us,) which is offered by the Church every where; according as the Prophet Malachi did foretell. I come now to the second part of the Canon wherein the difficulties that might occur about this, be dissolved, our cause more confirmed; and yours directly contradicted.  
Caro eius (Christi) est quam formá panis opertam in sacramento accipimus, & sanguis cius quemsub vini specie & sapore potamus. Caro videlicet carnis, & sanguis Sacramentum est sanguinis: carne & sanguine, utroque invisibili, intelligibili, spirituali, significatur visibile Domini N. I. C. corpus palpabile, plenum gratia omnium virtutum, & Divina Maiestate. His flesh it is which in the Sacrament we receive covered with the form (or species) of bread, and his blood which we drink under the species & savour of wine. The flesh indeed is a Sacrament of the flesh, and the blood is a Sacrament of the blood. By flesh and blood both invisible, intelligible, spiritual, is signified the visible, palpable body of our Lord jesus Christ, full of the grace of all virtues & of Divine Majesty. You see how it saith first that our Saviour's flesh is covered in the Sacrament with the (exterior) form of bread; & the like of his blood, which is in the form of wine: Caro eius est quam forma panis opertam etc. with what face then could you say that Gratian'ss words are clear against the real presence of Christ's body under the accidents (or exterior form) of bread? or, 
featly pag. 61.  that this heavenly bread (according to the substance) is not indeed Christ's body, but a sign only? Secondlie it saith (which ruins utterly all Waferers silly discourse against S.E. upon this occasion) that the flesh here, is a Sacrament of flesh; and the blood, a Sacrament of blood. Caro videlicet carnis & sanguis Sacramentum est sanguinis. in explication whereof it saith thirdly, that the invisible and spiritual flesh which is here covered with the exterior form or accidents of bread doth signify the visible and palpable body of our Lord jesus Christ and the like it is of the invisible and spiritual blood. carne & sanguine, utroque invisibili, intelligibili, spirituali, significatur visible etc. Whereby we are instructed against featly when he saith pag. 63. that Gratian doth not oppose modum modo, 
featly pag. 63.  the manner to the manner (when he compares the consecrated bread to the ble body,) but modum rei verae, and veritati rei; the manner to the truth of the thing; and (that) therefore in saying it is suo modo there, 
featly Ibidem.  he implieth that it is not there truly, or in the truth of the thing, visibly or invisibly. for the text of Gratian doth affirm the flesh to be there invisibly; covered with the form of bread. and, that this invisible spiritual flesh of Christ is a sign of, or doth signify, his visible body; as hath been observed from the words before cited. After which ensue those which Fealie stands upon, being the third part of the Canon, in this tenor.  
Sicut ergo Coelèstis panis qui vere Christi caro est (the Doctor, perchance according to the copy which he did use, leaves out verè) suo modo vocatur corpus Christi, cùm revera sit sacramentum corporis Christi, (how so, if it be verè corpus Christi? it follows, and exactly, according to the doctrine of the former part, carne invisibili significatur visibile corpus:) ill●us videlicet quod visibile, palpabile, mortale, in cruse suspensum; (this featly conninglie left out: whereas it is indeed the solution of his Argument. Hitherto one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a comparison; now follows another) Vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis quae Sacerdotis manibus fit, Christi passio mors crucifixio, non rei veritate sed significante mysterio: (now comes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 common to them both;) sic Sacramentum fidei, quod baptismus intelligitur, fides est. As therefore the heavenly bread which indeed is the flesh of Christ, is after a sort called the body of Christ, whereas in truth it is the Sacrament of the body of Christ, I mean of that which being visible, palpable, mortal, was put upon the Cross; and (as) that immolation of the flesh which is done by the hands of the Priest is called the passion, death, and crucifixion, not rei veritate in verity of the thing, but significante mysterio in a signifying mystery: So the Sacrament of faith, Baptism I mean, is faith. The force and life of which comparison you have in S.E. pag. 72. Hear briefly I observe that this text, in the double 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaks of two things; the one is the flesh of Christ in the Sacrament, which it calls panem Coelestem: the other is the act of immolation performed by the Priest, which it calls immolationem carnis. Of the first of these it saith again, two things: the one appertaining to the quid of it in ratione rei; telling us that it is according to the interior substance caro Christi: the other appertaining to it as it hath put on rationem signi; telling us that it is Sacramentum corporis Christi visibilis & crucifixi. Of the second also two; the one that it is a mystical mactation, crucifying, death, of Christ: the other, that it is not his death or crucifying in rei veritate. 
Vocatur immolatio carnis quae Sacerdotis manibus fit, Christ● passio non rei veritate sed significante mysterio.  The two former things, vizt the heavenly bread, & the act of Immolation, featly (either of ignorance or of purpose) doth confound: so to draw upon the one (against the authors intention, expressed in clear terms, more than once, or twice;) all that is avouched of the other which proceeding, in a matter of this nature, urged and insisted upon in two several disputations (to decry the real presence of the body of our Saviour in the signs, which when Luther began, was believed by all the known Christian Churches in the world, and is so plainly delivered in Scripture that the greatest Protestants in the world were in conscience thereby confessedly convinced; 
Luther. Melan●●ton, etc. ) and not urged only, but also several times printed, to the ruin of poor souls which esteem him a great clerk; gives us just occasion to complain of it as unworthy of a Scholar; and in itself unconscionable. And to think, as Waferer doth, that he thereby proves Gratian to oppugn transubstantiation, or, that his discourse doth satisfy what S. E. had said about the text, is a sign that the judgement or understanding power is in the man defective. But stay we are to answer his interrogatory, that will kill the cause.  
featly. Hath Christ too bodies, one visible and palbable, an other invisible? & the (heavenly) bread is truly the one, and s● Sacrament only of the other?  
Answer. Not two according to the substance, the duality is in the manner, it is the same body, which on the Cross was visible, in the Sacrament it is invisible, and, as having one of these manners of existency, it was a sign the text saith, of itself, as in the other; carne & sanguine utroque invisibili, there is the body in one manner of existencie, significatur visibile Domini corpus, there is the same body in an other manner of existency again, that caro quam forma panis opertam in Sacramento accipimus, &, the caro crucifixa, are in substance but one. Corpus visibile, palpabile, in cruse suspensum, and coelestis panis qui veré Christi caro est, or, as he doth otherwise also call it, caro invisibilis intelligibilis, spiritualis; are according to the substance, but one thing.  
Had you cast your eye on that which in Gratian follows, out of S. Jerome, you had seen a further confirmation of this double manner, together with the solution of your difficulty. Dupliciter intelligitur caro Christi, & sanguis: vel spiritalis illa atque Divina, de qua ipse ait (caro mea verè est cibus & sanguis meus verè est potus, & nisi mand caveritis carnem meam & biberitis meum sanguinem non habebitis vitam aeternam;) vel caro quae crucifixa est, & sanguis qui militis effusus est lancea. The flesh and blood of Christ is understood two ways: either that spiritual and Divine, whereof he himself saith my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed; &, unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall not have everlasting life: or the flesh which was crucified, and the blood which by the soldiers lance was poured out. according to this distinction of the same flesh, secundum d●uersos modos, he doth resolve an other difficulty of videbit & non videbit, both verified in the same, being taken according to diverse manners of existing. juxta hanc divisionem, & in sanctis eius (Christi) diversitas carnis & sanguinis accipitur, 
Com. in c. 1. ad Ephes.  ut alia sit caro quae visura est salutare Dei: alia caro & sanguis quae regnum non queant possidere. According to this distinction, the diversity of flesh and blood is taken also in the Saints: that it be one flesh which is to see the salvation of God; another flesh and blood which cannot possess the kingdom. How another? how alia & alia? secundum substantiam? no that were not to reconcile Scripture, but to decry Scripture, and the common Article of the Resurrection: but, alia & alia secundum modum. And, of the flesh of Christ in like manner; that spiritual and Divine flesh which he saith we are to eat, and the flesh which was crucified be not alia & alia secundum substantiam; no: be they Master featly? divina quae veré cibus, and crucifixa; be these alia & alia secundum substantiam? you will not say they be: but alia & alia secundum modum.  
When the Scripture saith, God gave Saul another heart, the meaning is not that he took out that which was before, and put in place, another, substantially distinct; but it was another in the manner or accidental being and S. Augustine cont. Adamant. Cum induerit (corpus) in corruptionem & immortalitatem, iam non caro & sanguis, sed in corpus Coeleste mutabitur. &, de fide & symbols. In Coelestibus nulla caro, sed corpora simplicia & lucida, quae appellat Apostolus spiritualia. 
a. S. Aug. con. Adimant. c. 12.  when the body shall have put on incorruption, and immortality, (it shall be) now not flesh and blood but it shall be changed into an heavenly body. 
b. Idem De fide & Symb. cap 10. Credimus & carnis resurrectionem. Non tantum quia reparatur anima, quae nunc propter carnales affectiones caro nominatur: sed haec etiam visibilis caro quae naturaliter est caro, cuius nomen anima non propter naturam, sed propter affectiones carnales accepit. Haec ergo visibilis, quae caro propriè dicitur, sine dubitatione credenda est, resurgere. S. Aug. Ibidem. Si mutatis moribus dicimus hominem non esse qui fuit, si denique mutatis aetatibus ipsum corpus non dicimus esle quod fuit: quanto magis ipsum non erit, tanta conuersione mutatum ut non solum immortaliter vivat, verum etiam invisibilem videat. S. Aug. Epist. 111. Non hoc corpus quod videtis etc. Supra. pag. 53. Vide ibi mark. Ait mod●cum et iam non videbitis me, quia eum corporaliter tunc videbant quando iturus erat ad patrem; & eum deinceps mortalem visuri non erant, qualem cum ista loqueretur videbant. tract. 101. in joan.  In the coelestials, no flesh, but simple and bright bodies, which the Apostle calls spiritual. He that conceives what is said before of the manner of defining which the 
b. Supra, pag 301. & seq.  natural Philosopher doth use, will understand this easily. and this, here affirmed, by these learned Fathers, according to the manner which the Scripture also doth frequent in speech, is a double confirmation of that Philosophy.  
featly. Gratian opposeth not modum modo, but modum rei verae and veritati rei.  
Answer, This is answered already: In the first part of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he doth oppose modum modo. he doth oppose the invisible flesh, conu●red w●th the form of bread, to the same fl●sh as it is visible: and saith that the former is a sign of the lather. Which I have plainly shown by the text itself, and have produced the words wherein this is evidently affirmed. In the second part of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he doth oppose one action to another; or, one manner of immolation: to another manner of immolation affirming the Consecration or act of unbloody immolation to be the bloody passion, not in rei veritate, to consecrate is not to crucify; but significante mysterio; as hath been also told you. Moreover, the confounding of these two, thereby to conclude the flesh not to be there, in the Sacrament, according to the truth of the thing, visible or invisibly, (so you speak,) hath been detected for a gross corruption, repugnant to the text.  
featly. And now having brandished the sword of the text of Gratian, let us see how you can ward a blow with the scabbard, the Gloss.  
Answer. The lightning of your sword was like the thundering of your Canon. Surely Doctor, it was a violent Objection, this.  
Belli ferratas portas, vectesque refregit.  
Wars iron gates it hath burst up, and Barrs.  
featly ex Glossa. Dicitur Corpus Christi impropriè suo modo, non rei veritate, ut sit sensus vocatur corpus Christi, id est significatur.  
Answer. If Soldiers when the sword cannot pierce, nor the Canon make a breach, should give an onset with their scabbards, what Elogium befits them, Doctor? the scabbard too should be fit for the sword; the commentary should be according to the text; or neither is good. Who told you that Divines were to be directed in the understanding of matters purely Theological, by a Canon Lawyer? or, that the Author of the Gloss did fully comprehend the text? which (as you have seen, and so much he saw too) contradictes the fond Heresy of empty signs, and bakers bread moreover, the Gloss itself in plain terms affirms (as you find cited in S. E) that bread is transubstantiated into the body, 
Suprà, pag 75.  that where before was bread and wine, there is now (after consecration) the accidents (of them) only, that under those accidents the flesh and blood (of Christ) do lie hid and are covered; and the reason; lest there might be horror in receiving, if the shape of raw flesh and blood should appear. And yet forsooth if we believe you, the words of Gratian and the Gloss here (in the scrap you cite perchance) are so clear against the Real presence of Christ's body under the accidents of bread and wine, that never any Protestant spoke more expressly, 
Featl. pag. 61.  as if an Atheist out that place Dixit insipiens in cord suo non est Deus, should cite for himself only the later part non est Deus, and then avouch that never Atheist did speak more expressly. Is this your sincerity? is this fair proceeding in the trial of Religion? &, must the press groan under this? the monument of the great Disputant must it be built upon these pillars? and his Statue be adorned with a garland of these flowers? O Conscience! o Religion!  
In the Relation set forth by S. E. Doctor featly is said to have acknowledged that Gratian did contradict himself: 
Pag. 70.  who then can excuse this his urging of the place again, in a second Disputation; and printing of it afterwards twice; still pressing the place against the Real presence; once anno 1624. in diwlging one Conference; and again anno 1630. in the publishing of another, who can say that in urging these men's Authority he did not impugn a known truth? or if he did not know it, if he could not understand their words, what mist was there in his understanding? what ignorance, in so great a Rabbin?  
But hear his Echo, in the Apology. In this Section (wherein the place of Gratian and the Gloss are discussed) so far as Doctor Smith and his Antagonist argue, 
Wafer. pag 50.  if you peruse the places you shall find the arguments (though so mincinglie here produced) unsatisfied, where you are forced to put a trick on Doctor featly, and make him confess against Gratian, lest his Lordship should be nonplussed. I can not but pity such slender policy. But for satisfaction concerning Gratian if you but please to read Doctor featly on another occasion, (in his Conference with M. Musket, pag. 61. etc.) you shall find him instead of yielding that Gratian contradicts himself, prove that he oppugnes your transubstantiation. Thus innocently, the godly sincere Brother Cui nec Ara, nec—  
I now return to the words objected, putting you first in mind (which featly doth acknowledge was told him in the Conference) 
Featl. pag. 29●  that three things in a Sacrament are to be considered, as Divines note; 1. that which is Sacramentum tantùm. 2. that which is res Sacramenti tantùm. 
Vide Suar. 3. p. to. 3. disp 1, Sect 3. Tria distingnuntura Theologis in Sacramentis novae legis, res tantum, etc. Et disp. 42. Sect. 1. 3. 4. Magist. in 4 d. 8. S. Tho. 3. p. q 73. a. 1. Ibidemque Commentatores.  3. that which is both res & Sacramentum that which is (here) Sacramentum tantum, be the species of bread & wine, which are signs, but are not really, either, of the things by them signified: that which is res Sacramenti tantum, is grace which is signified by the Sacrament (as you may know by the general definition) but itself not being visible, is no sign, of this S. Bernard speaks in the place cited by Waferer pag. 49. rem Sacramenti nemo percipit nisi dignus. that which is both Sacramentum and res Sacramenti, as signifying and being also signified, is the body of our Saviour in the sign. According to this distinction, commonly received and known when the Glossatour made his exposition, it was answered that he spoke of that which is Sacramentum tantum, to wit the specie, which are not really and properly the body and blood of Christ, but improperly and significative only. to which meaning his own words would have directed you. Sacramentum, scilicet species visibilis, the Sacrament that is, the visible species. and, species panis sub qua latet corpus Christi, est Sacramentum carnis, the species of bread which hath under it our saviours body, is the Sacrament of 
a. Post consecrationem sacerdotis, quae sacrificium dicitur, duo sunt ibi, scilicet Sacramentum & res Sacramenti; quae ante consecrationem ibi non erent. Glossa. ad Can, Hoc est. and again. Sive sacrificium hic dicatur ipsum Sacramentum, scilicet species visibilis: sive corpus Christi: sive immolatio (so he took it when he said it was consecratio) corporis Christi: non est verum quod hic dicit, scilicet quod constat ex Sacramento & re Sacramenti; (none of these are constituted of the two things here especified) sed tenentur collectiuè, pro ipso Sacramento & re Sacramenti. Ibidem. Caro, id est, species panis, sub qualatet corpus Christi, est Sacramentum carnis Christi. & sanguis, id est, species vini sub qua latet sanguis Christi, est Sacramentum sanguinis Christi, Ibidem. Coelestis panis, id est, coeleste Sacramentum quod veré repraesentat Ch●isti carnem, dicitur corpus Christi, sed improprié. Ibidem, Caro Christi potest intelligi secundum illam formam & quantitatem quam habuit in cruse: vel secundum quant tatem corporis glorificati quod spirituale videtur, quod nulli sensui subiacet. Idem, ad Can. Dupliciter. Non hoc corpus manducaturi estis, id est, non in eadem specie, vel grossitie, vel repraesentatione, sed in Sacramento. Idem, ad Can. Prima. Licet enim ubique sit etiam in altari quolibet in vera forma quam de Virgine sumpsit; non tamen subiicitur corporeis sensibus. Ibidem. Vide quae de transubstantiatione tradit, pag 75.  flesh.  
That he spoke of this exterior shape, and not of the thing within it, it is yet further manifest by that which hath been cited out of him touching the real existence of the body, under that form; and the turning of bread into it. See the Conference pag. 75.  
An understanding Reader, by this which hath been said, will be able himself to find the meaning of 
b. Iust. Dixit ex Antiquis non nemo si recte memini, Christum suscepisse adoptionem filiorum, numquid Haereseos illum damnasses. Herm. Minimé verò. crede rem enim propterea dixisse quod suscepetit adoptionis Sacramentum; baptismum puta Justice Potestne Sacramentum adoptionis, adoptio nuncupari? Herm Opinor: nam signum illius est. Vnde etiam Sacramentum corporis, corpus appellatur. Iust. Eri●igitur Sacramentum adoptionis, adoptio proptié, si par in eo sit utriusque ratio; Sacramentum enim corporis, proprié corpus est. Herm. Continere fateor. at esse, qui probas? an fortè de toto praedicatur pars; idemque unum horum quod alterum est veré & proprié? Iust. Dominus ipse Sacramentum corpus suum vocavit. Herm. Vocavit quia continet; contentum enim demonstrat pronomen quod est in operatorio Domini sermone, formam vocas, quae sic videtur exponenda, Hoc, nempe contentum sub hac panis forma visibili, est corpus meum: at non proptereà Sacramentum corpus suum vocavit quod omne sit corpus verè & proprié. quod en in sacramentum tantùm, vel quam conspicis figur● panis, non est proprié corpus hominis. Nec de toto composito (quod ex corpore signo que sive specie) pars affirmatur. Iust. Negas igitur panem corpus esse proptié, panem inquam consecratum? Herm. Panem cui proximè competit Sacramenti ratio, nego proprié corpus esse: fateor tamen continere corpus, Christi inquam: quod cum sit invisibile, non totum Sacramentum est. Apertius, & more tuo. Vox panis, pro composito supponi potest: vel pro specie; vel pro contento. Sumendo pro contento, verum est quod a●s; id enim Dominus Iesus disertè affi●mauit dicens, hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis tradetur, Apostolo teste, 1. Cor. 11. panis quem ego dabo cato mea est. joa. 6 sumendo pro specie, fateris ipse non esse verum, proprié. & hae quidem velutï parts totius compositi, pro quo si nomen sumatur (sunt autem voces earum quae sunt in anima passionum notae) neutram poteris de illo partem propriè & seorsum affirmare. Iust. Id quidem verum, de toto partem non affirmar● propriè, distinguuntur enim. Ex Aduersarijs M. Faunovallensis 3. p. 75. paragraphe 3 See the Confession of Berengarius, above pag. 328. Profiteor panem post consecrationem non solum Sacramentum sed etiam verum corpus Christi esse The testimony of Lanfranc. pag. 337. Sententia quae enunciat, panis & vinum altaris solummodo sunt verum Christi corpus & sanguis, nullius hominum est The words of the Canon, pag. 405. Duobus constare, visibili elementorum specie, & invisibili carne— S. Irenaent pag. 330. Eucharistia duabus rebus constans, terrena & coelesti. De solo vero Corpore non est verum quod constet istis duobus: quod non solum &c, ut in Confess● sed neque de speciebus solis. Dico Species consecratas esse Eucharistiae Sacramentum, seu ad illius constitutionem intrinsecé & essentialiter pertinere. Suarez 3 p. t, 3. Disp. 42. sect 1. Dicendum est Eucharistiam non esse solas species Sacramentales, sed compositum ex corpore & speciebus, seu corpus Domini sub specie bus contentum: atque ade O corpus & sanguinem Christi intrinsecè & in recto pertinere ad constitutionem huius Sacramenti, Idem, Sect. 3. ubi pro hac sententia citat S Tho, Bonan. Caiet. aliosque Observe also that it is one thing to interpret favourably an obscure speech (as that of our Saviour's adoption,) in behalf of him that known no Church-decree speaking of it; and this before the learned; producing withal like speeches that have to their knowledge a good and true sense, (though similes hold not in all points, he that compares you with a lion means not to say you are a beast or irrational though that be essential to him, & abstrahentium Philosopher's tells us non est mendacium,) and another thing, to catechise the common people, or teach once own tenet. Lastly note that it is one thing to say signum continet, illud cuius est signum, and another thing to say that ex ratione signi hoc habet, & forget not that in names ●he●e is analogy. Vide Aristotelem in Praed. de relatione Dom. & Catet. de significatione nominis concreti,  others (if any be objected) that use the like speeches: & the better, if he bear in mind the variety of supposition that happens in these words, 
Vide Suar. 3. p. to. 3. disp. 42. sect. 4. § Secundo colligitur.  Eucharistia, Sacramentum, Panis consecratus. you shall find them taken sometimes pro corpore, connotando species continentes: Sometimes pro speciebus, connotando corpus contentum: sometimes pro toto composito, for the whole consisting of the body and the species, both. According to which diversity of acception, such propositions as over hasty or unlearned men think opposite, will be found to contain a good sense.  
Having freed the Canon from you M. featly, and got possession of it again, I will turn it against your Apologist to drive away that silly troop of Arguments which he hath brought into this Section. You remember the charge that was in it. This in substance: ● in the Sacrifice of the Church two things, one the species of the elements, and this visible; the other, the invisible body of our Lord. 2. the invisible thing, the flesh, is covered with the visible. 3. the flesh is a Sacrament of the flesh. 4 the invisible and spiritual flesh in the Sacrament, doth signify the visible & palpable body which was upon the cross. 5. the Heavenly bread, which is indeed (according to the substance) flesh; is the sacred sign or Sacrament of the visible mortal body. 6. the act of immolation performed by the Priest is called the passion of Christ, non rei veritate sed significante mysterio. The Reader remembers all this. I request him also to reflect upon the discourse of S. E. pag. 71 which Master Waferer with all his Arts doth impugn, and I am now defending, the substance of his Arguments (for his words do not merit the transcribing) is without order (for he hath none at all) as followeth.  
Waferer. S. Augustine saith Epist. 23. Secundum quemdam modum Sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est.  
Answer. That which is Sacramentum tantùm, 
Aliqui putabant species solas esse Sacramentum. Vide Suarez disp. 42. 2.  is secundum quendam modum (to wit significative) Corpus Christi: that which is res & Sacramentum, is corpus Christi; or caro spiritualis, veré. and the same, is corpus Christi visibile ut visibile secundum quendam modum; to wit representative. the Canon, sicut ergo etc. illius quod visibile etc.  
Waferer. The same thing cannot represent itself, for there is similitude betwixt the representing and the represented, which similitude cannot be in case it be the same thing.  
Answer. Why not? if it be (as our Saviour's body is) in diverse exterior forms or shapes at once? why may it not by the one represent itself as existent in the other? the similitude (such as it is) is not founded, as you conceive, in the substance precisely, 
wherefore they be not the same in that very respect and point, and was above also answered Birckbeck pag 180.  but in the exterior shapes or forms, which be not here the same, in the representing, and the represented▪ Th● Canon. Carne inuis●bili significat●● visibile Domini corpus.  
Waferer. It is not only without groundeth the Gospel, but also false, to say ●he same body was in divers forms or shapes at once.  
Answer. Our Saviour's body was in the shape of bread, invisibly. This in my hand is my body. and it was visibly sitting at the table at the same time; h● said take, eat, this is &c. The Cànon. Carne inuisibi●i, intelligibili, spirituali, significatur corpus Domini visibile, palpabile. 
The Quod then, is the same.   
Waferer. If one and the same thing can be in several forms, one form may represent the other, but the thing represents not itself.  
Answer. had your opposition been to purpose you should have put it thus, but the thing by the one cannot represent itself as in the other, which was the proposition you undertook to disprove. I doubt whether your eyes be fellows, you mistake so oft, that which is before them; and, it seems, if I may speak according to your Philosophy, that either they be mere accidents, or, the one is not like unto the other. For in both, is, (am I not mistaken?) the same form or substance. S. P●ete fishing, was a figure of S. Peter preaching. What? did accidents only fish? & other accidents preach? 〈◊〉 was the fisher a figure of the preacher ● Peter in one action, of himself, as in the other? this matter is already dispatched, pag. 185. & seqq. where you shall find an answer to your discourse about the Manna. The Canon. Caro carnis & sanguis Sacramentum est sanguinis.  
Waferer. The body is not in the Sacrament in its proper shape, 
Sed & Christus post resurrect●onem su●m diversa actione diversa que temporum ratione, sui ipsius typum gessit & figuram.  enim a●t Augustinus; apparens duobus Discipulis &c Alger de Sacram. l. 1 c 18. Ille contendat Christum mentitum esse singendo, qui negat eum quod signify ●ui● implevisle faciend● S. Aug. de mend. ●on, Cons c 13. ad illud, sinxit se longius three. longius namque profectus super omnes coelos, etc. Ibid.  how then can the Sacrament represent it as so existent.  
Answer. The shape represented is the visible shape and form our Saviour had. The Canon. Carne invisibili significatur visibile corpus. and again, Sacramentum est corporis, illius videlicet quod visibile. Neither is this representation, univocal; or the relation, natural to the species, as you suppose: but it is founded in the Divine action or institution, which serves itself of that analogy which the matter doth afford. Read your own words pag. 60. Most certain it is that the sacramental signs and actions are the memorial & figure of no other body then that of our Saviour on the Cross.  
Your Questions about the meaning of the word hoc, into which you would have the whole proposition (o worthy man to write Divinity!) to be transubstantiated, will find an answer in the next Section, though you must not expect that I repeat there again in terminis, so choice a piece of M. Mirth. No more with Gratian for this time.  
Waferer. The species (you now dispute against that which was answered to the words of the Gloss) cannot be called Coeleste Sacramentum in regard of their reference (the words of S. E.) to our Saviour's body which they cover.  
Answer. Why so?  
Waferer. Nothing is a sacrament in respect of covering.  
Answer. That which invisibly contains, and exhibites to us, not only grace, but the Author of grace, may therefore well be called a Sacrament. such covering well deserves the name; though covers, be not all, Sacraments. Howbeit you mistake S. E. who told you the reference to the body enclosed was enough to draw upon it this title Coeleste, Heavenly. The sacred body of our Saviour is within the species: whence it comes that the one hath rationem contenti, the other continentis: which notions are conceived, you know, relative, and, since a relation is specified by the terminus, that relation is not natural which is terminated unto, and reciprocated with, that which is above nature. To inquire for an action making immediately these r●ferences, were needles. Even in those that are natural the Philosopher looks for no other action then that which makes the foundation, which he calls the fundamentum. where one thing contains another, the reference follows of itself. That by the consecration the body is put within the species, the Gloss● (whose Authority you are again scanning) told you, and by the words of Institution it is manifest. 
Suprà pag. 75 Matth 26.  The Canon. Caro eius est quam forma panis opertam accipimus.  
But why should you make any difficulty about the title of sacred and heavenly, drawn upon the species in a sense equivocal, by reasons of the reference? When we urge against you, the Fathers, to prove that our Saviour in the Eucharist is to be reverenced and adored, than you tell us that the worship is exhibited to the forms because they be sacred; and you can fetch examples from Baptism: how then comes it to pass that whilst you dispute against us, 
The words Reverence, Honour, & Adoration simply in themselves, without the adjunct and additament Divine, cannot conclude the Divine woship proper to God.— Under the degree of Divine worship, we ourselves yield as much to the Eucharist, as S. Augustine did to baptism when he said (epist. 164) we reverence baptism wheresoever it is, Morton. of the Mass l 7 c 2, sec. 3, Divine Nazianzene teace that the Angels are present at baptism, and do magnify or Honour it with their presence and observance, Idem Sect 2. Were the Crucifix as glorious as either art could fashion— it is but a mere sign invented by man; and therefore how infinitely more honourable in all Christian estimation must a Sacramental sign be, wh●ch only the God of heaven and earth could insitute? Idem li. 4. c. 2. Sect 3 in the Challenge. Reverence is a due respect had unto things or persons, according to the good qualities that is in them, this is either inward, or outward, the inward is our estimation of them, according to their conditions and properties: the outward is our open expression of our said estimation, whether by words or acts, their inward etc. Idem. l. 7. c. 9 See the words of D. Androes cited p. 373. and what both of them say to Theodoret, & adorantur (symbola) ut quae illa sint quae creduntur, whereof Andr, in his Op. posth. and Mort l. 7. c. 2 and cease to declaim against us for the relative honour we give to relics and other holy things: observing withal that they both come short of Theodoret, adorantur ut quae illa sint.  they lose their sanctity? But see! your brains turn about, and you will bestow the same title upon bread and wine; and that, (the thing which just now you disliked,) in regard of reference to flesh & blood: Take my opinion (say you) that mere accidents can neither properly nor improperly be called Coeleste Sacramentum in regard of their reference to our Saviour's body which they cover, 
Wafer. pag 57  but bread and wine may be so called, (and why?) in regard of their mysterious use and signification, (how so?) the reference unto that Celestial food which they are then made instruments to convey unto us, gives them that denomination. So you.  
The several comparisons of the Sacramental species comes here too, into the Minister's head, and troubles him: so many relations, in one thing; to the body visible existent on the cross, to the body invisible contained within, and to the grace which (being a Sacrament) it doth also relate unto. Three relations, in one thing; this makes him sweat, with labour to conceive it. But there is one thing, your own self Master Waferer, wherein there be more than thirty, to your Father, to your brothers, to the community whereof you are a part, to your (alas! poor) flock, to your mother University, to your masters there, to your servant, what spend I time to reckon? as many senses, and powers, & parts; as many several accidents, and qualites, and habits, as you have; as many several virtues as are in you, (but I must not found on them lest my number prove to short;) as many several comparisons as you have to bodies, (I omit all other things which would make the number more than double) living or not living, celestial or terrestrial, greater or less, than you; so many relations you Master Waferer, have. Number them, if you can; a●d you shall find for every one that I promised, a thousand, do you sweat under the burden?  
You told us but a while ago that bread and wine have a reference to the body and blood of Christ; 
Wafer. pag. 34.  and it is your common tenet and the great mystery which you do mngnifie and extol as a thing above the capacity and conceit of Christian men though never so learned: yet, lest you want an Adversary, you plead against this also now your own self. There is, say you, a relation inter signum and signatum, which relation cannot be founded in the colour of bread, 
Wafer. pag 58,  because no relation is founded in quality, but relatio similitudininis, now the colour of flesh and bread is not a like, and so there can be no relation of similitude between them. and so on you go to conclude that the relation which we admit is no where but in a jesuites doting head. 
See your own k●kerm. of the institution of signs. Was it not you ●hat objected out of Tertull. and the Gloss, the word representat? and are not you the men would have the Sacrament to be a sign?  which if it were so, his condition were yet better than yours; for he hath within the consecrated species that which is indeed heavenly, the best thing (to speak with S. chrysostom,) that is in all the world: whereas your Sacrament is really nothing else but bakers bread, with the relation of a sign, which relation (your own argument comes back upon you) is not founded in the colour nor in the substance of bread, flesh and bread are not alike, but only in the supposed institution, which kind of relations being not real, give me leave to conclude in your Logic, yet more civilly, that, it is no where but in the sacred pia matter of a Catharist.  
Waferer. I have four reasons why I dislike your opinion which defends mere accidents to be called a Sacrament.  
Answer. you are content that a piece of bread, wherein there is no thing else but bread, the rest being in your head only, be called a Sacrament? why then may not those species be so called which do cover and enfold that great mystery of piety which was manifested in the flesh, justified in spirit, appeared to Angels, and was preached unto Nations? if the price of our Redemption, the Mediator betwixt God and man, the holy of holies, if Deus absconditus be within those species, withdrawn from our sight, and they not only signify, but exhibit him to the receiver, why may they not be called a Sacrament?  
Waferer: They do not signify by institution.  
Answer. That institution which brings in, the body, under them, doth also make them to contain it. so comes relatio continentis. Can a man put more wit into your head, 

In ad aliquid non est morus; Contingit enim altero mutato, verum esse alterum, nihil mutans: quare secundum accidens, motus horum est. Arist. 5 Phy●● tex. 10,  
Motus non est per se in ad aliquid, sed solum per accidens. S. Th. ibidem.   the relation would follow without other trouble. When your meat is in your belly who makes the relation? when, how, by what means? look on Aristotle 5. Physicorum cap. 3.  
Waferer. the pronounce hoc in the words of Consecration, doth not signify these accidents, therefore these accidents cannot get a relation by virtue of the words of Consecration.  
Answer. He that fills a cup or chalice doth not make it, yet the relatio continentis ad rem contentam, follows upon that his action, his action brings wine into the cup; and consecration brings our Saviour's body into the form of bread: which done, the relations be not wanting.  
Waferer. The body is not produced by consecration, nor the species, therefore the relation of one of these to the other, follows not upon the consecration.  
Answer. Whether the body be produced or be not produced by consecration, is not the matter here disputed; but whether it be present. Neither would your argument conclude if we supposed your antecedent to be wholly true. When you fill a chalice, you neither produce the cup, nor the wine; yet the relation of continency doth follow, and so doth it when you fill a place, though you produce not yourself that are in it.  
Waferer. Relations following upon actions are only between the agent or efficient and the effect or thing it makes,  
Answer. You see this to be false in the example before specified, could not you and I be nearer one to the other unless the one of us be made again? or is the Sun made a new as oft as it is under a new sign? the moon perhaps you will say is, because there be new moons.  
Thus fare concerning the four arguments of your dislike, 
Wafer. p. 61.  which you conclude with this iyngling clinch, that becomes your cap well, So much (mend that word much, and put so little; you must not commend yourself,) for Doctor Featlies' Illation against your Relation.  
One thing more I must note (before we leave this Section) that, whereas in it you have showed yourself much offended with S. E. for saying the species were also signa corporis Christi praesentis, your conscience would not let you make an end before you had granted it, in these words, 
Wafer pag 62.  I'll grant you that the outward signs are, signa corporis praesentis, signs of the body present after consecration, yet to show yourself still replenished with the spirit of contradiction, you tell us you deny that it is there after the manner we define, how then M. Waferer? is it obiective only? 
Ibidem.  as the thing believed is said to be in the believer; or as the men you look upon, are in your eye; or as the thing you love is thereby said to be in you or you rather in it? hear a mystery. 'tis not corporally but mystically and sacramentally, 
Wafer. Ibidem.  and yet so as besides the intellectual presence (by faith and love) there is also a real and exhibitive presence (of the body, I suppose,) in respect of donation on God's part and reception on man's part. But what it this, great Apollo? Is the body, (antecedentlie to the effects which follow the reception) really exhibited and really received more than intellectuallie? do men, with their bodily mouths, receive here, that which is in heaven only, no nearer?  Quid tanto dignum feret hic promissor hiatu? 
Your, Master, Caluin, hath lead you it seems into the clouds, to mount there, for a bank is to low for you. Non solum beneficiorum Christi significationem habemus in Coena; sed substantiué participes, in unam cum eo vitam coalescimus, and, 
Cited in Morton pag 151.  Ergo in Coena miraculum agnoscimus, quod & naturae fines & sensus nostri modum exsuperat: Quod Christi caro nobis fit communis & nobis in alimentum datur. We have in the Supper not a signification of the benefits only, but being made substantially participant, we do become one life with him. Wherefore we acknowledge in the Supper a miracle, that transcends the bounds of nature, and compass of our reason, to wit, that the flesh of Christ is made to us commo●, and given us for our nourishment. So he. Now Waferer, mount you, though we heard you once already. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every Puny can tell you that though bread seem only bread to the eye, 
Wafer pag. 34.  and in substance be nothing else, yet in its spiritual use and signification, it's the body of our Saviour, (this your Punies you say, know, what is there in it more; hark and learn,) not that Christ's body is present under the accidental forms of the elements though it be therewith sprituallie 
And what hath Morton more than bread, with certain references which be not real? a sign, a seal, an instrument; what answers here to these three names, à parte rei, more than bread?  eaten, (this were Papistry, take heed of it; but, what or how then?) This I confess to be a Mystery: but if you demand what it is; He answer you as Octavius did Caecilius when he did expect to hear him describe what God was, Nobis ad intellectum pectus augustum est, & ideo sic Deum digne aestimamus dum inaestimabilem dicimus etc. so if you expect to hear exactly what this mystery is, I answer, it is a mystery, and if I could perfectly disclose its secrets and show you what it were, than 'ttwere no mystery. So then, besides the benefit of grace which is the effect of due receiving, and besides the intellectual presence which is by faith, those that will, must believe a mystery, above man's apprehension, unexplicable, incomprehensible. Will you now see the mouse? The bread is a sign of our Saviour's body; and the communicants take it in their hands; 
S Hier. Epist. ad Ctes.  and eat it with their mouths. Ecclesiae victoria est, vos aperiè dicere quod fentitis.   

The Fift objection was that Hoc stands for bread, because the Fathers, sometimes call the Sacrament by that name, and the pronoun relates to nothing else. The Answer was that Hoc, (whose signification of itself is confused) relates unto the thing which is under the species when the form is wholly uttered; and that this thing is Heavenly bread and by the Fathers so called. 
Solemn  istis nebulonibus (so the modest man calls the Catholic Divines) quicquid in Patribus vitiosum est corradere, etc. cum ergo obijciunt locum Malachiae de Missae Sacrificio ab Irenaeo exponi, oblationem quoque Melchisedech sic tractari ab Athanasio, Ambrosio, Augustino, Arnobio, breviter responsum sit eosdem illos Scriptores alibi quoque panem interpretari corpus Christi; sed ita ridiculè ut dissentire nos cogat ratio etc. Caluin. l. de vera Eccles. Reform. p. 389.   
In this Section (as appears by the Synopsis which Waferer himself sets before it,) be many things both impertinent to the Argument (which was of the signification of the word Hoc;) and without order, packed together. As. 1. Of the sixth chapter of Saint john, whether it speaks of the Sacrament, which Question he concludes negatiuè, so cashcering one of his own Doctor's Arguments. 2. Of transubstantiation. where he would have the Reader know from him, yes, that the Fathers speak hyperbolically, when they say bread is changed by the power of omnipotence not in shape but in nature, that the nature itself is changed; that it is transelemented. And having said, for explication of those places, that in transelementation, the materia prima (which is an element or principle of the thing; aswell as the form) doth remain; he tells us, the Fathers mean a change in office. 
Your greatest Protestantish polemics come in fine to the same. Expectu eadem a summmo m●●●moque,  as if that office (to represent or signify the flesh of Christ,) came in place of the nature or form of bread: or that, a substantial form, or element, were turned into an ens rationis, which is in a Ministers empty brain. 3. Of adoration. where he would ridiculously persuade the Reader that the Council of Trent will have latria bestowed upon mere accidents for being (Sacramentum tantum) sacred and Sacramental signs only: as if the Church esteemed that a motive of Divine and highest worship. 4. Of Omnipotency, where he professeth not to meddle with God's absolute power, and yet denies things which we maintain to be done only by that power. 5. Of the Incarnation. where he saith that, since our Saviour's manhood is inseparably united to his Divinity in that sense it may be said to be every where present to it. and that the union of our Saviour's manhood to the Deity is extended as far as (th●) Deity. 6. Of miracles. Where he saith that, that which is only spiritual (he means invisible, such as the changes made in the elements bread and wine, by consecration, or by the Sacraments, in our souls; or by God in his Saints:) is wrought no where but in the mind. These effects, and other spiritual created things, 
S. Hier. ad Ctes.  all, (if this tenet hold,) are imaginary. Non necesse habet convinci, quod sua statim professione blasphemum est. I spare paper, to some other, better purpose: what need I spend it? 
Ibidem.  Sententias vestras prodidisse, superasse est.  
This Euripus homo, Waverer, in his discourse, doth say and unsay; and interpret himself (when some body it seems warned him of his gross errors against the Common Creed) no better in effect then, if having said it is; I should add for explication, that is, 
Quo teneas vultus mutaintem protea nodu?  it is not: wanting discretion to leave out, what he had not wit enough to mend.  
The Objections which he brings, such as he picks here and there out of others, he thrusts together in a bundle, without order, like sticks in a faggot; which if it were carried to Carfox, and set on fire, would illuminate the four quarters of the University. Will you hear some recited; and observe in him whilst from his extaticall throne or pulpit he scatters Oracles to sanctify the attentive ears of astonished Pupils, an example of sweet, ingenuous, fair, civil, gracious comportment.  
Credit me vobis folium recitare—  
Whist! he speaks.  Apologist. 
let me see what you would have this bread in the Sacrament to be. Such (say you) as whereunto the Divine essence doth ineffablie power itself, even as in Christ under humane nature the Divinity lay bid. And finally such bread, of which our Saviour saith it is my flesh for the life of the world. O most insufferable dotage! First because the blasphemous comparison of putting Christ so in the bread shaps, as his Divinity was in his humanity, as if he were personally united to them as he was to the humane nature. 2. you would against sense as well as the condition of a Sacrament make an invisible thing namely Christ, invisible under the accidens of bread to be a sign of a visible thing namely of Christ visible on the Cross, and so make either two Christ's, or else the self same body to be at the same time both eating and eaten, visible and invisible.  Censure. 
Who bolder than blind bayard? who more furious in charging men with error and dotage, than those who be most ignorant, and have least wit? I told him before of his temereity, but the Ethiopian will not change his skin, nor the Leopard depose his spots. The Holy Ghost says of Heretics, (and we find the experience of it) that they are 
a. 2. Tim. 3.  elati, superbi, criminatores, proterui, tumidi, 
b. Epist. Just.  High autem (the scriptures says of them) quaecumque quidem ignorant, blasphemant. 
c. 2. Tim. 3.  As jannes' and Mambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth, men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith; but they shall proceed no further; for their folly shall be manifest to all; as the others was.  
It is a piece of stupid ignorance (in a writer of polemical books) to think, and an unsufferable calumny it were to report, that we believe two Christ; or that he whom we believe, is united hypostaticè personally to the bread shapes. To justify that we say, by you recited and so deeply charged, I need do no more but pray the Authors themselves to come forth, and again speak it over before your face. When you see parties, peradventure you will blush. 
1 Cor. 11.  jesus Christ our Redeemer, God and man. Take, and eat, this (in the form of bread) is my body which is broken, 
joan. 6.  given, for you. The bread which I will give is my flesh for the life of the world. my flesh is meat indeed etc. the Comment you shall have anon, out of S. jerom. The Author of the Sermons in Saint Cyprian, and of the same age, 
Motton pag. 25. Serm. de Coena.  whom all know (your Patron says) to be a Catholic Father. That bread being changed not in shape but in nature, is by the omnipotency of the Word made flesh. These two places, the one out of S. john, the other out of the Sermon that is in S. Cyprian, Waferer took notice of: and in his way there were more; 
Cyrill. Catech. 4. Canon Hoc est,  as that of S. Cyrill, That which appears bread, is not bread; but the body. and of the Canon taken out of S. Augustine by S. Prosper. It is the the flesh of Christ which we receive covered with the form of bread. and, by the flesh and blood, 
Ibidem.  both invisible, intelligible, spiritual, is signified the visible, palpable body of our Lord jesus Christ. and in Saint Jerome. 
Hieron. Comment. in 1 ad Ephes. ad Paulum & Eustoch. Idem in Ep. ad Hedib. q. 2.  The flesh and blood of Christ is understood two ways: either that spiritual and Divine, whereof himself saith My flesh is meat indeed &c. (mark this Comment Master Waferer,) or the flesh that was crucified. and; Our Lord jesus, he the guest, and the feast; he the eater, and the thing eaten.  
But stay! what is all this? a man's body, our Saviour's, in bread shape; flesh, invisible, under the form of bread. an invisible thing under accidents the sign of a visible thing upon the Cross. the same body at the same time eating and eaten, visible and invisible.  Apologist. 
O insufferable dotage!  Censure. 
And this comparison too 
a. Serm. de Coen. in Cypr.  As in the person of Christ, the humanity did appear, and the Divinity lie bid: so (here in the Eucharist) a Divine essence doth unspeakably power itself into a visible Sacrament. What is your opinion of this?  Apologist. 
O blasphemous comparison!  Censure. 

Com. in in joan. l. 4. c. 11.  The malignant mind (S. Cyrill saith) presently with arrogance rejects all as frivolous and false whatever it understands not, yielding to none, and thinking nothing to be above itself. Belike some Spirit hath inspired this man, and on the sudden given us a Divine, that can teach without learning: the very same which taught Luther to declaim against the Mass. But, Master Waferer, bethink yourself; is this language for a Master of Art but of yesterday, to give a grave Prelate, and a man of known learning? and then also, when he speaks in the very words of Antiquity, of holy Fathers, of jesus Christ? Is this the modesty such a stripling should have had, the learning which you promised, the charity which you pretend? you, who do lament the Schisms of the Church, and are continually in thanksgiving for the great light you see wherein you have discovered how the solid and substantial nature of bread is transelemented into a feigned reference. is this the vindicating of your Church's cause, and the clearing of your Doctor, its abbetter? O the Pedantical insolency! O most insolent arrogancy of most arrogant Apostasy.  
Of the first apostatising Spirits it is said in Sripture, their pride ascendeth ever. They would have thrones, forsooth, (each one, for they are all of one mind,) in the sides of the North: from whence, without submitting themselves to any, they might control, all. and into the same region high pride hath raised this Apol. making herself this chair; and receiving him, in her lap. There he sits, and controls, Antiquity. This it is when supercilious Pedants come from As in praesenti, to print books and give Divines lessons in Divinity.  Apologist. 
Not to trouble myself or my Reader with the repetition of all those infinite solecisms which this opinion includes: take notice of this, that it destroys the definition of an Individuum, & makes Christ's individual body not to be individual. Individuum according to logic is quod est indivisum in se & divisum ab alijs omnibus, as Socrates is distinguished from Plato etc. now I say this your tenet of there all presence against this definition divide; an individual body from itself, it divides Christ ac Paris from Christ in the Sacrament at Rome.  Censure. 
He hath (if you believe him) an infinite company of reasons; but, lest he trouble the Reader, or himself, (lucidum interuallum,) with ranging them all against us, he picks out the stoutest, (his Thersites, Achilles I should have said,) and thrusting him into the field, bids us take notice of him. Sure, it is a goodly reason. Limbs it hath, some; but it wants sinews. like therefore to be some tough champion. Hath it the form and shape of a good Argument? no: but it hath a head, the mayor proposition. O quale caput! sed cerebrum where? non habet.  
The mayor might have in it a good sense; and hath so, when others use it: when it is understood of intrinsical indivision: but extrinsecall, is not that which doth constitute; or the want of it that which takes away, an individuum: now the Minister understands it of this later, this extrinsecall indivision, as will presently appear by his discourse. Thus the Mayor. The Minor is of no great weight neither; for it stands upon his breath. Now 
a. Mirth's words.  I say this your tenet against this definition divides an individual body from itself, it it divides Christ at Paris from Christ in the Sacrament at Rome. You say so well. Your Conclusion? let the Reader himself make it if he can. Supprimit Orator—  
But is there no prop for the Minor? if you cease to say it, what shall become of it then? yes; we shall have something to support it.  Apologist. 
For, there being distance & diversity of place, it cannot be the same numerical body.  Censure. 
Did I not tell before, that he meant extrinsecall indivision? Place, is extrinsecall to a body. whether you be in Oxford or Odiham, you be the same individuum still, though the place be distinct. Oxford is not Odiham; but M, Waferer in Odiham is the same Master Waferer that was at Oxford. the Minister is the Master of Art; is he not Master Mirth? And a Master of Art might have known further, that supervenient ubications destroy not that individuation which essentially they suppose. Your substantial individuation, that whereby you are substantially distinct from other men, (which is no accident of Master Waferer, nor can be removed from him as much as in your mind, without taking him away too;) that substantial individuation, is essentially presupposed by every particular intrinsical ubication received in you, as an accident in its subject, and is not changed by it, by the supervenient ubication: if it were, the same thing could not be as much as successively in several places, as oft as you changed places so oft you should be an other man. One borne, another be carried to Church to be Christened, a third brought home to suck the mother, and (which yet would trouble you worse) another should take the benefice, which was given you; because you took the degree, which an other (by the name of Waferer too) 
a I will not swear that.  deserved.  Apologist. 
I pray what other division can there be of material substances, but by bounds of place?  Censure. 
Poor man! and what If I should come into your place and you into mine, should I then be you, and you be that individuum which I am? this were as easy, as it is a strange transubstantiation. But I know you will deny it to be possible; least by this means you be unawares made a Papist. I thought, (this it is not to be so wise as you,) that your neighbour and you were substantially distinguished, that his substance was not yours, nor your substance his. by something which is in you substantial, you are distinguished from a stock; and by something which is in you substantial, you are distinguished from an ass; and by something which is in you substantial, you are distinguished from your neighbour. you will not deny this, what these are Called, every Puny can tell you.  Apologist. 
't's an infallible axiom that one numerical substance can have but one manner of 
b. Mirth I hope can distinguish betwixt an accidental presentialitie, and, a substantial subsistence.  subsisting.  Censure. 
If you mean naturally, this axiom is nothing to purpose here, nihil ad rhombum. we talk of that which God hath supernaturally effected. If you mean supernaturally, it is a mere begging of the Question, to call that an axiom, which no man yet ever avouched; and your adversaries do deny. Where did you ever read (unless it were in some of your pufellowes lying pamphlets,) that the same individual substance could not have supernaturally diverse accidental manners of being? or, that an individual nature could not have an other manner of subsisting, then naturally it hath? The humanity of our Saviour hath another manner of subsisting then ours; it subsisteth in the Word. is this natural, or supernatural? and accidentally we shall be changed, when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal have put on immortality. is not this likewise above nature? or is the state of a glorious body, natural to the body, or impossible, that Master Waferers Axiom forsooth, may stand and in the sense wherein it were to serve his turn. One numerical substance can have but one manner of subsisting.  Apologist. 
Though place and quantity be not in the essence of a body, yet it is a contradiction in its existence to be without either, and consequently to create Christ such a body in the Eucharist which is not individual is a mere contradictory fiction.  Censure. 
I doubt I shall be thought a fool for disputing with such an one as you are. Master Mirth, who told you that the body which is in the Eucharist is not individual? who spoke of such a body? who told you that it had not there quantity? or that it was no where? or do you dream? if you did not, and that the matter were not impertinent to this argument, I might hap to ask you touching those your imaginations, how you prove it a contradiction for a body to be without quantity, or, a body having quantity to be without a place? I learned once from Aristotle that, quantity is not substance, nor substance quantity: which being supposed, (and the thing is certain in itself,) you will have much ado to infer a contradiction out of these two propositions, Substantia est. Quantitas non est. or these other; Quantitas est. Substantia non est. Contradiction being affirmatio, and negatio eiusdem de eodem and secundum idem. you cannot Master Waferer. much less can you prove it is a contradiction for a body to be without a place. Locus is 
a. 4. Arist. 4. Phys. t. 41.  continentis terminus immobilis primus: as the Philosopher defines it. who tells you likewise that (b) universum non est in loco. the uttermost heaven or body, whatever it be, is not properly in a place. No other body, doth contain it; if it did, this were not uttermost. Yet we say not, that our Saviour's body is no where; or that it is not in the Church; or that it hath not quantity, or that it is not individual. these are, aegri somnia, they be your dream's Master Mirth, who understand not this mighty argument which you took out of your Master featly: in whom I will go see (for I cannot learn of you) what the meaning of it is. 
Alia sunt in loco secundum potentiam, alia verò secundum actum. Vnde, cùm continuum quidem sit quod est similium partium, secundum potentiam in loco partes sunt; cum vero separata sint quidem tangunt autem se, sicut collectio; secundum actum sunt. Et alia quidem per se sunt, ut omne corpus, aut secundum loci mutationem, aut secundum augmentum mobile, alicubi perse existit: coelum autem, sicut dictum est, non est alicubi totum, neque in quopiam loco. si quidem nullum ipsum continet corpus: secundum autem quod movetur, sic & locus est partibus; altera enim alteri adhaerens partium est. Alia verò secundum accidens, sicut anima, & coelum, parts enim in loco quodammodo omnes sunt: in eo enim quod circulariter sunt, continet alia aliam; unde movetur circulariter solum quod sursum est. Omne autem, non alicubi est: quod enim alicubi est, ipsum aliquid est, & adhuc aliud quiddam oportet esse extra hoc, in quo quidem continetur: extra autem omne & totum nihil est. Aristot 4. Phys. t. 45 Terra quidam in aqua, haec in aëre, hic verò in aethere, & hic verò in coelo; coelum autem non amplius in alio est. Ibidem, t. seq. Simul autem manifestum est quod neque locus, neque vacuum, neque tempu● est extra coelum.— Quapropter neque quae illic sunt, nata sunt in loco esse, neque tempus ipsa facit senescere, neque ulla transmutatio ullius eorum est quae super extima disposita sunt latione; sed inalterabilia, & impassibilia, optimam habentia vitam, & per se sufficientissimam, perseverant toto aevo. Lib. 1. de Coelo. t. 99 & 100 Huiusmodi substantiae (separatae) dicuntur (a Philosopho,) esse ibi, id est, extra coelum, non sicut in loco, sed sicut non contenta nec inclusa sub continentia corporalium rerum. sed totam corporalem naturam excedentia. S. Tho. Ibidem Vide eundem in 1. d. 37. q 3. a. 1. ad 4. Non reputo inconueniens quod Angelus sine loco possit esse, etc. De quo plura Caietanus, Nazarius, alijque.   
He proposeth it against Master Wood; and will needs prove the body, if it hath diverse Sacramental presences (such as we believe it hath,) is thereby divided in se, in itself, so that it is no more one and the same, but diverse bodies, this he strives to conclude out of the distinction of the Sacramental presences, 
featly pag. 134. & seqq.  whereof one is at Rome for example, and another is at Paris. But he strives in vain; for, the duality is, of presencies; not of bodies; there are two presences in one, and the same body; and these two presencies which are accidents, separable from the foresaid body, rely upon it as their subject, and presuppose it in being every moment wherein themselves be, so fare they are from destroying it. Neither of them, is the substantial individualitie of the body; for, the body was before, and will be the same after, when they be not at all, how then could it be concluded that two of them be two substantial individualities? they neither are substantial individualities; (which is as easy to be proved as it is easy to prove that your ubication in this place where you are, which you may be without when you will, is not that whereby you are substantially distinct from other men;) nor out of their plurality doth there ensue a plurality in the body their subject. for, accidents take not away their proper subject, so to be, without any; but are in it: and these presences (which we speak of) are accidents, not of a body in common, what ever body; but, of this individual body of our Saviour jesus Christ.  

featly, pag. 140  This way failing your Doctor, he takes another, to prove against Master Wood, a substantial duality (in the body) out of the motion of it; for if the same body be under two several dimensions, it might be (he thinks) the terminus à quo and the terminus ad quem of the same direct motion, & be moved from itself; which is (saith he) a contradiction. But, neither can he bring about his intent this way. That which is the subject of local motion, or the thing which properly is moved, when the Priest (for example) takes an host out of the pixe, are the dimensions of bread: which dimensions have locality or situall extension, and are in loco in a place, whose definition you heard, before out of the Philosopher, the terminus à quo of which motion is not our Saviour's body, but the pixe where it was: and the terminus ad quem is the communicants mouth wherein he puts it. Our Saviour's body which is in those dimensions, is not in loco, per se; but per accidens: that is to say, though that accident place, which is terminus continentis etc. doth not affect in in itself, yet is it in the dimensions of bread which dimensions are so affected. And, as it is per accidens in loco, so is it locally moved per accidens, not per se.  
The Sacrament is not locus the place of the body, properly speaking neither is it (the body) commensurated to the place of the species. The body is not there after the manner of a body, extended situallie; but rather according to the manner of a Spirit: though not altogether that way neither, but another more undetermined and supernatural way, whereof the Philosopher wanting faith had no knowledge. The Soul Aristotle saith is in loco per accidens. 4. Phys. t. 45. and his Commentator there, Anima est in loco quia sublectum eius quod est corpus, est in loco. And the Soul is moved per accidens, because the body or the part wherein it is, united; is moved: this motion being nothing else but a successive comparison to place. Motis nobis necessarium est & quae in nobis sunt omnia, simul moveri, says Aristotle 2. Topic. loco 24. and 4. Phys. t. 31. Motum autem aliud movetur per se, & aliud movetur per accidens. & illud quod movetur per accidens, aliud est quod potest moveri per se, verbi gratia membra hominis & claws in navi; & aliud non potest, sed semper movetur per accidens, verbi gratia albedo, & cognitio; ista enim non mutant sua loca, nisi quia illa in quibus sunt transferuntur.  
The connexion or union of the Soul unto the body (disposed) we know by nature; and by reason of this connexion it comes to pass that moving the body unto a place, the soul consequently is also there. The connexion of the body of our Saviour with the species, is revealed and made by the form of consecration which is practical, This in the shape of bread is my body. And the Counsels acknowledge it when they say it is contained in the species; sub speciebus panis & vini veraciter continetur, 
Conc. Later. sub Innocent. 3, c. firmiter. §. una est Conc. Trid. Sess. 13. c. 1. & 3,  so the Lateran Council: and the Council of Trent, in the same tenor, In sanctissimo Eucharistiae Sacramento continetur verè, realiter, & substantialiter, corpus etc. and sub singulis cuiusque speciei partibus separatione facta totus Christus continetur. So that a double relation is understood there, one of the body to the species: another of the species to the body; which remain (so that no force in nature can dissolve or separate them) whilst the species remain uncorrupted, and this by virtue and power of consecration and of the divine omnipotence. This for the an est of this union or connexion; the modus of it in particular saint Thomas saith is ineffabilis. It sufficeth to know there is such a connexion: by which it comes to pass that moving the species to a place, the body of our Saviour is also there: for, the species and the body, cannot be separated or divorced. And, as it is there, in place, in the sense above specified namely; per accidens; so is it moved, per accidens.  
It is further to be noted that when a thing, one in itself, is multiplex secundum esse, (I take the word here in a great latitude,) it may be moved, and not moved, secundum diversa. The Son of God, our blessed Saviour, who is in himself one, unum Ens, was moved according to his humane form, 
Vado ad Patrem, quia Pater maior me est. joa. 14.  and according to his divine form he was immoveable. Your soul which is but one, may be moved in your arm, and unmoved in your breast. and your body may be moved according to one accidental form, as quality; though it be not at the same time moved according to another, 
Were this in English he that is no Scholar could not understand it.  suppose quantity. Cum aliquid est unum subiecto saith our Doctor S. Thomas, & multiplex secundum esse, nihil prohibet secundum aliquid moveri, & secundum aliquid immobile permanere: sicut corpori est aliud esse album, & aliud esse magnum, unde potest moveri secundum albedinem, & permanere immobile secundum magnitudinem. 3. p. qu. 76. a. 6. And in the same place answering an Objection which was made to prove that our Saviour's body is in the Sacrament mobiliter, quia nobis motis moventur ea omnia quae sunt in nobis, as before was said out of Aristotle, he answers, Dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de motu per accidens, quo ad motum nostri moventur ea quae in nobis sunt: aliter tamen ea quae per se possunt esse in loco, sicut corpora; & aliter ea quae per se non possunt esse in loco, sicut formae, & spirituales substantiae. Ad quem modum potest reduci, quod dicimus Christum moveri per accidens secundum esse quod habet in hoc Sacramento, in quo non est sicut in loco.  
Out of these words I take an instance to declare the solution which I gave to your Argument whereby you would prove that if our Saviour's body were in several dimensions sacramentally, it might be moved from itself & so be substantially divided in itself. The Answer is that, division in it self, follows not out of that motus per accidens. My Soul whilst I writ, is moved per accidens, from itself, but yet remains one. It were ridiculous to think that I cannot move my fingers without dividing an indivisible, and destroying that immortal thing on which the motion itself dependeth. As for the termini, à quo, and ad quem, they be those that be the termini of the motus per se. When your body is in London (in your Chamber) per se, your soul is there, in eodem loco, (your chamber,) per accidens: the place is one; but the manner of being in it, is divers. Per se, and per accidens, distinguish the manner. When your body is in motion thither (to your chamber) per se, your soul is moved thitherwards too, to the same terminus ad quem, (your chamber,) per accidens.  
Suppose you be sitting in your study, at your table, holding your right hand on the one end, and your left hand on the other end. When you move your hands to the middle of the table, and put them there together, the termini a quibus in these two motions be not your soul, which is, and was, in either hand; but the two ends of the table where your hands were, be the termini from whence you moved them, and the terminus ad quem is not your soul which is in your hands now being together, but the midst of the table is the terminus ad quem. You must now keep your hands there together still, for fear least at parting them again you divide your soul (substantially) into two, by moving it from itself, whilst you move the right hand wherein it is, all, from the left wherein it is likewise all, or, put of your too melancholy imagination of a contradiction to ensue in case a thing should per accidens be moved from itself; or be in two dimensions whereof one is locally moved from the other. Of distance, or resting it is the same. Whilst your hands or arms do move, one from the other; your breast and other parts, may rest; and the soul in the right hand is nearer to the (same) soul in the left when they be joined, then is the 
a Of itself and by itself it cannot be distant from itself.  soul in the feet. Nearer, how? per acciden; that is, it is in a part that is nearer. moved, how? per accidens; that is, it is in a part of dimension which is moved. resteth how? per accidens; that is, it is in a part that doth rest. Of itself it is not the subject of these corporal accidents or affections, as I told you before.  
Apply this to the body, existing according to the manner of a spirit, (& after a more elevated high manner than that of the soul, & more incontracted, more indetermined, more independent of local affections) in several dimensions; some testing, some moved; some nearer, some farther of: and when any man offers to conclude a contradiction, 
Some learned Divines have thought it probable that an angel can be naturally in two places at once; as in two several assumed bodies: and you will have much ado to demonstrate against them. Celarent.  look near, whether there be affirmatio and negatio eiusdem de eodem and secundum idem, according to the same dimension; and you will mile at their ignorance who by their wits do strive to put God's omnipotency to the nonplus.  Apologist. 
The next tedious business is about this proposition This is my body, wherein that substantial change which is aimed at is attributed to the power of that practical proposition.  Censure. 
That the proposition is practical, was the tenet of the first of those witnesses which your Doctor cited as for himself, & in those words which he cited, Acceptum parem corpus suum illum (not illud, as in Featlies' margin) fecit (how so?) Hoc est corpus meum dicendo. if by saying those words, Hoc est corpus meum, he made it his body, those words were practical. the like manner of speech and more express too, you shall find in other 
a. Per orationem Verbi Dei ab ip●o Eucharistian That factum ●ibum ● illius carnem & sanguinem esse edect sumus. S. justin. Apol. 2. Qui est à terra panis percipiens vocationem Dei, iam non est communis panis, sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans, terrena, & coelesti. S Iren. l. 4 c. 34 Benedictione etiam natura ipsa mutatur. S. Ambros. de mist. init. c. 9 Quòd si tantum valuit humaná benedictio (de miraculis loquitur, per Moysen, aliosque patratis) quid dicemus de ipsa consecratione Divina, ubi verba ipsa Domini Saluatoris operantur? Ibidem. Vide eundem l. 4. de Sacram. c. 5. Panis per Verbum Dei & orationem sanctificatur; non quia comeditur eo progrediens ut verbi corpus evadat, sed statim per Verbum in corpus mutatur, ut dictum est à Verbo, Hoc est corpus meum. S. Greg. Nyssen Orat, Catech c. 37. Vox illa (hoc est corpus meum) semel quidem dicta est, sed per omnes mensas Ecclesiae usque ad hodiernum diem, & usque ad eius adventum Sacrificio praestat firmitatem. S. Chrysost. de Prod. judae. vide eundem Hom. 2 In 2. ad Tim. Panis noster & calix certa consecrations mysticus fit nobis, non nascitur. S. Aug. l. 20. cont. Faust. c. 13. Absit ut de his quicquam sinistrum loquar, qui Apostolico gradui succedentes, Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt. S. Hier. epist. ad Heliod. Transformatur arcanis verbis panis iste per mysticam benedictionem, & accessionem Spiritus S in carnem Domini. Theophilact in c 6 joan. Virtute Spiritus-S per Verbum Christi, fit sanguis Domini, Paschal. lib. de Corp. Dom. c. 12. Per eius virtutem, & prolatum ab eo Verbum, quae videntur tam sanctificata sunt, ut cunctum carnis sensum excedunt. I sich. l. 6. in Levit. c. 22.  Ancients, whom you will not, I suppose, (yet I have cause to fear the contrary, but you should not I am sure) offer to control.  
That which was aimed at, or disputed of, was not the change, but the Read presence, as you have been oft put in mind, though it be true also that those words do serve to prove there is a change of substance. For, that which was under them before consecration was bread; 
S Cyril. Hier.  and that which is under them after consecration is not bread (to use the words of an ancient Father) but as the words import, the body of our Saviour: Wherefore doubtless there is a change. and our Saviour's words, the words of Consecration, were (in their kind) the cause of it; though not the chief or principal. The principal cause was not the form of consecration, 
Serm. de Coena.  but his omnipotency, as Antiquity before told you: Panis iste non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia Verbi factus est caro.  
Now because you complain that the matter of this Argument which your Doctor urged, is tedious (you are wearied as it seems with answering of distinctions,) I will in few words tender you the sum of it, and of the Relations, in it. The proposition or enunciation is this, Hoc est Corpus meum. in which enunciation there is the 
a. See the Preface.  subject, the attribute, and the note of identity or copula. The subject is Hoc; the Attribute, Corpus meum; the copula, est. About this Enunciation and these three parts of it, your Doctor in his Relation moves (what expressly what tacitelie,) six doubts, which S. E. doth resolve in his Notes. The first; what kind of signification the subject hath? the Answer is, that, if that word only be considered, the signification of it confused and undetermined, so that until the rest of the proposition comes, your understanding is uncertain what substance in particular it doth point at. The second, whether it be necessary that the thing which it points at and designs according to the intention of the speaker, (which intention is more unfolded in the words following,) be then existent when that word is uttered? He answers, No● Falsum est in pronomine, adverbiove demonstrandi requiri rem praesentem. Non enim est perpetuum; saith your great 
b. Li. 10. de Euch. c. 18.  Chamier, proving it with examples out of Scripture. The third, whether in the copula there be a figure, The answer is the same that was given before when the question was of the place in S. Augustine, that according to the substance (you know what a kind of verb it is) of the thing signified, which is identity, there is no figure. and this (the identity) is the principal. If further, your regard that which it doth consignify (so Logicians use to speak) there were no inconvenience to admit ampliation, or impropriety; howbeit it seems not be necessary, as S. E. told you in his Notes. The fourth, whether this proposition be merely speculative. It was answered that it is 
c. Supra pag. 419 & seq.  not. The fift, in what, this proposition is verified. The answer is that, both the proposition, and all the parts of it, be verified in the effect. The sixth, when it is verified? The answer is, that Verity is the adequation of two, the proposition and the object; whereof one is the subject, 
Distingue de tempore seu instanti quo oratio significat, vel de tempore seu instanti pro quo oratio significat: aliud est enim quando quod oratio consignificat, & aliud est quando per orationem consignificatum: ut patet dicendo, Petrus crucifixus est. quando enim oratio ista significat, tunc est cúm profertur: sed quando consignificatum est tempus praetetitum. Significatio autem orationis non est nisi oratio sit integra integritate essentiali, quoniam oratio non essentialiter integra, non est oratio. Caiet. 3. p q. 78. a. 5. Et quia consignificare praesupponit significare, ut pote adiacens illi, ideo oratio sicut non significat ita nec consignificat nisi in termino suae prolationis. Nec est hoc solum verum de tota oratione, said & de partibus ut integrant totam. Et de copula quidem declaratur dupliciter; tum ex eo quod ly est, significat compositionem, quam sine extremis non est intelligere non enim potest intelligi compositio prior his quae componuntur; tum quia experimur quod huius orationis, lignum est album, postquam prolatae sunt primae dictiones, scil. lignum est, antequam proferaturly album, lie est, non significat compositionem ligni cum albo, quod convincitur si ponamus orationem sistere, etc. Ibidem. De subiecto autem dupliciter etiam idem manifestatur in proposito, tum quia talia sunt subiecta qualia permittuntur a praedicatis, & propterea ante praedicata non habent suppositionem suam; tum quia clarè perspicimus quod dictis istis duabus dictionibus, homo est, ut formetur propositio de tertio adiacente, nullus intellectus habetur tam subiecti quam copulae. sed variabitur Vtriusque sensus iuxta varietatem praedicati, ut patet formando duas propositiones, quarum una sit, homo est albus; & altera, homo est species, clarè enim in his liquet & subiectum & copulam praedicatum expectare; ita quòd varietas praedicati varietatem inducit & in tota oratione, & in subiecto, & copulâ. Ibidem.  the other the terminus of the Relation of conformity, which relation seems to be among those that be called rationis, the terminus or object of this conformity is then only when the effect is existent: the relation itself is when it is conceived. The subject of the relation is the proposition, to which the understanding doth apply the foresaid relation; which proposition was then when it was uttered, and after that manner as successive things use to be, or have existence.  Apologist. 
There is no such created virtue inherent (as you suppose) in the pronunciation of this proposition, it is rather declarative of what was passed then effective of aught which was not; your very A. B. C. of Logic will teach you no other definition, or use of a proposition then to be, an indicative congruous perfect etc.  Censure. 
You will pardon me for not writing out at leingth your long long definition. out of which whilst you conclude that no proposition is practical, you give way for me to infer, you not to be reasonable; because that is not in the definition of animal. Some propositions be practical Master Waferer; but all be not. some sciences be practical; but all be not. the genus doth abstract. To say that the words be not illative of any effect in their kind, but declarative of what was past, and merely speculative; is a begging of the Question: and a contradiction to those words which your Doctor 
d. Panem corpus suum fecit dicendo.  before stood upon. And, if words may not be practical, how comes it that your bread is a Sacrament? do you make the Sacrament without consecrating the matter, or do you consecrating without words? The form of Baptism, is it merely speculative? doth it only declare what was done without it? That Sacraments do cause grace, is your own tenet; and things active, are so, by their forms. Quicunque Sacramenta dixerunt nihil efficere, sive ij Messaliani fuere, sive Armeni, sive Anabaptistae, sive alio quocunque nomine, cum ijs profitemur nihil habere common. says your Master Chamiere, citing the Hugonots Confession. 
Li. 2. de Sacr, c. 2  and though you have not read so fare perchance in him, you should have known at lest what your 
e. Sacraments ordained by Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace etc. Art. 25.  own article, teach in this point. You had examples in the efficacy of other words (whether the instance be made in propositions, or speeches which be not propositions, it imports not) Lazarus come forth. which was the Royal 
f. cyril Caten.  command of him whom all creatures obey; and they were efficacious too. the words (I say) were efficacious, not the omnipotency only, which was principal; but the words were efficacious in their kind. Dixit & factum est. S. E. did little think it would be necessary to put a Scholar in mind that according to the Philosopher, Propositions, some be practic, factivae, so his interpreter turns the word (lib. de motu Animalium, cap. 4) some speculative: that Science is divided by speculative and practice: and that Divines do consider in God, not only speculative knowledge, but practic also. 
Psal 32. Sap 7. Heb. 1.  Verbo Dei Coeli firmatisunt. Dixit & facta sunt. Omnium artifex sapientia. Portans omnia verbo virtutis suae.  
What kind of virtue those words have, whether Physical or only Moral, the Schoolmen may dispute without prejudice to the general consent in matters defined, or universally received.  Apologist. 
That pretty kind of Sophistry which persuades me to here out the proposition operative before the conformity between the subject and the predicate can be granted (as supposing the period of it to finish the substantial change) besides that it is s●ender and boyish it is also impertinent, because it plays upon a string already broken, attributing that change, which is, to the pronunciation of this proposition, which I have already refuted.  Censure. 
Ex tripod; pedanticallie, as all the rest. Can you judge of the comformity or difformity betwixt the subject and the predicate, before you know what it is? or do you know what I would say before you here me speak? Mirth is a— is this true or false? Your conscience belike, tells you what the predicate is to be. S. E. cannot persuade you, what can your own Master do? Longè consultius Scotus, (says he; 
Chamier l. 10. de Euch. c. 20. ) Conceptus qui causatur per orationem prolatam non habetur per eam nisi in ultimo instanti prolationis orationis. Recte. Certum est enim nunquam posse totum obtineri nisi ex omnibus simul partibus. Quia autem oratio successiuè perficitur, non possunt omnes eius partes simul haberi, nisi in instanti eius postremo; ideoque nec ipsa tota. and I think you will not say that you know the conformity, before you conceive the proposition.  
But it is impertinent, why so? because it plays upon a string already broken, attributing that change, which is, to the pronunciation of the proposition. Were this the string, still he might (to keep your metaphor) play on; for it holds as you perceived in your last paragraff. But you mistake; the string which draws a man to hear out the whole proposition before he knows or grants the truth of it, or the conformity between the subject & the predicate, is the light of reason, or ability to judge: which string, if you have already broken, you were best for your credit plead, that it was high set. Nullum magnum ingenium sive mixtura dementiae.  Apologist. 
Let S. E. flourish it as he will, our Doctor justly lays tantalogie to his Lordship's charge, which blow his Champion seeking to ward, lays himself and the weakness of his cause to an easy censure.  Censure. 
If identity of the thing signified by the subject and by the attribute of a proposition, though the manner of signifying and conceiving be groundedlie or cum fundamento diverse, suffice to note it of tautology; then is it tautolegie to say, pointing at featly, this is a man, a living creature, a substance, and the sense will be, this is featly, featly, featly. For there is identity of the thing signified by the subject and the thing signified by those attributes; man, living creature, substance: all these being really identified to the subject, which is featly. And if the speech be nugatory, and the same conceit bread by the subject & by every one of these attributes, the whole speech may be resolved by subordinating still the same word to the same conceit: Ea quae in voce, sunt earum quae in anima passionum, notae.  
Whether in such propositions, the attributes be superior predicamental degrees, or be differences, or be metaphysical properties, it matters not: so there be real identity betwixt the thing signified by the subject and the thing signified by the attribute, whereof S. E. gave examples. God is wise, just omnipotent, eternal. Omnipotens est aeternus, aeternus est omnipotens. Read his discourse again: and observe in him these words, 
Confer. p. 923 9  This must be granted (that identical propositions, all, have the vice of tautology) if the difference of formalities be not to be regarded in speech: & if the distinction of a double identical proposition be now to be rejected.  Apologist. 
simple, simple, simple, simple, simple, simple.  Censure. 
The truth is so; simple, very simple: and the professors of truth, should be so, simple. The word is honourable among Christians: though filled with bitterness as it comes out of the mouth of Heresy, which (it self ever doubling) thinks there is a fault plain dealing.  
We tell our mind openly; we do not lap our cause up in folds, as you, (sons of the old Serpent,) do: telling us, your tenet in this point is incomprehensible, and yet easy: granting and straight denying again, a real presence: and then, though no man can tell certainly what you say, we must believe you: and if we do not we be simple, simple. It is an old trace, this. he that showed it you, taught it others. Si bona fide quaeras, concreto vultu, 
Tertull.  suspenso supercilio, Altum est, aiunt. Si subtiliter tents, per ambiguitates bilingues, communem fidem adfirmant. siscire te subostendas, negant quic quid agnoscunt. Si comminus certes, tuam simplicitatem sua caede dispergunt. Simplices notamur apud illos, ut hoc tantum, non etiam sapientes: quasi statim deficere cogatur à simplicitate sapientia, Domino utramque iungente, Esto prudentes ut serpents, & simplices ut columbae. Aut si nos propterea ●nsipientes quia simplices, num ergo & illi propterea non simplices quia sapientes? Nocentissimi autem qui non simplices, sicut stultissimi qui non sapientes. Et tamén malim in eam partem, meliori sumi vitio. Si fortè praestat minus sapere quam peius, errare quàm fallere.— Facilius simplicitas sola Deum & agnoscere poterit & ostendere; prudentia sola concutere potius & prodere. Abscon dat itaque se serpens, quantum potest, totamque prudentiam in latebrarum ambagibus torque at, altè habitet, in coeca detrudatur, per anfractus seriem suam evoluat, tortuosé procedat nec semel totus lucifuga bestia: Nostrae columbae domus simplex, etiam in aeditis semper, & apertis, & ad lucem. Ask them in good earnest, they with a contracted countenance and eyebrows drawn up, say, 'tis a mystery. try them cunningly and with double-tougued ambiguities they profess the common tenet. Take on you to know, and they deny whatsoever they (inwardly) approve. combat with them, and with their whiffling they spread abroad & disperse your simplicity. (simple, simple, simple, simple.) They call us simple, only so; to note us as unwise: as if wisdom could not consist with simplicity, whereas our Lord doth combine them; be wise as serpents and simple as doves. Or, if we therefore must be thought fools because we be simple, must we needs think them wise for that they be not simple? Sure, those do most harm that want simplicity, as those be most sottish that have no kind of prudence. and yet I had rather be defective in this kind, then want simplicity: for he that hath but little wit is better than a start fool: and it is less hurtful to mistake one's self, then to deceive or bring others into error. Simplicity alone may more easily acknowledge & show God; prudence alone may move rather, 

Dei facies expectat in simplicitate quaerentes, ut docet ipsa Sophia, non quidem Valentini sed Salomonis. Ibidem.  
In summa, Christum columba demonstrare solita est. Serpens ve●ò tentare. Illa & à primordio divinae pacis praeco. Ille à primordio diuine imaginis praedo. Ita facilius simplicitas sola etc. Ibidem.   & betray. Wherefore let the snake hide himself what he can, let him wreath and wind all his prudence within the turnings of his lurking holes, let the light-abhorring beast dwell deep within the ground, be tumbled into blind circuits, unfold and open those muolutions of his crinkling continuation, crawl writhinglie, and not all at once. The house of our dove is simple, ever in places discovered, and open, and to the light.  Apologist. 
Doctor Smith in confirmation of his discourse lays down a rule, & gives two instances which I will sift in order. His rule runs thus, subjects are such as their attributes permit them to be. Rather say I é contrà, Predicates are such as their subjects permit them to be: For we never take that preposterous course to inquire whether a subject agree to the predicate but whether the predicate agree with the subject.  Censure. 
Semper Leontini iuxta pocula. Still you teach Master Mirth, you be Doctor of the Chair. Doctor Smith, he saith Subjects are such etc. & other Divines too say the same, and Logic doth admit it for a Rule in the matter of Suppositions. But I, (who are you?) say the contrary let Logicians take it as they will, I say Predicates are such as their subjects permit them to be. That Subjects bear sway, the Puritan thinks, is better Logic. Ipse dixit.  
But yet, since you stand upon terms let us examine you. Do you know what is Suppositio terminorum, & how many kinds of suppositions there be? if you do not, the Punies of your House will be ashamed of such a Graduate: if you do, then tell me before them, whether the predicate do not determine the supposition of the subject in these propositions or speeches following, Homo est vox, homo est species, homo est animal, homo currit, homo est mortuus. It were to much honour to you to be posed in Divinity, else I would ask whether there also, the same Rule be not currant. Deus est trinus, Deus generat, Deus procedit, Deus est immortalis. is it not the predicate which determines the acception or supposition of the word Deus, which word of itself is indifferent to stand for the first or the second or the third person; or for two, or for all three? and sometimes in propositions it stands for the first, sometimes for the second; sometimes for the third. I might ask you further of words aequivocal in themselves, whether they draw their attributes to determination, or their attributes determine them? but the things are already known to Punies.  
In the reason which, you bring, you discover more your ignorance, for by it appears manifestly that in this discourse you do not distinguish the things, from the names: and Questions appertaining to the things, (as why the passion is in the subject? why colour is in a mixed body? which Question belongs to natural Philosophy;) from the Questions appertaining to the terms, (of a proposition:) as why the attribute determines the signification or acception of the subject? which Question belongs to Logic.  
The flower of Sophistry being dropped down out of your subtle understanding, you fall next a sifting of instances: but the breaking of the string made a hole it seems in your () for see; the first comes out entire.  Apologist. 
As for your instances they will not hold trial, the first is this, as when I say this is a cross, and make it withal, the word this, doth suppose for the Cross etc. what of this? Christ was not about to make him another body when he said. This is my body, for then Christ should have had two bodies.  Censure. 
Did I not tell you that it came out entire? and, by that which comes with it, me thinks the crack is wider than before.  Apologist. 
Your second instance in taceo (as supposing for silence when the word is uttered) Aquinas rejects it. 3. p. q. 78. a. 5.  Censure. 
He hath much there in that Article, against you: as, 1. that the proposition is practical, such as doth not presuppose the thing it signifies, but make it; non praesupponit rem significatam, sed eam facit. 2. that hoc, doth not signify bread, but contentum sub his speciebus 3. that it is heretical to say the body of our Saviour is in the Sacrament only sicut in signo and not secundum veritatem. with many other things. But against us, there is nothing. That 
a. Istae propositiones, Ego tacco, Nihil dico, etc. non solum ex intentione proferentis, sed ex rigore sermonis sunt verae: ergo non significant nisi pro momento terminativo nam dum proferuntur falsae sunt. Soto in 4. d. 11. q 1. a. 5. Verbum est, non solum ex virtute intentionis proferentis, sed ex vi significationis non significat perfectam rerum compositionem usque ad completam prolationem. Ibidem, Nomen & pronomen secundum Grammaticos non consignificat tempus, sed Verbo id competit; quare demonstratio per se pronominis abstrahit à tempore; scilicet & quo profertur pronomen, & quo terminatur totius orationis prolatio. quare utramque substantiam significat, pro qua item posset supponere. At quia verbum, ut dictum est, consignificat tempus terminatiwm orationis, virtute eiusdem verbi trahitur suppositio pronominis ad corpus, Ibidem ex Richardo.  taceo signifies as my Lord said it did, Saint Thomas denies not. neither doth he deny that the proposition is to be understood secundum ultimum instans, as then to have its effect, which effect is the thing signified: yea he doth affirm it directly; oportet intelligere praedictam locutionem secundum ultimum instans prolationis verborum. and in the precedent Article, he saith in ultimo instanti prolationis verba consequuntur virtutem conversivam; whereby the same is also manifest.  
The proposition, Corpus meum est corpus meum, was true before and was not made true by virtue of consecration; but it was not true before that our Saviour's body was in the shape of bread, or had Sacramental existence. Per hanc formam fit ut corpus Christi sit in hoc Sacramento secundum ●eritatem. S. Thom. Ibidem. and though this proposition Corpus meum est corpus meum be identical according to the manner; yet the proposition which we speak of, is not; as you were told oft enough in the Relation; where you may read still your Doctor's Predicament, which will stand, until he grants the distinction of a two fold identical proposition, one for matter only, another for manner too. wherefore no more of that.  Apologist. 
Put case I should grant you such power in those words (this is my body) to transubstantiate the bread, may I not challenge the same force in them to change the accidents as well as the substance, since they were likewise in his hand when he pronounced them?  Censure. 
No. you cannot, as will appear, if you consider them well. this (in the exteriours shape of bread) is my bo●●●. will you have is to be in that shape, and yet the shape not to be; and our Saviour's intention being to institute a Sacrament, the exterior species which immediately doth occur unto the sense, was to remain. The Fathers also note, that, to take away the 
b. S. Cyrill. Alex. Ep. ad Calos. Theophilac. in Mat. 26.5. Ambros. l. 4 de Sacram. c. 4 Haimo in Pass. Christi sec Mar. Lanfranc. lib. de Corpo. S. Bernard. Serm. de Coena Dom.  horror of eating man's flesh, and drinking blood in their own shapes, they be covered in the forms of bread and wine, which usually men receive. you have S. Thomas in your hands, it seems; in him you may find more of this q. 75. a. 5.  
Moreover, transubstantiation being a succession of substances under the same accidental forms; you destroy the notion of it, if you take the same forms away. they must remain the same. And that it is indeed so, that still there is the exterior shape of bread, you know by sense: but whether under them there be bread or flesh, the sense is not able to certify; you know that it enters not so fare. Some higher power must judge of it; and an understanding well disposed (as being readier to believe God, then to rely on you, or on this foolish dotage that God can do no more than man is able of himself to know,) believes it is our Saviour's body; since God affirms it But see! the Puritan is in his ruff.  Apologist. 
Me thinks Master S. E. you close this Section very saucily and sillilie. For Doctor featly urging you that identical propositions (such as your discourse makes this) prove nothing, to try weather they can prove any thing, asks this Question: If I point to Christ's body in Heaven at the right hand of his Father and say, This, 
See above pag. 35.  or that body of Christ, is his body; will it hence follow than bread or any thing else is substantially turned (into Christ's body?) you forsooth answer him thus, No, but something else it seems is (turned;) how else could your mouth utter such an impertinent discourse? It would have argued you of more Scholarship & judgement either to have been silent or else to have answered him how mere identical propositions can prove any thing.  Censure. 
Quantulacunque adeo est occasio, sufficit irae.  
Was it not evident that the proposition was merely speculative; as much, as if I, pointing at you, should say this is Waferer: and, this face is Mirths own face? and that it did suppose already in being, all that it imported? and therefore was impertinentie paralleled with this other which is not merely speculative, nor supposeth ●n being that which it imports; but, both infer it. Our Saviour's body Master Waferer, was not in the form of bread before consecration; by consecration it was there Saint 
a. Non erat corpus Christi ante consecrationem: sed post consecrationem dico tibi quod iam est corpus Christi. ipse dixit & factum est S. Amb. l. 4. de Sacr. c. 4. ex pa●e fit corpus. Ibidem. vides quam operatorius sit sermo Christi etc. Ibidem.  Ambrose he tells you so directly. so ●o 
b. Suprà pag 480. Should a lay man say over a piece of bread Hoc est corpus 〈◊〉 the proposition would be false; wherefore it is not like Featlies'. should a Priest with intention to consecrate, pronounce them, they would be true.  others.  
That propositions which for matter are identical, may serve to prove or infer, you might have known being Master of Art, and he (featly) being Doctor in Divinity, without further teaching; which, (had any been thought necessary,) was not altogether wanting on the part of S. E. whom you reprehend for not teaching it. Did you run over without reading; or reading, not understand those words in him pag. 94. For matter, a proposition may be identical, and prove too; and such are All those (here are infinite) which define the subject (will you have instance for your easier learning of his mind?) as this, A man is a reasonable creature. And he that denies it can prove any thing, shows himself ignorant in the principles of Science and knows not what a demonstration is. So he. and so I, do tell you now again. Your Doctor (it is like) looks higher, and would have an instance in a matter more elevated. Be it so God is eternal. will you have a proposition to prove it? take this, God is immutable. you can make the Syllogism yourself, I suppose. Whatever thing is immutable is eternal, etc. Will you have a proposition to prove that God is immutable? take this, Deus est actus purus. dispose it in form of a Syllogism: Omnis actus purus est immutabilis; Deus est actus purus, etc. will you have another to prove that God is actus purus? take this, Deus est suum esse. Dispose it. It is easy to demonstrate, in this manner, that God hath understanding; that he is wise; that he is free; that he is merciful, Just, Omnipotent; etc. taking still to make the proof good, such propositions as are identical for matter. And this likewise, S. E. did insinuate unto you pag. 92. wherefore there was no cause to tax him with either want of Scholarship in the point, (yet a point, which neither you, nor your Master did understand,) or ingenuity. But this is not all.  
Immediately after, you cite an other passage out of him, Which so wrought upon your choler, that you term him cup-valiant; and; the beer is in his head; and, he stumbles; and if his own weakness condemns him not, you'll spare him. Your mercy, sure, is great. if this be to spare, what will become of those you do not spare? And this too, after you have taxed him with want of Scholarship and ingenuity; adding that he concludes the Section saucily, and (one blow more, before you spare him,) sillilie. I forbear to transcribe the rest, 
Spissis indigna theatris  
Scripta pudet recitare, & nugis addere pondus.  But, that none else upon the like occasion, incur your high displeasure, I will here register the fault in black characters; for it deserves them better, than the red you give it. It is in his Notes upon the seventh argument, where he defends out of S. Luke's Gospel, that at the last supper there were two cups; the legal, and the Sacramental; interpreting S. Mathewes words (I will drink no more of this fruit of the vine,) of the legal cup. which interpretation the Doctor impugns. Doctor featly. 
Pag. 111.  should I take: a cup, and after I had drunk of it, say I will drink no more of this, you would understand me of that which I drank last. The Answer of S. E. Did I see the whole action I should judge according to that I saw, no doubt. and S. Matthew seeing our Saviour's action did conceive it will enough. But should one or two tell me that Doctor featly at the table having drunk bear & wine, said he would drink no more of this beer, I had no reason to think he meant wine, though wine were last mentioned before. Now by the relation of S. Matthew & S. Luke, it appear, that our Saviour drank of two several cups, and that he called the one of them the fruit of the vine; the other his blood, &, his testament. Thus S. E. Where it will be as hard to find a fault against manners any way, (were it that he did owe duty to your Doctor) as to find in scirpo nodum, 
Et tua cum udeas oculis mala lippusinunctis cur—  if I be not much deceived.  
But, suppose a fault. What incensed your upright zeal (which he had not meddled with,) to fly on him so furiously? what distemper of your stomach made you belch our such bitterness upon his Notes? what humour is it that makes your ink, to stain, men's names, and honour? men, that offended not your Innocence, whereof they neither spoke, nor thought, nor heard.  Tantaene animis coelestibus irae? 
You can tear with your mouths the credit of whole multitudes of grave learned men; Divines, Bishops, Counsels, 
Sepulchrum patens est guttur eorum. If the Reader ever heard Puritan Sermon he knows what stuff those things be made of  Popes, Church and all. unicuique sepulchro sufficit unum funus; & clauditur: gutturi vestro honorum funera minime sufficiunt; & adhuc patet. you be still ready to devour us. but your selves must not be told, not of your faults. We must not, against your biting defend our good name. Why? because you, still, are Innocent. After all your invectives, and calumnies when with your bitterness against us you have scandalised your whole parish; you can wipe your mouth, and say, I have donne no wickedness.  
What you do must be though well done, all. Men must adore your errors with the title of truth. the bitter speeches that drop from your mouth must be esteemed a sacred kind of urbanity. and when you dispute absurdly, we must not as much are smile. O no. that were against the religion due to your, more than sacred, worth. You are holy, no profane thing may come within your circuit: much less touch you. Your fame is holy, your actions holy, your writings holy, and your lies and leers, all, holy. O the holiness of these holy ones so the purity of these Puritans! o the candour of these sepulchres! you must not press to near, nor speak much of them, neither; for your breath may stain their white.  
Hark! one cries out, Recede à me, noli me tangere, stand a fare of, keep aloof, touch me not, (why so, fair picture, will your colours come of easily?) 
a, Ita ex Isaiae 65. legit S. Aug. Hom. 23. ex Home, 50. Eodem modo legunt Sep. tuag. apud S. Hier.  quoniam mundus sum; for I am clean: quia sanctior sum te, 
b. English bible. Pagnin.  for I am holier than thou art. Are you so? c'rie you mercy. 
I am not as other men are Pharisaeus, Luk. 18.11.  Your Holiness, I hope, will pardon those who before did no so much reflect on the delicacy of a Puritans reputation, which is so tender (I perceive now) that it scarce endures a man to reflect on it. and since it is so nice, the best counsel I can give you, (pure Images of Sanctity,) is this, that you forbear challenging, and coming to answer distinctions; for you may chance to meet with some who will not put their hats of, to Masters of Art, as soon as they come in sight; especially in the distance, we are now. S. E sure will not, if he be as you style him, (let me change your harsh language,) deux fois tres-simple.   

The sixth Argument was grounded upon the word Testament in S. Luke: where it is taken, as my Lord Answered, for an authentic sign of the interior will or sentence: and in this sense our Saviour's blood, as under the form of wine, is testamentum, a Testament.  
The Apologist hath made this Section, and the next very short; either because he had very little to reply for his Doctor, or else to keep Decorum in his Comedy. More Acts than five be not in fashion, wherefore the rest, (two short Scenes, or Sections,) is all, Epilogue.  
In the former of the Sections, he saith, first, that it is only Christ's blood here as it is shed here. where taking the word shed, in the ordinary common acception (as he doth expound himself afterwards,) he doth but beg the Question: as will appear if we make the proposition (and he doth himself somewhere make the like,) of the body in the Sacrament: and say, it is only Christ's body here, as it is crucified here. Who so poorblind as not to see this is petitio principij? He would be loath (I believe) to put this Argument to those Catholics that never saw Master of Art in his habit, It is only Christ's body in the Eucharist as it is crucified in the Eucharist; But it is only sacramentally (meaning in a sign) crucified in the Eucharist, Ergo it is only sacramentally (meaning a sign) in the Eucharist. For the Solution whereof if you demand of any Catholic, i● our Saviour's body crucified in the Eucharist? he tells you, No. demand again, is it there indeed really? he Answers yes: so I have been taught and I believe it. And hereby, Master Waferer, though he knows not the terms of Art, He denies that which is your Mayor.  
A Scholar will tell you further, of another sense of the word shed, when it is attributed to the Sacramental cup; and of the word broken, when it is attributed to the body; which you did not reflect upon when you made your Argument. The body & blood of our Saviour (the lamb sacrificed for the world) are here in the species of things inanimate; which existence by reason of the exterior forms gives occasion when we speak of the sacred actions that are exercised towards or about them, to use that kind of speech which was proper to sacrifices of that kind; whereof, some were solid and dry; others liquid. among the solid was bread, which was broken, to signify the sovereign dominion of Almighty God; 
Levit. 2.  among the liquid was wine, which to the same end was poured out upon the Altar. hence those words poured out or shed, and broken, are used to signify the action of sacrificing when the things offered or sacrificed be in forms inanimate, of bread or wine; and even by our Saviour himself, This is my body which is broken for you 1 Cor. 11. this is my blood, of the new testament which is poured out or shed for many. Matt. 26. This breaking for, and shedding for, is unbloody sacrificing. Which Caluin espied also, and confessed, when he expounded the breaking in S. Paul, 
Calu in Epi, pri. Cor.  panis quem frangimus. frangi, says he, interpreter immolari.  
But the Apologist objects again, out of the word shed. However it be shed, (saith he) it moveth being poured out, if it move it is in a place, if in a place then either circumscriptivelie or definitivelie. Hear it appears that (as before I noted) he speaks of shedding according to the ordinary common acception of the word without reflecting on the other acception according to which neither this nor the former Objection hath any kind of appearance. For, a thing may, by consecration, be put upon the Altar, in the form of wine, without any local motion of it. And this presenting of it on the altar by turning (not it, into an other thing, but) wine into it, done to signify the sovereign dominion of almighty God, is one part of the sacrification which we call unbloody. the other part is the putting of the body on the altar by consecration, in the shape of bread. and both these, make one representation, of the bloody sacrifice and oblation on the Cross.  
But you are not yet accustomed to consider how words are extended (by reason of analogy in the matters) to an equivocal kind of signification, (whereof in the mysteries of Christianity, yea and in other matters too, there are frequent examples,) wherefore I come nearer to your conception; and in answer to your doubt, tell you first that, as a thing may be in place either per se, or per accidens: so may it be said locally to be moved, either per se, or per accidens. your soul in your hand, and the blood of our Saviour here; 
Supra pag. 471 & seqq.  are in loco, per accidens. I told you before more of this. Secondlie those two modi which you speak of, do not sufficiently distinguish or expound that which we call being in a place. God is in the world, yet neither of these two ways: and our Saviour's body in the Sacrament, though not either of these ways which you speak of. The verity of God's word doth enforce a presence distinct from both those. and to suppose there is none distinct, is, in you that are Christened, an heretical begging of the Question.  
Instead of a third reply, you demand, whether we believe that thing in the Sacrament, (which you describe by transubstantiated bread & wine) to be the price of our Redemption? I answer that I believe jesus Christ, who told us that, that thing in his hands, in the form of bread, was his body delivered for our sins; and that thing in the chalice his blood, shed for us. This Master Waferer, though you shrink, and cry, Alas fond faith; is part of my Creed. That our Saviour was borne of the Virgin Marie, is most certain; I believe it. And I believe him (have I not cause?) that was so borne. I willingly join with Antiquity, & with the Catholic and universal Church of this Prince of peace, this Emmanuel, this Virgins-Sonne, this Heir apparent of all that God hath; 
joan. 16.  who truly said Omnia quaecunque habet Pater mea sunt, even his Divinity, & his knowledge, & his omnipotency: whereby He, jesus, he was able to make good his promise, the bread which I will give is my flesh, & to verify what he did affirm, this (in form of bread) is my body.  
Whilst you censured this faith, as fond, did not your conscience trouble you Master Waferer? and when you named the price of our redemption in the cup; did not your memory suggest unto you those words of S. Augustine before discussed, where he said that judas the traitor and a Devil, drank it: judas, that took it not by the way or means of faith; but only with his mouth yet he took it; he took that (himself a infidel) quod fideles cognoverunt precium nostrum. That precium, was not in the cup before consecration; 
S. Ambr. lib. 5. de Sacr. c 5.  but after, it was there. Hear another as ancient, and his Catechist when he came into the Church. Ante verba Christi, calix est vini & aquae plenus, ubi verba Christi operata fuerint ibi sanguis efficitur qui plebem redemit: Before the words of Christ, the Chalice is full of wine and water: but when the words of Christ have wrought, there (in the Chalice) is made the blood which redeemed the people. 
Apol. pag. 89  So he. But Master Waferer wiser than he, Alas fond faith! if so you believe, Lord help your unbelief.  
This is all the little, he had in this matter to reply. he had wearied himself it seems in the former Section; & his string was broken too, he could not shoot roving bolts as before he did. and therefore is now contented to lie down.  
Will you see how he lies? having nothing else to do, till he goes into the next Section, I will lose a little time in counting how many lies I find here in one page, the first of this Section; taking in (that the sense be complete) two lines out of the former, & almost two lines of the later; lest I be forced abruptly to break him of. I begin, as he doth, with the Synopsis of the matter.  Apologist. 
This Section refutes their construction of those words, The cup is the new testament in my blood.  Censure. 
One.  Apologist. 
Shows that there is no substantial change wrought by them.  Censure. 
Two.  Apologist. 
That there is not identity (material he means) in them, uzt of the blood, and the thing whereinto the wine is changed.  Censure. 
Three. So fare the Synopsis. Now the Discourse.  Apologist. 
By virtue of the words, This is my blood of the new Testament▪ This cup is the new Testament in my blood, He (who?) will first conclude a substantial change, and then consequently He, will presume identity in them, but both untruely.  Censure. 
Four. And yet there is favour too. For first, in the text, out o● which S. E. if you mean him, defends and avouches the Real presence of the blood, there is more than you cite; & he insisteth on words by you omitted,  
Your Doctor had objected that no substantial part of any testator could be properly his testament, in that sense wherein my Lord here took the words. S. E. answers that this assertion of you Doctor is contrary to the Gospel which imports as much as this, This drink in form of wine is my testament which drink is shed for you. & hence he doth avouch, If shed for us, it was blood, blood a testament; and blood is ● part. The text he cities, is in Saint Luke whither he refers you to read the words of our Saviour, which be the●, This the Chalice the new testament in my blood which it shed for many unto remission of sins. secondly, in that you he, the change of wine into blood, & the identity of blood with the thing ●nto which wine is changed, be not saulie avouched out of the text, you ●peak at one time two untruths.  Apologist. 
I will distinctly give answer to this confused Section.  Censure. 
Let this pass without a Note; though the Discourse in the ●ection as he calls it, be distinct and ●leere, not confused: and this Apologist so fare from giving a distinct answer, that he doth not answer.  Apologist. 
Doctor Smith and his Second, admit (what upon further try all they deny) a figure in those words of the ●up.  Censure. 
Five.  Apologist. 
Ask them how they understand these words (this cup is the new testament) and they reply properly enough. What then is the new Testament? it cannot be denied but that it is the last and eternal will of Christ the testator etc. now how a cup which is no other the● the work of an artificer can be sai● properly to be this, let who will judge.  Censure. 
Six. They do not say, that the artificial cup is either the interior will, or the authentic sign of it; as he who will judge, may see pag. 100 & seqq.  Apologist. 
But they proceed to affirm it, (the cup which is no other than the work of an artificer,) properly to be called a Testament, because (say they) it is an authentical sign of his will.  Censure. 
Seven.  
judge now Courteous Reader, whether this be a man to write books an● teach Divinity. I will not say he is either witless or willfully malicious, t● vent such things in print, the book● being yet extant which he doth thu● impugn: but the learnedst friend h● hath will as easily maintain tha● black is white, as defend his innocence; unless (for I will not think him to be as he terms S. E. cup-hardie,) as he was an infant, by his Relation, at the time of the Conference, so yet he be indeed an Innocent. I have gone over but six and thirty lines, all lying together or lying altogether, and already repent me of the loss (not of my labour, for without labour I found what I looked for; but) of time.  
Should a man run over all your book in this manner, Master Waferer, he would find this nasty Centon made to cover your needy cause, as full of lies, as a slovenly beggar's breech is full of (); though you pretend to be a sworn enemy to that vice; and so fare, that because equivocation doth seem to resemble it somewhat, you bitterly declaim against equivocation too; and challenge more credit to your bare affirmation then Catholic is able to deserve; sending us this insinuation, publicly, by the print, Let me tell you, a Protestant hath more reason to be believed on his bare word, 
Wafer. pag. 97.  than a Papist, because the Protestants religion ties him to speak the truth from his heart without any mental reservation, but the Papists doctrine teacheth him a pretty kind of deceit called equivocation, and will not stick to licence the loudest lie, so it be advantageous to the cause of Rome.  
And he too, Saint Jerome says, to me seems an Hypocrite, who saith unto his brother, stay, let me take a mot● out of thine eye. Our Saviour himself styles him so; Hypocrite, first cast th● beam out of thine own. You tell th● Church of Rome there is in he● doctrine a pretty kind of deceit called equivocation, which you ar● offering nicely to take out; an● cannot see the monstrous lies tha● lie in your own book. to whic● (for they come out of your mouth upon the paper as thick as wasp● out of a nest, whilst you are spe●king of a pretty deceit which yo● yourself impose, you add an other in your book, that the Papists doctrine will not stick to licence the loudest lie. But who licencied your Book Master Waferer? whose approbat had you to it? I should ha●e thought, none, but the Father ●ies, would have liked it; it is ●o enormouslie peccant, against faith, and good manners; so full of ●ies, in matters of both kinds: had I not heard, six months ●nd more before the printer ma●e it a coat, where the babe was ●t nurse; with other circumstances, which are known to Mistress Feat●ie.   

The seventh Argument was taken out of that place of S. Matthew where the cup our Saviour drank of, is called the fruit of the vine. It was answered that there were two cups, the Legal and the Sacramental; and that those words (as appears by by the relation of Saint Luke) were meant of the Legal cup though it had been easy to answer the Argument had the● been understood of the Sacramental.  
M. featly would have the word spoken of the sacramental cup 
a. 
These words in S. Matt. This fruit of the vine, must have relation 〈◊〉 the Cup of which S. Matt. spoke before: But S. Matt spoke of no Cup before, but the cup of the new Testament: therefore etc.  
featly, Relat. pag 302.   o●lie; of no other cup than that of the new Testament. And he had his Answer. Now Waferer, seeing it proved in the Relation that they were spoken of the Legal cup; and Featlies' Arguments being impertinent unless they be spoken of the Sacramental; says that Christ spoke them undoubtedly of both 
b. Apol. pag 91.  cups.  
Undoubtedly, Master Waferer? can you demonstrate the thing by Theological arguments unavoidable, and so teach your own Doctor? or point out in Scripture the place or places, that affirm it? No? not that; you have nothing which S.E. hath not already answered: what then?  Apologist. 
What incongruity is it to determine the matter thus? S. Matthew and S. Mark relate them to the consecrated cup, S. Luke after to the legal.  Censure. 
What incongruity? is your undoubtedly, no better grounded? undoubtedly your Doctor smiles, to see himself so undoubtedly confuted. The incongruity in your explication, is easily assigned; for, our Saviour said of the Sacramental cup, this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many unto remission of sins: and it cannot without incongruity and infidelity, be affirmed, that this thing, is the fruit of the vine properly. We were not redeemed with wine. Moreover the words of consecration were spoken, & thereby the sacramental cup consecrated, after supper; similiter & Calicem postquam coenavit etc. the other words were spoken in supper time, of that cup which was drunk before the consecration of the body of our Saviour: and answerably to the words spoken of the lamb which at supper they did eat. Desiderio desideravi hoc pascha manducare vobiscum antequam patiar: dic o enim vobis quia ex hoc non manducabo illud (pascba) don●e impleatur in regno Dei. With desire I have desired to eat this Passeover with you before I suffer: for I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfiled in the kingdom of God. Lucae 22. reflect upon the Notes of S. E. and you will easily conceive the matter.  Apologist. 
You cannot say Christ's body and blood can be received either unworthily or to death, for to the receipt of them Christ hath annexed the promise of life.  Censure. 
The Apostle hath taught us to distinguish two sorts of Communicantes: some do prove, examine, discuss their consciences, before: and coming with due preparation, do receive worthily: these have the promise of life, supposing they persever. others, approaching unto the table with their hearts bend on sin, do receive unworthily; and these offend greivouslie in so doing. Thus judas the traitor, did receive the price of our Redemption; which the rest of the Disciples received the former way. they to life: he, to judgement; as hath been declared else where more at large.  

Pag. 357.  And whilst you deny that Christ's body can be received unworthily, you contradict the Apostle, 
1. Cor. 11. v. 29.  He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth & drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lords body. Eateth unworthily: what? this bread. What is it? he tells you before, 
v, 24.  in our Saviour's words, take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you. is it damnation to eat this unworthily? yes. Why so? because it is our Lord's body; and he that eats it unworthily, discerns it not in the manner of receiving. he eats it as if it were common bread, requiring of its nature no spiritual preparation, no reverence; whereas it is in itself a most holy thing, even the body that suffered for us; and as such, with great reverence, to be received.  Apologist. 
Saint Paul's meaning is that who so cometh to those holy mysteries without that wherewith to discern the Lords body, is guilty of the body and blood of Christ, not in that he hath received them; but in that he hath not received them: since they only can be received by the mouth of faith.  Censure. 
Only by the mouth of faith! How then did judas receive that which the faithful know (though you do not) to be the price of our redemption; if that can be received only by the mouth of faith, which mouth the traitor had not? And What a perverse exposition is this, whosoever shall eat this (consecrated) bread (which our Saviour v. 24 saith, is his body, broken for us,) unworthily, shall be guilty of the body of our Lord, that is, he shall be guilty of the body, not in that he hath received it, but in that he hath not received it. He receives it the Apostle supposeth, and unworthily: and hereby he says, he shall be guilty. You say, No: he shall not be guilty in that he receives it, unworthily, is not this later contradictory to the former? Waferers negative, to S. Paul's affirmative: Again, S. Paul puts the fault in so receiving; whosoever shall eat &c, unworthily; v. 27. and v. 30 For this cause many sleep etc. Waferer, in not receiving, Not in that he hath received, but in that he hath not received. thirdly S. Paul says, he eateth & drinketh damnation; those acts in him are sinful acts. 
commission. omission  Waferer; the damnation is for not eating, and not drinking.  Apologist. 
Let not him therefore who without due preparation (and so profanes the holy ordinance of God) unworthily eats the sacramental bread and drinks of the cup, think that he d●th communicate of the body and blood of Christ, for so he should receive to his salvation, but let him assure himself howsoever he mix himself with the faithful at that holy banquet, yet he receives barely the outward food, and not the heavenly, which can only be discerned and received by a lively faith.  Censure. 
This than Master Mirth, is the substance of the Catechism you give such as will believe you. The wicked receive barely the outward food. Out of which you shall give me leave to infer, Ergo the bare outward food is the price of our Redemption, and, Ergo the bare outward food is the body that was broken for us. The sequel, S. Paul, and S, Augustine, yea and our Saviour himself, will make good. Take 
a. 1. Cor. 11. v. 24.  eat, this is my body which is broken for you. 
b. v 29.  he that eateth unworthily (the thing given when he said take, eat, this is &c) eateth damnation to himself, not discerning the Lords body. 
c. v. 30.  For this cause (for so eating, unworthily,) many are weak and sickly amongst you. 1 Cor. 11. Our Lord himself tolerateth judas, a Devil, a thief, his seller, he lets him receive amongst the innocent Disciples, quod fideles noverunt precium nostrum. that which the faithful knew our price. S. Augustine, Epist. 162.  Apologist. 
After S.E. hath (so poorly as not worth the confutation) jumbled in false witnesses, & cunningly smothered the testimony of those two who would condemn him, he is so fool hardy as to affirm that though Christ said of the consecrated cup that it was the fruit of the vine, yet it destroys not his tenet of transubstantiation.  Censure. 
Fie Waferer; will you never leave your lying? if your book persever in the vice until the end (and it is now very near,) 'twill be condemned; unless hypocrisy may save things otherwise obnoxious to the fire, Daré pondus idonea fumo. The witnesses your Doctor brought were Clemens, Cyprian, chrysostom, The Author de dogmatibus, under the name of S. Augustine, the Council of worms, and Innocent the third. These were all, and S.E. took notice of and answered to them, all: and without adding any more; as he may know who will turn unto the place, which is pag. 114. That Christ said of the consecrated cup, it was the fruit of the vine, you find not in his Notes; though he tells you, the Argument might have been answered if our Saviour had said so. See p. 108. & 117.  
Your reply, videlicet, He is called a vine who was, none substantially so wine is also called blood which was not so substantially, is a begging of the Question, if you mean that your so; doth import the same manner: and ridiculous, if you intent to have the later part an illation from the former. The thing in the Chalice was the price of our Redemption, it was shed for the remission of sins; could this be wine substantially, 
Vide S. Chrys. Hom. 24. in Pri. Cor  or in propriety? And if in your form I said thus, S. john is called an eagle who was none none substantially, so also Waferers Fathers was called a man who was not so substantially, would you approve of the discourse: 'tis just as yours. But now you come to your Postlegomena; where you recon up your Doctors great exploits. Whole men belike, he hath divided at a blow.  Secuit Lucilius Vrbem, Te— To—. Apol. 
What this book speaks of Doctor featly who will rega●d since it contrarily appears to the world, and can yet be justified to the doubtful by witnesses now living that he often discovered yôur Fishers hooks, and took him with his own angle; he hath ever been Musket proof; he allwaise put Sweets mouth of relish. Egle-stones simples could not work with him. How unlikely then is this report that Smith could overbear him?  Censure. 
Ad populum phaleras. We know the man you speak of. In the University there was an other opinion of him; and that which hath public appeared since (even in those pieces you commend him for) doth confirm it. Did he but see the Character of himself, which a Scholar drew out of the first of those you name; he would be sorry that he ever put it out. 
By one that was present.  I have heard too, what he said at home in his own house, touching the Catalogue then demanded. A friend of his, (Birckbeck in his Catalogue,) hath endeavoured since, to draw a skin over the sore; but in vain. So many several Religions as he names, all those men which he puts down, could never be contained in one Communion. The Wickleffists, Hussites, Waldenses, Lollards: & the Divines that wrote against them, the Counsels that condemned them for Heretics: were not of one mind all; were they? 
Lateran Constance  Yet do you acknowledge those Heretics your Predecessors; and put the Divines and Counsels into your Catalogue. Your task had been to have attoned them, making it first appear they were of one Religion, all: and then after, to have proved by good Evidence that this one, was the Protestant, and no other.  
To unite those Heresies but now specified, amongst themselves, and with Protestants, will be another ten years work for this collector; atque idem iungat vulpes: after which he may spend twenty more, to reconcile the whole multitude of all sorts, which he puts in: and then, when Est & non est be all one, the wound may be drawn up.  
He names Fathers and Councel● too, (who knows not that Heretics lay claim unto the first Disciples and Apostles, that they challenge the Scripture to themselves, an● would draw God, such is their arrogancy, to their side, obtruding thei● errors for his word?) whereas they contradict him flatly, as hath appeared in the trial; and by men of hi● own side, more learned than himself, hath been confessed. It hath been confessed I say that in many, great matters, the Fathers, the Ancients, all the Fathers, all from the Apostles time, the Fathers with mutual consent, all Antiquity, the ancient Church, the Church of the first five or sixhundred years, the Church in the very beginning, general Counsels, all General Counsels, are opposite to them. This he may see proved out of their own books in the Conference of Catholic and 
a. li. 2 c. 22.  Protestant Doctrine: and in the Protestants 
b. Tract. 1. Sect. 3.  Apology there is instance made in diverse particular points. Neither were it hard for any understanding man that knows well the true State of the Controversies betwixt us and Protestants, to make this Euidentist confess, that no general Council, no Father at all, would ever have subscribed to the book of his Confession, the 39 Articles.  
If you look into him, to see how he proves that any one of the Ancients held their tenets, all; as they are expressed in the 39 Articles; you lose your labour: he doth not (though this were the thing demanded) as much as undertake it. Unless this be perchance a demonstration of the thing, (suppose I take your 
† In the first he puts the Apostles. Dixit & facta sunt  second Age,) justine says, that, as upon 
c. Alimentum hoc (eucharistizatus panis & vinum) appellatur apud nos Eucharistia, quod nulli alij participare licitum est, quàm veram esse nostram doctrinam credenti, & lavachro propter remissionem peccatorum & regenerationem abluto; ita ut Christus tradidit, viu enti. Non enim ut communem panem neque communem potum ista sumimus; sed, quemadmodum per verbum Dei caro factus est Christus Seruator noster, & carnem & sanguinem salutis nostrae causa habuit: sic etiam per preces Verbi Dei ab ipso Eucharistiam factam cibum ex quo sanguis & caro nostra per mutationem aluntur, incarnati illius jesu carnem & sanguinem esse edocti sumus. Nam Apostoli in commentariis à se scriptis quae Euangelia vocantur, ita tradiderunt praecepisse sibi jesum. Eum enim pane accepto, cùm gratias egisset, dixisse Hoc facite in meam commemorationem, Hoc est corpus meum. Et poculo similiter accepto, & gratiis actis dixisse, Hic est sanguis meus. justin. Apol 2 add Antonin. Vide Bellar. li 2. de Euchar. c. 4. ubi dicit illa verba, Ex quo sanguis & caro nostra per mutationem aluntur, esse periphrasim panis ex quo conficitur Eucharistia, ut sit sensus; Panis vel cibus ex quo carnes nostrae ali solent, cum praece mystica consecratur, fit corpus Christi.  God's dixit the Word became man; so upon our Saviour's dixit bread became flesh. or water, wine. That, the Sacrament whose materia transiens is bread such as men eat, is the flesh and blood of Christ, and That, Christ commanded, (this Birckbeck knows not what.) Ergo he was a Protestant, and would have subscribed to the 39 Articles.  
Pope Eleutherius told 
d. See M. broughton's Eccles. History of great Britain. 2. Age c. 14.  Lucius, that He (the king) was God's Vicar in his kingdom: Ergo one of the two (if not both) was a Protestant & would have subscribed to the 39 Articles.  
Polycrates and the Eastern Churches contradicted Victor (who was in the 
e. 
Victoris sententiam probaverunt pp. Concilij Nicaeni ut patet ex Euseb. l. 3. de Vita Constant.  
Et deinceps Haeretici habiti sunt qui contrarium senserunt, ut pater ex Epiphan. haer. 50. & Aug. haeres. 29 Bell. li. 2 de Pont c 19  
Irenaeus victorem ne tam multas Ecclesias omnino propter traditionis ex antiqua consuetudine inter illas usurpatae obseruationem, à corpore universae Christi Ecclesiae penitus amputet— appositè & convenienter admonet. Euseb. l. 5. Hist. c. 24.   right) about the time of keeping Easter: Ergo they were Protestants and would have subscribed to the 39 Articles.  
Irenaeus held the Apostles Creed, and says too that the Scriptures are (in their kind) 
f. Vnum quodque maximè tunc est perfectum cùm propriam virtutem est consecutum; & maximé secundum naturam: sicut circulus tunc maximè secundum naturam est, quando maximè circulus est. Arist. 7. Phys. ●. 18. Yet is Irenaeus for Tradition very full, l. 3. adverse. Haeres. c 3 Maximae & antiquissimae & omnibus cognitae, à gloriosissimis duobus Apostolis Petro & Paulo Romae fundatae Ecclesiae, eam quam habet ab Apostolis traditionem & annunciatam hominibus fidem per successiones Episcoporum pervenientem ad nos, indicantes, confundimus omnes eos qui quoquo modo vel per vanam gloriam vel per coecitatem & malam sententiam, praeterquam oportet colligunt. Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam propter pot●ntiorem pr●ncipalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam, hoc est, ●os qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique conseruata est ea quae est ab Apostolis traditio. And in the next chapter, Quid antem si neque Apostoli quidem Scripturas reliquissent nobis, nun oportebat o●d●nem sequi traditionis, quam tradideruntiis quibus committebant Ecclesias; cui ordinationi assentiunt multae gentes Barbarorum eorum qui in Christum credunt sine charactere vel atramento scriptam habentes per Spiritum in cordibus salutem, & veterem traditionem diligenter custodientes, &c By the way observe what he thought of the Universality of jurisdiction which the Church of Rome hath Necesse est omnem Ecclesiam, etc. and his reason, propter potentiorem principalitatem· The words of Eusebius if they be well looked into, import the same, ne à corpore Vniversae Christi Ecclésiae penitus amputet. ut supra,  perfect; that our Saviour taking 
g. Accipiens panem, suum corpus confitebatur? (how? the Evangelist declares, jesus took bread, and blessed i● &c and said, take, eat, This is my body. Mat. 26.) & temperamentum calicis sui sanguinem confirmavit. (this is my blood of the new testament; which is shed for many unto remission of sins. Ibidem) ●. Iraen li. 4. c. 57 Our Saviour's words, the words of consecration were practical, and did infer what they signify; as you see by Antiquity confessed, Suprà, pag. 479 & seq. where this Father is also amongst the rest. And that he did unto he change require omnipotency as principal, you may know by his own words also, li. 4. c. 34. Quomodo constabit ●is (he speaks of Heretics who denied our Saviour to be omnipotent,) eum p●nem in quo gratiae actae sunt, esse corpus Domini sui & calicem sanguinis eius, si non ipsum Fabricatoris mundi filium dicant, id est Verbum eius, per quod lignum fructificat, etc.  bread into his hands said Hoc est corpus meum, the words of consecration; that the Gnostics used Heatheri●h rights towards 
h Artes magicas operantur & ipsi (Carpocratiani) & incantationes, philtra quoque & ●h●titesi● &c dicentes se porestatem habere ●d d●m●●ādum iam principibus & fabricatoribus mundi huius. S. ●ren lib. 1 c. 24 Gnosticos autem se vocant, etiam imagines quasdam quidem depictas, quasdam autem & de reliqua materia fabricatas habent, dicentes formam Christi factam à Pilato illo tempore quo f●i Iesus cum hominibus; & has coronant & proponunt eas cum imaginibus mundi Philosophorum, videlicet cum imaginibus Pythagorae, & Platonis & Aristotelis & reliquorum; & reliquam obseruationem circa eas, fimiliter ut Gentes, faciunt. Ibidem.  images; that the Disciples of Basilices used enchantments and called on 
i. Vtuntur & (qui sunt à Basilide) imaginibus & incantationibus, & reliqua universa pa●erga: nomina quoque quaedam affingentes quasi Angelorum annunciant; hos quidem esse in primo coelo, hos autem in secundo, & deinceps nituntur 365. ementitorum coelorum & nomina & principia & Angelos & virtutes exponere, S. Iren l. 1. c. 23. The Church did not thus: yet she honoured the good Spirits: as by one of the same Age, S. justine whom you cited as a Protestant you may know, He speaks in the name of Irenaeus and Polycarp and the whole Church of that time; Sed & illum (Deum Patrem,) & eius Filium qui venit nosque haec docuit, & aliorum sequentium, similiumque bonorum Angelorum, exercitum & Spiritum Propheticum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 colimus atque adoramus, verboque & re seu veritate veneramur: idque omnibus qui discere volunt, ut docti institutique sumus, copiosè tradimus. Apológ. 2. ad Anton.  Spirits, but the Church not; that there is no way to be saved but by believing in jesus Christ; Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no name under heaven given amongst men whereby we must be saved. Acts, 4. v. 12. Ergo he was a Protestant, and would have subscribed to the 39 Articles.  
Melito putting down the books of the old Testament says 
l. The Scriptures themselves were not fully received in all places, no not in Eusebius his time. He saith the Epistles of james, of jude, the second of Peter the second and third of john, are contradicted The Church of Syria did not receive the second Epistle of of Peter, nor the second and third of john, nor the Epistle of jude, nor the Apocalypse. The like might be said of the Churches of Arabia. Will you hence conclude that those parts of Scripture were not Apostolic, or that we need not receive them, because they were formerly doubted of? Bilson in his Survey, pag. 664. See Covel against Burg. 87. & seqq. the Protest. Apol tract. 2. c. 2 sect. 10. subd 2.  nothing 
k Simon dicebat secundum ipsius gratiam saluari homines, sed non secundum operas iustas. S. Iren. l. 1. c 20.  of judith etc. Ergo he was a Protestant and would have subscribed to the 39 Articles. 
See Gretser his defence of Bellarm. de verbo Dei.   
Clemens Alexandrinus, says our Lord 
† Vinum benedixit cum dixit, Accipite etc. l. 2. Paedag. c. 2. Sanguis vitis, verbum, quod pro multis effunditur in remissionem peccatorum, sanctum laetitiae fluentum allegori●● significat. Ibidem.  blessed (not bear, but) 
m. The same would Elfrick say (touching the other kind) when he tells you, there is much difference betwixt the body Christ suffered in, and the body that is hallowed to how sell. That which the Priest consecrateth, and that which our Saviour took, was bread: and there is great difference betwixt bread and a man's body. But after consecration, he tells you: In that holy housel there is one thing in it seen, and another (not seen, but) understood: that which is there seen, hath bodily shape; and that we do there understand, hath ghostly might. The housel is dealed into sundry parts, chewed between teeth, and sent into the belly. Howbeit nevertheless, after ghostly might, it is all in every part. See above, pag. 330. the testimony of Stephanus Eduensis about whose time this Elfrick is by the Protestants said to have lived; and of Lanfranck Archbishop of Canturburie, who lived soon after: and tells what was the belief of England and of the world, in this point, at that time. ut vere dici possit & ipsum corpus quod de Virgine sumptum est nos sumere, & non ipsum: ipsum quidem quantum ad essentiam etc. hanc fidem tenuit a priscis temporibus, & nunc tenet Ecclesia quae per totum orbem etc. Suprà pag. 331.  wine, that he had learned to walk upon earth, not (absolutely and for itself) to 
n. 
Relative honour, in due circumstances, he denies not. Put of thy shoes, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. Exod. 3, The Israelites were commanded to bow before the ark, which had in it two Cherubins made of gold. Adore his footstool because it is holy. Psalm 98 And they did so: Venerabantur quondam judaei Sancta Sanctorum, quia erant ibi Cherubin, propitiatorium, &c S. Hieron. Epist. ad Marcell. Mark that Quia. The Prophets, their directors, knew the meaning of Adorate scabellum, and Non facies tibi sculptile, better, I trow, than john Caluin.  
As for Clemens Alex. the learned know that his discourse in the book objected is against the Pagan Idolatry. Cur o stolid● (he speaks to the Heathens) & inanium rerum dediti cogitationi, coelestem locum maledictis incessentes, pietatem ac religionem in so●●m detraxistis? Terrestres Deos (Mercurium, jovem, etc.) vobis fingentes, & haec g●nita ante Deum ingeni●um. persequentes, in profundiorem incidistis caliginem. Pulcher est lapis Parius, sed nondum est Neptunus. Pulchrum est ebur, sed nondum est Olympius. Materia semper arte indiget. Deus autem nullius indigus. Cle●ens Alex. in Protrept. sive Orat. adhort. ad Gentes. Ego ●utem terram (those Idols, made of gold or other pre●ious matter, were originally of earth: and therefore ●e calls them so,) calcare didici non adorare: non enim ●●hi fas unquam rebus inanimatis credere spes animae. Ibidem. Mercurium tanquam ianitorem etc. si tanquam ●nsensibiles eos iniuria afficiunt, cur adorant ut Deos? Romani autem qui res maximas & praeclarè gestas For●onae attribuunt, & eam esse Deam maximam existi●ant, posuerunt eam in sterquilinio: dignum Deae templum, secessum tribuentes. Ibidem.  
●●pridius whose words are used to prove Christian Churches had no pictures in them, speaks of Idols. Alexander ●mperator Christo templum facere voluit, eumque inter Deos recipere: quod & Adrianus cogitassé fertur, qui templa in omnibus civitatibus sine simulachris ius●etat fieri, quae hodie id circo quia non habent Numina, dicuntur Adriani, etc. Lamprid. 〈◊〉 Alexand,   worship it; Ergo he was a Protestant, and would have subscribed to the 39 Articles.  
The Church of Smnirna could not be induced to leave Christ and worship any other for him; and they did 
o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 look your Dictionary great Rabbin. And read again S. justins words, suprà pag. 546.  honour his honourers; Ergo they were Protestants, and would have subscribed to the 39 Articles.  
Polycarp when he gave thankes to God for calling him to Martyrdom, did not invocate the Saints; Ergo he was a Protestant, and would have subscribed to the 39 Articles.  
Hegesippus lived in this second age he was of the jewish Nation; and was afterwards converted to Christianity: Ergo he was a Protestant, and would have subscribed to the 39 Articles.  
These are the men, all that he names in the 
† 
In the first Age▪ he names Christ and his Apostles; which is a begging of the Question. Vide Collationem doct Cathol. a● Protest. cum, expressis S. Scripturae verbis. Parisiiis anno. 1622.  
Adding two more: S Denis, citing his book, ex qu● Pontificij m●lle petunt testimonia, says Cook and S Ignatius, in whose few Epistles be many testimonies against Protestants; whereof ●ome have been objected to featly upon the like Challenge, by D. Weston.   second age, (Birckbeck▪ In the second age from 100 to 200. justine the Martyr. Hegesippus. The Church of Smyrna, touching the Martyrdom of their Bishop Polycarp. Melito Bishop of Sardis. Pope Eleutherius his Epistle to Lucius, the first Christian king of Britai●e. Polycrates of Ephesus, and the Eastern Churches, touching the keeping of Easter. ●●enaeus Bishop of Lions. Clemens Alex●ndrinus.)  
These I say, be men which he brings; and I have briefly pointed at ●is proof, running it as I did, suddenly over: for though he were long ●n making, I do not think the book worth serious reading. If any of his Parish think the foresaid Arguments ●e good, I pity them. Sapientia pri●a est stultitia caruisse.  
Some there, will see by this little ●ight, how easily his pretence may be ●ut of by the neck. The head of it, is his claim to our Saviour and his Apostles, whose words in Scripture you think, and would force us to believe, be Protestantish. Whereas the ●earned on both sides know the Scripture (and consequently the Writers and Authors of it) to be for us, so directly, that Protestants refuse to stā● unto the proper sense. An experienc● whereof the Reader hath seen in th● Question here discussed, wherein Scripture is for Catholics so manifest that our Adversary's themselu●● confess, 
Suprà, pag. 293  they must yield us the ca●se if it be taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, properly.  
The trunc of a man's body bein● devoid of life and soul that conta●nes and holds all together, quickl● resolves, rendering to each element h●● own share. The imagination is n●● sooner quiet but the Chimaera whic● it had made up of diverse and repugnant natures, ceaseth to be; the nature's remaining the same they we●● before it fell a working. It was Birc●becks fantasy that raised up t●● corpse of his pretence, assembling deuers and repugnant Religions to m●ke up a Protestantish body: but no● that he hath betaken himself to re●● things appear just as they were b●foré. Catholics be Catholics; A●●ans, Arians; Lollards, Lollards. No catalogue appears of men, whose religion were currant amongst you; ●ho did they live now (believing 〈◊〉 they believed) would subscribe to ●e 39 Articles of your Church.  
Had the Saints whom you recite, ●mbrose, Austin, Basil, Cyrill, Gregory, ●eo, chrysostom, etc. had the Father's ●hat were in the Counsels of Nice, E●hesus, Chalcedon, been borne and ●●ued amongst you sometime within ●ur memory, one may guess what ●ntertainement they should have found. It doth appear, by the testimony of 
a. Whole succeeding Ages, which profess to have received these things, and their Religion generally, from them.  more men than are in England; it is known by their own confession, that they did believe and frequent 
b 
S. Ambros. lib. de Sacramentis. Where also he doth expound▪ the Mass. S. Aug. Conc. 1. in Psal 33 Nondum erat Sacrificium Corporis & Sanguinis Domini, quod Fideles norunt, & qui Euangelium legerunt: quod Sacrificium nunc diffusum est ●oto ●●●e terrarum. And his Mother to went to Mass. l 9 Conf. c. 13. S▪ Basil Homil. 19 Et in Liturg. S. Cyrill. Cateches. Mist. 5. Where h● doth likewise expound the Mass. S. Grego. Hom. 1. de Resurrect Non expectat Pilati iudicium, sed per ineffabilem & arcanum S. crificij modum sua dispositionè & administratione praeoccupat impetu● violentum, ac sese in oblationem & victimam offert pro nobis S●cerdos simul & Agnus Dei. Quando hoc accidit? cum suum corp● ad edendum, & sanguinem suum familiaribus ad bibendum pr● buit. Cuilibet enim perspicuum est, quod oue vesci homo non poss● nisi comestionem mactatio praecesserit: cum igitur dedit discipul● suis corpus ad comedendum, aperte demonstravit iam fuisse perfect & absolutam immolationem. It is not Mortons' obiective tantu● non subiective, that he believed. S. Leo Serm. 7. de Pass. S. Chr●sost. li. 3. & 6. de Sacerdot. & Hom. 17. in Epist. ad Hebr●● Id ips●● semper offerimus etc. Vnus ubique est Christus, & hic plenus exstens, & illic plenus, unum corpus. Et in Liturg. Conc. Niceu. Act. & can. 14. Conc. Ephes. in Cyrilli Anathem. The words a● cited above, pag. 350. and they destroy Mortons' evasion 〈◊〉 obiective tantum: so doth all that hath hitherto been sa● of the real presence. Conc. Chalc. act. 3. in dam. Diosc.  
The like is easily shown of the rest of those he names, 〈◊〉 S. jerom. Adverse Virgil. c. 3. & Epist 150. add Hedib. q. 2. S. Hilar, 3. ad Const. S. Epiphanius. Haeresi 55. & Epist. ad joh. Hier. Optat● Il. 6 de Schis Donat. S. Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. 3 4. & 5. S. Athana● who was as the Council of Nice, can. 14. S. Cyprian. l. 1. Epic 19 & l 2. Epist. 3. Whereunto add the Sermon de Coena. S. I●stin. Mart. Dialo. cum Triphone. S. Irenaeus li. 4. c. 32. Calicem q● ex ea creatura quae est secundum nos, suum sanguinem (jesus) co●fessus est, (Hic est sanguis meus novi testamenti qui pro mult● effundetur in remissionem peccatorum, Matt 26.) & novi test●menti Novam docuit oblationem, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis ac● piens, in universo mundo offer● Deo.   unbloody Sacrifice, 
c. S. Aug. li. de cura pro mortuis. c. 1. In Machabaeoru● libr●s legimus oblatum pro mortuis Sacrificium: sed etsi nuquam in Scriptures veteribus legeretur, non parua est Vni●ersae Ecclesiae quae in hac consuetudine claret Authoritas; ●bi inprecibus Sacerdotis quae Domino Deo ad Altare fun●●ntur, locum suum habet etiam commemoratio mortuorum, 〈◊〉 cap. 4. Non sunt praetermittendae supplicationes pro ●piritibus mortuorum, etc. and l 9 Confess. c 13 he ●e particularly commends his dead mother to the prayers of Priests, meminerint ad altare tuum etc. S Chrysost. Hom. 41 in 1. Cor. & Hom. 3. in Epist. ad Phil. Non fru●ra haec ab Apostolis sunt legibus constituta, ut in Ve●●erandis inquam atque horrificis mysteriis, memoria eorum fiat qui decesserunt, noverant hinc● multum ad ●llos lucri accedere, multum utilitatis Epiphan. Haeres. ●5 Dicebat Aerius, qua ratione post mortem nomina●is nomina mortuorum? etc. quis autem mag●s de his ●ouit, hicne seductus homo qui etiam nunc superest, ●ut qui ante nos fuerunt, habentes ante nos traditionem in Ecclesia, qu●que etiam a Patribus fuis traditum ●acceperunt, quenadmodum etiam hi à suis Patribus qui ante ipsos fuerunt, etc. Prosunt & praeces quae pro ipsis fiunt etiam si totam culpam non abscindant. Where he teacheth against Aerius the Heretic, that this i● a Tradition in the Church received a Patribus. See the Collation l 2. c. 23. S. Cyrill, Hier. Catech. Myst. 5. Pro omnibus oramus qui ante nos vita functi sunt, maximum credentes animarum iwamen pro quibus offertu● obsecratio sancti illius & tremendi quod ante nos positum est Sacrificij See more concerning the antiqu●tie of this custom, in S. john Damascens Oration, Quod desuncti Missis iwentur,  offer for the dead, communicate wit● the 
d. S. Ireneaeus l. 3. c 3. necesse est propter potentiorem principalitatem his words are cited above pag 544. S. Hiero. Epist. ad Damas'. Cathedrae Petri communione consocior, super illam petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio. S. Aug. Epist. 162. Romanae Ecclesiae in qua semper viguit Apostolica● Cathedrae principatus. Optat. li. 2. adu. Parm. Leo magnus' Epist. 84. ad unam Petri Sedem Vniversalis Ecclesiae cura conflueret. Concil. Chalced. Relat. ad Leonem, sicut nos Capiti membra sic summitas tua filijs. S. Greg. in Psal. 5. Poenit. Caput omnium Ecclesiarum Romanam Ecclesiam. Vide Coccium in Thesau. Tom. 1. l. 7. a. 6.  See of Rome: and hear, ye● and many of them 
e. The Liturgy which was used by S. Ambrose, is yet extant. and so are the Liturgies also of S. Basil, and S. chrysostom. Vide S. Ambros. Epist. 33 ad Marcellin. for. Proclum de tradit. diu. Liturgiae Petr. Diac. ad Fulg. c 8. Syn. Trull. can. 32. circa quem canonem vide Suarezium disp. 75, sec. 1, In the Liturgies, names, have been added. See Perron, pag. 817.  say, Mass. I hope no Pursuivant over hears me. Whist! let us talk of some thing else▪ lest inquiry be made after S. Peter too, who (be it spoken betwixt us two) did the same. Hitherto he hath escaped, for no Pursuivant with his commission ever found the way thither where he is.  
He that amongst the Fathers is pretended in the Catalogue for most points, is S. Augustine, who is, Birckbeck saith, against Church-tradition, the real presence, worship of images, invocation of Saints, merit and efficacy of works done in grace; and held only two Sacraments: whence he leaves his Parish to conclude, he was a Protestant. But when he thinks the thing is done, the task returns again. Saint Augustine did hold and maintain 
a. S Aug Epist. 118 de Corr. & gra c. 13. de Spiritu & lit. c. 17.  merit of works done in grace, Ergo he Was no Protestant. He allowed invocation of 
b. L●. 20. cont. Faust. c. 21. l. 21 de civet. c. 27. de cura pro mort. c. 4. de bapt l. 7. c. 1.  Saints, Ergo he was no Protestant. He did approve of honour given to 
c. In joan. tract. 36, de cons. Euang. l. 1. c. 10. de Trinit. l 3. c. 10. Doct. Christ. l. 3. c. 9 Epist. 103.  relics, holy signs, and the Cross or Crucifix, Ergo he was no Protestant. He admitted 
d. Li. 2 con Petil. c 104. l. 2. con. Ep Pa●m. c. 13. de bono coniugij c. 24.  more Sacraments them two, Ergo he was no Protestant. He believed the 
e. Epist 162. Conc. 1 in Psal. 33. l 9 Conf. c. 13. l. 2. con. Adu. leg. c. 9  real presence to the signs and mouth, Ergo he was no Protestant. He received books of Scripture according to the judgement of the Catholic 
f. Con. Epist. Fund. c. 5. de doct. Christ. l. 2. c. 8.  Church, Ergo he was no Protestant. He submitted his judgement to the 
g. Lib. 1. de Bapt. c. 18. l. 2. c. 4. & 9 l 5. c. 17. de unit. Eccl. c. 19 lib. 1. cont. Cresc. c. 32. 33. de util. cred c. 17 See the Confessio Augustiniana. He that subscribeth must admit all your Articles but the denial of one or two is enough to make one to be no Protestant.  judgement of the Catholic Church in a Plenary Council, Ergo he was no Protestant.  
Shall I look a little further into the Catalogue? Who be here? Gregory our Apostle, Austin the Monk, Venerable Bede, Charles the Great, Saint Anselme, Remigius, Columban, Venantius Fortunatus, Theophilact, Oecumenius, gratian: what? Were these Protestants? It seems by the collector. And rather than want (impudence) he fills rooms with Monks and Abbots. and S. Bridget is there too. Schoolmen also, (for he hath opened a case to let in all,) Peter Lombard, Bonaventure, Ockam, Holcot, Alexander Hales, Ariminensis, Gerson, Biel, Scotus: any body, every body.  
So he but profess himself a Christian, what shall hinder? Suppose him a Papist, as 
a. Li. ad Eugen. de consid. c. 8.  Bernard; he may be in. Or a Pope, as 
b. Epist. 84. ad Anast. & Serm 3. de annivers. assumpt.  Leo the great, he may be in. If he maintain worship of images, as 
c. Lib. 4. de fide orthod c. 12. & 17.  Damascen, he may be in. If he defend prayer to Saints and for the dead, as 
d. In 4. Sent. dist. 45. cue 1. & q. 4. a. 1.  Durand, put him in too. Eusebius Caesariensis was an 
e. S. Athan. l. de decret. Syn. Nicen. S. Hier. adu Ruff. Syn. 7. act 5.  Arian, yet he is in. Tertullian was a 
f. Hieron. de Script. Eccles.  Montanist, he is in. The author of the books 
g. 
Birck. pag. 157  
S. Thom. In his Theological Sum: and in his Commentary upon the books of Sentences.   de Ecclesiastica & coelesti Hierarchia, he styles a Knight of the post; and yet hath put him in. Nothing that I can see keeps one out. S. Thomas held the lawfulness of Communion in one kind, prayer to Saints, worship of images, merit of works, unbloody Sacrifice, transubstantiation. He was a Friar, and a Massing Priest, (as they speak;) he acknowledged the Pope's Supremacy, and submitted his judgement to the Church: yet S. Thomas is in. Take heed Reader, (whatever thou be,) of writing; for if he find thy name in print, he will put it in too.  
If he names not these for Protestants, where's the 
h Edant origines Ecclesiarum suarum●e voluant ordinem Episcoporum suorum etc. Tertull. lib. de de P●aesc. c. 32 Qui estis? quando & unde venistis? Quid in meo agitis non mei?— Mea est possessio? Olim possideo, prior possideo Ibidem c. 37.  Catalogue? In his Epistle to the Reader he tells of a Catalogue of their Professors, which the dispute in his Parish occasioned him to draw: and that featly did encourage him to go on with it, and put in, and put out: and this is the ten years work. In which time it seems he forgot what he was all the while about.  
The men he fawns on most, be Wickleffists, Hussits, and Leonists o● Waldensians, who themselves could not show their Catalogue of Predecessors. neither were they of the Protestant Religion, as my Lord of Chalcedon hath demonstrated in his book● de Authore & Essentia Religionis Protestanticae. But do you not think Maste● Birckbeck, that some in England have their eyes upon an ugly foul Consequence that attends the maintaining of such men, Wickleffists and Hussits, to have been in their times the Church of God, and the purer part of it? One of their tenets is, (and if they were. the Church of God, their Authority was not little,) that a man by a mortal sin looseth his 
a. Nullus est Dominus civilis, nullus est Praelatus, nullus est Episcopus, dum est in peccaro mortali Wickleff. art. 15. Conc. Const. sess. 8. & Hus ibidem sess. 15. a. 30.  dignity, whether it be Ecclesiastical or Temporal. another, that 
b. Wickleff· apud Waldens. tomo 1. l. 2. c 8, & 9 Hus in Conc Const. sess. 15. Praesciti non sunt partes Ecclesiae, cum nulla pars eius ab ea finaliter excidet, eo quod prae iest in●tionis charitas quae ipsam ligat non excidit. See the Protest Apol. tract 2 c. 2. sect. 4 & 5. and sect. 3 ●t is confessed also of the Waldenses, that they h●●d Neither Priest nor civil magistrate being guilty of mortal sin, enjoy their dignity or are to be obeyed.  none but the Predestinated be in the Church. Where such Maxims (and they be their Maxims,) be fixed in the mind, what obedience, what loyalty, what order can be expected either in Hierarchy or in Monarchy? Sure, where all sins are of their nature, 
c. Habeant filij Dei omne peecatum mortale esse, quia etc. Calu. l. 2. Inst. c 8. ●. 59 Wickleff. apud Wald● to. 2, de Sacram. c. 54 & seqq Lutherus vero in def. a●● 32. dixit omne opus hominis iusti esse peccatum, ex natura sua mortale. See Abbots, and whittak.  mortal, (another Maxim amongst amongst Puritans) a Prince that had subjects so instructed, had need look about him.  
But enough; to much much of this Waferer, is it not? Let us dismiss Birckbeck with his Evidence, and make an end of our own work. Ye● stay: take your Father's blessing before you go. Kneel you too, Mirth.  
Martinus 
d. Count Artic Lovan. these 27.  Lutherus. Haereticos seri● censemus & alienos ab Ecclesia Dei Swinglianos & Sacramentarios omnes, qui negànt Christi corpus & sanguinem ore carnali sumi in Venerabili Eucharistia.  
Fie, for shame: was this a godly course; to solicit men first, from th● Catholic faith and Church; then t● ride to Oxford to look out another (if any blind one might be found) i● D. Potter's library? Did you not 
e. Ne si fort esuas repetitum venerit olim Grex avium plumas moveat cornicula risum Fu●tinis nu●●data coloribus.  fear, when 
f. Coccius l. 8. a. 10.  Lutherans 
g h. Ibidem a. 4 Prot. Apol.  Wickleffists, and (h) Hussites should be heard to disclaim, as they do, from your Profession, that your nakedness would appear? The partridge, jeremy says, gathereth young which she hath not brought forth. He gathered riches & not in judgement; in the midst of his days he shall leave them: and his later end shall be a fool. A throne of glory of height from the beginning the place of our Sanctification. O Lord, the expectation of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be confounded. Ierem. 17. 

Perdix nimis contentiosum animal, notum est quanta aviditare ipsius contentionis currat in laqueum. Non enim disputare amant Haeretici, sed quoquo modo superare impudentissima pervicacia, ut congregent quae non pepererunt. Christianos' enim, quos maximè Christi nomine seducunt, iam per ipsius Christi Euangelium natos inveniunt, & faciunt illos divitias suas non sanè cum iudicio, sed cum temeritate▪ inconsiderata, Non enim intelligunt ibi esse veram & salubrem, & quodammodo germanam atque radicalem Christianam Societatem, unde istos separaverunt, quos ad suas diuit●as congregaverunt. S Augustin. lib. 13. contr. Faust. cap. 12. Et tanquam ille quem catech●zamus quaerere● & diceret, Quo ergo signo manifesto, adhuc paruulus & nondum vaiens liquidam discernere à tot erroribus veritatem; quo manifesto indicio tenebo Ecclesiam Christi in quem iam credere tanta rerum antea praedictarum manifestatione compellor? Sequi●ur idem Propheta, & tanquam motus animi eius ordinatissimè excipiens, docet eum, Ecclesiam Christi ipsam esse praedictam quae omnibus emine● & apparet. Ipsa enim est sedes gloriae de qua dicit Apostolus, Templum Dei Sanctum est quod estis vos. unde iste dicit, Sedes autem gloriae exaltata est, sanctificatio nostra. Propter hos enim motus paruulorum qui possunt seduci ab hominibus à manif●statione claritatis Ecclesiae, Dominus quoque providens a●t, Non potest civitas abscondi supra montem constituta; quia ubiquo sedes gloriae exaltata est sanctificatio nostra, ut non audiantur illi qui ad scissuras traducunt dicentes, Ecce hic est Christus, ecce illic. Parts enim ostendunt dicentes, ecce hic, ecce illic: cúm illa civitas super montem sit; quem montem, nisi ●um qui secundum Prophetiam Danielis ex paruulo lapide crevit, & factus est mons magnus, ita ut Impleret universam terram? Ibidem cap. 13.  
Stay. I had forgot a fine Argument. The Hussites held Scripture Ergo they were Protestants. The Arians held Scripture, Ergo they were Protestants. Thus you may prove a Lutheran to be a Caluinist: and he by turning it will prove you to be a Lutheran. an Arian by it will prove you to be an Arian, and every Heretic include your (if the Argument hold) within his Sect▪ and communion And if you plead that you contradict the Church of Rome; so did they.    
As the challenge of particular men doth appear manifestly to be vain when the proofs be looked into, so likewise doth the challenge of whole Churches. The Protestants have traveled over all the world, to seek; & find none: not a Church before Luther (since indeed they have corrupted some, as England for example,) whereof they can say This Church Was Protestant. They will tell you that there are diverse who do not acknowledge obedience to the See of Rome, (surely, a deep research! who knows not there have been too many Schismatics and Heretics? There must be Heresies. 
1. Cor. 11 ) but if you demand whether they will justify all the tenets of those Churches, they shrink the shoulders and say plainly, No. whereas the demand is for a Church or Churches whose tenets they will justify, and which reciprocally would justify their tenets.  
To say they were Protestant in the fundamentals, is both false, and insufficient. They say the same of us; yet confess we be not Protestant. You shall hear them speak of great multitudes of men, more than are in the Latin Church, (not sure more than in the Catholic, which doth speak all languages,) Nestorians, jacobites, armenians, Abassines or Aethiopians and Egyptian Christians: Greeks', and Muscovites. but idly.  
To justify the 
a. The Heresy of Nestorius is recorded by S. Augustine S. Dama●cen, Vincent. Lirinensis, Theodoret, etc.  Nestorians is to condemn the Council of Ephesus where their error was oecumenicallie 
b. And again in the Council of Chalc. act. 5.  condemned. And to justify the 
c. Their Errors be recorded, by Photius, Nicephorus, Prateolus, Baronius, jacobus Vitriacus, and Miraeus.  jacobites, 
d. By the same authors. Dicunt (Armeni) carnem Christi in divinitatem esse conversam, etc. Euthymius in Panoplia p. 2. t 20.  Armenians, 
e. By Co ignus de rebus Abassinorum.  Abassines & 
f. By Damasc. de Haeres. & Baronius, ad annum 452.  Egyptian Christians, is to condemn the great Council of 
g. Conc. Chalc. act, 5. Name & in duos filios disp●nsationis tentantibus dividere sacramentum, resistit hostiliter, & eos qui passibilis audent divinitatis unigenitum dicere, collegio sacerdotali detrudit, & confusionem sive commixtionem in duabus Christi naturis excogitantibus reluctatur, & coelestem vel alterius cuiusdam substanriae esse quam de nobis assumpsit sibi formam seruilem, delirantes, extermi●at: necnon & eos qui duas quidem ante unitionem unam vero post unitionem, naturas in Christo fabulose confingunt, anathematizare non cessat. etc. Concilium ibidem, de Leonis Epistola ad Flavian.  Chalcedon, and with it the whole Church. And the Grecians (with whom the Muscovites, you confess, agree,) when your communion was offered, 
h Censura Ecclesiae Orientalis. And in Coccius and Gualterius, you may see their frequent testimonies; and of the Africans, and Asians also, against you.  refused it. What then will you do with these names, Where be the men we look for? Where is the Catalogue of Protestantish Churches, in all former Ages?  
You tell us of Christians in Europe, in Africa, in Asia, and in America the new world. This we knew before. The Quaere was of yours. where were they?  
To say that these, some, have deposed their Errors, doth not answer the demand: but shows it is not answered. For, the thing looked after, is a Catalogue of such Churches as you will justify; and, which the Fathers would have allowed, as Orthodox: (of Heretical Churches every one can easily make a Catalogue; there be many 
i. By S. Aug. S. Epiphan. Pratel. Gualther. &c,  Catalogues already made:) whereas, if you confess that these Churches have deposed their error▪ (errors oecumenicallie condemned,) you confess withal, (a thing otherwise 
k. By the Authors above cited, it is manifest. The Nestorians held against the Council of Ephesus, and refused it. And the jacobites, Armenians, Abassins'▪ and Egyptians, all spotted with Eutichianisme, refused that of Chalcedon.  evident,) that once they did maintain them. and, if so, then by the judgement of the 
l. Euticheans and Nestorians were condemned by the Catholic and Universal Church.  whole Christian world the men were not Orthodox.  
Howbeit, had they become sound and Orthodox, it follows not that they would have subscribed to your Articles, or were Protestant. yea the contrary would follow. They have been indeed 
m. jacobites, Nestorians, Abassins', Russits, Greeks, and Armenians, have made overtures of returning into Communion with the See of Rome. The particulars are in Miraeus lib 1. c 18.  returning to the body from which they separated themselves, the Catholic and Universal Church; and were again 
n. The Grecians, Armenians, and Indians were united to the Church in the Council of Florence. Acta Conc. Flor. in Decret. Eug. Platina, Chalcondas, Aemilius. Under the name of Indians are the Abassins', and Egyptians. Prat. Gord. Vide Sand. Monarc. an. 1432. pag 556.  united some of them, which doth likewise hinder their standing in your Catalogue. But you cannot possibly find them in a state wherein writ them yours: much less can you truly say they professed your Religion (that which is now currant in England,) many 
o. The demand is of Protestants in all ages: men; whole Churches; or, one Church; and you must not forge your Evidence.  hundred years together.  
How many, and which, do still persist in their old Heresy or Schism, there is no need to look: since the men were not Protestant. The fewer, the better; no doubt: for you know that 
p. Galat. 5.  schismatics and 
q. Tit. 3.  Hereretickes (how 
r. Matth. 20.  great so ever the multitudes of them be,) be not saved. 
s. S. Aug. Epist. 152. hoc solo scelere.  Whosoever is divided from the Catholic Church, how laudably soever he seem to live, for this only crime that he is separated from the unity of Christ, he shall be excluded from life, and the wrath of God shall remain upon him.  
M. Waferer, where are you? mille ●ui Siculis errant in montibus—. you think I fell into this discourse for want of a particular answer to that you said in your Doctor's commendation. Repeat it, if you please, again; and I will discharge the debt.  Apologist. 
What this book speaks of Doctor featly who will regard? since it contrarily appears to the world; and and can yet be justified to the doubtful by witnesses now living, that he often discovered your Fisher's hooks, and took him with his own angle; he hath ever been Musket proof; he always put Sweets mouth out of relish: Eglestons simples could not work with him.  Censure. 
Hear you serve in, fantasticallie after your manner, the Catalogue (of Protestants? no: but) of your Doctor's Conferences. And the first, not in time but in the book, is that with the 2. Fathers of the Society. His Cause, which was (and but of late) engendered ex putri materia, coming (to molest and infect the world) out of the nasty sink of damned Errors, and pretending to great Antiquity with good and honourable descent, was called upon to give account thereof, and of such as had known and entertained it formerly in all ages through which it says it came. At the sight of which Question (after many shifts and much wriggling,) it became speechless; and, out of weakness falling to the ground, was giving up the foul ghost. When lo, the Doctor to restore and relieve it, bestirs himself, and puts out the Relation which you point at, and after it, Additions, and, Aremonstrance, and A Discussion. A defence. An Answer. A Reply. Another Reply. etc. So many, that the volume by the continual agitation of his sting, his style I should say, grew to be as big as pestilent. Magnum de modico malum scorpium terra suppurat: tot venena quot ingenia: tot pernicies quot & species Nicander scribit & pingit: & tamen unus omnium violentiae gestus de cauda nocere; quae cauda erit quodcunque de posthumo corporis propagatur & verberat.  
The name of this b. is in the forehead, in red and black characters. The Romish Fisher caught and held in his own Net. But, laqueus contritus est. The 
a. This is your book, S●●tes illa nodorum ve●●nata intrinietus venula subtilis, ar●uato impetu insurgens, hamatilo spiculum in●●mmo tormenti ratione restrangens  book Master Waferer, (though M. Fisher's Question be not,) was 
b A Reply to D. white and D. featly, anno 1625.  answered.  
I add, that it hath been proved by the confession of the learnedest of of Protestants, and such as have laboured to find out Protestant predepecessors, that before Luther there were 
c. De authore & Essentia Protestanticae Ecclesiae & Religionis Auth. R.S. Parisiis anno 1619.  none. So hard a thing it was for your Doctor, though he set a face on it and promised a buttery 
d. featly in the Conference, pag 14.  book of names, to show the Catalogue. And in the comparison of your doctrine to the Scripture, it hath appeared that you 
e. The Conference of the Catholic and Protestant Doctrine with the express words of holy Scripture. by R. S.D D. and extant now in English. See all o the Anchor o● Christian faith, by D. Worthinghton.  contradict it, directly, in many places; in so much that you refuse to stand unto the native and 
f. Suprà, pag. 293,  proper sense of God's words. So easy had it been for M. Fisher (had he been willing to divert from the Question proposed in writing) to have answered the Doctor's 
g. I charge you as you will answer it before Chris●— answer now, Whether you believe that Christ & his Apostles t●ught our faith or yours. featly Relat● pag. 29.  conjuration.  
The next of those you point at, is the Conference with M. Musket, whereof we spoke pag. 376. & seqq. look there. The third is his Conference in writing (that it is I suppose you mean,) with M. Sweet; where I find an Emblem of that within your head, the Vertigo. Long ago the Caluinists were on the 
h. 
Becanus le Circulo Caluinistilo.  
Form is not in matter, if the disposition fail: or, if the prime cause doth not concur.   wheel. The Catholics fear it not. He that believes the Scripture for the Church, and the Church for the Scripture, if the resolve into them diversly, winds not in a circle. The divine authority avouching the book, 
Motiwm principale. Motiwm subordinatum.  may be the formal motive inclining a man to believe both the books and the Church: and the proposition of the Church may dispose his understanding to believe that the books called Scripture (the Apocalypse for example, and the Epistle of Saint jude,) are avouched by divine authority. He that said 
i. 
S Aug con Epist, Fundam. c. 5.  
In locum traditoris Christi qui successerit, in Apostolorum actibus legimus; cui libro necesse est me credere, si credo Euangelio: quoniam utramque scriptutam similiter mihi Catholica commendat Authoritas. Ibidem. Vide eundem li. 2 de Doct. Christiana. c 8.   Ego veró Euangelio non crederem, nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret Authoritas, did not exclude divine Authority, but principally resolved into it; though the same act depended, as he professeth, on church-authority withal. When the words are examined you will find them to be of full weight. non crederem 
† Apocalypsi non crederem, nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae eommoveret authoritas. Infants baptizari posset & debere non crederem nisi me Cath. Eccl. commouere● authoritas. Baptizatos ab Haereticis, non esse rebaptizandos non crederem nisi me C. Eccl. come. authoritas. Are you moved without it?  nisi. and commo●eret authoritas Ecclesiae. and that Catholicae too.  
The fourth, is his Conference with M. Egleston, who did (as featly relates) undertake to prove against him that, for an Accident (quantity) to be supernaturally conserved without a subject, is no contradiction. Is there any? Will it be true, Quamtitas est; and Quantitas non est? It requires naturally a subject, true: but itself is not the subject. and some thing may supernaturally have less than it doth naturally 
k. A man cannot be without au●nal, because it is within his essence. The subject is not so within the essence of an accident. Some things are defined, simpliciter: some, per additamentum. See Arist. in 7. Met. c. 3. & ibidem S Tho.  require: as well as others have supernaturally more than they naturally do require.  
Our Saviour's humanity hath not the subsistence which were natural unto it; but another. It subsisteth in the Word.  
Doctor Eglestons' Argument, as it appears by featly, was grounded in this, that God could supply the action of the second cause. Whereunto your Doctor answered that it was true in genere causae efficientis, 
In Featlies' Relations, pag. 132.  non in genere sustentantis. this was his distinction. It was replied, that sustentatio was actio, and omnis actio est causae efficientis. Your Doctor answered, Omnis actio non est causae efficientis. adding that, there be three other causes have also their action, (I cite the words of his own Relation,) and concur 
† A ver●all shift, unworthy of a Doctor: in the trial of a point of faith.  activelie to their effect▪ and his first instance is in matter.  
Stay Doctor! What? matter, potentia passiva, pure passiva, doth that concur actiuè? is it an agent? hath it activity? Is this doctrine currant now in our English Universities? I do not think it. Sure I am that it escaped the Peripatetics, whose slowness could not apprehend it. Their books must be mended, for passive is active (it had been a matter lamentable to have said this in the Grammar School,) & as well, active may be passive. The efficient unde motus as such may be mobile the subject, because the subject now is unde motus the efficient. This is one of the Doctors Victories, which he hath Chronicled himself: wherein I must needs say he proceeds consequenter. For, where suffering is doing, vinci there is vincere. 
The efficient doth agere by its form; and is moved to, but in another kind by the finis: whereupon there might be found a reason to extend the word motion to their causality. But to call the causality of matter by that name, or by the name of a Physical action (Grammaticalis, makes not to this purpose, the Disputant never meant it knowing it to be impertinent) is a mere abuse of words. Materia non est principium actionis sed se habet ut subiectum recipiens actionis effectum. Finis vero & Agens & Forma, se habent ut actionis principium, sed ordine quodam. Nam primum quidem principium actionis est Finis qui movet agentem. Secundo verò Agent. Tertio autem Forma eius, quod ab agente applicatur ad agendum. Quam●os & ipsum agens performam suam agate, ut patet in artificialibus. Artisex enim movetur ad agendum a Fine, & C.S. Tho. 1. p q 105. a. 5.   
After this last Answer given by Doctor featly (they be the Doctors own words) in the very words above written or to the like effect, 
featly p. 133.  Doctor Egleston notwithstanding his former great vaunt, 
Of this disputation with M Wood, see above, pag. 468.  was content to give over his Argument: & the company entreated Doctor featly to oppose M. Wood etc. Thus the Chronicler of his own proclaimed triumph, for which your lines adore him.  
These Conferences are all in that volume. That which S. E. looked on, is not there; but in another book called the Sacrilege: wherein the Doctor would seem to have begun his Catalogue, in one point; by naming men, in every Age, that did acknowledge and avouch a Divine precept obliging the Laiety to both kinds to be contained in those words of Scripture which the Protestants do cite for that purpose. I said, he would seem to do it: for he that reads the book will find no such 
a. Metaque feru●dis evitata rotis.  matter as he pretends. And yet, had he done it, this had been, he knows, far from exhibiting that which was harangued for, or performing the task wherein he was engaged; which was, to produce and make good a Catalogue, of Protestant believers, in all points, and all ages.  
Notwithstanding, having made a noise, he gins (as if Hercules labours had been laboured over again,) to shake his knotty club; and after a public challenge, solemnly proclaimed and in bitter terms against M. Fisher (as; 
In his challenge. pag 252.  his leaden treatise, his ragged style, his white liver, his Midas Reader, his collapsed Ladies, the distracted brains of the penner, etc.) he casts him of contemptibly, to come into the Relation of his Encounter with my Lord.  
Movet ecce 
† Sophisticen.  tridentem  
Postquam vibrata pendentia RETIA dextra  
Nequicquam effudit; nudum ad spectacula vultum  
Erigit, & tota fugit agnoscendus arena.  
This is all: Master Waferer. I find no more Victories in your book, yet one more he might get, you think; if to help you, who hitherto have endeavoured to help him; he set on me. But the meaner Scholar I am, & the greater he conceives himself to be, the less I need to fear. Genuinum fregit in illis. Bigger are but butterflies in his esteem; and eagles, you know, catch not after flies.  
In tauros Libyci ruunt leones  
Ne sint papilionibus molesti.  
This motto he made to be inscribed in his Escocheon, in the place where he took leave of other Adversaries, to come to fight the combat which we talk of. You and I, at most be but Seconds; and, if I be no better than you, very poor ones. Such as a Scholar without arrogancy may think no great honour to overmatch. If twenty year ago he were a match as you pretend, for D. Smith, the now Bishop of Chalcedon; & hath laboured and exercised himself in Controversies ever since; for him now, to crush me, were no conquest. I am not I confess, more able then S. E. who did answer, 
Waferers Elogium of S. E his Notes, which are above, p. 9 & seq.  you say, but stammering lies so poorly as not worth confutation. his sophistry is slender and boyish. The ABC. of Logic may teach him. And would you have your Doctor, your Champion, so much above S. E. to come, and with his host of Paralogismes, in your armour, lest he be known; to set on me? Egregiam vero laudem, & spolia ampla!  
Yet however it happen, know this Master Waferer, Statuam quam erexisti non adoramus. I honour the truth; I believe the Son of God; I am a Catholic, so assured of the divine providence directing his Church, that he who doth oppose it shall never be my Oracle. Your censer shall not come into my hand, though my Censure come into your Doctors, and be perchance, torn by it.  Apologist. 
Sensere quid mens rite, quid indoles Nutrita faustis sub penetralibus Posset.  Censure. 
Novimus, expertis crede, 

QVANTUS  
In clypeum assurgat, quo turbine torqueat hastam.   

Occidit, óccidit,  
Spes omnis, & Fortuna nostri Nominis.  
Fuimus 
* Is the Barchelour a Briton?  Troes, fuit Ilium.    Apologist. 
How unlike then is this report that Smith could overbear him? If surely he had no other tools than these wherewith to quit himself of those blows were given him, no question but he was soundly hammered. And whereas his Lordship's Chaplain seeks to salve up the matter with this afterclap (the Relation) those which but overlook it must needs confess, it hath done him this second injury, to publish his weakness.  Censure. 
Smith, and tool, and hammered? quam frigid! Was it so soon out of your mind that an impenetrable adamant suffereth nothing, 
Waf p. 94.  whilst the hand which offereth it violence is disabled with its own blow? This it is, when a man hath the luck to light otherwile on a good metaphor, but hath not wit enough to see where to put it. Things come into your imagination, as images through a little hole into a dark room; where men are seen walking with their heels upward. To rectify them, art is necessary there; and reflection, here: which if the Reader use, he will find my Lord, above; and your Doctor, under, in the combat. And these two Writings, of S. E. and the Bachelor that speaks to you, to be so fare from discovering any weakness, that had our pens been answerable to his worth, this book might remain to posterity a living monument of his success in the Dispute. But this our pains to him was not needful; himself thereby did provide unto himself a fairer, in the soul of M. Knevet, who taking light, and conceiving life in the Conference, and ●ince dead in peace, is engaged now to thank him in eternity.  Apologist. 
Doctor Featlies' able service to God's Church is fare to eminent to be eclipsed by any Douai Satire.  Censure. 
In these times, when Mirth writes Divinity, I may say as the Satirist did, Difficile est Satyram non scribere. though the Readers will find the book of S. E. to be fare from that nature. Whilst you talk here of your Doctors service to eminent to be eclipsed, you bring again into our mind how partially (not to say absurdly) you exalt him so high as to think his excellency appears unto the world: and how irreligiously you have incensed so many lines (all, in this Pamphlet,) to the Chimaera of his opinion, which you think sits in Majesty within the clouds. Caput inter nuhila. conduit. See above pag 448 and pag. 120.  Apologist. 
The Papists doctrine teacheth a pretty kind of deceit called equivocation.  Censure. 
That which is properly equivocation, hath for it the authority of God and man. No book, I do not except Scripture, but hath it. One thing there is, which some think, is, others think is not, indeed, equivocation; that I mean which you glance at when you speak of mental reservation: which, however it may have private abbetters, as other opinions have, is no tenet of the Church.  
But answer me one Question Master Waferer; He that should say this is my body, when he meant only that it was the figure of his body, should he not equivocate? And, if a world of sincere people, taking his words plainly as they come (without explication) from his mouth, should be deceived by this equivocation, what would be thought of it? Reflect upon the matter well. The lie which you add to this your Censure of equivouocation, is censured elsewhere. it is this, that the Papists Doctrine will not stick to licence the loudest lie, so it be advantageous to the cause of Rome.  Apologist. 

Supra pag. 526,  There have been those impudent pens which durst traduce the most eminent patterns of Christianity, and affirm that worthy B●za, and Doctor King, recanted their Religion with their last breath.  Censure. 
If they did, the better it was for them. Whether M. Whether M.T. B. reconciled Doctor King, as I have heard; or did not; imports not our cause. Lupus, the proverb says, pilum mutat non mentem.  
As for Beza, what a pattern of Christianity he was being a Protestant, this white paper will not have me paint upon it. Some thing of him, & of the rest of your great patterns, & out of Protestant Authors, you may read in Master 
a. Protestant's Apology. At their names in the Index you have direction to the places. See also Luther's life etc. with a further discourse touching Melancthon, B●cer, Beza, etc. By the same Author. printed at ●. Ome●●, anno 1624.:  Brierleys' book, and more might easily be added, fouler than the ink that were to  it, if men were disposed to draw them to the life. Such goblins you should see, walking, at once, (did the print conspire in it) in many places, and so horrid, (were the inside indeed turned outward) as would make many pale, to look upon them.  Apologist. 
And now Sir S. E. not to dally with you any longer, (hitherto, true, you did nothing else,) I am to let the world know (a merire world belike, where Mirth is general crier,) that our Doctor is not that flincher, nor Master Knevet that turnecoate as you story them.  Censure. 
Proiicit ampullas. But it is to late now; for featly is such a flincher, as he is storied. The story of his tergiversation is true. Lions the 
b. Arist. Hist. Animal l. 9 c. 44.  Philosopher saith, sometimes do run away. And M. Knevet thereupon did turn also. But to give loser's leave to speak, what evidence do you preten●?  Apologist. 
For the liklihood of your Lords challenging Doctor featly in England, the Reader may reflect on my answer to your 23. page.  Censure. 
That he was challenged, was not told you. That featly refused to meet him in Conference, twice in England; once, before a L. another time before two B. is true. The conferences were undertaken at the request of others, who remember the circumstances well enough: & so doth your Doctors own Conscience too. But we must return forsooth, to the beginning of your book, for another story, where we may look for evidence to the contrary, as long as your Doctor was looked for by Master Knevet, when he was to defend his Cause; and not find it. Where is it in your book? in the sixth page. well; I am at the leaf; speak on.  
Waferer. In England there were two Proclamations out against his Lordship to attach him, and is it likely that a man lurking to save his life would (a great while before this happened; many years 
c. It was before M. D. Smith was Bishop, in the time of his Predecessor my Lord William of Chalcedon.  before:) send two challenges (one lie, as big as two,) to my Lord of Canturburies' Chaplains in his house?  Censure. 
Is this all? so, than we have heard the first part of the proclamation. On crier, to the second thing which you were to signify to the world. yet stay. Now I am come to the former place whence I went, I find another piece, appertaining to this half.  Apologist. 
Where you accuse him for declining a second conflict in Paris, I answer (that is well done) that in Paris he could not meet his Lordship, (why so? he was sent unto, and as soon as he was found, was called upon, from my Lord. see the Relation pag. 119. & seq.) because his honour had so contrived the matter that he left the town before D. featly had leave from the Ambassador, whose Chaplain he was, to encounter him.  Censure. 
How? Not leave, from the Ambassador, in France? This excuse is to silly to acquit your Champion from cowardice. Not leave? Belike the Ambassador knew how he had disgraced himself before, when he brought his arguments in a paper, & Master Porie for pity helped him out. Can he get leave in England, of his Lord of Canterbury, to dispute, so many times: and afterwards to print his Disputations, of Religion; & not get leave in France, of an Ambassador? Fie, Fie, Waferer; the more you stir, the worse— it is. Some other would have feigned a better tale to save his honour.  Apologist. 
That our Doctor did neither distrust his cause nor himself, in respect of him, is apparent, (that's good: now or never a demonstration, or some clear argument; for the game is at a dead lift. and your Doctors credit hangs, inter sacrum saxumque:) because after this Conference with D. Smith he had a Disputation at Paris with D. Bagshawe: (alac; this is no demonstration;) a man of greater note (did featly tell you so?) and antiquity than his Lordship, (well: your inference?) and therefore your slanders and detractions (here is a bitter storm,) are groundless and improbable.  Censure. 
And therefore— improbable. Is this all? vix urceus. I looked by your brave undertaking for a conviction by clear evidence. this, neither brings in the thing looked for, nor hangs together, Master featly disputed since with D. Bagshawe; Ergo, he disinherited not himself in regard of Doctor Smith. As well you might have said, Ergo he disinherited himself (& the tergiversation was a sign of it,) in regard of D. Smith. seeing that, neither then, nor since though meeting others, he durst meet him. And, Ergo he took D. Smith to be the greater Scholar: as not daring to encounter him any more, though he had leave and list and opportunity to 
a. I do not think him willing to see a true Relation of that Conference, abroad in print  try himself, on some others.  Apologist. 
As for Master Knevet that he died no Papist as you report, but a most zealous Protestant, one Master Russ●l, & diverse other without exception, yet living are ready daily to testify against you.  Censure. 
divers other? Yourself, and Featl●e: be not you the diverse other? If you be; you may strike out again those words, without exception. He speaks in his own cause; and makes use of you to vent his inventions. In that regard your testimony cannot serve: and in another too, Qui s●mel verecundiae limites transilijt—. It is not long since you were taken with a lie.  
But, Master Russell; where dwells he, in V●opi●? One who was in Paris at the time of the Conference, writes, (I have it under his hand) thus. Master Knevet after the Disputation told me that he did like and think better of the Catholic Religion. He much commended M. D. S. new L. Bishop of Chalcedon, for his temper; confessing that Master featly was to weak to undertake him: and that he thought few men could have spoken better than my Lord did. He disliked M. Featlies' carriage, because it was immodest. He highly commended the solitary and virtuous lives of the Carthusians and other Religious persons. In fine he told me that he would go for Italy, and providing himself for the journey took with him four or five letters in his commendation; from Catholic Doctors of this town to their friends and acquaintance there. And I heard afterwards, that in Venice he died a Catholic.  

It is still to be seen in their Library, now at Arras College in Paris, with his name by himself written in it.  Another, who was at the Conference; thus. What opinion M. Knevet had of the Disputation and the Disputant, appeared sufficiently in this, that he thereupon brought his Bible of the Heretics translation, which he had brought out of England with him, to D. Smith's lodging being then in Cambray College, giving it to the common Library. But when M. featly according to his promise was to come into the list and answer before D. Smith, he like a coward cried craven, and quite forsook the field: for M. Knevet having been three days in seeking him as he said, could hear no news of him. But, saith he, I see will enough how th● world goeth: and so resolved to become a Catholic. which Religion, he did afterwards profess in his life time, and also died in it, at V●mice: being married after the Catholic manner to a Catholic Gentle woman.  
Hear be two against your one. I will not name them, till I know where to hear of your Master Russel, who (if he will manifest himself and abide the trial) may know their names time enough though it be not hard to guess what measure those are like to have (if Puritan prescribe it,) who come in to testify against you. And in the mean time, the Reader desirous of further satisfaction, may, if he please, inquire of M. Doctor Rainer, who life's in Paris at Aras College, and was himself at the Conference, & acquainted with M. Knevet, what he knows in the matter.  Apologist. 
Your courtesy in lending me this work of your friend S. E. hath made you the occasion of a great d●ale of charity, which hath cleared both our Doctor and our cause. In requital of the large encomium you gave the author, I have justified our Doctor's merit; from whose esteem he seeks to derogate. In some lines my pen may, seem to gall him, but I'll make no Apology.  Censure. 
You will do well indeed to forbear making more Apologies; for your cannot make them well. But what charity is that, you talk of? your diligence hath laid open the nakedness of your beggarly cause, call you that charity? For us to lay it open; that men detest and abhor so fowl an heresy; and to defend those who maintain our Saviour's doctrine, and the cause of God, this (Master Waferer) is charity. This virtue love's God above all: and riseth up when there is need, in defence of His and his servants, honour. It takes unto it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole armour of God, and arms itself to the casting twne of vain imaginations and ecurie high thing that exalteth itself ●●ainst the knowledge of God.  
But, you have cleared you say your ●●use. Because perhaps, by your meres it appears a mere fiction which ●efore your Masters had acknowledged to be a mere figure. Yet sometimes, by your leave, you would have ●●st a cloud over it, being ashamed that men should see their conceit naked, bread-a-figure●: no more. ●ou are ashamed of this. If you mea●e other clearing, that is, giving clear answers as in the beginning you did profess to do, to distinctions, sure you ●aue not made any thing clear, unnes it be this that indeed you cannot answer. Hear and there, you have cavilled at a few pieces of the Relation: ●hat is all I find in your long Pamphlet. Wherefore I may tell you as ●aint Augustine once told a Grammarian who trifled in like manner, Si ●ropterea respondisti quia tacere noluisti, non quidem ad omnia, sed tamen respo● disti.  Apologist. 
If the body be substantially in the Sacrament, then is there a tr● 
a. The like Confession there is in D. Morton: and is cited above, pag. 293.  Sacrifice: and if so, then pro v● vis & defunctis. if for the dead, than s● such as are capable of release; and consequently for release of Souls out of Purgatory.  Censure. 
Let me make up the Syllogism.  
But the body is substantially in th● Sacrament, by the testimony of o●● Saviour himself, This is my body. Mat● 26, This is my body which is given f●● you. Luk. 22. This is my body which broken FOR you. 1. Cor. 11. All the W●ferers in the world cannot prove th●● was a mere Wafer.  
Ergo there is a true Sacrifice, a● FOR, pro, vivis & defunctis, etc.  
The Apology having been lo●● time drawing towards an end, is the last period now, giving up t●● Ghost. The faith it pleads for, is substance this, vizt, that is not o● Lords body which he said was his body: ●●d the Author's Spirit is Protestan●sh, for he presumes that he discerns (the body,) better then the Catholic and Universal Church that was ●●fore Caluin, could. If now at his ●●st Apologetical gasp, he would but ●●de an act of Hypocrisy to his Pro●●ssion, the Continuator of Acts and monuments might write his name in ●●d letters.  Apologist. 
For my part it shall be part 〈◊〉 my continual thanksgiving to him in ●hom only we can see light, that we ●●ue not so learned Christ, but can better ●●scerne of the Lords body.  Censure. 
O the Saint!  Apologist. 
Vale.  Censure. 
Longum jucunde Vale, Vale. Ah! littles Toys! away away, ●ollow your Master. If I have now & ●hen smiled in his company, it was ●is company drew me. Being quit ●f it I return to serious thoughts alaine;  Et Laet longum valedico Nugis. Apologist. 
Hic Rhodus.  Censure. 
Mirth's.  
But S.E. told us of another.  Apologist. 
Hic saltus.  Censure. 
Out of the frying pan into the fire.  Exit Magister. Exit Baccalaureus.