speaketh of a fourefold presence of Christ first Diuine according to which he is present in all places The second Spirituall according to which hee is said after a speciall manner to dwell in the faithfull The third Sacramentall according to which he is vnited to the Sacrament both mystically and effectually For the Sacrament doth not onely represent him and his death to the eye of our body but also truly present and offer him and all the benefits of his Passion to our soules It doth not onely signifie but also by vertue of Christs promise truly and effectually exhibit Grace The fourth is carnall and corporall of which those words are meant The Word was madeflesh and dwelt among vs. Secondly In like manner the word Reall is diuersly taken 1. Sometime as it is opposed to that which is fayned and imaginary Secondly as it is opposed to that which is meerely figuratiue and barely representatiue Thirdly as it is opposed to that which is spirituall and immateriall in which sense Reall Materiall and Corporall are co-incident We beleeue that Christ is present in the Sacrament and that Really in the two former significations of Reall and the three first acceptions of Presence we deny it in the last of both In summe Christ is there many wayes Really not Corporally that is not according to the substance of his naturall body shrouded vnder the accidents of bread and wine which he thus prooued That doctrin which hath no foundation in the Word of God and is repugnant to the doctrine of the true ancient Church and ouerthroweth the principles of right reason implying palpable absurdities and apparent contradictions is to be reiected as erroneous and hereticall But the Doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the bodily presence of Christ in the Sacrament is such Ergo it is to be disclaimed D. Smith here denyed the minor Which Mast. Featly vndertooke to proue according to all the parts but the time permitted to prosecute onely the proofe of the first which was That the Papists haue no ground in Scripture for their Reall Presence of Christs body in the Sacrament And thus he proceeded First if there be any ground in Scripture for this your opinion certainely it is either in the words This is my body or in those the 6. of Ioh. 53. Vnlesse you eate my flesh c. vpon which all Papish build their beliefe in this point But neither the one nor the other are any sure ground for it Ergo You haue none D. Smith in this Syllogisme as in the former denyed the assumption Which was thus confirmed If the words of the Institution Hoc est c. and the other Iohn 6. are to be taken figuratiuely and not in the proper sense out of all question they make nothing for the bodily presence or carnall eating of Christ with the mouth But the words aboue alleadged in both places are to bee construed figuratiuely and not properly according to the rigour of the letter which I proue saith he by vncontrollable testimonies of Fathers and euident arguments drawne from the circumstances of those texts And first he alledged a place of Tertullian li. 4. cont Marcionem cap. 40. The bread taken and distributed vnto his disciples he made the same bis body saying this is my body that is a figure of my body adding withal that if D. Smith or any other could being a more pregnant place for the figuratiue exposition out of any Protestant hee would yeeld him the better D. Smith could bring none but made this answer Those words of Tert. are so to be vnderstood that the words a figure of my body are to be referred to the word this which is the subiect of Christs proposition and doe explaine it so that the meaning of Tertullian is This that is a figure of my body is my body or as he afterwards mended it that which was of old a figure of my body is now my body To which M. Featly thus replyed To rehearse this answer is to refute it if it bee lawfull vnto a speech of three words to ad id quod erat vetus to the subiectum and corpus meum to the praedicatum and to referre the words idest figura not to the praedicatum as all men do in the like you may make quidlibet ex quolibet To this D. Smith answered out of Cyprian that Tertullian was a very obscure Writer and had a very ill gift in expressing his minde Whereunto it was reioyned If he bee obscure in other places what is that to this which is most cleere to any that will not shut his eyes discredit not Tertullian whom Cyprian so highly esteemed that hee let no day passe without reading some part of his workes calling for him by the name of his Master Da Magistrum Tertullianum videlicet significans Secondly he replyed that how ill soeuer a gift Tertullian might haue in expressing his owne minde he could not be so dull in conceiuing our Sauiours mind as to make this to bee the meaning of our Sauiours words This is my body that is the bread which was a figure of my body in the old Law is now my body seeing that our Sauiour speaketh neuer a word there nor hath any relation at all to any figure of the old Testament neither in the words going before nor comming after Thirdly admitting this most strange and forced interpretation yet out of this place of Tertullian I inferre necessarily that the words of the Institution be figuratiue For this Proposition The figure or that which was the figure of my body is my body which is your exposition of Tertullian cannot be true but by a figure sith panis and corpus Christi are disparata which cannot properly be one affirmed of the other Let the Pronoune demonstratiue Hoc stand for figura corporis mei as you will haue it and adde thereunto the copula and praedicatum you faine est corpus meum saying figura corporis mei est corpus meum you must needs fly to a figure to make this Proposition true For whether you put the Bread or the accidents to be the onely figures of Christs body all is one sith neither Bread nor the accidents of Bread can bee truly and properly said to be Christs body Here D. Smith was forced to acknowledge a figure in the words of the Institution These are his owne words I acknowledge that in these words this is my body is a figure but not a meere figure or a figure voyde of that truth which is figured by it Thus they grew to an issue Master Featly affirming that hee demanded no more then to haue him grant that there is a figure in these words hoc est corpus meum which Bellarmine and all other Papists disclaime as quite ouerthrowing their opinion of the Reall presence For quoth he as for your distinction of a meere figure and not meere in speech
after If in the Sacrifice which Christ offered Christ alone is to be followed it behooueth vs to obay and doe that which Christ did and commanded to be done seeing he himselfe saith in the Gospel if ye doe that which I command you I will not say that you are seruāts but friends c. Yet some out of ignorance or simplicity in sanctifying the Lords Cup and ministring to the people doe not that which Iesus Christ the Author and Teacher of this sacrifice did and taught If any Cauill against this argument that Christ sate or leaned at his last Supper gaue the Sacrament after supper and that vnto 12 and those men and no women and yet we are not bound so to doe and consequently that the argument from Christs example is not of absolute necessity for vs to follow but may be dispensed with by the Church I answer first that the argument proceedes vpon substantiall acts and not circumstances such as are the time and the place and the number of communicants Now that the Cup is a substantiall part of the Sacrament appeareth both by Christs blessing and consecrating it and the words of the institution This Cup is the new Testament in my blood neither can the aduersaries deny it who account it no lesse then sacriledge in a Priest to consecrate or receiue the Sacrament in one kind onely 2. Our argument is not grounded onely vpon that which Christ did but vpon that which Christ did and taught or commanded should bee done Now as Christ tooke the bread and broke it and said Doe this so in like manner he tooke the Cup and said Drinke ye all of this but Christ said not in like manner sit you downe or lye when you take the sacrament or receiue it late at night or administer it to such a number of men onely What he did and taught as Saint Cyprian soundly collects must be perpetually obserued in the Church the circumstances vsed at his last Supper hee did not command vs to vse but the substantiall acts of administring the Sacrament in both kinds Fecitet Docuit he both did and taught vs to doe Wherefore as Saint August speaks in a like kind All the contradictions of our aduersaries cauilling breath serueth rather to kindle more then blow out or quench the fier of truth in this argument burning vp the stubble of Popish Canons and constitutions repugnant to Christs Doctrine and practice at his last Supper CHAP. III. The second Argument drawne from the essence and perfection of this Sacrament THe Sacrament of the Eucharist is not entire and perfect without the Cup. The faithfull people capable of it and prepared for it ought to receiue the Sacrament intire and perfect Therefore the faithfull people capable of the Sacrament and prepared for it ought to receiue the Cup. The proposition is euident by the institution of this Sacrament and the confession of our aduersaries for this Sacrament was instituted in two kinds bread and wine as Christ blessed the one Element so the other as he commanded the one to be taken and eaten so likewise or in like manner Luk. 22. 20. hee commanded the other to be taken and drunke As a man that hath but one eye or one eare or one arme or leg is not a perfect man but a maimed because nature intende all those organs to bee double and the operation is more compleat and perfect in both organs then it can be in one onely In like manner he cannot be said to receiue the Sacrament entire and perfect who receiueth it but in one kind onely because Christ instituted it in two kinds and ordained the full significancie and efficacie to bee compleat in both and not in one onely Wherefore Aquinas part 3. q. 63. art 1. concludeth Therefore two things concurre to the integrity of this Sacrament viz. sprituall meat and drink And Bonauenture in 4. sententiarum Distinct. 11. part 2. art 1. quest 2. A perfect refection or repast is not in bread only but in bread and drinke therefore Christ is not perfectly signified as feeding our soules in one kinde but in both And 〈◊〉 Soto art 12. quest 1. in 12. distinct The Sacrament as concerning the entire signification thereof is not perfect but in both kinds Doubtlesse halfe a man is not a man nor halfe an eye an eye nor halfe a ship a ship Neither can that which is halfe to one bee the whole to another Wherefore sith the Papists confesse that this Sacrament is not entire or whole to a Priest receiuing it in one kind onely neither can it be whole to the Laietie vnlesse we take Hesiods riddle for sound diuinitie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The halfe is not then the whole The assumption cannot be denyed by any Christian. Saint Paul implyeth 1. Cor. 11. That they which receiue the Sacrament otherwise then they ought receiue not the Lords Supper And S. Ambr. saith expressly comment in 11. cap. 1. ad Corint The Apostle saith he is vnworthie of the Lord who celebrates this mysterie otherwise then it was deliuered by him for he cannot be religious who presumes to receiue it otherwise then it was giuen by the author This whole argument is confirmed by the testimonie of their accomplished Iesuite Vasques who t. 3. in 3. disp 215. c. 2. reasoneth thus each kind in this sacramēt as it is apart of the sacrament hath a diuerse signification by it selfe and sith according to our former suppositions in the Sacraments of the new law the efficacie followes the signification for they effect that which they signifie it ensueth thereupon that each kind in this Sacrament doth produce or worke its owne effect by it selfe Vpon which inferences of his I collect that which peraduenture he little expected but can neuer with all his sophisticall slights auoid that the Church of Rome robbeth the Laiety of or to speake more properly detaineth vniustly from them an vnualuable Iewel viz. some measure or degree at lest of sanctifying grace And what amends can they make for so vnsufferable wrong done vnto them If each part of this Sacrament haue a signification a part and an operation a part in the soule the Romane Church by taking away one part of the Sacrament depriueth them of the signification and operation thereof How Vasques position can stand with their doctrine of concomitancie let him looke to it It is no small aduantage that the truth gaineth by her enemies falling foule one vpon another CHAP. IIII. Argument 3. drawne from the Analogie of the thing signified to the signe THe signe viz. the Cup ought to be denyed to none vpon whom God conferreth the grace signified by the signe Upon all faithfull Christians God conferreth the grace signified by that signe Therefore that signe viz. the Cup ought to be denied to no faithfull Christian. The proposition is deduced from the words of S. Peter Can any man forbid water that these should
Lay-man that communicateth in one kind recipit gratiam 4. receiueth grace but in 4. degrees Nugnus in 3. partem Thom. quest 80. art 12. Thus hauing remoued all rubs and obstacles out of the way wee haue passed clearely throughout all Ages from the time of Christ and his Apostles and in euery hundred yeere since produced euidence against the Church of Rome And finally by verdict of some Doctors of chiefe credit among themselues found her to be guiltie of sacrilege in taking away the Cup from the Laiety at the Lords Table If any demand where this Cup may be found I answer as we read in o Genesis it is found with Beniamin I meane the Reformed Churches Etymon filij dextrae chrildren of Christs right hand by which hee distributeth to his people the bread of life and wine of Immortalitie his most pretious body and blood There is yet palpable darknes in Egypt but there is light in Goshen In Rome vnder the Papacie the people are fed with Huskes of legendary fables or at the best with mustie bread of old traditions and sowred with the leauen of heresie And all their publike Communions are dry feasts but in the Reformed Churches the people are fed with the flowre of Wheat the sincere Word of God and drinke of the purest iuyce of the Grape the blood of our Redeemer in the holy Sacrament What shall wee therefore render to the Lord for all the benefits which hee hath bestowed vpon vs we will take the Cup of Saluation and continually call vpon the name of the Lord. So be it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Finis Deolaus sine fine Cassander tract de Communione de vtraque specie pag. 1019. edit Paris 1616. Veteres omnes tam Graeci quà m Latini in ea sententia fuisse videntur vt existimauerint in legitima solemni celebratione Corporis sanguinis Domini et Adminiratione quae in Ecclesia fideli populo è sacra mensa fit Duplicem sâ—…ciem panis vini esse adhibendam atque hunc morem per vniuersas Orientis Occidentis Ecclesias antiquitus obseruatum fuisse tum expriscorum Patrum Monumentis tum ex vetustis diuinorum mysteriorum formulis apparet Et post Ad hoc inductifuerunt exemplo mandato Christi qui instituendo huius Sacramenti vsum Apostolis fiâ—…lium Sacramenta percipientium personam repraesentantibus quibus dixerat Accipite edite idem mox dixit bibite ex hoc omnes quod ex veterum sententia interpretatur Radbertus tam ministri quà m reliqui credentes All the Ancients both Greeke and Latine seeme to be of opinion that in the lawfull and solemne celebration of the Sacrament of Christs body and blood and administring it to the people that both kinds to wit bread and wine ought to be vsed at the Lords Table And it appeares both out of the workes of the ancient Fathers and the old Rites and formes of the diuine mysteries that this custome was obserued in all the Easterne and Westerne Churches And a little after Hereunto they were induced by the Example and Command of Christ who in the institution of this Sacrament speaking to his Apostles then representing the persons of all faithful Communicants said Take and eate and presently after said to the selfe-same Drinke ye all of this which Radbertus according to the mind of the Ancients expoundeth as well Ministers as other beleeuers FINIS A RELATION OF WHAT PASSED IN A CONFERENCE BETWEENE DAN FEATLY Doctor in Diuinity and Mr. Euerard Priest of the Romish Church disguized in the habit of a Lay-Gentleman vnexpectedly met at a Dinner in Noble street Ian. 25. 1626. LONDON Printed by F. Kyngston for Rob. Milbourne and are to be sold at the Greyhound in Pauls Churchyard 1630. THE SPECIALL POINTS of the Conference OF the necessitie of Episcopall gouernment to the essence of a Church 2 Of ordination by Presbyters 3 Of the distinction of Bishops and Priests iure diuino 4 Of differences among Papists in matter of faith 5 Of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary 6 Of the authoritie of a Generall Councell aboue the Pope 7 Of prayer for the dead 8 Of the authority of the originall Scriptures and corruption in the vulgar translation 9 Of the Communion in one kind 1. The state of the question opened 2. The necessitie of communicating in both kinds 3. Popish obiections answered 10 Of the Popes supremacie 11 Of mingling water with wine in the Sacrament 12 Of the perfection of Scripture THE CONFERENCE L. F. I Pray you Doctor Featly resolue mee whether thinke you a Church may be without a Bishop or no D. Featly Your L. propoundeth a question that little concerneth you any way or any member of the Church of England For in England we haue God bee blessed Bishops and those besides many learned Priests very well able to iustifie that Calling If I might bee so bold I would aduise your L. not to trouble your selfe with such curious questions of small or no moment to you wherein learned men without hazarding of their saluation may haue different opinions L. F. I hold it a matter of great moment and desire you not to decline it but plainely to deliuer your iudgement thereof D. Featly I professe Madame with submission to more learned iudgements that I euer held and doe hold that a Church cannot bee without a Priest or a Pastor but it may bee and sometimes is without a Bishop properly so called The Church of Geneua as also the Reformed Churches in France and the Low-Countries and diuers in Germany are true Reformed Churches and yet they haue no Bishops such as you meane Although some of them would after our manner haue them if they could Discipline or a precise gouernment of the Church is not simply of the essence of the Church And therefore albeit it be granted that these Churches haue not the best gouernment nor the Apostolicall discipline in all points yet because they haue the Apostolicall doctrine sincerely taught and beleeued in them and the Christian Sacraments rightly administred I beleeue that they are true Churches L. F. Ought there not to bee Bishops in euery Church by the Law of God D. Featly What if there ought This doth not proue that in case there be no Bishops in some Countries as there ought to be that therefore there are no Churches I say that by the Law of God congregations ought to meet in publike Churches to serue God in his House yet if the vse of publike Churches bee taken away from the faithfull or they be not permitted to resort vnto them as in time of persecution it hath been and in some places is at this day the Pastors and their flocks may meete in Cryptis that is in priuate and secret places as they did in the Primitiue Church And the faithfull thus meeting continue a true Church though they haue neither a Temple allowed them nor Tythe to the Ministers nor
Bishops ouer the Priests All which yet we doe acknowledge in a peaceable and flourishing estate of the Church ought to be had And we haue cause to praise God for our happinesse in England aboue other Churches in this behalfe M. Euerard Here M. Euerard stepping in not being called said I pray you Sir if there may bee a Church without a Bishop who shall ordaine the Priests in that Church D. Featly Sir what are you who intrude your selfe into our priuate conference It seemes you are a Romish Priest Are you not so M. Euerard I am no Priest D. Featly What will you deny your Priesthood M. Euerard I am no Priest to tell you D. Featly Now I perceiue you are not onely a Priest but a Iesuited Priest also For you can equiuocate M. Euerard It is no equiuocation to say I am no Priest to tell you D. Featly Indeed now that you expresse your mentall reseruation you vse no equiuocation but while you concealed it you did equiuocate And I maruell you blush not to vse such a simple shift or euasion as to say you are no Priest to tell me As if you or any man were made a Priest to tell another man you are a Priest At these words the meate was brought in and thereby a stop made of a farther reply for the present But not long after the Guests were all placed the L. reuiued the former question demanding of Doctor Featly L. F. Who should ordaine Priests in a Church where there are no Bishops D. Featly If there bee no Bishops in any adioyning Church by whom they may be ordained and presented to the Church I say in that case the Church to whom Christ as St. August saith gaue the keyes may commit Episcopall authority to certaine Priests and they thus authorized may ordaine other Priests as well as absolue and confirme the baptized and performe other acts ordinarily reserued to Bishops d And this ordination in a troubled state of the Church and in case of necessitie I hold to be lawfull and warrantable both because it hath that which the Apostle requireth 1. Tim. 4. 14. to wit the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery and because there haue bin presidents of such ordination in the Primitiue Church And questionles the Church that committeth the power to one Priest set in an eminent degree ouer the rest may commit the same power to more Presbyters or Priests especially considering it is the iudgement of learned diuines both Protestants and Papists that Bishops and Presbyters differ rather in execution of some acts of their order appropriated to Bishops onely then in their essentiall order A Bishop hath an eminencie of degree in the same order but his ecclesiasticall order is essentially the same with the Presbyters or Priests But what doth this question concerne any here present Neither wee nor for ought I know the Papists themselues define it to be a matter of faith necessary to saluato resolue this way or that way Therefore this question might haue been forborne M. Euerard The Councell of Trent hath defined it therefore to vs it is a matter of Faith D. Featly I scarcely beleeue the Councell of Trent bee it of what credit it may bee hath defined this point in such sort as you intimate M. Euarard I will shew it D. Featly When you shew it I will answer it After this passage some speech hauing been cast in by some of the table concerning differences in point of Religion among the Protestants of England D. Featly said it was to bee considered that the differences amongst the true members of the Church of England were only in point of Discipline and Ceremony not in point of Doctrine or matter of Faith But the Romanists differed one frō another in point of Doctrine and matter of Faith for the present saith he I will instance in two remarkeable particulars First touching the conception of the blessed Virgin secondly touching the Popes supreame authority euen ouer Generall Councells In the first point the Iacobins or dominicants maintaine that the blessed Virgin was conceiued in Originall sinne the Iesuites Franciscans and Sorbonists hold the contrary M. Euarard Yet both keepe the Feast of the immaculate Conception D. Featly They may both keepe a Feast vpon the same day and that for the Conception of our Lady But certainely they who beleeue she was conceiued in sin cannot without hipocrisie keepe a Feast of the immaculate Conception Touching the second point the Sorbonists haue euer held and doe hold to this day that a Generall Councell is aboue the Pope but the Iacobins Iesuits all orders of Friers generally besides many Secular Priests hold the contrary that the Pope is aboue a Generall Councell When I liued in Paris in the Ambassadors house I heard of a generall Chapter as they called it held by the Iacobins in Tho. Aquinas Schoole Where for many dayes together diuers diuinity questions were handled and among other this question touching the Popes superioritie to Councels An acute Serbone Doctor there present thus impugned the Iacobins assertion Whatsoeuer is defined in a Generall Councell confirmed by the Pope is infallibly true de fide But it is defined in a generall Councel to wit the Councel of Constance confirmed by Pope Martin the fifth that a Generall Councell is aboue the Pope Therefore it is infallibly true and de fide that a Generall Councell is aboue the Pope The Auditors the greater part of them very much applauded this argument of the Sorbonist and expressed their applause by a kinde of shout But the Iacobin respondent in a kinde of scorne answered it by retortion thus Whatsoeuer is defined in a generall Councell confirmed by the Pope is infallibly true and de fide But it is defined in a Generall Councell to wit the Councell of Lateran confirmed by Leo the tenth that the Pope is aboue a Generall Councell Therfore it is infallibly true and de fide that the Pope is aboue a Generall Councell At this Syllogisme the Iacobin had neere as great an applause as the Sorbonist Wee that were present of the Reformed Churches vnknowne to the Romanists receiued very much satisfaction to heare Papists amongst themselues thus bandy Councell and Pope against Councell and Pope For from both we concluded that sith contradictories cannot be both true and it appeared in matter of Faith that Generall Councels confirmed by Popes had decreed direct contradictories that therefore Generall Councels confirmed by Popes might erre and consequently that the strongest pillar of a Romanists Faith is weake and tottering M. Euerard The Councell of Constance which decreed a Generall Councell to be aboue the Pope was confirmed by Martin the fifth only in such points as were in that Councell determined against Hus and the Bohemians the Pope confirmed not all points defined in that Councell M. L. Haue you any example of any such confirmation of a Councell wherein some points defined by a
grounded vpon vncertaine and false supposals For a Church may haue been visible yet not the names of all visible Professors now bee shewed and proued out of good Authors There might be millions of Professors yet no particular and authenticall record of them by name Records there might bee many in ancient time yet not now extant at least for vs to come by Yet we will not refuse to deale with you in your owne question if you in like manner will vndertake the like taske in your owne defence and maintaine the affirmatiue in the like question which we now propound here vnto you in writing Whether the Romish Church that is a Church holding the particular entire doctrine of the now Romanists as it is comprised in the Councell of Trent was in all Ages visible especially in the first 600. yeeres and whether the names of such visible or legible Romanists in all Ages can bee shewed and proued out of good Authors Secondly whereas in a Conference Iune 27. 1623. with you and M. Sweete I vndertook to proue the perpetuall visibility of the Protestant Church both à priore by Syllogisme and à posteriore by Induction and then also made an Essay in both kinds as the time permitted demonstrating the visibility of the Protestant Church being an effect by the eternity of our Faith as the cause And further to stop your clamour for names I produced at that time the names of visible Professors of our beliefe for 200. yeeres Thirdly wheras since the Conference I haue made good my demonstration à priore of the perpetuall visibility of the Protestant Church against all your cauils refuted at large through my whole booke intituled The Romish Fisher caught and held in his own net printed at London 1624. but particularly more especially in the Remonstrance therein to Sr. Humphry Linde frō page the 14. vsque ad finem and in my Reply to your answer Paragraph 8. pag. 89. vsque ad 112 Fourthly whereas now I haue quite finished my demonstration à posteriore and haue set downe the so much harangued for Catalogue of visible Professors in all Ages from Christ to Luther of our Protestant doctrine in a maine point of difference and one of the first mentioned in the Conference touching the communicating in both kinds I now therfore challenge you M. Iohn Fisher according to your deepe ingagement before in and since the Conference as you tender the tickle state of your Catholike cause with your collapsed Ladies immediately after the perusall of this my Treatise to goe about and in conuenient time without further delayes and tergiuersatiō to draw a like Catalogue for your part of such Writers and Authors of note in all Ages who haue defended or at least approued your dry and halfe Communion Which after that you haue performed I will proceed God assisting me to name visible Professors in all Ages in other points of greatest moment But if you refuse to meete mee in this field pitched by your selfe diuerting into your common place of railing at Sectaries and Nouelists Or if like Caligula you triumph at Rome for a signall victory in Germany when he had gathered onely a few pebbles on the shore at Caieta and you thereupon cry out vpon the shifts and tergiuersations of D. Featly whereas to pay you backsome of your owne in coine your white liuer wil not suffer you to come so much as in sight of the walles and gates of my defence but onely to shoote a few paper bullets against three or foure of my redoubts you in all your Replyer not replying one word to the defence of my proceeding in the Conference and Refutations of your answers Or if for want of better imployment Ne toga condylis penula desit oliuis You shall tacke together a cento of relations like Sibylles leaues as much distracted as the braines of the Penner and if you shall intreate in good earnest your Midas Reader to giue credit to your own report in your own cause you being both a Romanist and a Iesuite against the subscription of sundry persons of honor worth and qualitie affixed to the Conference Or if hauing a leaden Treatise that hath long lyen heauy vpon your hands touching no saluation out of the Church of Rome you shall clap my name and D. Whites vpon it to make it sell intituling it A Reply to D. White and D. Featly whereas from the first page being 145. to the last 181. there is not one syllable against either of their writings Fifthly and lastly if you shall change your trade and of a Fisher turne Sawyer nothing but drawing the Saw of your ragged stile 1000. times by the same line backward and forward and neuer pierce into the heart of any Controuersie impute it to no other thing then meere compassion in your opposites that they reioyne not to your Replyes ne famam tuam sponte concidentem maturiùs extinguant suo vulnere lest they should giue a deaths-wound to your reputation that lyeth on bleeding already In tauros ruunt Libyci leones Ne sint Papilionibus molesti FINIS THE SVMME AND SVBSTANCE OF A DISPVTATION BETWEENE M. DAN FEATLY OPONENT AND D. SMITH THE younger Respondent now by the Pope intitutuled Bishop of Chalcedon and Ordinary of all England at Paris Sept. 4. 1612. Stylo nouo touching the Reall presence in the Sacrament LONDON Printed by Felix Kyngston for Robert Milbourne and are to be sold at his shop in Pauls Churchyard at the signe of the Greyhound 1630. THE SVMME AND SVBSTANCE OF A DISPVTATION betweene M. Dan. Featly Opponent and D. Smith the younger Respondent now by the Pope intituled Bish. of Chalcedon and Ordinary of all England at Paris Sept. 4. 1612. Stylo nouo touching the Reall presence in the Sacrament The Lawes of the Disputation 1. That they should dispute calmely and peaceably 2. That all impertinent discourses should be auoided 3. That M. Featly at this time should onely oppose and D. Smith onely answer THese Conditions agreed vpon it was thought fit both should set downe the state of the Question and the points of difference between them which D. Smith being Respondent first vndertooke distinguishing betweene the questions of Reall presence and of Transubstantion and determining the point in question to bee this Whether the body of Christ were truly and substantially in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine Which being done hee entred into a large discourse to set downe the proofes and confirmations of the affirmatiue vsed by their Church Whereupon he was challenged by M. Featly of a breach of the third Law and so after Master Featly had for his part promised him to answer all his arguments at another time when the hearers should thinke good D. Smith surceased And M. Featly explained the termes of the Question as followeth There are two termes said hee in the question Presence and Reall I distinguish of both First The Scripture
it is nothing but a meere fiction of your owne braine as if you shuld say This is a shadow but not a meere shadow Secondly hee insisted vpon the words of S. Augustine But if the scripture seeme to command a sinne or an horrible wickednesse or to forbid any thing that is good and profitable the speech is figuratiue For example vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man c. seemes to command a sinne or horrible wickednes it is a figure therefore c. Three things said he are to be obserued in this testimony First that Saint Augustine maketh choise of these words of our Sauiour as a most knowne example of a figuratiue speech Secondly that he not onely affirmeth it to be a figuratiue speech but confirmeth it also by an argument Thirdly that he sheweth what figure it is and expoundeth it conformably to the doctrin of the Protestants and contrary to the now Church of Rome Hereunto D. Smith first answered that it was no horrible nor wicked thing to eat mans flesh since we vsually eate it in Mummy What said M. F. not the flesh of a liue man Not said D. Smith vnder another shape or forme Say you so quoth M. Featly Then indeed Saint Augustines argument is but very weake if it be not horrible to eate a liue man though masked or disguized What then say you to S. Augustines conclusion D. Smith answered It is a figure mixt of a figuratiue and proper action A proper figuratiue speech or action quoth M. Featly This is as if a man should say a white blacke colour or a true false answer I pray you expound your selfe D. Smith and shew vs how the selfe same speech can be figuratiue and proper that is proper and improper For in my vnderstanding euery figuratiue speech is improper and if it be taken in the proper sense of words is alwayes either vntrue or impertinent Let vs heare therefore your proper doctrine of an improper proper speech Thus quoth he I explicate my selfe Christs speech vnlesse you eate my flesh is proper and figuratiue according to Saint Austin figuratiue according to the manner of eating viz. in the proper forme but according to the matter it selfe it is proper viz. according to the substance of Christs flesh and so it is a speech mixed of a proper and figuratiue Hereunto M. Featly replyed A speech figuratiue 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 or what is this to proue that a speech which may not be properly taken such is euery figuratiue may bee properly taken and so be figurata and propria both It is most certaine that Saint Augustine by figurata locutio meant such an one as could in no sense be proper For Saint Augustines words are If this now be taken in the proper sense let it be accounted no figuratiue speech A proper speech is here by S. Austine manifestly distinguished frō figuratiue and figuratiue from proper Besides hee speaketh of such a speech wherein an horrible wickednesse is commanded or a vertuous action condemned which can in no sense bee true in the proper acception of the words Otherwise it should bee lawfull to sinne because expresly commanded and sinfull to doe well because forbidden Furthermore to proue that these words could not be taken properly and literally he cited the words of Origen in Leuiticum Ho. 7. If you follow the letter in these words Vnlesse you eate the flesh c. that letter killeth I answer saith D. Smith that if you vnderstand those words according to the Caperniticall letter Now good Sir quoth M. Featly what is litera Capernitica a Iewes letter By Capernitica letter I vnderstand the litterall sense in which the Capernaits tooke Christs words M. Featly replyed that for ought appeares by Scripture or any ancient Record the Capernites errour was in this that they construed Christs words grossely and carnally as you do which you and they should haue taken spiri tually My words are spirit and life No quoth D. Smith the Capernites thought that Christs flesh should be sold in the market and cut in peices There is no such thing quoth M. Featly implyed in the literall meaning of these words vnlesse you eate my flesh nor can bee gathered from any circumstance of the Text. A man might eate flesh according to the rigour of the letter though he neither buy it in the market nor cut it The horror of the sinne of Anthropophagy or eating mans flesh is not in buying mans flesh nor in cutting it but in eating it with the mouth and chamming it with the teeth If we should doe so in the Sacrament we should follow the killing letter Origen speaketh of and runne vpon the point of Saint Cyrils sharpe reproofe doest thou pronounce this Sacrament to be man-eating and doest thou irreligiously vrge the minds of the faithfull to grosse and carnall imaginations I oppose against your interpretation Saint Chrysostoms who saith To take Scripture according to the letter is to take it according to the sound of the words Now I appeale to the eare of all that are heere present whether these words nisi manducauerîtis carnem sound after D. Smiths Caperniticall straine I heare nothing but the eating of the flesh which you doe as properly as the Capernites could conceiue with the mouth and teeth To which D. Smith replyed When I see the words of Chrysostome I will answere them You shall when you please quoth M. Featly in the meane while because the booke is not at hand I will presse you with another against whom I trow you dare not except Who is it quoth D. Smith It is Gratian quoth M. Featly who Decret 3. part de consecrat distinct 2. cap. Hoc est quod dicimus hath these expresse words As therefore the heauenly bread which is Christs flesh after a sort is called Christs body when as in very truth it is the sacrament of it the Glosse addeth the heauenly Sacrament is called the body of Christ but improperly and therefore it is said after a sort but not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mystery c. To which authoritie D. Smith shaped this answer the sacrament is taken either for the figne onely or for the thing signified onely or for both and applied his distincton thus Gratian and the Glosse vnderstood by Sacramentum Sacramentum tantum or signum the signe onely Therefore Accidentia sola panis according to your doctrine inferred M. Featly To which D. Smith accorded Then M. Featly thus refelled the former answer Gratian and the Glosse speake of heauenly bread or Christs flesh and a heauenly sacrament but the meere accidents of bread neither in Gratians opinion nor in yours can be termed coelestis panis heauenly bread nor