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 vt Psalm 33 testatur dixit facta sunt Ibidem Item Irenaeus ait Quomodo autem rursus dicunt carnem in corruptionem deuenire non percipere vitam quae à corpore sanguine Domini alitur Hic iterum audimus corpus nostrum eo cibari corpore sanguine Domini vt in aeternum viuat non corrumpatur vt Haeretici somniabant Irenaeus loquitur de corporali manducatione cibatione corporis tamen vult cibum illum esse corpus sanguinem Domini Ibidem He brings there also the Sacramentarians Euasions and refutes them out of Irenaeus words cleere plaine in so much that it caÌ„not Si quispiam mihi persuadere potuisset in sacrameÌ„to praeter paneÌ„ verum ego captum me video nulla euadendi via relicta textus enim Euangelij nimis apereus est potens Epist ad Argentin habetur tomo 7. in Epist Farrag be auoided auouching withall that it was the Fathers tenet So likewise doth Melancthon 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 auncient Church which affirmes the bodie to be preseÌ„t in the supper I iudge it to haue the testimonie of Scripture Those who stood on Featlies side were such as by Apostacie had gonne out of the true Church Archidiaconus Andegauensis anno 1035. Docuit paruulos non esse baptizandos teste Guit mundo eiusdem temporis scriptore Hanc autem Haeresim esse constat vniuersalis ecclesiae testimonio idemque fatentur Angli Protestantes Berengarius who Malmesb. l. 3. recanted Sacerdos Pastor de Lutterworth anno 1371. Wickleff Archidiaconus VVittembergensis Lutheri discipulus Carolstadius Pastor Tigurinus Swinglius Ex monacho Apostata Oecolampadius Nouiodunensis Deus adeo hunc Haereticum percussit vt desperata salute daemonibus inuocatis 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 beene Papists as they speake before they fell into their Heresies is declared out of their owne authors in the booke de Auth. Prot. eccles l. 2. c. 11. Caluin See the Censure pag. 274. Iudas and that great Apostata the See the Censure pag. 274. Deuil I do not mention Touching this Bertrame reade the Plea for the Reall Presence against Sir Humfrey Linde by I. O. Bertram because he that makes any speach in him Caluinisticallie ProtestaÌ„t in this matter doth withall make him coÌ„tradict himself it is the same of that Concerning this Homilie and the Author see the Prudentiall Balance l. 1. c 19. in Odo and Alfrick c. 22. n. 4. Homilie which is cited as Elfricks and thereby casts him of The Iudge of Controuersies is according to our Aduersaries themselues either the scripture or the Spirit If wee goe with the Controuersie to the Scripture to our Sauiour speaking in it the cause is ours This is my bodie which is broken for you Which words if they be certainlie true in a proper and literall sence then wee are to yeeld the whole cause reall Presence propitiatorie Sacrifice and Adoration saith D. MortoÌ„ the last who wrot in England before Waferer of this subiect I haue said oft and now repeate the same againe that the litterall sence or letter cannot be retained in these words of Christ Cited p. 293. This is my bodie without establishing the Papisticall transubstantiation saith Beza If we go with the Controuersie to the Spirit in the Church we gaine the Cause too for all knowne Churches in Luthers time did beleeue and professe it If to the Spirit in the first Protestantes Luther and his Disciples the Cause is ours If wee consider diligentlie the circumstances of the text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 my owne bodie that which is deliuered broken crucified for you and of the blood in like manner vt supra pag. 11. wee are more and more confirmed in our tenet If wee reade the Fathers wee finde theÌ„ to be ours the Lord of Plessis Mornay had obiected out of them by the help of his Ministers what he could but he is fullie answered by the worthie Cardinall Peron in a iust tome of this subiect onlie which booke he were to refute that would laie claime to Antiquitie in behalf of the Sacramentarian Heresie Moreouer that our tenet of the Reall presence of our Sauiours bodie vnder the signes was the tenet of Antiquitie the Church tells vs the Church I say in Luthers daies and before a thousand yeers together in which Church there haue beene innumerable great Schollers examining Recordes reading the Fathers comparing and considering the text of Scripture and this Church tells vs the Fathers their predecessors taught them as they teach vs. Why should wee not beleeue them in a matter so plainlie deliuered in the Scripture rather then Daniel Featlie or Oecolampadius or Iohn Caluin If you will moue vs with Authoritie bring greater Authoritie If you will moue vs with Scripture bring plainer Scripture and more worlds openlie in plaine termes interpreting it against vs. The Authoritie of one Deuine of a Nation will not serue against a world The Doctour obiecteth S. Augustine but against S. Augustine as hereafter will appeare He obiecteth Tertullian and Origen and against Tertullian and Origen they in this point were not diuided from the world But had Origen or Tertullian beene opposite in their opinioÌ„ who so mad as to follow them against so great an authoritie as the Church To oppose a lesse Authoritie to a greater thereby to think to winne the cause is absurd If Authoritie can moue the greater it is the more it moues To vrge against the Church the words of any in As when a man speakes of the practicall 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 interprete hâ—s words of a meere speculatiue dictio or vocatio Qui est à terra panis percipiens vocationem Dei iam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex
THE RELECTION OF A CONFERENCE TOVCHING THE REALL PRESENCE OR A BACHELOVRS CENSVRE Of a Masters Apologie for Doctour Featlie By L. I. B. of Art of Oxford Psal 67.31 Jncrepa feras arundinis AT DOWAY By LAVRENCE KELLAM M.DC.XXXV THE PREFACE IT was when I liued in Oxford and I think it is still the custome for him who defends in Deuinitie to make first a Supposition wherein such as come to heare that exercise may see the State of the Questiō which is to be disputed By this meanes the Defendant laies his Cause open to a faire tryall and diuers Auditors not yet perfect in the knowledge of such matters are better inabled to vnderstand and vnderstanding to iudge betwixt him and his Opponent that vndertakes to perswade the contrarie I was thinking to conceaue my Preface in that manner like a Supposition it had beene to good purpose considering that some may come to see this Booke or Conference who being catechized by Puritās neuer knew the true State of the Question betwixt vs and them in the point of the Reall Presence But those with whō I am to deale will not permitt such a discourse excepting that it is against I know not what lawe My intention is not to write a Booke of the Blessed Sacrament that Argument deserues a better pen and is excellentlie treated by diuers worthie Catholike Deuines but to maintaine the iust honour of the defenders of it traduced scornefullie jeered by a Precisian on the behalf and by the consent of Doctour Featlie Whose nicenes shall not hinder me from doing that which doth confessedlie appertaine to the Sustentants part And yet I meane withall to keepe my self punctuallie to the matter without running out into new for that were to make the busines infinite or bringing Arguments for our tenet for they with whō I deale would then report that I chang parts and pretending to be a Defendant come a Disputant Doctor Featlie in a Challeng of his In his Challēg to M. Fisher. resembles a Controuertist to a Sawier who till he hath gonne thorough keepes himself to the same line and imputes vnto his Aduersarie that he neuer pierced into the heart of any Controuersie Whereas himself Master Featlie I meane was the man that moued the sawe out of the line and ranne into an other distinct matter when he was not able to giue satisfaction in the former which had beene the Cōtrouersie betwixt thē 2. Their disputation was of a Catalogue of Protestants in all ages and he leauing that challengeth his Aduersarie to dispute of Communion in both kinds Which is a way to runne ouer Controuersies but not to make an end of Controuersies Logicians nūber it amongst the faults of a Disputant It is a tacite yeelding of the cause I haue taken a Ministers imporportunitie made me the Sawe into my hands and am if we regard the Controuersie vpon the vpper side my Aduersaries being still in errour be in the pit The lines Featlie drew they be his Arguments deliberatlie chosen by him for the best these which I am to meddle in If they do not leaue pulling wee shall in time come to the heart of this Controuersie So they keepe themselues to their owne lines The matter of the Conference was not Transubstantiation but the Reall presence onlie So my Lord of Chalcedon did expresse Supra pag. 7. himself and Master Featlie to the same purpose Doctor Smith saith D. Feat in his Relat pag. 288. he distinguishing betwixt the Questions of Reall presence and Transubstantiation determined the point in Question to be this whether the bodie and blood of Christ were trulie and substantiallie in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine My Lord Defended the affirmatiue videlicet that it is there trulie and substantiallie that is to say according to the substāce of the thing Master Featlie vndertooke the contrarie videlicet that it is not there trulie and substantiallie Feat pag. 289 not according to the substance of our Sauiours naturall bodie and blood The words of Institution which Featlie did obiect be these This is my bodie Matt. 26 this is my blood c. which wordes he saies must needes be taken in a sence that makes against the Reall presence In this proposition or enunciation Hoc est corpus meum this is my bodie It is the like of the other wordes Hic est sanguis meus this is my blood there is to be considered the subiect the predicate or attribute the determination of the predicate and the copula or note of idētitie Four things in the four words The Subiect is Hoc the Predicate is Corpus the determination of it Meum the copula the verbe Est The Subiect or first word Hoc doth not of it self import bread rather then bodie or bodie rather then bread it is indifferent Significat saith the Doctour of the Schooles substantiam in communi sinc qualitate id est forma determinata It signifieth a substance in common without the qualitie that is the determinate forme Suppose a chalice before me and that I point towards it saying This is I may to make vp the proposition say gold or wine or blood without changing the first word This. If I adde blood it contracts and determines the subiect This which before was vncontracted and vndetermined to one particular thing if I saie wine it contracts it to an other if I saie gold it is contracted to a third This is blood this is wine this is gold The word Est is a verbe substantiue that signifies identitie or connexion which connexion or identitie cannot be conceaued without the extreames identified or connected which be the thinges signified by the subiect and the predicate And the references of the subiect to the attribute and the attribute to the subiect be founded it it Whence it comes that it is not possible to know what the Subiect determinatlie relates vnto being of it self indetermined till the predicate or attribute be also knowne because vntill then neither the terminus nor the ratio fundandi the connexion is knowne The same verbe or copula doth also consignifie the time for which the connexion is exercised which time presupposing the connexion for it is the modus of it and may varie the connexion perseuering Petrus est fuit erit albus doth presuppose likewise both the extreames This is manifest to him that lookes well on it because it presupposeth the connexion which connexion doth presuppose the saide extreames as before hath beene obserued Ipsū 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.
is taken improperlie It is true that if it were taken improperlie according to the thing signified by it the proposition were figuratiue or improper but it is false euen in the iudgment of the learnedest of your owne men so ignorant you are in the cause you vndertake that it is so taken The word corpus I repeate the same againe is not taken improperlie according to the thing by it signified not as the word vulpes in your proposition which is your great Masters instance in this very matter Herodes est vulpes no. But properlie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that substance quam cruci affixam in sepulchro depositam Verbū suscitauit à mortuis de qua suscitata dictum est videte manus meas pedes meos contrectate me videte nam Spiritus carnem ossa non habet prout me conspicitis habere quam denique transtulit in coelos inde reddendam terris postremo aduentu denique quicquid dici potest ad describendū circumscriben dūque suis veris proprietatibus illud ipsum indiuiduum for that substance which being nailed to the Crosse and laid in the sepulcher the Word raised from the dead of which substance it is said See my hands and my feete feele me and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see I haue Moreouer that substance which h◠caried into heauen to render it againe a◠the last comming and finallie what eue◠can be said to describe and circumscribe the very same indiuiduall substance with it's true propertie So your Chamier l. 10. c. 2. confessing Corpus to be by our Sauiour taken litterallie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not in a borrowed but in the natiue sence howeuer you Master waferer will haue it not to be taken heere in it's natiue but in a borrowed sence and the proposition this which you speake of therefore to be figuratiue because the word that is the predicate is so taken I omit to note further how you be troubled with an equiuocation of a speach figuratiue according to the manner hauing not wit enough to distinguish the modus essendi which is in the obiect from the modus significandi which is in the word or speach or to know vnder what referēce a word hath proprietie vnder what it hath not how and when these denominations be pure or vnpermixte But I haue now giuen you occasion enough for for a Scholler to reflect vpō the matter On you go to seeke and if you cannot finde to make absurdities Pugnantia secum Frontibus aduersis componere Apologist S. E. seekes to iustifie that answer of his Lords of a figure mixt of a figuratiue and proper action for he saith that the same speech may be proper and figuratiue as a garment of a mingled colour is white and black but let him know that it is not the same speech if either the signification or the manner of signifying be changed Censure you and your Doctour in his Relatiō purposelie inuolue things that in thēselues are cleere My Lord had said not of a figure but of a speach that of our Sauiour vnles you eate the flesh c. that according to S. Augustine it was mixt which he declared at large in the Conference M. Featlie himself takes notice of it telling vs that he said our Sauiours speech Feat Relat. pag. 294 vnles you eate c. is proper and figuratiue according to S. Augustin figuratiue according to the manner of eating but according to the matter it self proper and so it is a mixt speach of a proper and a figuratiue thus your Doctor himself at last relates it obscuring the same againe presentlie in the accommodation of the distinction to the thing in Question What that is which you would teach S. E. touching the speach of our Sauiour which is not meerelie figuratiue euen by your owne confession neither I nor you know The Holie Bible is still the same though there be in it both proprietie of speach and figures A mingled garment is still one though there be in it white and black and a proposition which is verified improperlie according to the manner of the obiects being which is vsuallie by the wordes consequentlie as it were imported and properlie according to the substance of the thing directlie signified is still one and the same proposition Apologist Why doth S. E. instance in that proposition 1. Cor. 15. it is sowne a naturall bodie it is raised a spiritual to proue that a proper sence and a figuratiue may be in one proposition Censure It had beene requisite you had first beene able to vnderstand what is said before you began to take vpon you to refute it S. E. brings examples to shew that it is not peculiar to S. Augustine onlie to call a thing spirituall in regard of the manner though substantiallie or according to the substance it be not so for in like manner Sainct Ierome doth call on Sauiours flesh which is flesh indeed and reallie spirituall in regard of the manner which in the Sacrament it hath Spiritualis atque diuina caro de qua Christus dixit Caro mea vere est cibus c. And S. Paul for the like reason doth call the bodie after it is risen againe spirituall seminatur corpus animale surgit corpus spirituale Confer pag. 47. His words are And as S. Austine heere calls this speach figuratiue in regard of the manner though the same speach in regard of the substance receaued be not figuratiue So doth S. Ierome call the flesh of our Sauiour in the Eucharist spirituall in regard of the manner though the substance of flesh be not a Spirit and the Apostle tearmes the bodie spirituall in regard of the condition it shall haue in the Resurrection though for substance it consistes of matter still and by corporeum differ from a spirit intrinsicallie as much thē as it doth nowe So he Next vnto this willfull mistake you enter into a discourse of diuerse senses in one and the same place which discourse laies your ignorance more open but is little to the matter of the Conference That there are not two senses a figuratiue and a proper in one place of Scripture you will proue VVaf. pag. 36. you say If you meant to proue that one and the same place cannot be figuratiue secundum quid in regard of the māner absolutè proper as hath beene defended before in seuerall occasions you quicklie forget what you meant to do or were not able to do what faine you would haue donne for you bring not anie argument at all to make it good Of litterall senses in generall you write something confusedlie and seeme to denie there may be manie in one place or text of Scripture but not one argument appeares to proue the thing which wanted proofe vzt that one and the same place could not be figuratiue secundum quid and proper absolutè or simpliciter If you meant to
concauum Differunt autē haec quoniam simum quidem vna acceptum est eum materia est enim simum conca◠us nasus concauitas vero absque materia sensibili Si cuucta igitur naturalia ita vt simum dicuntur vt nasus oculus facies caro os omnino animal folium radix In definitione enim carnis ossis oportet quod ponatur calidum frigidum aliquo modo cōtemperatū similiter in aliis S. Tho. ibidem Aristot cortex omnino planta nullius enim eorum ratio absque motu sed semper habet materiam manifestum est quomodo in naturalibus oportet ipsum quid est quaerere definire cur etiam de quadam anima speculari Naturalis est quaecunque non sine materia Accordinglie he doth elswhere define a (b) li. 2. de Anima t. 4. 5. Actus primus corporis organici c. soule and as for singulars he saith they cannot be defined (c) Aristot l. 7. Metaphys t. 35. Totius verò vt circuli huius singularium alicuius sensibilis aut intelligibilis dico autem intelligibiles quidem vt Mathematicos sensibiles verò vt aeneos ligneos horum inquam non est definitio sed intellectione aut sensu cognoscuntur cum verò abeant ab actu non est manifestum vtrum sint al. -quando an non sint tamen semper dicuntur cognoscuntur vniuersali ratione Materia vero per seipsam incognita Materia verò quaedam sensibilis quaedam intelligibilis sensibilis quidem vt aes lignum quaecunque mobilis materia intelligibilis verò quae in sēsibilibus existit non prout sensibilia vt puta ipsa mathematica The metaphysick doth abstract from all these three matters signata sensibili intelligibili he can abstract a substance from quantitie sensible qualities and indiuiduation and accordinglie define it without expressing any of them in the intellectuall or adding them in the vocall definition Thus far in common Now to come to our particular cause The Science which contemplates a substantiall bodie and according to whose abstraction it was named is Naturall Philosophie which Science according to the knowne doctrine of the schooles wherunto the best Peripateticks and the greatest schoolmen also do subscibe doth not abstract from sensible matter but defines by it It abstractes à materia signata and according to this abstraction way of defining doth impose names to things naturall ratio quam significat nomen est definitio Wherfore this Latine word corpus and this English word bodie it is the like of all others imposed according to this abstraction in the iudgment of the Naturall Philosopher do not abstract from such matter but do signifie a thing sensible And if the thing wherein they be verified be not such he doth not esteeme the speach to be entirelie proper because the words import or brīg into his vnderstāding such a thing howbeit the speaker is not tied to this notion for he may vse another kind of abstractiō according Materia est duplex scilicet communis signata vel indiuidualis Communis quidem vt caro os indiuidualis autem vt hae carnes haec ossa Intellectus igitur abstrahit speciem rei naturalis à materia sensibili indiuiduali non autem à materia sensibili communi Sicut speciem hominis abstrahit ab his carnibus his ossibus quae non sunt de ratione speciei sed partes indiuidui vt 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 solū indiuidual sed etiam communi non tamen à materia intelligibili communi sed solum indiuiduali 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 quà m qualitates sensibiles Vnde quantitates vt 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 indiuiduali Quaedam verò sunt quae possunt abstrahi etiam à materia intelligibili communi sicut ens vnum potentia acrus alia huiusmodi quae etiam esse possunt absque omni materia vt patet in substantiis immaterialibus S. Tho. 1. p. qu. 85. a. 1. ad 2. to that may peake his mind Heereby appeares the truth of those passages against which M. Waferer most ignorantlie did cauill as that of S. E. pag. 51. That which presents it self to the eie to be seene is not a pure essence or quidditie as they speake in Schooles but it is a thing sensible and to be perceaued by this organ and facultie it is an extended coloured thing which wee do see and conceaue agreeing that such or such a word shall be in speach a signe of it and the rest which you may reade in him And of Cardinall Allen pag. 57. A thing being put out of it's naturall manner of being and out of 〈◊〉 naturall conditions and sensible proprieties agreeing to such a name and endowed with strange accidentes although it keepe it's substance yet because it wants the conditions of subsisting which together with the substance come to the sence and conceit of man and are comprehended vnder the proper name it almost leeseth it's proper name or if it keepe it yet not so properlie as if it kept it's proper manner of being And of my Lord pag. 39. I admit that in these wordes This is my bodie there is a figure not a meere or naked one void of the truth proprietie but a figure ioyned with the truth and with proprietie because allthough they signifie that the Eucharist is the bodie of Christ trulie reallie and properlie according to the thing yet they do not affirme it to be the bodie of Christ after such a corporall and naturall manner as other things are the things that they are said to be but after a spirituall inuisible mysticall sacramentall manner such a one as doth figuratiuelie shew and represent the naturall manner of being of the same bodie in another place In which wordes there be two things more specified the one is that the Sacramentall manner of existence is figuratiuelie the naturall manner of existence which also came to passe by the Institution
bread to vse the words of an auncient Father but as the words import the bodie of our Sauiour Wherefore doubtles there is a change and our Sauiours words the words of Consecration were in their kind the cause of it though not the chief or principall The principall cause was not the forme of consecratioÌ„ Serm. de Coena but his omnipotencie as Antiquitie before told you Panis iste non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia Verbi factus est caro Now because you complaine that the matter of this Argument which your Doctour vrged is tedious you are wearied as it seemes with answering of distinctions I will in few words teÌ„der you the summe 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 subiect the attribute and the note of identitie or copula The subiect is Hoc the Attribute Corpus meum the copula est About this Enunciation and these three partes of it your Doctour in his Relation moues what expreslie what tacitelie six doubts which S. E. doth resolue in his Notes The first what kind of signification the subiect hath the Answer is that if that word onlie be considered the signification of it confused and vndetermined so that vntill the rest of the proposition comes your vnderstanding is vncertaine what substance in particular it doth point at The second whether it be necessarie that the thing which it points at and designes according to the intention of the speaker which intention is more vnfolded in the words following be then existent when that word is vttered He answers Noâ— Falsum est in pronomine aduerbiove demonstrandi requiri rem praesentem Non enim est perpetuum saith your great b. Li. 10. de Euch c. 18. Chamier prouing it with examples out of Scripture The third whether in the copula there be a figure The answer is the same that was giuen before when the question was of the place in S. Augustine that according to the substance you know what a kind of verbe it is of the thing signified which is identitie there is no figure and this the identitie is the principall If further your regard that which it doth consignifie so Lâ—giciâ—ns vse to speake there were no inconuenience to admit ampliation or improprietie howbeit it seemes not be necessarie as S. E. told you in his Notes The fourth whether this proposition be meerlie speculatiue It was answered that it 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 sixt when it is verified The answer is that Veritie is the adequation of two the proposition and the obiect whereof one is the subiect Distingue de tempore seu instanti quo oratio significat vel de tempore seu instanti pro quo oratio significat aliud est enim quando quod oratio consignificat aliud est quando per orationem consignificatum vt patet dicendo Petrus crucifixus est quando enim oratio ista significat tunc est cúm profertur sed quando consignificatum est tempus praetetitum Significatio autem orationis non est nisi oratio sit integra integritate essentiali quoniam oratio non essentialiter integra non est oratio Caiet 3. p q. 78. a. 5. Et quia consignificare praesupponit significare vt pote adiacens illi ideo oratio sicut non significat ita nec consignificat nisi in termino suae prolationis Nec est hoc solum verum de tota oratione sed de partibus vt integrant totam Et de copula quidem declaratur dupliciter tum ex eo quod ly est significat compositionem quam sine extremis non est intelligere non enim potest intelligi compositio prior his quae componuntur tum quia experimur quod huius orationis lignum est album postquam prolatae sunt primae dictiones scil lignum est antequam proferaturly album ly est non significat compositionem ligni cum albo quod conuincitur si ponamus orationem sistere c. Ibidem De subiecto autem dupliciter etiam idem manifestatur in proposito tum quia talia sunt subiecta qualia permittuntur a praedicatis propterea ante praedicata non habent suppositionem suam tum quia clarè perspicimus quod dictis istis duabus dictionibus homo est vt formetur propositio de tertio adiacente nullus intellectus habetur tam subiecti quam copulae sed variabitur Vtriusque sensus iuxta varietatem praedicati vt patet formando duas propositiones quarum vna sit homo est albus altera homo est species clarè enim in his liquet subiectum copulam praedicatum expectare ita quòd varietas praedicati varietatem inducit in tota oratione in subiecto copulâ Ibidem the other the terminus of the Relation of conformitie which relation seemes to be among those that be called rationis the terminus or obiect of this conformitie is then onlie when the effect is existent the relatioÌ„ it self is when it is conceaued The subiect of the relation is the propositioÌ„ to which the vnderstanding doth applie the forsaid relation which proposition was then when it was vttered and after that manner as successiue thinges vse to be or haue existence Apologist There is no such created vertue inherent as you suppose in the pronunciation of this proposition it is rather declaratiue of what was past then effectiue of ought which was not your verie A. B. C. of Logick will teach you no other definition or vse of a propositioÌ„ then to be an indicatiue congruous perfect c. Censure You will pardon me for not writing out at leingth your long loÌ„g definitioÌ„ out of which whilst you conclude that no proposition is practicall you giue waie for me to inferre you not to be reasonable because that is not in the definition of animal Some propositions be practicall Master Waferer but all be not some scieÌ„ces be practicall but all be not the genus doth abstract To saie that the words be not illatiue of anie effect in their kind but declaratiue of what was past and meerelie speculatiue is a begging of the Question and a contradiction to those words which your Doctor d. Panem corpus suum fecit dicendo before stood vpon And if words may not be practicall how comes it that your bread is a Sacrament do you make the Sacrament without consecrating the matter or do you consecrating without words The forme of Baptisme is it meerelie speculatiue doth it onlie declare what was donne without it That SacrameÌ„ts do cause grace is your owne tenet and things actiue are so by their formes Quicunque Sacramenta dixerunt nihil
meane with M. Sweete where I finde an Embleme of that within your head the Vertigo Long agoe the Caluinists were on the h. Becanus le Circulo Caluinistilo Forme is not in matter if the disposition faile or if the prime cause doth not concurre wheele The Catholickes feare it not He that beleeues the Scripture for the Church and the Church for the Scripture if the resolue into them diuerslie windes not in a circle The diuine authoritie auouching the booke MotiuuÌ„ principale MotiuuÌ„ subordinatum may be the formall motiue inclining a man to beleeue both the bookes and the Church and the proposition of the Church may dispose his vnderstanding to beleeue that the bookes called Scripture the Apocalyps for example and the Epistle of Saint Iude are auouched by diuine authoritie 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 vtramque 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 commoueret Authoritas did not exclude diuine Authoritie but principallie resolued into it though the same act depended as he professeth on Church-authoritie withall When the words are examined you will finde them to be of full waight non crederem †Apocalypsi non crederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae eommoueret authoritas Infantes baptizari posseâ— debere non crederem nisi me Cath. Eccl. commouereâ— authoritas Baptizatos ab Haereticis non esse rebaptizandos non crederem nisi me C. Eccl. com authoritas Are you moued without it nisi and commoâ—eret authoritas Ecclesiae and that Catholicae too The fourth is his Conference with M. Egleston who did as Featlie relates vndertake to prooue against him that for an Accident quantitie to be supernaturally conserued without a subiect is no contradiction Is there any Will it be true QuaÌ„titas est and Quantitas non est It requires naturallie a subiect true but it self is not the subiect and some thing may supernaturallie haue lesse then it doth naturallie k. A man cannot be without auâ—nal because it is within his essence The subiect is not so within the essence of an acâ—idenâ— Some things are defined simpliciter some per additamentum See Arist in 7. Met. c. 3. ibidem S Tho. require as well as others haue supernaturallie more then they naturallie do require Our Sauiours humanitie hath not the subsistence which were naturall vnto it but another It subsisteth in the Word Doctour Eglestons Argument as it appeares by Featlie was grounded in this that God could supplie the action of the second cause Whereunto your Doctour answered that it was true in genere causae efficientis In Featlies Relatâ—ons pag. 132. non in genere sustentantis this was his distinction It was replied that sustentatio was actio and omnis actio est causae efficientis Your Doctour answered Omnis actio non est causae efficientis adding that there be three other causes haue also their action I cite the words of his owne Relation and concurre †A verâ—all shift vnworthie of a Doctor in the triall of a point of faith actiuelie to their effect and his first instance is in matter Staie Doctour What matter potentia passiua pure passiua doth that concurre actiuè is it an agent hath it actiuitie Is this doctrine currant now in our English Vniuersities I do not think it Sure I am that it escaped the Peripateticks whose slownes could not apprehend it Their bookes must be mended for passiue is actiue it had beene a matter lamentable to haue said this in the Grammar Schoole as well actiue may be passiue The efficient vnde motus as such may be mobile the subiect because the subiect now is vnde motus the efficient This is one of the Doctours Victories which he hath Chronicled himself wherein I must needs say he proceedes consequenter For where suffering is doing vinci there is vincere The efficient doth agere by it's forme and is moued to but in another kind by the finis whereupon there might be found a reason to extend the word motion to their causalitie But to call the causalitie of matter by that name or by the name of a Physicall action Grammaticalis makes not to this purpose the Disputant neuer meaÌ„t it knowing it to be impertineÌ„t is a meere abuse of words Materia non est principium actionis sed se habet vt subiectum recipiens actionis effectum Finis vero Agens Forma se habent vt actionis principium sed ordine quodam Nam primum quidem principium actionis est Finis qui mouet agentem Secundo verò Agent Tertio autem Forma eius quod ab agente applicatur ad agendum Quamâ—os ipsum agens performam suam agat vt patet in artificialibus Artisex enim mouetur ad agendum a Fine C.S. Tho. 1. p q 105. a. 5. After this last Answer giuen by Doctour Featlie they be the Doctors owne words in the verie words aboue written or to the like effect Featlie p. 133. Doctour Egleston notwithstanding his former great vaunt Of this disputatioÌ„ with M Wood see aboue pag. 468. was content to giue ouer his Argument the companie intreated Doctour Featlie to oppose M. Wood c. Thus the Chronicler of his owne proclaimed triumph for which your lines adore him These Conferences are all in that volume That which S. E. lookt on is not there but in another booke called the Sacriledge wherein the Doctour would seeme to haue begunne his Catalogue in one point by naming men in euerie Age that did acknowledge and auouch a Diuine precept obliging the Laietie to both kinds to be coÌ„tained in those words of Scripture which the Protestants do cite for that purpose I said he would seeme to do it for he that reades the booke will finde no such a. Metaque feruâ—dis euitata rotis matter as he pretendes And yet had he donne it this had beene he knowes far from exhibiting that which was harangued for or performing the taske wherein he was engaged which was to produce and make good a Catalogue of Protestant beleeuers in all points and all ages Notwithstanding hauing made a noise he begins as if Hercules labours had beene laboured ouer againe to shake his knottie club and after a publike challeng solemnlie proclaimed and in bitter termes against M. Fisher as In his challeÌ„g pag 252. his leaden treatise his ragged stile his white liuer his Midas Reader his collapsed Ladies the distracted braines of the penner c. he casts him of contemptiblie to come into the Relation of his Encounter with my Lord. Mouet ecce †Sophisticen tridentem Postquam vibrata