vine I will not drinke from hence forth of this fruite of the vine and he is senceles that cannot see this reference it is so plaine If you desire to knowe more of this cup read S. Luke where the thing is more at large You are wont to saie Scripture must expound Scripture heere it doth so why doe not you beleeue what it tells you D. Featlie All the Fathers generallie vnderstand those words I will not drinke c. of the Sacrament Answer You were told that some doe and had answer giuen you according to that opinion which answer you haue not impugned that some doe not as S. Ierom S. Beade S. Anselme Theophilact whose opinion is better grounded as hath bene shewed Wherefore you did amplifie when you said all generallie vnderstood it of the Sacramentall cup. And when you come to verifie your words by naming those all you finde onelie fiue in all with one particular Councell all which held the reall presence and were opposite vnto you in the cause Let vs looke on them seuerallie Clement Cyprian Chrysostome the Authour de dogmatibus Pope Innocent and the Councell of Wormes First the Bishops in the Councell of Wormes were knowne Papists in communion with the See of Rome and at that tyme when by your owne confession the whole world beleeued the reall presence and Sacrifice of the Masse which they also professe euen in the Canon whence you would dispute and throroughout they shew themselues Papists acknowledging Confirmation Monkes Penance or Sacramentall Confession c. together with the Popes authoritie in calling Councells and determining controuersies appertaining to Religion The treatise de Ecclesiasticis dogmatibus which you cite as S. Augustines is not his and you haue beene told alreadie what sainct Augustine said was in the Cup Ep. 162. euen the price of our Redemption He taught also that the holie victime whereby wee were redeemed l. 9. was dispenced from the Altar that Christ had his owne bodie in his owne hands Conf. c. 13. suprà pag. 45. and so caryed it after such a strange manner as no man euer before did or could beare himselfe that wee receaue the Mediatour Iesus Christ with our mouth Conc. 1. in Psal 33. l. 2. con◠Adu leg c. 9. and with our mouth drinke blood notwithstanding the seeming horrour Clement saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c as our Sauiour in the Gospell I am the true vine Io. 15. if he a vine his blood and especiallie as in the chalice may be called (a) See S. Ierome cited p. 111. m. wine S. Chrysostome saith in the place obiected that our Sauiour doth chang the things proposed that he doth nourish vs with his owne bodie that we receaue him and touch him and haue him in vs that Angels tremble when they see the thing wherewith wee are fed and exhorteth vs to beleeue it is as our Sauiour tould vs his bodie and not to trust our sence He saies also that is in the cup which did issue out of the side of our Sauiour S. Cyprian did openlie professe vnbloody Sacrifice vnder the formes of bread and wine Epist. 63. Neither can all your glosses obscure those words before alleadged 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 frute of the vine being changed not in shape but in nature is by the OMNIPOTENCE of the WORD made blood Innocentius tertius in the booke you cite expounds the Masse defends the reall presence and teacheth expreslie transubstantiation which he did also define in the greate and generall Laterane Councell D. Featlie What answer you to so many Fathers a Councell and your Pope Answer I might as you see turne the demaund back to aske of you what you say to so many Fathers and a Pope in a Generall Councell But to forbeare making thrusts because you think that is not faire plaie in a defendant as there aret two Controuersies so you shall haue for answer two things first that all are against you in the matter of the Reall presence against which you are disputing which matter is defined by the Church openlie deliuered in the Scripture generallie acknowledged in Antiquitie and those whose authoritie is obiected did all beleeue it as we doe wherefore themselues were to answer your scruple would doe it easilie in manner aboue (a) In my Lords answer pag. 165. specified Secondlie the other Controuersie is not determined by the Church neither did the Councell that you speake of a Nationall Councell only determine and define it nor Innocentius propose it as matter of beleefe but only as a priuate Doctour makes his vse of it nor the Fathers generallie consent in it nor the Scripture openlie deliuer it but rather the contrarie Wherefore admitting it to be probable you are to thanke those Authours for the curtesie for you cannot get so much by waie of argument And he that could should not be contradicted on our part for persisting in the beleefe of the reall presence wee might indifferentlie defend The Reader may perceaue by the Ministers words more then the Minister would haue him to beleeue touching the euent of the conference either that it was or that it was not the consecrated cup which is meant by those words in S. Mathew D. Featlie D. Smith triumphed as if he had gotten the daie saying are these your demonstrations are these sufficient causes why you should seperate your selues 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 mouing to leaue THE COMMVNION OF THE CHRISTIAN WORLD should be vnauoidablie conuincing but hetherto there haue appeared none such nor euer will doe from the mouth of any Protestant THE BREAKING VP of the conference and the Ministers terguiersation ANd heere the conference ended hauing lasted neere seuen howers from noone till it was almost night Some daies after D. Smith hoping according to M. Featlies promise he should also haue a daie to propose the arguments for the Catholike tenet told M. Kneuet that he would be readie to dispute the next Tuesdaie being the tenth of September desiring him to giue M. Featlie notice of it the Sundaie before but though he went thrise that daie and twise the next vnto the house wherein M. Featlie did abode he could not speake with him F. l. 1. d. 1. c. c. v. c. 9. 44. At length hauing gotten to speake with him he warned him to prouide himselfe against the daie 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 equitie it should be answered or at least they should be proposed for the
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
Bagshaw seemes by his Relation pag. 301. to haue beene before this His Refusall to meete my Lord whereof S. E. makes mention pag. 10. E. H. M. W. the Doctour can spell these letters was when the Prince our now Soueraigne was in Spaine I haue the Relation by me but forbeare to print it vnles I be further called vpon THE SVMME OF A CONFERENCE BETVVIXT M. D. SMITH NOW B. OF CHALCEDON AND M. DAN FEATLY MINISTER ABOVT THE REALL PRESENCE VVITH THE NOTES of S. E. Facile est vt quisque Augustinum vincat quanto magis vt vicisse videatur aut si non videatur vicisse dicatur facile est S. Aug. Epist 174. TO THE READER IT is now more thē a yeere COVRTEOVS READER since first I saw the Sacrilege of M. Featlie whereunto he hath adioyned a Conference or Disputation had in Paris long agoe with my Lord of Chalcedon This Conference being short I presently read it ouer and liked so well some fragmēts of my Lords Answer which the Minister hath imparted that I desired to see the whole but could not then get a coppie Hauing lighted now at leingth on a Latine one and liking it exceeding well I haue thought good to translate it and impart it vnto others by the print partly because it is not easilie found by such as do seeke after it the Conference being past almost twenty yeeres agoe and partly also because the Minister who would seeme to haue a Coppie doth cite imperfectlie my Lords answers putting words or peeces together at his pleasure and sometimes adding and obscuring the sence which in the Relation it selfe I find to be distinct and cleere He hath also striuen to make good his former Arguments inuoluing them in a new discourse hath thrust in heere there what he thought good wherefore for their sakes that are vnlearned I will as oft as there is cause adde a note and taking of the new maske of words will let the Reader see that after all his washing those Ethiopians haue not changed their complexion and that now this second time of their comming on his Errand they neede not any other Answer then that was giuen them before In one of his Epistles before the booke I mentioned he demands to see another leap which may be shewed him in good time meane while you may be pleased to measure this which the minister would not haue begunne himselfe to chronicle had he not thought it to be extraordinarie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heer 's Rhodes IN the yeere 1612. Master Daniel Featlie being in France Chaplaine to the Embassadour of our Late Soueraigne there came to Paris one M. Kneuet halfe-brother to M. Iohn Foord an honest vertuous Gentleman the liuing in that Cittie This M. Kneuet being vpon his arriuall there put in mind that he was mistaken in the matter of Religion which is the thing a man should principallie attend vnto and that before Luther all knowne Churches did beleeue that which he saw there in Fraunce openlie professed tould his brother M. Foord he would see one of ours defend it before M. Featlie whom he did esteeme a greate Scholler Withall he acquainted M. Featlie with the busines with the point he meant should be discussed M. Featlie thinking himselfe alone hard enough for the whole Church of Rome vndertooke it and to performe it with the more applause did prouide himselfe diligentlie for encounter At leingth vpon the third of September word was sent to M. D. Smith who being then in towne was entreated to vndertake the cause that he should prouide himselfe for the morrow On the 4. of September there met at M. Kneuets chamber M. D. Smith and M. Featly With M. D. Smith came his cozen M. * Since Doctour of Diuinitie Rainer with M. Featly came one M. Iohn Porie who had beene a burgeois as it was said in the firste Parlament in King Iames his time There were also present M. Iohn Foord M. Thomas Rant M. Ben Iohnson M. Henrie Constable others not English onelie but also Frēch for M Featly presuming the victory had made the matter knowne The cōference began at noone and by agreement M. D. Smith was this time to defend M. Featly to dispute Afterwards vpon another daie M. D. Smith was to dispute and M. Featly to defend the rest not to entermedle THE RELATION THE conditions of this Conference Master Featlie did not obserue for wheras it was to haue beene priuate before it M. Kneuet for whose sake it was vndertaken and his brother onlie Master Featlie brought to passe that it was publike there being many called vnto it not English onelie but also French Secondly whereas the conference according to appointment was to be betwixt them two onelie M. Featlie called M. Moulins thither also though this Minister afterwards changing his minde did not come Thirdlie he let not M. D. Smith know of the time of Conference but one daie before they were to meete whereas he as we may iustlie beleeue had prouided himselfe long before VVhence one of his frinds 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 reall presence onely which by order of disputation ought to be first He said also that he was content to graunt vnto M. Featlie the opponents part for this daie so that M. Featlie would promise to let him haue it another daie otherwise he would by lots trie who that daie should be opponent And M. Featlie promising that another daie he should propose arguments for the Catholike tenet he willinglie vndertoke the defendants part But when according to the manner of Oxford he began to declare the state of the question to shew whitall the grounds of the Catholike tenet Featlie cryed out that he would in no case giue way thereunto D. Smith tould him that himselfe was a Doctour of Oxford and that he M. Featlie was a Graduate of the same Vniuersitie wherefore there was reason they should obserue their vniuersitie manner But M. Featlie tooke this in so ill part that he said openlie he would rather omit the conference then permit it So that D. Smith was forced herein to let him haue his will least the expectation of the auditorie should heerevpon haue bene frustrate or they take occasion to suspect that he sought to decline the cumbat VVherefore leauing that his fort wherein he might haue iustlie staid and comming out into the open field he bad M. Featlie bring out his arguments such as might suffice to iustifie before God and men his departure both from the Roman Church and all other auncient whatsoeuer yea and from the Lutheran too in this point which need to be demonstrations without doubt for there be not wanting probable arguments to impugne à truth most euident THE NOTES OF S. E. D. Featlie in his Relation doth acknowledge that he would not permit my Lord of Chalcedon
contained as the Councell speakes in the Sacrament Conc. Trid. Sess 13. Suprà pag 182. seqq Suprà pag. 73. You haue beene tould also that a thing may represent or signifie that which according to the substance is within it and that a substance vnder two seuerall formes may by the one signifie it self as in the other The Doctours Argument out of the Canon doth touch vpoÌ„ these two points wherefore I am to see whether it doth affirme or denie them 1. Whether the bodie be or be not in the Sacrament 2. Whether by the Sacramentall forme be signified the naturall forme or shape as it was vpoÌ„ the Crosse the substance vnder them both being the same In his Minor for his Argument is an ill fauoured kind of Syllogisme he hath imposed for these words this heauenlie bread is but after a sort Christs bodie and not indeed what euer meaning they might haue be not in the text seuerall peices be deceitfullie patcht together for aduantage That the Reader may see and iudge I will represent heere the Canon it self VVafer p. 50. by parts for the Doctors engine may be taken in peices at leingth because the Apologist complaines this Argument was mincinglie produced The first part Hoc est quod dicimus hoc modis omnibus adprobare contendimus Sacrificium scilicet Ecclesiae duobus confici duobus constà re visibili elementorum specie inuisibili D. N. I. C. carne sanguine Sacramento re Sacramëti sicut Christi persona constat conficitur Deo Homine cuÌ„ ipse Christus verus sit Deus verus homo quia omnis res illarum rerum naturam veritatem in se continet ex quibus conficitur conficitur autem Sacrificium Ecclesiae Sacramento re Sacramenti id est corpore Christi Est igitur Sacramentum res Sacramenti id est corpus Christi It is this wee say this it is which wee labour by all meanes to proue namelie that the Sacrifice of the Church is made and doth consist of two things the visible species of the elements and the inuisible and blood of Christ And this is that mincha that cleane oblation as the Fathers tell vs which is offered by the Church euerie where according as the Prophet Malachie did foretell I come now to the second part of the Canon wherein the difficulties that might occurre about this be dissolued our cause more confirmed and yours directlie contradicted Caro eius Christi est quam formá panis opertam in sacramento accipimus sanguis cius quemsub vini specie sapore potamus Caro videlicet carnis sanguis Sacramentum est sanguinis carne sanguine vtroque inuisibili intelligibili spirituali significatur visibile Domini N. I. C. corpus palpabile plenum gratia omnium virtutum Diuina Maiestate His flesh it is which in the Sacrament wee receaue couered with the forme or species of bread and his blood which wee drink vnder the species sauour of wine The flesh indeed is a Sacrament of the flesh and the blood is a Sacrament of the blood By flesh and blood both inuisible intelligible spirituall is signified the visible palpable bodie of our Lord Iesus Christ full of the grace of all vertues of Diuine Maiestie You see how it saith first that our Sauiours flesh is couered in the Sacrament with the exteriour forme of bread the like of his blood which is in the forme of wine Caro eius est quam forma panis opertam c. with what face then could you saie that Gratians words are cleere against the reall presence of Christs bodie vnder the accidentes or exteriour forme of bread or Featlie pag. 61. that this heauenlie bread according to the substance is not indeed Christs bodie but a signe onlie SecoÌ„dlie it saith which ruines vtterlie all Waferers sillie discourse against S.E. vpoÌ„ this occasion that the flesh heere is a Sacrament of flesh and the blood a Sacrament of blood Caro videlicet carnis sanguis Sacramentum est sanguinis in explication whereof it saith Thirdlie that the inuisible and spirituall flesh which is heere couered with the exteriour forme or accidents of bread doth signifie the visible and palpable bodie of our Lord Iesus Christ and the like it is of the inuisible and spirituall blood carne sanguine vtroque inuisibili intelligibili spirituali significatur visible c. Whereby wee are instructed against Featlie when he saith pag. 63. that GratiaÌ„ doth not oppose moduÌ„ modo Featlie pag. 63. the manner to the manner when he compares the consecrated bread to the ble bodie but modum rei verae and veritati rei the manner to the truth of the thing and that therefore in saying it is suo modo there Featlie Ibidem he implieth that it is not there trulie or in the truth of the thing visiblie or inuisiblie for the text of Gratian doth affirme the flesh to be there inuisiblie couered with the forme of bread and that this inuisible spirituall flesh of Christ is a signe of or doth signifie his visible bodie as hath beene obserued from the wordes before cited After which ensue those which Fealie stands vpon being the third part of the Canon in this tenour Sicut ergo Coelèstis panis qui vere Christi caro est the Doctour perchaunce according to the coppie which he did vse leaues out verè suo modo vocatur corpus Christi cùm reuera sit sacramentum corporis Christi how so if it be verè corpus Christi it followes and exactlie according to the doctrine of the former part carne inuisibili significatur visibile corpus illâ—us videlicet quod visibile palpabile mortale in cruce suspensum this Featlie conninglie left out whereas it is indeed the solution of his Argument Hetherto one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a comparison now followes another Vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis quae Sacerdotis manibus fit Christi passio mors crucifixio non rei veritate sed significante mysterio now comes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 common to them both sic SacrameÌ„tum fidei quod baptismus intelligitur fides est As therefore the heauenlie bread which indeed is the flesh of Christ is after a sort called the bodie of Christ whereas in truth it is the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ I meane of that which being visible palpable mortall was put vpon the Crosse and as that immolation of the flesh which is donne by the hands of the Priest is called the passion death and crucifixion not rei veritate in veritie of the thing but significante mysterio in a signifying mysterie So the Sacrament of faith Baptisme I meane is faith The force and life of which comparison you haue in S.E. pag. 72. Heere breeflie I obserue that this text in the double 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speakes of two things the one is the flesh of Christ in
taken out of S. Augustine by S. Prosper It is the the flesh of Christ which wee receaue couered with the forme of bread and by the flesh and blood Ibidem both inuisible intelligible spirituall is signified the visible palpable bodie of our Lord Iesus Christ and in Saint Ierome Hieron Comment in 1 ad Ephes ad Paulum Eustoch Idem in Ep. ad Hedib q. 2. The flesh and blood of Christ is vnderstood two waies either that spirituall and Diuine whereof himself saith My flesh is meate indeede c. marke this Comment Master Waferer or the flesh that was crucified and Our Lord Iesus he the guest and the feast he the eater and the thing eaten But staie what is all this a mans bodie our Sauiours in bread shape flesh inuisible vnder the forme of bread an inuisible thing vnder accidēts the signe of a visible thing vpon the Crosse the same bodie at the same time eating and eaten visible and inuisible Apologist O insufferable dotage Censure And this comparison too a. Serm. de Coen in Cypr. As in the person of Christ the humanitie did appeare and the Diuinitie lie bid so heere in the Eucharist a Diuine essence doth vnspeakablie power it self into a visible Sacrament What is your opinion of this Apologist O blasphemous comparison Censure Com. in in Ioan. l. 4. c. 11. The malignant minde S. Cyrill saith presentlie with arrogance reiects all as friuolous and false whateuer it vnderstands not yeilding to none and thinking nothing to be aboue it self Belike some Spirit hath inspired this man and on the suddaine giuen vs a Diuine that can teach without learning the verie same which taught Luther to declaime against the Masse But Master Waferer bethink your self is this language for a Master of Art but of yesterdaie to giue a graue Prelate and a mā of knowne learning and then also when he speakes in the verie words of Antiquitie of holie Fathers of Iesus Christ Is this the modestie such a stripling should haue had the learning which you promised the charitie which you pretend you who do lament the Schismes of the Church and are continuallie in thanksgiuing for the great light you see wherein you haue discouered how the solid and substantiall nature of bread is transelemented into a feigned reference is this the vindicating of your Churches cause and the cleering of your Doctor it's abbetter O the Pedanticall insolencie O most insolent arrogancie of most arrogant Apostacie Of the first apostatizing Spirits it is said in Sripture their pride ascendeth euer They would haue thrones forsooth each one for they are all of one mind in the sides of the North from whence without submitting themselues to any they might controwle all and into the same region high pride hath raised this Apol. making her self this chaire and receauing him in her lap There he sits and controwles Antiquitie This it is when supercilious Pedants come from As in praesenti to print books and giue Diuines lessons in Diuinitie Apologist Not to trouble my self or my Reader with the repetition of all those infinite solecismes which this opinion includes take notice of this that it distroies the definition of an Indiuiduum makes Christs indiuiduall bodie not to be indiuiduall Indiuiduum according to logick is quod est indiuisum in se diuisum ab alijs omnibus as Socrates is distinguished from Plato c. now I saie this your tenet of there all presence against this definition diuide an indiuiduall bodie from it self it diuides Christ ac Paris from Christ in the Sacrament at Rome Censure He hath if you beleeue him an infinite companie of reasons but least he trouble the Reader or himselfe lucidum interuallum with ranging them all against vs he picks out the stoutest his Thersites Achilles I should haue said and thrusting him into the field bids vs take notice of him Sure it is a goodlie reason Limmes it hath some but it wāts sinewes like therefore to be some tough chāpion Hath it the forme and shape of a good Argument no but it hath a head the maior proposition O quale caput sed cerebrum where non habet The maior might haue in it a good sence and hath so when others vse it when it is vnderstood of intrinsecall indiuision but extrinsecall is not that which doth constitute or the want of it that which takes awaye an indiuiduum now the Minister vnderstands it of this later this extrinsecall indiuision as will presentlie appeare by his discourse Thus the Maior The Minor is of no great weight neither for it stands vpon his breath Now a. Mirths words I saie this your tenet against this definition diuides an indiuiduall bodie from it self it it diuides Christ at Paris from Christ in the Sacramēt at Rome You saie so well Your Conclusion let the Reader himself make it if he can Supprimit Orator But is there no proppe for the Minor if you cease to saie it what shall become of it then yes wee shall haue something to supporte it Apologist For there being distance diuersitie of place it cannot be the same numericall bodie Censure Did I not tell before that he meant extrinsecall indiuision Place is extrinsecall to a bodie whether you be in Oxford or Odiham you be the same indiuiduum still though the place be distinct Oxford is not Odiham but M Waferer in Odiham is the same Master Waferer that was at Oxford the Minister is the Master of Art is he not Master Mirth And a Master of Art might haue knowne further that superuenient vbications destroie not that indiuiduation which essentiallie they suppose Your substantiall indiuiduation that whereby you are substantiallie distinct from other men which is no accident of Master Waferer nor can be remooued from him as much as in your mind without taking him away too that substantiall indiuiduation is essentiallie presupposed by euerie particular intrinsecall vbicatiō receaued in you as an accidēt in it's subiect and is not changed by it by the superuenient vbication if it were the same thing could not bee as much as successiuelie in seuerall places as oft as you changed places so oft you should be an other man One borne another be caried to Church to be Christned a third brought home to suck the mother and which yet would trouble you worse another should take the benefice which was giuen you because you tooke the degree which an other by the name of Waferer too a I will not sweare that deserued Apologist I praie what other diuision can there be of materiall substances but by bounds of place Censure Poore man and what If I should come into your place and you into mine should I then be you and you be that indiuiduum which I am this were as easie as it is a strange transubstantiation But I know you will denie it to be possible least by this meanes you be vnawares made a Papist I thought this it